BBC One wanted to deal with the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party during their Sunday morning programme ‘The Big Questions‘. The show tends to touch on topical issues related to faith and ethics. The specific show from the 28th January will be available to view on the ‘BBC iPlayer’ for the next few weeks.
There is plenty of room for this type of discussion. I am someone who thinks there is clearly a major problem with antisemitism within Labour. If we are to deal with it, we need to open up intense debate on the subject.
In my view, Labour’s antisemitism is multi-faceted, with five primary drivers:
- A gross misrepresentation of Zionism
- Ignorance over the history of the Israel / Arab conflict. Distortion over events and the reality of the situation on the ground
- The racial and religious intolerance that exists in all parts of society
- Pockets of right-wing ‘white supremacist’ antisemitism that has latched onto Corbyn’s populist ‘revolutionary’ anti-establishment policies
- Left-wing Soviet style antisemitism
‘Tolerance’ is a traditional part of the moderate left. For this reason the real problem with antisemitism in Labour today exists mainly within one segment of the party. The downside is that it is this segment that has taken control of the party, and is growing in strength.
The skewed survey
This creates a problem of perception. Recently the institute of Jewish Policy Research (JPR) published a survey looking at antisemitism in the UK. I am extremely suspicious of social science surveys of this nature. I doubt the honesty of respondents to questions that they know are checking for negative attitudes. This is a known problem in dealing with sensitive questions, and in reality social science has no solution. ‘x’ amount of respondents in this survey are likely to have distorted their responses. Moreover, those that did are more likely those that found the question sensitive. Make of that what you will.
Because of my undercover work, I am also aware of an intense ‘educational program’, within anti-Israel activism. One that has taught many hard-core antisemites to use the word ‘Zionist’ instead of ‘Jew’. They teach an ‘I don’t have a problem with Jews but hate Zionists’ rhetoric. This would effect the outcome of any survey that somehow intended to differentiate between the two. Some of the most virulent antisemites we know from activism on the left, would simply not register as antisemitic in this survey.
The survey did find a ‘statistically significant’ correlation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Something that reinforced the findings of my own research into anti-Israel groups in England and Scotland.
Then comes the distortion. When the survey was released, it suggested that ‘the level of antisemitism on the political left is consistent with the general population‘. There are three problems with this.
- Antisemites on the right are not treated to a barrage of anti-Zionist teaching that irons overt anti-Jewish racism out of the conversation.
- Those on the far-right are politically homeless, and there are signs some of them have even identified with Corbyn. Whilst those on the far-left control the major opposition party in the UK.
- There is a solid concentration of anti-Zionist, antisemites within the controlling segment of the Labour party. This is artificially diluted when the whole left-wing is taken into account.
This survey is often referenced (and was during the BBC programme) by anti-Zionists who use it to suggest Labour do not have a problem with antisemitism. In reality the survey utterly condemns the ‘Corbynite’ segment of the party.
Which is why major media outlets should be scrambling over each other in an attempt to seriously address the issue.
The BBC adopt the anti-Zionist Jew defence
But that simply is not what the BBC did. At the front of the denial as always, sat the anti-Zionist Jew. This cannot be by chance. Within the anti-Zionist movement they are as non-representative as they are amongst the Jews. You don’t scoop up a handful of anti-Zionists and always get a Jew. Their deliberate inclusion entirely distorts the discussion and stops any serious investigation into the antisemitism problem. The BBC chose to do this.
I have discussed these anti-Zionist Jews often. Despite their insignificance as part of the Jewish population, they have no problem being rewarded with prominent airtime every time antisemitism is discussed. Why on earth is that the case?
Somewhere around 93% of Jews are most certainly not ‘anti-Zionist’. The vast majority of Jews hold Israel as part of their own Jewish identity. This from research carried out two years ago into the question of the Jewish relationship with Israel. That leaves roughly 7% without that attachment.
That 7% is also split between religious anti-Zionist, secular anti-Zionist, and of course, Jews that no longer really identify as Jews. As you enter the area of Jews who have lost both religious and national identity, you are likely to find more total indifference. In other words, the number of Jews who maintain their secular Jewish identity and politically identify as anti-Zionist is almost certainly statistically insignificant.
So why, does a statistically insignificant demographic, have revolving door, first-class access, into media outlets such as the BBC and the Guardian? Why is it that every time someone who represents mainstream Jewish thought discusses antisemitism, another Jew from the 2 or 3% is called on to oppose him? Would they deliberately bait victims of racism, anti-Muslim hatred, sexism or homophobia in this fashion?
The new face of Soviet style antisemitism
To legitimise the denial of anti-Jewish racism in Labour, the BBC led with Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Naomi is part of the Corbyn cult’s modern day version of the ‘Yevsektsiya‘. A group designed in 1918 to carry the Communist Revolution to the Jewish masses. The Yevsektsiya had the explicit mission of the ‘destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture’.
