I Apologise Yet Again, and Another Request 54


I am just getting to the end of the copy-edit for Sikunder Burnes, which has involved reducing the text still further and been both hard work and painful, so apologies for disappearing for a few days. I am also acutely aware I have not replied individually to the 130 offers of assistance I received with the cartography for the book. I am very sorry, I have been a bit overwhelmed and in fact what is happening about maps is still not sorted with the publishers. And while I am apologising, I might as well fess up to what is now approaching 2,000 unanswered emails. I genuinely do feel both guilty and depressed about this, but I am simply not able to keep up with the volume of correspondence, though so much of it is so very positive and welcome. If your email needs a practical response, please do not feel shy to resend.

A hostile message I received from a fierce advocate of Israel, interested me because when I checked him out I noted he spent much time attacking Bernie Sanders. This led me to wonder what correlation there is between those individuals currently accused of anti-Semitism, and particularly those suspended from the Labour Party, and support of Bernie Sanders.

It occurs to me equally that many of those most ardently throwing around the accusations of anti-Semitism, particularly mainstream journalists and MPs, are those most hostile to Sanders or supportive of Clinton.

If I am right, the irony that the alleged “anti-Semites” support the excellent Jewish candidate for POTUS, and the witch-hunters oppose him, would be obvious.

If anyone has time while I am occupied, hunt around on the web for evidence that addresses this hypothesis either way. Post what you find in comments below. Remember even a single piece of evidence contributes to the picture. I shall pull it all together in a few days time.


54 thoughts on “I Apologise Yet Again, and Another Request

  • Iain

    Hi,

    On RT’s Going Underground Saturday 14th May (in the 2nd half of the show) they talk with Max Blumenthal about A Very British Coup. This specifically deals with the Blairites and their use of accusations of anti-semitism to get rid of any one who they disapprove of. Max Blumenthal mentions similar situations in America and seems to have contact with Corbyn’s team. Might help you.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

    Suspect that the relationship is rather tenuous as there are more issues in play.

    For example, I am a most reluctant supporter of Hillary for most serious personal reasons thoughI am willing to work for her in Connecticut because I think The Donald might carry the state.

    Bernie has already lost here, and he no chance of becoming POTUS.

    I am quite left, and a strong opponent of Israel.

  • Jim

    Christ almighty, you’re comparing the horrors of the First World War trenches to the attempted deliberate murder of the whole of the Jewish population of Europe, and feeling embittered in some way?

    • Nuada

      No idea what you mean by that, however, do keep in mind that the Israel firsters don’t care about the Holocaust except as a stick to beat Gentiles with. They proved that by the way they treated the survivors when they began to arrive in Palestine in the 1950s – basically, like something they’d picked up on their shoes because they didn’t fit the narrative of the noble Jewish warrior. They only became the moral heirs of the Holocaust victims when they realized how much of their dosh was sitting in Swiss banks.

      • Jim

        I’ve no idea what your analysis has got to do with my response to the weird post I replied to?

      • bevin

        Jim specialises in smears of this kind. He is setting apol up as a “Holocaust denier.”
        He played the same silly trick with me by pretending that by pointing out the links between the Khmer Rouge and the US government, which protected its remnants in camps on the Thai border and them re-armed them and assisted them in terrorist attacks against villages in Cambodia, I was a Pol Pot supporter.
        Jim doesn’t know much but he understand the technique of the Big Lie. By repeating the same untruth again and again ‘until it becomes true’ he serves the cause in which he is enrolled.
        I should add that there is something very sinister about the dismissal by the imperialists of such events as Verdun-the anniversary of the Somme comes up next month, I believe- and the enormous carnage of the First World war, not to mention the insouciance with which they welcome the neo-Nazis of Ukraine into their broad church.
        I suspect that the problem, at Verdun as at the Somme, was that both battles are the most forceful reminders of the utter callousness and cynicism, not of the German enemy armies, but of the ruling class General Staffs which despatched millions to their pointless deaths.
        It was precisely the failure to deal with this industrialisation of killing that the dreadful events of the second war can be traced back to.
        Nothing is more disgusting than to pretend a concern for Jewish victims which is not extended to others, of whom the largest body was those who were fascism’s deadliest and earliest enemies: Trade Unionists, Socialists and the Red Army.

