…Roundabout?
A campaign flyer has been catching the eye around Holland Park and Shepherds Bush in recent days. Invoking the Palestinian flag, symbol of resistance and unity in the face of colonialism and ethnic cleansing, at first glance you’d presume it relates to Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip. On closer inspection, it’s more parochial – encouraging people to oppose Transport for London’s proposed cycle lane on Holland Park Roundabout. Continue reading
Kensington & Chelsea Council (RBKC) will honour Israel’s UK ambassador, Tzipi Hotovely, at a diplomatic reception even as the country she represents intensifies its campaign of genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip.
Hosted by the RBKC’s mayor Preety Hudd at Kensington Town Hall on Tuesday, February 20th, the event – an annual reception for ambassadors based in the borough – is a fixture in the council’s calendar although scant information about it is shared with the residents who pay for it. Continue reading
Kensington Labour Party finally released a statement calling for a ceasefire in Palestine, over three weeks after local councillors wrote a first draft, and only after the criminal government of Binyamin Netanyahu had agreed to a temporary truce. Multiple Labour councillors have told Urban Dandy that interventions from local and regional Labour officials delayed the release of the statement and ensured the local party did not contradict and embarrass Labour leader Keir Starmer and Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy who have backed Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip. We have obtained the Kensington councillors’ original statement, which bears little resemblance to the published version, adding to the evidence of a crackdown on internal democracy and a prioritisation of Israeli government interests under Starmer.
Original Statement
The original statement drafted by the Kensington Labour councillors was ready for publication on 7th November. In contrast with the version published three weeks later, the original is clear that Israel is responsible for the genocide it is carrying out. This put the Kensington group of councillors in alignment with international law as Israel has no right to use violence against a population that it occupies. Continue reading
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the political-media establishment went wild with its virtue signalling; opposing Vladimir Putin’s government as a pariah and offering unrestrained moral support to the plucky underdog Ukrainians. When Israel accelerated its genocide of Palestinians in October, the same establishment did a 180. Instead of calling for international law to be upheld, or offering moral and military support to the victims of a decades-long occupation and siege, establishment figures went from virtue signalling to sin signalling. For Ukraine, there was one audience, for Palestine, another. One audience required virtue, the other something very different.
Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine triggered a full-spectrum psychological operation against the minds of the British population. A clean sweep of politicians, commentators and public figures demanded that we uphold human rights and support the Ukrainians at any cost short of direct British military confrontation with Russia. Continue reading
Kensington Labour Party appears to be avoiding public accountability over its refusal to call for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Activists arranged a protest to be held outside Kensington Unitarian Church tonight, where the constituency party was due to meet. Labour has now switched its meeting to take place online .
With national, regional and local party bosses backing Israel’s policy in Palestine, the Labour group of councillors have come under scrutiny. Having agreed a statement opposing Israel’s crimes over two weeks ago, the group has failed to publish the document, which was expected to distance the Kensington group from the party’s de facto support for Israeli genocide
In an email sent to local members and seen by Urban Dandy, the party blames “unforeseen circumstances” for the cancellation of the in-person meeting. One of the speakers at the online meeting will be from GMB, the trade union that issued a statement two weeks after Israel had launched its massacre, carefully avoided naming Netanyahu’s apartheid government as the perpetrator.
Israel has no right under international law to use violence against the population it occupies and subjugates.
by Tom Charles @tomhcharles
In the parliamentary constituencies of West London, politicians have responded to the renewed war in the Middle East. Most have failed to oppose Israel’s genocide; some have encouraged the killing, and others have tried to position themselves on the side of peace: a mix of cowardice, complicity and clarity.
Israel & Free Speech
Speaking truth about Israel-Palestine is now almost forbidden, such is the level of hysteria it triggers. The hysteria deters free-thinking, deters open recognition of Palestinian rights under international law and the impact on Western political discourse is chilling. The reasons for the chronic pro-Israel bias include:
Palestinians have sacrificed so much since Britain gifted their land to the Zionist movement. Palestinian steadfastness has remained constant while the essence of the conflict has not changed in 75 years: a colonial regime that seeks to remove the indigenous people from the land and replace them with an exclusively Jewish population. The occupation and its violence are illegal under international law. The right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return home is also uncontroversial under international law. The same goes for their right to resist oppression. Seven decades have added much detail to the story but it remains a case of illegitimate occupier versus legitimate resistance. Are our local politicians acting on this truth?
