The BOGOFs of Jenny Manson

Co-Chair of Jewish Voice for Labour Jenny Manson had an interview on BBC News Channel on Saturday.  You can see it here.

Let’s recap what Pete Willsman said on the recording passed to LBC (excerpts from which were broadcast on Friday).

First he said that the Israel Embassy is “behind” all the cases of antisemitism in the Labour Party. “They’re the ones whipping it up all the time”. Then he said that that the letter from 68 Rabbis in July 2018 (urging Labour to adopt IHRA) was “obviously organised” by the Embassy.

Both statements are viciously antisemitic. Did the Israeli Embassy somehow bribe Ken Livingstone to say that “Hitler supported Zionism”? Or encourage people to complain about this comment because it was allegedly antisemitic – when it actually wasn’t?  And did they bribe Labour’s National Constitution Committee to then find Livingstone in breach of the rules?  You see?  How else could the Embassy have been “behind” the case? So ‘scheming Jews’ stop at nothing, even fabricating acts of antisemitism to achieve what they want – in this case the resignation of Corbyn as Labour Leader because he supports the Palestinians.

And the 68 Rabbis – they didn’t act of the own volition – the Israeli Embassy drafted the letter then armtwisted (bribed again?) the Rabbis into signing it. This is BOGOF antisemitism (two in one in other words). One, Rabbis cannot think for themselves and they accept bribery. Two, there’s that scheming nefarious bunch of Jews at 2 Palace Green pulling the strings of Rabbis – again in order to undermine Corbyn.

Straight out of the forged antisemitic document ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

As a Jew, Jenny Manson of course made all these points – didn’t she?

Afraid not. She didn’t. The opposite in fact ….. Here’s what she said: “Nothing he said is antisemitic… We know that Israel has been involved in British politics, because of the Al Jazeera programme.

BOGOF again. One, the AJ programme did NOT show the Israel Embassy bribing Ken Livingstone or anyone else to make antisemitic comments. Two, the AJ programme showed nothing untoward.

What did it show? BOGOF for a third time………..

One: An Embassy employee doing his job (for which he should not have been fired) – in this case discussing how to render less influential (“take down”) an MP with a long history of hostility to Israel …….. Remarks which earned him a sharp rebuke from the CST (who said that they ‘resonated with the Jews / money / hidden power / alien purpose motifs of old antisemitic conspiracy theory: only now directed at Israel or pro-Israelis, rather than Jews’).

Two: That Embassy employee discussing with Joan Ryan MP – Chair of Labour Friends of Israel – his budget to take MPs on factfinding missions to Israel.

There was still more from Manson.

She says “I haven’t heard the film”. No dearie it wasn’t a film – it was an audio. That’s like a film – but with no pictures. And by the way if you hadn’t heard the audio why did you accept the invitation by the BBC to comment on it? Because you’re an outrageous self-publicist?  Surely not.

Finally Manson complains that “a confidential conversation was leaked”. Seriously? How about the Al Jazeera non-exposé?  Didn’t Ella Rose think that when she was in tears after the Labour Party Conference, having been abused online by Jackie Walker, her conversation with ‘Robin’ – the undercover reporter – was confidential?

Anyway Willsman’s remarks to Tuvia Tenenbaum WEREN’T ‘confidential’. Right at the start of the audio (which I have heard in full) Tuvia Tenenbom told Willsman he was a journalist.

Why did the BBC have Manson on?

Because of some misplaced idea of what ‘impartial’ means. And because this story is about Jews, not Muslims or Blacks.

When black football players complain about racism, does the BBC feel the need to call on someone to question their sincerity?

So what’s different about Jews?