        • Jim

          Apol didn’t deny the Holocaust, he made a barely veiled embittered reference to it couched in sinister terms. If you can’t see the obvious God help you. And don’t try the ‘smear’ line again, you posted the Pol Pot stuff approvingly, and I would leave you in peace if you’d apologise for that and state unequivocally that you deplore Paul Craig Roberts’ idiotic opinion and didn’t share his enthusiasm for exterminating perceived class enemies.

        • Pollard

          Craig,

          You may have seen or heard about Clinton’s grovelling, salivating performance at the annual AIPAC event earlier this year, whereas Sanders was regrettably absent due to a scheduling conflict, albeit that he offered to appear via video-link although naturally that was not considered sufficiently sycophantic and his offer was rejected.

          And that’s just an illustration: Clinton is an arch neocon psychopath who is willing to play a pathologically pro-Israel role whilst directly benefiting financially as result, which is of course illegal for American public officials and yes these receipts took place before she was sacked as secretary of state—heard of the Clinton Foundation?

          Sanders, conversely, is by no means such a fervent admirer of Israeli government behaviour or neocon plundering, since he at least appears to recognize the obvious damage that both of these have done to the USA, particularly since Iraq 1 but one could go back further than a generation and identify a similar pattern of lies, subversion and abuse.

          QED: Sanders attracts the ire of the the hanky-panky anti-Semitic brigade, whilst Clinton does not.

          And this once again proves that NONE of this has anything to do with race or racism, but it does have everything to do with dishonest posturing and political bullying by the usual jumped up imbeciles.

  • Republicofscotland

    Well, here Bernie Sanders openly criticises Israel, whilst, Hilary Clinton, remained Israel’s number one backer and apologist. Maybe that’s why the knives are out for Bernie.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-palestinian-defender-vs-israel-apologist

    Also here is a list of people who back Hilary Clinton for POTUS.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

    Here would also be a good place to start.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Israel

    Or

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel

      • bevin

        And Here’s another by Jack Random:
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/the-end-of-ideology-what-kind-of-democracy-is-this/

        “There is such great irony in the fact that Senator Bernie Sanders could have broken this recurring pattern of bad against worse. There is such irony that Sanders would be leading in the race for the Democratic nomination right now if not for the irrational support that Hillary Clinton received from the minority communities led by the Congressional Black Caucus. Until this election I held that legislative entity alone in the highest regard.

        “What did Hillary promise you on the eve of the South Carolina primary? You are not political neophytes; you know the Clintons are malleable on all issues, including those that most directly affect minority communities. You know your communities stand the most to gain from a truly progressive agenda yet you were the first to sell out.

        Y”ou are not alone. I watched in disbelief as Fair Trade champion and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown endorsed Clinton. I watched in disappointment as Elizabeth Warren remained on the sidelines. Either and both could have made a huge impact in exposing the duplicity of Hillary on trade policy and Wall Street reform. What were you afraid of? What were you waiting for? What did they promise you?

        “It is frankly hard not to feel alienated. It is hard not to feel disenfranchised.

        “…We have an election in which I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate and yet there is one candidate I am compelled to vote against.

        “What kind of democracy is this?

        “A week ago I reregistered as a Democrat for one reason and one reason only: To vote for Senator Bernie Sanders in the California primary. There’s still a slim chance this thing isn’t over. …”

  • Capella

    Nearer home, Maureen Lipman very publicly resigned from Labour when they backed Palestine’s bid for recognition by the UN. That finished off Ed Miliband’s election campaign.
    https://archive.is/olkyg

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Why don’t you be more explicit, apol?

    Please tell us who and what are behind this programmed cultural destruction. Have the courage to say it straight out, please.

  • craig Post author

    What I am looking for in replies is evidence that specific individuals who have been suspended from the Labour Party or otherwise been accused of anti-Semitism, have supported Bernie Sanders. Or that specific individuals who have taken part in the anti-semitism accusations have opposed Bernie Sanders. That seems a quite simple request. Yet so far none of the replies has been relevant to it.

  • bevin

    Truly a roll call of shame, apol.