Westminster North
Labour MP Karen Buck, who is a veteran of the Palestine solidarity movement and visited Gaza in the aftermath of Israel’s 2008-9 massacre, has shown little appetite for fighting for the people she knows to be the victims of a brutal siege. Buck toes the party line, focusing on humanitarian assistance rather than addressing the cause of the humanitarian crisis.
The Conservative party have not yet named their candidate to challenge Buck.
Hampstead and Kilburn
Tulip Siddiq is Labour’s Shadow City Minister and has issued boilerplate statements on the war that serve to support Israel’s ongoing genocide. Siddiq claims she “can’t bear watching it” and says Israel must act in line with international law but does not condemn Netanyahu’s government as it breaches international law daily.
In an email to constituents, the MP’s focus, like most Labour politicians, was humanitarian aid. Like almost every British politician, Siddiq ignores the Palestinians’ right to resist and blames the resistance movements in Gaza, rather than Israel, for the situation.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats are yet to announce candidates in Hampstead and Kilburn.
Hammersmith
Andy Slaughter is Labour’s Shadow Solicitor General and a long-time supporter of the Palestinians who visited Gaza with Buck in 2009. To maintain a just-about-plausible pro-Palestine stance, Slaughter has broken ranks somewhat from the zealous pro-Israel line of Keir Starmer and Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, retweeting Palestine’s Ambassador to the UK and Sadiq Khan’s call for a ceasefire.
Unfortunately, Slaughter also retweeted a very telling post by Labour Campaign for Human Rights: “We are horrified by recent atrocities in Israel and subsequent developments in Gaza” – note the profound racism of the language: Young Palestinians breaking out of their concentration camp for the first time and killing Israelis qualifies as “atrocities” while Israel’s systematic destruction of a whole people in the name of religious and ethnic supremacy is regarded as “developments”.
Slaughter also foolishly retweeted false claims about Hamas killing babies.
Once a marginal, but now a Labour stronghold, Hammersmith will be contested by Conservative Andrew Dinsmore in 2024. He does not seem to have commented on the war yet.
Chelsea and Fulham
Greg Hands MP is Conservative Party Chairman and Minister Without Portfolio in the Sunak government. Hands is prolific on social media and since the Palestinian resistance’s attack on October 7th, he has offered relentless support for Israel and no acknowledgement of the rights of Palestinians.
Hands’ month-long stream of propaganda has included smearing Labour MP Apsana Begum for her solidarity with the Palestinians; claiming without evidence that Israel is not an apartheid state; conflating resistance with antisemitism; celebrating the government’s awarding of £3 million to the fear-mongering Community Security Trust, and retweeting the false claim that the Palestinians bombed their own hospital. Hands supports genocide with total impunity and has shown no interest in calling for a ceasefire, let alone addressing the causes of the war.
Hands will face Labour’s Ben Coleman at the next election. Another prolific tweeter, Coleman appears to be an unthinking supporter of Israel and has retweeted a large number of pro-Israel statements from Starmer and Lammy as well as a photo of the Israel flag on 10th October when the genocide was well underway.
Brent Central
Labour MP and veteran of the Corbyn era, Dawn Butler has called for a ceasefire. She is supportive of peace, but like Andy Slaughter speaks only within the limits of debate set by the media and party leaders. Butler enjoys a huge majority with almost 75% of the vote last time out and is uncharacteristically quiet over Israel’s genocide. There has been no announcement of who her Tory opponent will be.
Kensington
Felicity Buchan, Tory MP in the marginal seat of Kensington, was an enthusiastic supporter of the “western values” of Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion but takes the opposite approach when it comes to Palestine. The Under Secretary of State for Housing and Homelessness in the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is fully supportive of Israel’s destruction of Palestinian housing, their creation of millions of homeless people, and their levelling of the Gaza Strip.
Like her colleagues, Buchan’s focus is Israel. Palestinian suffering receives barely a mention from Kensington’s MP despite her large Muslim constituency, aside from a reference to “the tragic loss of civilian lives” as if an earthquake has struck Gaza, rather than a campaign of ethnic cleansing by a military regime that has illegally occupied the territory since 1967, maintaining it as the world’s largest ever concentration camp. Buchan dismisses acts of resistance by inhabitants of the camp simply as “terrorism”.
