Chabloz cross-examined

I have written about the Chabloz case here here and here.

Today Ms Chabloz took the witness stand at Southwark Crown Court in her Appeal. She was examined by her barrister Adrian Davies then cross-examined by the CPS barrister James Mulholland QC. The Judge Christopher Hehir frequently interjected.

Davies asked her if she had any “right wing history”. No. She became interested in politics in 2011 at the outset of the Occupy Movement.  She supports Jeremy Corbyn. She was ‘trolled’ by Stephen Applebaum aka ‘Nemo’ and was then sacked from a music job on a cruise ship, for which she blamed Ambrosine Shitrit who gave her name to Steven Silverman (of the CAA). Complaints about her were made to the Scottish Police and the organisers of the Edinburgh Festival. Shopping catalogues were sent to her, addressed to ‘Mrs Holocaust Denier’.  After her London Forum appearance in September 2016 (two of the three songs which are the subject of the case date from that) her Twitter account was removed at the initiative of the CST. The police had told her to take an unopened ‘birthday card’ and a shopping catalogue to be tested for DNA. But they closed down the investigation.  The CPS ordered her to be taken into custody at 24h notice.

In fact she did five songs at the London Forum event. One was by Gerard Menuhin. Another was about the Havara agreement which was a collaboration between Jews and Nazis.

Revisionists do not deny the Holocaust.

The camps were prison camps not death camps.

The London Forum is not ‘far right’ – Piers Corbyn features on their website.

James Mulholland QC (JM) began by asking Ms Chabloz about the quenelle salute she had performed in Edinburgh. Did she not agree that the quenelle is antisemitic? Did she think that the UK belongs to whites? Some Jewish people look white, she said. Pressed as to whether Jews are English she said that some Jews in the UK are more loyal to Israel than to the UK , otherwise they would not try to limit freedom of speech.  She quoted from a revisionist author (Pierre Vidal  Naquet)  who called Elie Wiesel a ‘Shoah Peddler’. The Talmud teaches Jews to lie; Zionist Jews are more likely to lie. The definition of Zionism: someone who believes that Jews have more rights than others in Israel.

JM (it might have been the Judge) asked her how many Jews died in the Holocaust?  She agreed that she was a ‘revisionist’and revisionists put the figure at around 600,000. JM asked her about her use of the word ‘Holohoax’ in her songs. She replied that they were just silly songs, not a PhD thesis. JM responded that they were songs designed to abuse. Asked about her allegation that some ‘survivors’ are bogus , lying to make money, she said there was a great incentive to lie. Asked about why she chose the tune of Hava Nagila for some of (((Survivors))), she said it was ‘a gift from God’. The song had been viewed   44,000 times. 80% of the responses were ’Likes’,  only 20% ‘Not Likes’. Most ‘revisionist’ books are no longer on sale, the Board of Deputies  has ensured that.

JM asked her about “I like It As It Is “ – why had she set the words The shrunken heads, soap and lampshades to the melody of Hevenu shalom aleichem, a song which Jews sing at celebrations? It just came into my mind, Ms Chabloz said.

She said that she had had to return to live with her parents because no-one would give her work as a result of the allegations against her. She had received constant hate mail and she partly blamed the stress for her parents’ sickness (her father had a heart attack, her mother a double brain haemorrhage). She hadn’t ever sent her songs to anyone, she just uploaded them. Very few people had posted negative comments about them.

The Judge told her that she knew the shrunken heads, soap and lampshades reference would be seen as highly offensive by Jewish people. She responded that these were myths, no lampshades had been made from the skin of Holocaust victims, no soap had been made from their corpses and their heads had not been shrunk. The Jews need to come away from the atrocity propaganda. Only Jews who believed the shrunken heads, soap and lampshades narrative would be offended. Her songs are not a product of hate, they are a product of love, trying to free them [the Jews] from this atrocity propaganda.

There’s no evidence that Holocaust victims were gassed. There were gas chambers but they were used purely for disinfectant. Jews were needed to work in the camps, there was no reason to kill them. If the Nazis had wanted to kill Jews they would have done it on the spot, they did not have to have the expense of transporting them to the camps to be killed.