    To put this into perspective it has to be remembered that, no sooner had the Concentration Camps been captured, not even emptied, that the western allies. led by the US began making the fortunes of those responsible. Not only the Nazis in Germany but their collaborators in eastern Europe were taken up and put on the payroll.
    Almost every one of the Eastern European countries in that list either is or has been recently ruled by fascist emigre parties with a record of having collaborated with Hitler and assisting in the Concentration Camp system. As to Canada: there are more votes among the Ukrainian fascist communities, which have waxed fat on the patronage of successive governments dedicated to anti-communism and intensely relaxed at the prospect of watching the lineal descendants of the Bandera fascists and their Baltic counterparts (who still celebrate their wartime pogroms in the uniforms of the SS and auxillary police) pretending to be recalling the ‘Holocaust’ as if the Red Army had been responsible.

    There was a time, and it was not long ago, that there was more respect in Britain for the feelings of the old soldiers and sailors-now, sadly dead for the most part or in their nineties- than this refusal to take part in the Moscow parades suggests. It is a reminder that these poppy sporting scoundrels, are ;part of a profession besides which the most pox raddled whores are as pure as the driven snow.

    Germany, Croatia, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia, Sweden. I’m surprised that they were issued invitations.
    As to the United States, it is very likely that they are just late again.

  • Node

    Ken Livingstone reflecting on why Ed Balls lost his seat at the last General Election.

    “It’s sad. But it’s his own fault because we went into the election as austerity lite. I was pushing Miliband and Balls to adopt a more radical programme. It’s actually one Jeremy now has for the economy. If we’d done that, we wouldn’t have won a majority, but I think it would have been virtually a dead heat. They were just too cautious. The enthusiasm behind Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders shows that’s a mistake.”

    http://www.theworldweekly.com/reader/view/magazine/2016-03-17/ken-livingstone-on-his-hopes-for-jeremy-corbyn-and-why-boris-johnson-will-be-the-death-of-him/7159

  • CanSpeccy

    … many of those most ardently throwing around the accusations of anti-Semitism, particularly mainstream journalists and MPs, are those most hostile to Sanders or supportive of Clinton. If I am right, the irony that the alleged “anti-Semites” support the excellent Jewish candidate for POTUS, and the witch-hunters oppose him, would be obvious.

    There’s nothing ironic about this. Many of the defenders of Israel are like the liberal-leftist defenders of everything politically correct, who, being unable, apparently, to engage in rational argument, rebut views that offend their susceptibilities by a resort to hate speech. You know, like those who call me a “dolt” or a “racist” for pointing out that mass immigration amounts to genocidal ethnic cleansing in, for example, Glasgow, where at the Annette Road school, of 222 pupils, not one is a native Scot, or in the East London borough of Newham where 70,000 immigrants have displaced most of the native cockney inhabitants.

    But then there is the more effective means of dealing with counter-leftist views, which is by “moderation”, i.e., deletion, which is the fate nowadays of many of my comments here.

  • craig Post author

    Thanks. What I am looking for is
    “Here is Joe Bloggs on the list of people suspended from the Labour Party for anti-semitism. But here are a tweet and a blog entry from Joe Bloggs supporting Bernie Sanders”
    Conversely
    “Here are articles by journalists x, y and z accusing people of anti-semitism. But here are articles by same x y and z all opposing Bernie Sanders.”

    • Lor

      What about that old guy who was thrown out of the Labour Party Conference, down in Brighton, was it? Been in the Labour party for eighty years and lobbed out for daring to question Blair…

    • Habbabkuk (for accuracy and honesty when posting)

      Craig

      The fact that you have to spell out your request in baby language in order for people on here to understand it speaks volumes.

      But I’m not surprised you’ve drawn a blank. The Eminences and their hangers-on are better at simple cutting-and-pasting.

  • CanSpeccy

    “Here is Joe Bloggs on the list of people suspended from the Labour Party for anti-semitism. But here are a tweet and a blog entry from Joe Bloggs supporting Bernie Sanders” …

    That’s a crazy argument. Obiously ou don’t have to be a philoSemite to support a Jewish politician. In Sanders case, you just need to be a economically illiterate near-Commie. Equally, you don’t have to be an anti-Semite to oppose a far-left Jew politician, you just need a basic understanding of economics.