Wimborne-Idrissi is part of a small clan. Their names are all known to us, because they are so few, and because the same faces appear in the media so often. Memory is ‘repetition and reinforcement’. Basic weapons in a propaganda war. Whenever a media outlet produces one of these propaganda weapons, it reinforces the idea that the new antisemitism isn’t really racism. It all becomes a ‘Jew v Jew’ thing that nobody understands. Jew bashing becomes a circus event to public applause.
If antisemitism goes wherever anti-Israel activity does, and activists seek to strengthen anti-Israel activity, then a rising antisemitism is a cost that anti-Zionists believe is worth paying. Which is why these Jewish Marxists are so valuable a tool. When you use them in a discussion like the BBC did, you are not trying to have a debate on antisemitism, you are explicitly helping to avoid it.
Without a constituency
These people, the same people, are behind all the anti-Zionist Jewish movements. With names like ‘Free Speech on Israel’, ‘Jewish Voice for Labour’, ‘Jews for Boycotting Jewish goods’. There are more groups than people, with the same people in one order or another, sitting as Chair and Secretary of these groups. When an email or petition is written up, the same names appear on them time after time.
If their social media output is liked or shared at all, it is liked or shared by non-Jews using their material to attack other Jews. When you read the names underneath, they often appear as a ‘who’s who’ of the hard-core antisemitic activists. All being allowed to hide behind the cover of having this Jew as a friend. All of the groups, have far larger non-Jewish support, and only really exist, because the non-Jewish anti-Zionists need the cover.
The problem question
Which raises a problem. If Wimborne-Idrissi doesn’t represent a noticeable Jewish constituency, but rather is used, as the Yevsektsiya were used, to attack the legitimacy of the local Jewish community, WHY is the BBC (or the Guardian or LBC) lending a hand to this type of deceptive and harmful strategy? On the same issue, why did the Labour Party give Wimborne-Idrissi a platform TWICE during it’s conference? And why have ‘Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP‘, affiliated with them?
The BBC show
Yes, the BBC allowed for difficult questions, yes they challenged the sides as they should. But the cards had already been stacked BEFORE the game was played. The show was never going to get past the problem of ‘a denial of racism’, because the BBC had played the ‘Jewish anti-Zionist card’. A strategy designed to avoid the discussion. So when it began, it followed a predictable and sickening pattern.
Saul Freeman from ‘Labour Against Antisemitism’ led the argument highlighting the problem of antisemitism in Labour. He did what anyone would do, brought examples of the social media activity of members. Because all anyone has to do if they want the question answered, is head to the Labour activist social media groups. You will see them littered with examples of members pushing explicit antisemitism. How can anyone say that is not a problem?
When Wimborne-Idrissi talks, her first comment is to suggest that other groups, mainly Muslims and Roma, have a far harder time. She then goes on to suggest the number of people in the UK who have antisemitic views is low. All of this is statistical manipulation and whataboutery. If she did this about any other minority she would instantly be identified as a right-wing fascist. And what does she bring as evidence? The skewed survey that I mentioned earlier.
The stupidity of Wimborne-Idrissi
Wimborne-Idrissi pushes one stupid idea after another. The more I see her in action, the more I realise we are not dealing with the brightest bulb in the box. This is her answer to the first question about whether questioning Israel’s right to exist is antisemitic:
‘It is not, because Israel is not a person, you can only be racist against an individual‘
This comment is foolishness on steroids. She falls into this trap because she is ideologically desperate for antisemitism to be seen just like any other racism. It also clearly shows that Wimborne-Idrissi doesn’t have the first clue about antisemitism at all. How about these:
- The Holocaust never happened
- Rothschild bank should be destroyed because it controls the economy
- Mossad did 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo and runs America
- Israel steals babies organs and sells them to buy weapons to kill more Palestinian children
- Palestinian babies are taken by Israel to make Matzoh
These all fail Wimborne-Idrissi’s racism test because they are not against an individual, yet they are all clearly antisemitic. The very essence of antisemitism (and why it differs so much from other racisms) is the ideal of a global power unit, fed by the deviant nature of the Jew, that controls the world from the shadows. The enemy of the antisemite is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, but the Global Jew. It is entirely logical that in the eyes of the antisemite, Israel represents the ‘Elders’. This is how Hitler saw it (take note Ken Livingstone):
“They have no thought of building up a Jewish State in Palestine, so that they might perhaps inhabit it, but they only want a central organization of their international world cheating, endowed with prerogatives, withdrawn from the seizure of others: a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues.” – Mein Kampf.
So according to Wimborne-Idrissi, the dislike that Hitler had for the Zionist enterprise, simply cannot be classed as antisemitic, because it is not directed towards an individual. Yes, she really is that stupid.
It is very simple:
If the comments above are antisemitic, and the person who promotes them rejects Israel’s right to exist because of the imagined nature of that state, then how is that rejection not antisemitism?
Empty propaganda on the BBC
Every time Wimborne-Idrissi opened her mouth, only propaganda or another senseless remark came out:
When Freeman pointed out that Wimborne-Idrissi represented only a statistically insignificant group of Jewish thought , Naomi responded that he was saying ‘she is the wrong type of Jew’. A classic deflection away from the valid point being made.