To compound her anti-Palestinian approach, Buchan has shown more concern about the conduct of peaceful anti-war protests than she has for the genocide of mainly children and women, reassuring her Twitter following that there will be “a robust approach to policing these demonstrations”.
Complicity Felicity’s main challenger at the election will be Labour’s Joe Powell who has limited his response to retweeting and liking pro-war, pro-Israel voices like Barack Obama (“we stand squarely alongside our ally, Israel”) and David Lammy, who claimed during a pro-Israel rant on Sky News that Hamas has “raped babies” and who’s diplomacy has extended only as far as supporting “humanitarian pauses” in the genocide.
The phrase “humanitarian pauses” has been created to enable liberal politicians to imply that it is fine to commit genocide while still pretending to care. This focus on humanitarian aid is lipstick on the pig of Labour’s full commitment to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The party’s vision for the Middle East is a region dominated by a militarised apartheid state; a colonial anachronism in the 21st century, with any challengers to that power imbalance brutalised and denigrated in an attempt to kill off any hopes they have for justice.
The other challenger to Buchan is independent candidate Emma Dent Coad, who resigned from the Labour Party earlier this year. Dent Coad has been far more outspoken than any other West London politician, without reticence about her affiliations to Stop the War Coalition and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and her support for Palestine solidarity. Dent Coad has retweeted fiercely independent anti-war journalists like Matt Kennard, helping the spread of important information about the war, its origins and its true intention: the destruction of the Palestinian people.
by Tom Charles @tomhcharles
Palestinian culture emphasises Sumud ( صمود) or steadfastness in the face of hardship and injustice, a quality that has enabled Palestinians to survive an existential assault by Israel for 75 years. Throughout this period, Britain has matched the Palestinians’ Sumud with its own steadfastness in enabling Israel’s domination over the Palestinian people and land. These two Sumuds are at odds with each other, meaning Britain, across its political spectrum, has a serious Palestine problem, albeit one that is easy to solve, should the country ever decide to take up the cause of justice.
Problem one – Refugees
The Palestinian refugee crisis is so extreme and so integral to current events in the Middle East that it requires a certain level of genius to miss it. Judging by their proclamations over recent weeks, the whole British media and political class possess this type of genius. They have managed to avoid the obvious fact that the refugee issue is the key to resolving the Middle East conflict.
It is useful to consider the refugee crisis in the context of the broader demographics of Palestine and Israel. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated the worldwide Palestinian population to be just over 14 million in 2021.
The PCBS estimates that at least 5.3 million Palestinians live in the Occupied Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) constituting 38% of all Palestinians worldwide. Inside Israel, 1.7 million Palestinians reside, 12% of the global Palestinian population.
Over 50% of Palestinians, at least seven million people (possibly as high as nine million according to the PCBS), live in the Diaspora as refugees. Of these, Jordan hosts the largest number with 4.5 million, while 1.8 million are in other Arab countries, including Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and the Gulf states. Around 750,000 are estimated to live in non-Arab countries, with a particularly large number in Chile.
The total global Palestinian population is notoriously difficult to calculate, but 14 million is a good conservative estimate. If translated into a state population, it would make Palestine the 75th biggest country in the world, and drop Israel one place to 99th in that list, with its population of 9.5 million (that figure includes the 1.7 million Palestinians living inside Israel who would probably claim their Palestinian citizenship given the option).
All Palestinian refugees have an inalienable right to return to their land, guaranteed under international law in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. Yet, with the help of Britain and other powerful allies, Israel continues to block the fulfilment of the refugees’ right of return and seeks to further diminish their presence in their homeland. As a result, many Palestinians live in appalling conditions with few rights. If the refugee crisis had started in 2023, rather than in 1948, it would shock the world and feature heavily in the news. Instead, it is largely unknown to Western news consumers.
In the Gaza Strip, most of the 2.2 million population are refugees and descendants of refugees (descendants have the same status and guaranteed right to return) from Israel’s initial ethnic cleansing of 1947-48 when Jewish terrorist gangs forced Palestinians into exile. Many in Gaza have been made refugees multiple times over by Israel’s wars against the Strip.