    • Republicofscotland

      Canspeccy.

      I think what Craig’s trying to get at is, those people suspended may well be suspended on a very trivial or throw away remarks, nothing vaguely sinister. However those people are probably ardent Corbyn and Sanders supporters.

      Certain sections of the media and political establishment however seek to demonise and if possible smear those people as anti-Semitic, thus attacking Corbyn and Sanders indirectly.

      • CanSpeccy

        Yeah, maybe. My point is that all this name calling is pathetic, and that no one should be in the least bit deterred by morons without an argument calling them anti-Semitic, Nazi, far-right wing, extremist, racist, whatever.

        • Republicofscotland

          Canspeccy.

          The very point in name smearing is to gain approval, alas that’s how the political game is played out.

          Just look at how Trump, derided Ted Cruz or how Clinton and Sanders pushed there opponents poor points. In politics smearing your opponent/s is all part of the process.

          Finally is doesn’t really matter if the sleaze is true or not, because when you throw mud inevitably some of it sticks.

          • CanSpeccy

            The very point in name smearing is to gain approval, alas that’s how the political game is played out.

            It works with idiots.

            Just look at how Trump, derided Ted Cruz or how Clinton and Sanders pushed there opponents poor points.

            Lyin’ Ted. Isn’t he a liar? Yes he is.

            Crooked Hillary: Isn’t she crooked as a corkskrew? Yes she is.

            Epithets are valid if they are supported by the evidence. And they work especially well against the liberal-left who are so used to keeping others on the defensive with their lies and smears that they tend to be at a loss when forced to defend themselves when called to account.

          • Republicofscotland

            Canspeccy.

            “Epithets are valid if they are supported by the evidence.”

            ____________

            Not necessarily, and I’ll tell you why newspapers often lead with headlines suggestiong one thing, but when you read deeper into the stories, it becomes another.

            The jist of my point is, Joe Public more often than only digests the headline of a story, and doesn’t bother to read the last paragraph of said story which contains the infamous words, could,might, possibly, maybe and a dozen other possibilities.

            By then the Joe Public only recalls the strapline, and how he/she feels about it.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            True, RoS. Back in the Palaeozoic, journalists took it for granted that no-one was likely to get beyond the second par, so the where, when, why, who, what ,etc had to go in the first one. It’s still policy, and why the Grauniad pays its hacks to grossly overwrite the rest of its news items as opinion pieces, has more to do with the paucity of research going on there than anything else.

          • CanSpeccy

            “Epithets are valid if they are supported by the evidence.” Not necessarily.

            Yes, necessarily. That is what an epithet is, an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality of the person or thing to which it is applied. So if the evidence justifies the epithet, then the epithet is valid.

            What lying bastards such as the writers at the Guardian have to say is beside the point.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    It occurs to me equally that many of those most ardently throwing around the accusations of anti-Semitism, particularly mainstream journalists and MPs, are those most hostile to Sanders or supportive of Clinton.

    More than anything else, they’re apologists for Israel, and that’s where this is coming from IMO. This latest bout coincided with Regev’s appointment: quite early in the kerfuffle, Levy, Sugar and other Labour-funding prominenti announced their intention to pull out If Something Wasn’t Done. And then there was Ivan Lewis, the first Labour MP to press charges of The Crime against Corbyn after his election:

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.671328

    This Ivan Lewis:

    https://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/britain/brown_lobbyist.htm

    I don’t know how he feels about Clinton, but Hilary had them rolling in the aisles at AIPAC’s pre-Presidential vetting meeting, and the love affair between the Blair Tendency and the Clintons is an ongoing one.

    • Manda

      “More than anything else, they’re apologists for Israel, and that’s where this is coming from IMO. ”

      I agree and expected ‘trouble’ and noted the surge once Regev was appointed. I do believe an alliance has been formed between faux leftists, those vehemently against true socialist policies of economic and social justice, democracy etc. and supporters of Israeli policies and actions in the occupied territories. There was a big over lap of interests before but the pressure on Israel is increasing and masses in the west are getting increasingly unhappy and angry with the looting of their wealth and their declining living standards. US and UK are managing to get political voices for socialism out there at the moment,
      To these people these are very worrying times that must be controlled as quickly as possible but because of the public mood, it has to be done in a way to provoke as little backlash as possible, anti Semitism is an already well established control lever so all those interests are served in one swoop if successful. That’s how I see it anyway.