When an audience member suggested that it is wrong to suggest Israel is an ‘Apartheid State’ because Israel’s 20% Arab minority are equal citizens, Wimborne-Idrissi responded:
‘That is not true, they cannot live in certain towns, they cannot drive on certain roads and their education system is segregated’
Which is 4% distortion and 96% pure poppycock. At this point she is not just playing down antisemitism, she is feeding false anti-Israel propaganda out on national TV.
But she wasn’t finished. Naomi referenced the anti-Zionist position of the pre-Holocaust Bund movement. This is what she said:
‘we had a choice at the end of the 19th century, were Jews going to adopt a new model, political Zionism, which was very much a minority ideology, or were we going to decide that we were going to fight alongside others who suffer injustice in society. And there was a split… but do people understand that there is an EXTENSIVE MOVEMENT in Jewry, a Socialist Bund movement, which was a mass party in Poland.’
It is true that there were different solutions put forward to answer Europe’s ‘Jewish problem’. It is also true that like all movements in history, Zionism started as a minority. But the question between Zionism and the Bundists was categorically answered in the 1940’s. The Bundists were tragically wrong, and that ‘mass party in Poland’ was completely annihilated. There is no ‘extensive movement’ today, Naomi is lying, and all that is left are a few foolish people who do not see or care that Zionism was clearly shown to be right.
There is little more nauseating that an anti-Zionist Jew using a movement that burnt in Auschwitz to defend antisemitic attacks on Israel.
There was also a moment of total confusion when Naomi said this:
‘Palestinians deserve a right to self-determination too’.
As well as who Naomi? Considering your entire position is to deny the Jews the right to self determination, it seems strange that you believe the Palestinians should have that right. In this comment, Wimborne-Idrissi’s ‘universalist’ mask slips for a moment. The two-state solution suggests self-determination for both. But that isn’t Naomi’s position, which makes her stance all the more anti-Jewish. To Wimborne-Idrissi, only the Jewish right to self determination is not a ‘right’.
The BBC show wraps up with ‘Palestine as Holocaust’
When host Nicky Campbell asked if anybody thought using the term Holocaust was an appropriate phrase to use when describing the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, the room went silent, nobody did. Except for Naomi.
Wimborne-Idrissi, became the only dissenting voice in the room. Campbell followed up and said it was a word we hear used far too often, Wimborne-Idrissi responded with a sarcastic ‘do we’, and when Anna Turley MP explained the antisemitic undercurrent of using Holocaust terminology against Israel, Idrissi became visibly agitated, suggesting it was all a calumny against people like her. As Turley suggested the Holocaust reference is antisemitic, the camera focused on Wimborne-Idrissi shaking her head, mouthing the question ‘why’.
Think about that. An entire room realised there was extreme discomfort with ‘Palestine as Holocaust’, and yet for whatever reason the BBC had chosen to deploy one of the very few people in the world who can enable this level of repulsive behaviour. Wimborne-Idrissi did her job to perfection.
The bad and the good
Wimborne-Idrissi wasn’t the only voice, but once she is on stage, the entire conversation is deflected. The propaganda machine against Israel can operate more freely. Ex-MP Chris Mullen suggested Israel is ‘in the process of setting up an Apartheid State’. Chadni Chopra, from PSC Newcastle called Israel’s policies ‘racist and Apartheid’, before producing a string of distorted nonsense. Chopra is from an organisation riddled itself with antisemitism.
There were better contributions. Author Jerry Barnett, who is ‘very much a supporter of the Palestinian cause’, pointed out that antisemitism has shifted leftwards. Dr Sheila Jeffreys, a former professor of political science at the University of Melbourne, brought up historical cases of left-wing antisemitism. Anti-Israel activist Gary Spedding even sided with the Zionists on this one. If Gary and I agree on anything, there is clearly a problem. Spedding suggested the left needs to step up and identify antisemitism as an in-house problem.
A sour ending
When Chris Mullen suggested that the cries of antisemitism were being used to bash Corbyn, Saul Freeman highlighted the inherent problem with this accusation. The implication that when Jews speak out about racism, they are lying for political gain. Labour would not give this type of treatment to complaints of racism from any other minority group.
This left Wimborne-Idrissi to have the final word, as she responded ‘if it was happening with any other group we would’. It sums the whole show up. Only the Jews can be openly called devious, manipulating, controlling and have that argument placed in full view on the BBC.
If you cannot defend antisemitism in Labour, without hunting down Marxist Jews, then it isn’t a position you should want to defend. In itself, bringing those like Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi to every event is an absolute admission of guilt.
How many antisemitic tropes do we need to see posted by Labour party members? We need to move past the point of asking whether there is a problem. But we can’t for as long as organisations such as the BBC roll out Soviet style antisemitic propaganda to hold us all back.
Is that really what we are paying the license fee for?
Help support my research
I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research can and does make a difference. In the last two or three years, several key stories on antisemitism that received global coverage were uncovered by this research and originally broken on this site.
If you can, please consider making a donation. Either a single amount or a small monthly contribution. Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the hatred and the lies. We have to shine a light into the shadows and show people what is happening. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.