The Judge interjected. Had Ms Chabloz not read the judgment of Mr Justice Gray in the Irving v Penguin Books case? Gray said that no objective historian would deny that there were gas chambers. The Judge (it might have been JM) said that Ms Chabloz had not read the Gray judgment as she was not interested. JM said that she had a perception about Jews and seeks out anything which justifies it.

She said that her interest in the Holocaust had started with her sympathy for the Palestinians. All the books by survivors are published under the heading of ‘Fiction’. It is untrue that investigating the Holocaust makes her a vicious Jew hater.

JM asked her about the references in her songs to Jews making money from non-Jews (Thanks to your debt We’re bleeding you dry) and to Jewish control of the banks and media. Ms Chabloz referred to bankers, the Lehman Brothers crisis, the creation of money, the ever increasing National Debt which could be paid off with a couple of phone calls. The gap between rich and poor was wider than ever. Over the past 30 years all the Directors of the Federal Reserve Board have been Jewish and most have been Zionists.

The Judge asked Ms Chabloz about Elie Wiesel. Had she heard of the Death Marches? (Elie Wiesel describes in his 1958 book Night how he and his father were forced on a death march from Buna to Buchenwald). Ms Chabloz did not accept that Wiesel was deported to Buchenwald. Rather than go with the Russian liberators of Auschwitz, Wiesel went with the Germans. There was no trace of a tattoo on Wiesel’s arm. It is questionable whether Wiesel was ever in Auschwitz: the camp register does not include him. Pierre Vidal Naquet calls Wiesel a Shoah Peddler.

The Judge interjected. What about the Nuremberg affidavit of Rudolf Höss, the longest-serving commandant of Auschwitz? He estimated that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total of about 3,000,000 dead.

In response Ms Chabloz quoted  Carlo Mattogno who has written that the “confessions” were extorted by the British from Höss. The Nuremberg trials were unfair.

JM suggested to her that her position was that she could get away with whatever she wanted in her songs, because they are songs and not rational debate. He then asked her if she thought that Jews control the media (‘We control your media Control of your books and TV’).

The Zionists control the media, the globalist elite. Jews control Twitter. Jews are over-represented in Parliament despite the fact that we are supposed to have equal opportunities. Jews like Alan Dershowitz often point out how successful Jews are. JM asked her if Jewish people saying they are successful justifies her saying Jews control the media?

She returned to defending her songs as ‘satire’: satire is a great British tradition. Why did CAA not go after Ricky Gervais? Because they wanted to chase someone ‘little’ like her instead. This is her country- generations back – she was born here.

Israel needs to be criticised because of the Nation State Law which privileges Jews. The Zionists wanted Jews to die in Europe. During WW2 there was a Rabbi who went to Basle to get money to extricate Jews from the camps He was told by the Zionists to go away: as many Jewish deaths as possible were needed in order to help found the state of Israel.

JM asked her about a line in ‘Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe’:  ‘Now Auschwitz, holy temple, is a theme park just for fools”. She said that it has become a temple, a place of pilgrimage. Another line (JM said) is “Six million tales spread contempt for all us goys”. She cited Shlomo Sand: Invention of the Jewish people.

Away, O they’ve been sent away, for their crimes, one hundred times. Why do, we let them in again, to steal what’s yours, take what’s mine? JM asker her about these lyrics. Have Jews brought it on themselves then? She agreed that this was an issue. Her own situation had come about because Jews have too much power and influence. Gideon Falter of the CAA had a private interview with Theresa May, when she was still Home Secretary. Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman cannot be properly English because they both support the racist state of Israel.

The Germans recognised the importance of artistic endeavour. They had orchestras and choirs in the camps. But she [Chabloz] cannot now play her music anywhere.


I Like the Story As It Is (to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel ‘El Condor Pasa’

I’d rather be a Gentile than a …. non-Gentile
Yes it’s true. So would you. If you only knew. Mm..Mm
All those lies about their history and the past
To guarantee …Israeli hegemony .. Tribal supremacy. Mm ..Mm
Away, O they’ve been sent away, for their crimes, one hundred times.
Why do, we let them in again, to steal what’s yours, take what’s mine?
And then to moan and whine.  Mmmm ….Mmmm.
The first great lie concerns the Lord above

They claim to be his choice minority
They alone deserve his love. Mmmm ….Mmmm.
The second lie imposes usury, on you and me
Yes it’s true, since Waterloo. Mmmm ….Mmmm.
The third claims Six Million were gassed alive

Their bodies burnt, or so we learn
I used to question, how this could have come to pass
Now I insist. It’s a damn fine tale, I like the story as it is.