In the occupied West Bank, Palestinian refugees live in camps under strict military occupation, suffering daily humiliations. In Lebanon, conditions at some Palestinian camps are not fit for human habitation, and in every nearby country in which they have sought refuge, Palestinians have suffered further displacement, war, and oppression. This includes Jordan, Syria, Libya, and Iraq. Upheavals in countries across the region have frequently seen persecution of the Palestinian refugees with no state yet established to protect them.
To resolve the Middle East conflict, Britain could support the fulfilment of the refugees’ right of return. This would provide justice, regional stability, and reduce the chances of regional conflict or nuclear war. With the return of the refugees, Israel’s Zionist project, which seeks to form an exclusively Jewish state in the holy land, would be defeated, and Israel would be forced to live in peace with its neighbours as a normal country instead of the garrison state it currently is. Resolving the refugee crisis would also go a long way to allaying the crisis faced by Muslims and Christians as their institutions and holy places would no longer be threatened by a colonial project that violates the sanctity of mosques and churches and abuses worshipers. Sunni Islam’s third and fourth holiest sites are in Palestine (Jerusalem and Hebron) as is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem.) This barely scratches the surface of the religious significance of Palestine.
As an aside (!), it is another remarkable fact of the conflict that Britain, a Christian country with a large Muslim population, does nothing to defend the holy sites. Analysis, even passing mention, of Israel’s targeting of sacred religious places is largely absent from media and political commentary of the conflict. The day after Israel bombed a Christian hospital in Gaza, killing an estimated 500 peole, the leader of a Christian nation, US President Joe Biden, hugged Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and claimed the Palestinians had bombed themselves. Within two days, the leader of another Christian state, our own prime minister, did likewise, telling Netanyahu and the World, “We want you to win.”
If this “win” is even possible, can it be achieved without the destruction of both Islam and Christianity in Palestine? It certainly cannot be achieved without the continuation of an epic injustice against a stateless people.
Problem two – Democracy
The consensus across the political-media spectrum in Britain is that Palestine has no right to be a democracy. Like with the refugee issue, we see impressive discipline from politicians and journalists as they avoid mentioning the last Palestinian general election. Commentators incessantly tell the British people that the winner of that election, Hamas, is a terrorist group, plain and simple.
Ignorance and cowardice pervade parliament over the issue of Palestinian democracy. In 2006, Hamas won the right to form a government in the Occupied Territories. Realising that they would be sabotaged by the US and EU, Hamas formed a coalition with the defeated Fatah party. The US and EU, with Britain prominent, plotted to cancel Palestinian democracy, backing a Fatah-affiliated group to overthrow Hamas in a violent coup. Hamas, based in Gaza, but having won a higher percentage of the vote in the West Bank, got wind of the plot, pre-empted it and took control of Gaza’s institutions. This move sealed the current division of the Palestinians into two separated geographical areas. The Gaza Strip is de facto ruled by Hamas but maintained as a concentration camp by Israel. The West Bank has a Fatah government headed by Mahmoud Abbas, recognised as representative of the Palestinians by Western governments, but operating as an arm of the Israeli security forces in suppressing Palestinian dissent.
Britain, under a Labour government at the time of the election, simply pretended that Hamas hadn’t won, and continued to support Israel wholeheartedly as it repeatedly massacred Gazans and tightened its oppression and theft of land in the West Bank. Hamas generally maintained ceasefires and kept Gaza quiet, signing multiple reconciliation agreements with Fatah, but the geographical division combined with Fatah’s aversion to resistance made true unity impossible. In 2018, when Palestinian refugees marched bravely and peacefully in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi to the Israeli border, they were massacred. Hundreds were killed and thousands injured. Britain’s support for Israel continued.
Britain and others’ refusal to deal with Hamas consigned the Palestinians to political impotence. By retaining two governments in two small, besieged territories, influential states that could potentially advocate for peace and justice are unable to do so with confidence. The result is Palestinian presence in the so-called Axis of Resistance to US domination (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and perhaps Turkey and Qatar) and 17 years of political drift for the Palestinians.
The Left
Elite commentary in Britain during Israel’s current intensified ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip is revealing. As expected, the right generally backs Netanyahu’s violence. Parliament’s official opposition has done likewise, and the Labour Party now lacks backbenchers able to speak with conscience and clarity about Israel’s war crimes.