      Sorry Craig I haven’t time to do the research and my skills are not great for such stuff. Good luck.

  • MK Cattarch Hokachainik

    It’s part and parcel of the Israeli government charm offensive, which involves interminable spittle-spewing rants to enforce their propaganda line.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/when-knesset-comes/

    The very existence of a public official like Sanders is making the Zionist genocidaires frantic. When Sanders loses Secret Service protection Mossad will probably pull a Wellstone on him.

  • johnf

    Bernie of course has a brother, Larry, who lives in Britain. He is not a member of the Labour Party but a Green Party councillor. Anti-semitism is a charge which is usually brought against BDS, but Larry is in favour of it:

    >His brother Larry, who lives in England, revealed in a tweet a few months ago that he supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. “that Israel end occupation of West Bank, siege of Gaza, Palestinians in Israel equal rights. Netanyahu obstacle to peace. BDS yes,” Larry Sanders tweeted on April 20, 2015.

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/election2016/article/bernie_sanders_brother_is_a_bds_supporter

    So he is, I suppose, an anti-semite semite. But not a member of the Labour Party.

    Tony Blair only admits he’s “perplexed” by the rise of Sanders – comparing him to Corbyn.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-election-2016-tony-blair-perplexed-by-popularity-bernie-sanders-1545642

    I’m not sure about this blog, but it claims:

    “Mr Blair’s rant went so far as to compare the rise of Mr Corbyn and socialist US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders with that of fascist Marine Le Pen in France.”

    https://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/tony-blair-smears-corbyn-bernie-sanders-in-the-usa/

    but provides no direct quote.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      Dear Kitty may be referring to this:

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn

      Because Trump and Sanders aren’t going to be president; Scotland did vote No and even if it votes Yes in the future, the pain of separation for all of us will be acute; Syriza may win but only by switching realities; and Jeremy Corbyn is not going to be prime minister of the UK. And Le Pen as French president? Let us hope not because that collision with “real” reality will be brutal for all of Europe.

      Dogwhistle stuff. Though it’s true that he’s been very reticent on the antisemitism smears, that could well be because he is chair of the ECTR, and his support of Israel has been blatant from the word go. But I think he has acquiesced in the smears rather than instigating them. This is the man who does the smiling and gets someone else to do the backstabbing, after all.

    • Lorrie

      “Tony Blair only admits he’s “perplexed” by the rise of Sanders – comparing him to Corbyn.”

      Yes, Blair does find anything truthful perplexing, but then we already know that.

  • johnf

    it is very difficult to thread together two discrete political movements and narratives on two seperate continents.

    Naz Shah’s comments, which caused this latest frenzy, were of course taken from a joke piece by Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein has now gone in boots first on the whole John Mann/anti-semitic farrago.

    “Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a ‘journey’. Of course, what they mean is, ‘she’s on a journey of self-revelation, and epiphany, to understanding the inner antisemite at the core of her being’. But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an antisemite. Because of these people; because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion…

    In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these antisemitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer – but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness.”

    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tells-holocaust-mongers-it-is-time-to-crawl-back-into-your-sewer/

  • mike

    Does Security Search Management & Solutions have a website?

    Apart from Chris Reid, how many employees does it have?

    Was SSMS in Old Trafford with the full knowledge of stadium managers?

  • Dave

    I checked the London Mayoral results and in 2012 Livingstone won 40% first preference votes on a 38% turnout and in 2016 Khan won 43% first preference votes on a 46% turnout. It seems to me that the extra turnout was due to the extensive anti-Corbyn coverage and the Labour share increased by 3% because voters were voting Khan in support of Corbyn and Livingstone despite Khan distancing himself from them in fear the association would lose him votes, but how many would notice his comments as opposed to the general attack on the Labour leadership?

Comments are closed.