(Switches to the tune of an Israeli song, Evenu Shalom Alechem)

The shrunken heads, soap and lampshades
The shrunken heads, soap and lampshades
The shrunken heads, soap and lampshades
I do insist. I like the story as it is.

Electrocution, steam and diesel
Electrocution, steam and diesel
Electrocution, steam and diesel
I do insist. I like the story as it is.

The coloured smoke from the chimney
The coloured smoke from the chimney
The coloured smoke from the chimney
I do insist. I like the story as it is.


Here are the words of (((Survivors))):

Hello everybody … Thanks for tuning in … New demo … It’s called “Survivors” … With three sets of brackets around it … “

My name is Irene Zisblatt and I come from Hungary
Can you believe what evil Nazi bastards did to me
They gassed me once, they gassed me twice
But escape I did
Over the electric fence
Landed on the train

I saw them taking babies and then tearing them in two
And creepy Dr Mengele he removed my tattoo
They tried to turn my brown eyes blue
Make lampshades from my skin
For months I swallowed diamonds
And shat them out again.

(Switches to tune of Hava Nagila)

Come on, my brother
Tell us another
Story for cover
Of tribal gain
Safe in our tower
Now is the hour
Money and power
We have no shame

Let’s cheat and lie on film
No one suspects a thing
Bigger the lie is better for us!
Every fake survivor
Every fake survivor’s laughing
Fake survivors’ tongues are wagging
All us frauds are busy blagging
Spin and yarn there’ll be no gagging
You shall pay
All the way
Every night and day!

My name is Elie Wiesel may I show you my tattoo
[Talks … “Oh … Where’s it gone?”]
I wrote a book for US kids to study while at school
It’s full of nonsense tales of course
What do you all expect?
But it made me very wealthy
As a liar I’m the best

At Auschwitz they burned babies
Though the water table’s high
Fred Leuchter’s work on ditches, well it made me almost cry
Treblinka was a another one
There was no funeral pyre
And I cannot speak Hungarian
But oh boy can I lie

Tell us another
Come on my brother …. [Repeats, see above]

History repeats itself
No limit to our wealth
Thanks to your debt
We’re bleeding you dry
We control your media
Control of your books and TV
With the daily lies we feed you
Suffering victimisation
Sheeple have no realisation
You shall pay
All the way
Until the break of day

My name is Otto Frank and my daughter’s name is Anne
The poor girl died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp
She wrote an introduction
To her famous diary
But the rest was penned by Levin
And then publishèd by me

Two thousand and sixteen the copyright came to an end
The Anne Frank Trust decided once again the rules to bend
We truly had no choice although
The whole thing really stank
But the book now has two authors
Yes they’re Anne and Otto Frank.

Tell me another
Come on my brother …. [Repeats, see above]

Bank notes let’s print some more
We love to see you poor
Let’s start a war
Our pockets to line
There is no more doubting
Every nation’s debt is mounting
While the bankers keep on counting
Pension fund has now gone awol
Nothing left upon your table
You must pay
Night and day
Until the end of time


Postscript: This blog was written without commentary because the case was ongoing.




Denying the Deniers

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is tasked by the government to organise Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January. This year the Trust published a poll it had commissioned about the knowledge of UK adults about the Holocaust.  The polling result which generated a lot of media interest was that 5% don’t believe the Holocaust really happened. (By region it was 8.6% in the West Midlands and over 10% in London).

Anyone who campaigns against antisemitism finds that figure entirely credible.

So how astonishing that the BBC’s Radio 4 statistics programme ‘More Or Less’ attempted to do a comprehensive hatchet job on the poll. And how deeply distasteful that Free Speech on Israel – the sister organisation to Jewish Voice for Labourshould trumpet the programme (though helpfully they post a transcript).  Not to mention Justin Schlosberg of Birkbeck University:

more or less 1

The Radio 4 hatchet was wielded by Ruth Alexander of the BBC and an academic: Peter Lynn, Professor of Survey Methodology at the University of Essex.  Lynn clearly does NOT campaign against antisemitism and is not familiar with the subject, because he told Ms Alexander that “I was immediately sceptical that this sounded a bit (umm) unlikely.” In other words, he was predisposed to pick holes in the survey methodology.