The British left more generally, needing to speak but with little to say about ending the conflict and providing justice to the Palestinians, has largely limited its response to calling for humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza and calling out racist sentiment in the media. Part of Israel’s calculation in causing mass destruction is that Westerners will quickly fall into two chattering camps: Zionists and those appalled by the violence. Both camps are kept busy as, day after day, Israel – from a safe distance – pummels the refugees of Gaza.
Many on the left lack a real grasp of the issues and history outlined above – refugees and democracy – so they perpetuate a stale old routine. There’s no mention of the refugees, or the fact that the conflict could be quickly resolved based entirely on international law and UN resolutions that Britain is a signatory to. And no mention of democracy, because that risks validating Hamas, its political wing now proscribed by the Conservative government without protest from Labour. This also means silence over the Palestinians’ right to self-defence, including by violent means.
It is as if the conflict started on October 7th and is being fought between two equal sides. Both right and left advocate a return to the pre-October status quo, a living nightmare for the Palestinians. The British left seems to only support the Palestinians on condition that they remain victims, recipients of aid and pity.
This lack of political impetus risks leaving the Palestinians no further forward than they were before they briefly broke out of their prison. It risks condemning another generation of refugees to misery and dispossession. It leaves Israel as an anachronism, unable to move towards peace while the West encourages it to covet the destruction of the Palestinians, Islam, and Christianity in the holy land. And it leaves Britain adrift, a weakening state with a political-media class that lies relentlessly to sell us a Middle East policy that is devoid of hope, mere cover for ethnic cleansing, racism and dictatorships, alongside increasingly repressive domestic policies.
by Tom Charles @tomhcharles
photos by the writer
Jeremy Corbyn’s refusal to use fear and suffering to achieve political ends marks him out as a very different calibre politician to those currently seeking to eliminate him and his principles from mainstream British life. While others use Jewish fears for political gain with zeal, Corbyn remains a true friend of Britain’s Jewish community.
In April this year, a leaked report from within the Labour party revealed that senior officials deliberately sabotaged the party’s 2017 general election campaign to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from becoming prime minister and implementing modest socialist reforms in the United Kingdom. That year, Labour won its biggest share of the popular vote since 1997 and were just 2,227 votes short of being able to form a government. The leak also revealed that the same saboteurs deliberately slowed down the party’s investigations of antisemitism complaints made against members to create the impression that Corbyn was indifferent to Jewish suffering. Their duplicity, ignored by the entire mainstream media as an inconvenient truth, directly contradicts years of condemnation of Corbyn for being a deplorable antisemite or, at best, a man tolerant of antisemitism.
The truth is that he is neither, unlike many of his critics in the media and Westminster.
The Facts
There is “no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party” according to a 2016 report by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Since 2017, according to official Labour party statistics released this year, a total of 2,178 Labour members had been accused of antisemitism. In a party membership of half a million people, this is 0.4 %. Almost all 0.4% were not genuine cases of antisemitism. A total of 56 Labour members had been expelled for alleged antisemitism at the time of the statistics being published, 0.01% of party members.
This 0.01% is what is known as Labour’s antisemitism crisis. As a “crisis,” it does not stand up to scrutiny, and that is why it receives neither any objective scrutiny nor even a factual mention, from mainstream politicians or journalists.
The Danger
These statistics, elaborated elsewhere alongside much objective evidence, help demonstrate that the antisemitism accusation levelled at Corbyn is a hoax designed to stop Labour winning a general election with a socialist leader and stifle any possibility of the UK fully applying international law and taking steps to end the occupation of Palestine by Israel. See the work of Asa Winstanley, Jonathan Cook and Jewish Voice for Labour debunking the hoax.
A danger of the proliferation of the fake news “antisemitism crisis” is that many people in Britain, including in Muslim communities, see it as the ultimate expression of white privilege, Jewish fears being treated with far more seriousness at the highest, most respectable levels of UK society than incidents of racist and Islamophobic violence and hatred. The country has an openly racist, Islamophobic prime minister and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who vow to “protect people against discriminatory treatment and hold organisations, such as businesses and government, to account for what they do,” investigated antisemitism with Labour’s ranks but refused to investigate rampant Islamophobia in the Conservative party.
Both the country’s major political parties favour Israel’s occupation of Palestine, with its subjugation and humiliation of Muslims and Christians and the longest-running refugee crisis (there are seven million Palestinian refugees) in the world.