You don’t need to be a ‘Professor of Survey Methodology’ to quickly unpick the arguments put by Lynn and Alexander.

First we had Alexander: “I’ve spoken to three other survey design experts – they all agree, there are some serious flaws with this study.

Who were they? What were their allegations? The Holocaust is too important for hearsay!

Then we had an entirely gratuitous and irrelevant comment from Alexander regarding the sincerity of the respondents: “After all, according to the latest census there are 177,000 people living in the UK who follow the Jedi religion.” The ‘Jedi’ response to the question on religion in the census was a harmless practical joke: Is Alexander seriously suggesting that enough respondents thought it so funny to deny the Holocaust as to skew the survey? How about other similar surveys such as this one, which found that 19% in Great Britain believe that commemorating the Holocaust distracts from other atrocities and injustices today? Were those respondents having a laugh too, Ms Alexander? (The figure for Muslims was a shocking 55%).

The ‘experts’ then suggested that the survey designers should have explained what the word ‘Holocaust’ means. That suggestion is easily rebutted – because only 1.2% of the respondents claimed never to have heard of the Holocaust!

Then came the pièce de résistance  from the Prof: He suggested that respondents mistakenly answered “I agree” to the question ‘The Holocaust never happened’!  Because the question came after two to which the antiracist respondent would have answered “I agree” (‘It’s important to know about the Holocaust’ and ‘More needs to be done to educate people about the Holocaust’)So (said Lynn) the respondent might have answered unthinkingly “I agree” to the next question as well (‘I agree that the Holocaust never happened’).

To assume such carelessness is taking a very dim view of the intelligence of the average respondent to surveys – and that’s putting it politely. Surely ‘The Holocaust never happened’ is not the kind of statement over which anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence would carelessly gloss? And if the 5% result is due to carelessness, what about the result that 8.2% think that the scale of the Holocaust is exaggerated? (11% in West Midlands and a shocking 15% in London).

Moreover what would be the point of opinion polls if carelessness is so prevalent?

More from the Prof: He obtained unpublished data from the poll, which gave a breakdown of the responses to the question ‘How many Jewish people do you think were murdered during the Holocaust?‘: “Only 5 people in the entire survey gave an answer of zero” he said. “5 people out of just over 2,000, so that’s one quarter of 1%.

But 45% said they do not know how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust! (Over 50% in London!):

more or less 5

This is not the first time that ‘More Or Less’ has come down firmly on the wrong side when it comes to statistics involving Jews and Israel. See here. This was a really shoddy episode and it will take a lot to restore my faith in the accuracy of the programme.

As for Free Speech on Israel/JVL …….. this is far from the first example of Holocaust distortion we have seen from them.

more or less 2

And Justin Schlosberg? No surprise at all to see him rushing to praise the minimisation of Holocaust deniers.  Because he thinks that allegations of antisemitism in Labour are a smear by the ‘right-wing Jewish lobby.’

more or less 3

And wasn’t he the person who used academic jiggery-pokery to suggest that Corbyn is victimised by the media?

If you have Jewish children or grandchildren of university age, would you be happy if they were taught by Justin Schlosberg?


Postscript 1: Here is the Methods Director of the National Centre for Social Research applauding the BBC’s hatchet job,here ……….

more or less 6

Postscript 2:  Matthew Parris repeated the More or Less  reservations uncritically in the Times on 9 February (paywall):

Without meaning to, and though they acted only in good faith, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust’s poll has defamed this country.’




How to beat the Co-Op’s Boycott

I have written about the Co-Op’s entirely unjustified Israel boycott here and here. In the second piece I noted the very high threshold for presenting a motion at the AGM. It needs 100 ‘qualified members’. The definition of ‘qualified’ is that you have to have spent a certain amount at the Co-Op: £250 in 12 months; or buy Co-Op insurance, use Co-Op Legal Services or buy a Co-Op funeral plan.

It is too late to ‘qualify’ for the 2019 AGM on May 18th in Manchester.  But let’s try to move a motion to abolish the boycott at the 2020 AGM.  The cheapest way to ‘qualify’ appears to be to buy travel insurance from the Co-Op. A 50-year old pays about £18 for a one week trip to Europe (member’s price, membership costs just £1). UK residents only.

If we can get 100 signatures we can move a motion in 2020 to abolish the boycott. (Note that to simply sign the motion you will not have to travel to Manchester and attend the meeting in May 2020).

Please tell Luke at We Believe in Israel if you are or become ‘Qualified’ in 2019 (you have to ‘qualify’ before 31 December 2019):

There is a rumour that there will be a motion at the 2019 AGM (this May) to upgrade the current boycott to a full boycott. If such a motion is submitted, the Co-Op Council has the power to veto it, on the grounds that it “may result in publicity which could adversely impact or diminish confidence in the Society ” (Rule 32.5). If it fails to veto it, we can safely conclude that the Co-Op Council does not give a jot about the record levels of antisemitism in the UK………….

Irony at LSE

Dear Mr Corbyn – Is this ‘Irony’? Because I am a Zionist and according to you I don’t understand what it is ….. An Israeli-Arab Professor at Tel Aviv University comes to LSE and accuses Israel of discrimination, a “racist ideology” and being a “second rate democracy”.

That’s what happened on Wednesday night when Amal Jamal addressed a meeting of around 80 people on the subject of the Nation State Law. (His talk was based on his Chapter in ‘Defining Israel: The Jewish State, Democracy, and the Law’ edited by Simon Rabinovitch).

A taste of what was in store was in Jamal’s first slide (red underlining is mine):

He set out the two opposing views of the Nation State Law. The view that it is simply a codification of existing laws and customs (correct) versus the view expressed by Ahmad Tibi, an Arab Knesset member, that it is “the end of democracy” and “the official beginning of fascism and apartheid.” No prizes as to which one Jamal favours:


He said that whereas the Declaration of Independence (which he termed a ‘Zionist document’ and he doesn’t use that phrase in a positive way) leaves open the possibility of a secular ‘One State’, the Nation State Law closes this possibility off.

That’s good isn’t it? Because ‘One State’ would need to be enforced and so thousands would die?

But Professor Jamal doesn’t think it’s good.

Wasn’t that why it was necessary – as a response to the ‘One Staters’?

And that is what Avi Dichter meant when he first proposed the blog.  Jamal of course misinterpreted Dichter’s comment:
Then we had a couple of political theory slides about ‘transformative constitutional imagination’ and ‘productive imagination’.  I could see no value in them, other than attempting to put a veneer of academic respectability around Jamal’s demonisation of Israel. He quoted for example from Martin Loughlin, Professor of Public Law at LSE. Check it out if you’re interested….

En passant we had the lie that Israel is trying to apply Israeli Law in Judea and Samaria. No it isn’t. That’s why there are military courts. It is precisely BECAUSE there is no intention to annexe Judea/Samaria that Israel Law is NOT applied there.

Before long we reached the main point of Jamal’s talk: that the Nation State Law reinforces supposed discrimination against ‘Palestinians’ (he used the term ‘Palestinians’ throughout to describe Israeli Arabs – the acronym PCI stands for ‘Palestinian Citizens in Israel’). He even suggests that no public money is spent on Arab areas  – which of course is nonsense. He said that “for some people, Israel is called ‘Palestine’ “ – more of these ‘dog whistle’ comments below.


Jamal suggested some reasons why the Law was drafted and passed when it was:


How truly awful that the Palestinians should have to recognise Israel for what it is and what it has been for 70 years: the only country in the world grounded in Judaism.  Their failure to recognise the existence of the Jewish State is just one reason why peace talks have stopped.

Jamal’s ‘Conclusion’ slide is below. Apparently Israel is no longer a democracy (“Democratic values are abandoned”) and the Nation State Law “makes the life of those seeking to call Israel an apartheid state much easier”. Not that Jamal himself thinks that Israel is an apartheid state …. Of course not ….. “I’m the last person to want to put the Jews in jeopardy”.

The Q and A was when things started to heat up. In answer to the first question – from the Chair, Dr Michael Mason, Director of LSE’s Middle East Centre – Jamal said that a few weeks ago, the Mayor of Afula decided – on the basis of the new Law – to “close up all parks to Jewish citizens” (Jamal meant of course close them to non-Jews). This is utter nonsense. The Mayor closed the parks to non-residents of Afula, regardless of their religion – and Israeli Arabs who live in Afula are free to use the parks, the same as Jews who live there. To bar park access to members of a religion would be discriminatory and illegal in Israel just as it would be in the UK. Professor Avi Bell (Bar Ilan University’s Faculty of Law and the University of San Diego Law School) comments (email to me) It is also absolutely clear that Israeli courts would find illegal any barring of municipal parks to non-Jews; that is the state of the law today.”