It is unfortunate but predictable that such a situation taps into popular conspiracies about Jews controlling politics, the media and financial institutions.
The Reality
The reality is that Britain’s Jewish population do not enjoy privileged treatment, they and their history are being used by right-wing politicians (including Keir Starmer) and the pro-Israel lobby (which is largely made up of anti-Arab Zionists, Christian fundamentalists and others who favour arms sales – death – to peace) to foment hatred against Jeremy Corbyn, the symbol of socialism in Britain today.
Britain’s Jewish people have been the target of an epic fear-mongering campaign by this Faustian coalition. Not content with Labour’s crushing 2019 election defeat, this juggernaut now seeks to eliminate socialism and socialists from mainstream political life in the UK.
With no hard evidence of a Labour antisemitism crisis, the electorate is left confused. A survey revealed that, on average, the public believed that third of Labour party members had been reported for antisemitism, a direct reflection of the rhetoric used by the nation’s media and political elites.
But as with all gaslighters, the accusation they are making is the very thing they are guilty of themselves: indifference to Jewish suffering and a willingness to use it for personal or ideological gain.
Left-Wing Media
Although none of it is mainstream in terms of its reach, there are left-wing media outlets and journalists in the UK. We also have easy access to North American alternative media.
Left-wing Americans have fared better on the issue of Corbyn and antisemitism than their counterparts here. The most prolific and revered left-wing pundits in Britain, Novara Media and Owen Jones, have played along with the hoax, choosing to offer an intricate left-wing perspective, rather than simply debunking it. Their most recent coverage, of Corbyn’s suspension and whip-removal, is incoherent as they work overtime discussing internal Labour procedures to avoid pointing out the most pertinent fact: there never was a “crisis”.
Full-spectrum propaganda only works when the left participates. The logic is that if even Owen Jones, the mainstream’s designated voice of the left, isn’t denying it, it must be true.
In repeating and amplifying the lie, and ignoring the role of the Israel lobby, prominent left-wing journalists in the UK have boxed themselves into a corner. If the crisis was real, then surely the leader of the party has rightly faced disciplinary action. Had there been a real antisemitism crisis on Jeremy Corbyn’s watch, then any right-minded, peace-campaigning, anti-imperialist would want him out. The fact is, there was no crisis. So, the media’s left-wingers are playing both sides, calling for Corbyn’s return to the Labour benches but refusing to explain to their followers that it was all part of a political game. They have retained their status as representatives of the left on Sky and BBC News by abandoning their journalistic duty, to tell the truth at all costs.
Jeremy Corbyn
Some quality journalists on the left have projected their own frustration onto Jeremy Corbyn for his perceived lack of fight against the fanatics who have attacked him using the antisemitism smear. Asa Winstanley, Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald are among them. They argued that Corbyn should have pushed back, and when he failed to do this as strongly as they believed necessary, they lamented him for being weak.
Yet these voices never identify exactly what he could have done. Corbyn probably predicted an unhinged response to any pushback that involved him pointing out that the idea of a “crisis” was absurd. The media would have ignored anything positive or conciliatory he said and pounced upon any hint of him not being adequately yielding. In this, he would have again stood alone against the entirety of the British establishment. More internal Labour divisions and more media focus on fiction instead of the urgent issues of the day were the inevitable result of an assertive push back.
‘So what?’ you might say, things surely couldn’t get much worse anyway, but there were two other factors. The first is 2017 when Labour almost won despite the smear campaign against the leadership. It wasn’t unreasonable to think that policy, over personality, could prove decisive in 2019. This turned out to be true, but it was the Tories, with a more coherent Brexit policy, who had the stronger hand.
The second, and I think most decisive, factor is Corbyn’s relationship with the Jewish people of Britain. Reviewing his career. Peace, justice, unity, and love are the qualities that transcend all politics for him. He is a player in the political game, but there are certain tactics he will not use, the ones that result in pain for others. Unlike those railing against him, Corbyn is sensitive to human frailties and fears. Judging that aggressive pushback would be used by some to further instil existential fear in Britain’s Jews and by others to foment hateful conspiracies, he chose to be guided by his own principles. He did not do or say anything that could have rebounded back on a minority population already being used in the most wretched way by those claiming to speak up for them.