Jamal talked about “a very sophisticated racist ideology that is being promoted by the state…. If you’re Jewish then you are a first class citizen, if you’re non-Jewish you are a second class citizen”.

I got the first question from the floor:

“I find it quite ironic that an [Arab] Professor from an Israeli University is coming here and talking about ‘discrimination and apartheid’ [Audience interrupted]. The Basic Law is not anything different from what other countries have. If you take Slovakia for example. The Slovak Constitution opens with the words, “We the Slovak nation,” and lays claim to “the natural right of nations to self-determination.” The same in the Baltics.  The same in Latvia. The Latvian Constitution talks about “…the inalienable right of self-determination”. Let’s talk about languages. Virtually every state in the western world has an official language. Take Spain for example. Castilian Spanish is the basic language. Not Basque. Not Catalan. Catalonia can try to have a state if it wants. In England – in Britain – the language is English. Not Welsh. Not Gaelic. So this is nothing unusual. [Chair interrupted]. Nor does Israel have official religions, there are sharia courts in Israel. Nobody is  discriminated against. The idea that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’ – which I saw on the last slide – is absolute nonsense. So perhaps the best reason for the new Nation State Law is the fact that so many people – traducers of Israel – are attacking the idea that Israel is a Jewish state. That is why Israel needs this Nation State Law. There is nothing wrong with it. Nothing different from other countries. My question: Why is Professor Jamal – a Professor at an Israeli University – why do you come here and lie to people about Israel?”

(For some of this I gratefully acknowledge an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal by Eugene Kontorovich).

Jamal’s only response was to say that in the last slide (see above) he did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’ – he merely said that the new Law “makes the life of those seeking to stigmatise the Jewish State as an apartheid state much easier”.  How much more disingenuous does it get? I responded that this was an obvious dog-whistle.

A young woman (around 8th row, left hand half of the room looking at the platform) later said she found my views “deeply upsetting” (why?) and that I “didn’t represent” something or other, before asking whether the new Law has rendered impossible a Jewish majority state that is also democratic. In a word – No.

A subsequent question came from Lindsay Simmonds, resident at the Council of Christians and Jews. It was an anodyne question about how ‘nationalism’ and ‘security’ relate to each other. Seriously? Nothing to say about Jamal’s untruths and demonisation of Israel? You only reinforced my long-held scepticism about the value of the CCJ.

More comments Jamal made in the Q+A:

The law constitutionalises discrimination … You’re criminalised if you fight against discrimination ….”

100% of Palestinians in Israel speak Hebrew.  Almost 96.5% of Israeli Jews do not speak Arabic. This shows that the State did not respect the Arabic language. If it had respected it, it would have taught it to its kids. Now the state does not have to translate documents or allow Arabic to be spoken in the Courts or Parliament. There could come a time when the State refuses to fund the teaching of Arabic in Arab schools”.

This cries out for deconstruction. One, the fact that few in a majority community speak the language of a minority community has no normative implications – how many in the UK speak Welsh or Gaelic? Two, all children in primary schools in Israel learn Arabic. Three, the new law makes absolutely no difference to the use of Arabic in official bodies: for example all documents that were previously translated into Arabic will continue to be translated. Four, the suggestion that the State might stop funding the teaching of Arabic in Arab schools is pure mischievous mendacity  (I heckled him when he said this).

We know what nationalism did in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe. We do not even want to imagine such a reality in the Middle East in the future” (a dog-whistle antisemitic Jew-Nazi comparison, he is referring to the possibility of Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians).

Israel is a second rate democracy, a damaged democracy. The Palestinians are subjected to an automatic majority in the Knesset”.  This is as nonsensical as saying that the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists in the UK are subjected to an automatic majority in the House of Commons.

The final question was whether the Joint Arab List (the Arab Parties in the Knesset) could cooperate with the other Parties? Jamal immediately referred to “Zionist Parties – which means Jewish Parties” Another mischievous lie – all the Parties have Arab members, only a bigot refers to ‘Jewish Parties’.

The Arab Party will never be part of a ruling coalition, he said. Why not? There’s nothing to stop that happening.

I look forward to LSE Middle East Centre’s invitation to a speaker with an alternative view of the nation state law. I will even help by suggesting someone: Eugene Kontorovich. Because I’m sure LSE Middle East Centre would wish to demonstrate that its academic programme is not in any way influenced by its funding……….. (document available on Wayback).

Wouldn’t it?

Revolutionary Communists given short shrift by cross party alliance in Camden

It’s not enough to adopt IHRA if you then turn a blind eye to it ………….


Some four months ago I blogged about an antisemitic meeting held at a Camden Council-owned venue. I noted that the Executive Director of the charity that occupies the venue (a Camden Councillor) had absolved himself of responsibility for the decision to go ahead with the meeting, even though it was certain to contain antisemitic content.

On Monday night Camden Council was presented with a petition by the Revolutionary Communist Group (a co-organiser of the meeting). They objected to the presence of two Camden Prevent Officers at the meeting and demanded that Camden repeal its adoption of the IHRA Definition. You can see the RCG’s submission here (0:12:30). Their speaker’s name is Sam Rae. Nikki Jameson is next to him.

You can see the robust response of Cllr Oliver Cooper (Conservative Leader of the Opposition in Camden) here (0:15:10), followed by that of a LibDem, Cllr Jenny Headlam-Wells (0:19:27) and of a Labour Member, Cllr Abdul Hai (0:20:12).

Cllr Cooper says on his Facebook page: “I’ve got to admit to having been angry as hell. They were abusing people outside, yelling abuse from the public gallery… and they shouldn’t have bloody been allowed to come in and hijack our council in the first place.”


And thank you to all of you!

Postscript: Covered in the Express here

Smearing campaigners against antisemitism ………

smear jan 19 1

As I said in a blog last week, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn are becoming increasingly vocal and abusive as the Article 50 date approaches (29 March) and as the prospect looms of an early election (I rate this as unlikely). The abuse and smears have particularly targeted those of us who support the estimable ‘Labour Against Antisemitism’:

lapsley smear


smear jan 19

The most recent example was a long piece by Shaun Lawson; David Collier has responded to the smears about him here. Other Jews smeared by Lawson are Gnasher Jew; Stephen Pollard; Rachel Riley; Sussex Friends (Jews and others), Tracy Ann Oberman and Emma Picken (who isn’t Jewish). I’m proud to be in such illustrious company.

A common accusation made against me is that my political views are far right. In truth my record of fighting far-right racism is pretty good and goes back many years – see this link from 2007 (posted in full below). The most frequent smear is that I am associated with the EDL.

Nine years ago, anti-Israel campaigners repeatedly picketed an Israeli-owned shop in London. I led the counter-demonstrations, and requested that the police separate us from any EDL supporters as I did not wish to be associated with them (see here). However at one of these demonstrations, a photo was taken of me in the proximity of someone who had been involved with the EDL. On the basis of this one photo I have been repeatedly smeared as an EDL supporter/member/sympathiser. It surely does not need to be said but I cannot be held responsible for who is in my proximity on the street. If I was photographed in the same frame as Dr Harold Shipman that does not mean I support the murder of the elderly.

Most of the people who have smeared me have (of course) been anonymous. An exception is Tony Greenstein, now generally discredited and one of the few who have been expelled from the Labour Party.

Other smears suggest that I turn a blind eye to atrocities in Judea/Samaria. Also not true.

I completely reject these smears. They speak volumes about those willing to indulge in them and propagate them, whether against me, Mark Lewis, David Collier or any of the Jewish people who put their heads above the parapet to fight antisemitism.  They are the tactics of the Soviet school of antisemitism circa 1960 and they are despicable.

This blog is published not in my own interest – the smears are like water off a duck’s back – but in the interest of allies in LAAS and elsewhere (e.g. in the Remain campaign, which I also support) who I understand are taking heat from the abusers for associating with me. I would add that while I welcome their defence of me, I do not rely on it. If you want to smear me, please do it directly (@jhoffman1) and I will respond. I am happy to clarify where I stand on any matter. On the other hand if you have blocked me (as @enrages has done, see above) then don’t bother smearing me: you can’t have it both ways.

oxford union irving 2007 1
oxford union irving 2007 2



Index to this Blog