The alternative option, preferred by some prominent left-wingers, was that Corbyn lay out all the facts of the smear campaign, call out the liars and be a warrior for absolute truth. This approach is one that ignores the realities of power in Britain. Exposing the truth has little positive impact unless it happens to match the establishment’s interests.
By choosing not to join in a sordid game, Jeremy Corbyn remains true to his values and his vision of an equitable society lives on. He has done nothing to frighten or endanger a single Jewish, or other minority, person in Britain. The same cannot be said of many other prominent political and media figures.
By Tom Charles @tomhcharles
Thanks to Jennifer Cavanagh for the invaluable suggestions & edits
With a civilian death toll that is likely to outdo even the Nazis’ air bombardment during world war two (70,000) we experience the full impact of the policies of the right. What of the parliamentary left? Labour wound up its foregone conclusion of a leadership contest a month ago. Sir Keir Starmer won, but who is he, politically? A smart move by the Labour electorate? Starmer steers as close to the middle of the road as possible. History will soon demand he chooses which side he’s on.
Starmer is seeking a clear break from Jeremy Corbyn while not entirely abandoning the popular policies of his predecessor. Even Corbyn’s staunchest supporters were worn down by four years of relentless, puerile attacks and the choice of Starmer was surely a relief, even for members who voted for the more leftist candidate, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Starmer is a politician whose style is approved of by the full spectrum of media commentators and the Labour backstabbers who loathed Corbyn.
Narrow Parameters
The contrasting attitudes towards the two men reflects the narrow parameters of thought in British public life. Corbyn was deemed ‘unelectable’ by most Labour MPs and harassed with media absurdities (claims that he was a Czech spy, a fabricated antisemitism crisis etc) that compromised his public image. From the right-wing (inc. Murdoch) media, this was expected. For the centrist liberal media (there is no major left-wing media in the UK) Corbyn’s unforgivable crime was that he didn’t play their game and never would. He treated journalists with respect. But he treated everybody that way, no matter their status. Never distracted by sycophancy, Corbyn wanted to change society. Keir Starmer is more malleable.
The leadership election result also signalled the narrowing vision of western Europe’s largest political party, Labour. It is worth considering the figures that have elected the party’s leaders. In 2015, Corbyn won a stunning victory with 59.5% of the vote in a four-horse race that included ‘electable’ opponents Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. In 2016 he was forced by the right of the parliamentary party to face Owen Smith in another contest, with Corbyn securing victory with 61.8%. That contest is noteworthy only in that Smith received 38.2% of votes; a miserable defeat, but 193,229 of the Labour electorate backed him and presumably form the basis of Starmer’s support.
The switch from leftist Corbyn to ‘centrist’ Starmer suggests that a lot of Corbyn supporters, socialists, voted for Sir Keir. Labour members have tacitly agreed to a centre-right consensus in British politics: nothing too radical, with the debate framed by a media which spans the centre-left to the far right. The boundaries of what is possible have been reined in.
It is worth taking a moment to consider what might happen if members of leftish political parties just voted for their own interests rather than playing political pundit. In the UK, as in the US, people now vote for the leader they think other people might vote for, rather than for policies. Presumably, the decisive thought here is that the masses have not yet reached the level of enlightenment required to grasp what is being offered to them by straight-talking politicians like Corbyn or Bernie Sanders (who surely would have walked it in November against an incumbent president who advises the population to inject bleach into their veins).
Keir Starmer is the man for this political moment on the left. But by considering just a few of his stances to date, we see trouble brewing for the new Labour leader. He will have to concentrate to maintain his balance.
Sabotage
“The leader of the organisation carries the can, stands up for what goes wrong and takes responsibility” said Starmer during a hustings. He was criticising Jeremy Corbyn’s regime for “turning on its staff” during the so-called antisemitism crisis. This is Sir Keir taking the middle ground, making what he judges to be a politically safe criticism of his predecessor – not of his policies, but of his leadership. The problem is that we now have all the evidence we need that the crisis in the party was a fabrication, one entangled in a marriage of convenience with the Blairites obsessed with overthrowing Corbyn.
A leaked report from within the party since Starmer’s victory reveals the depth of the internal campaign to sabotage Labour’s chances of gaining power under Corbyn. The document shows that senior officials including the then Secretary, Iain McNicol, diverted money to right-wing candidates in safe seats rather than to left-wing candidates in marginals in 2017. This probably extended to Kensington where Emma Dent Coad won a historic victory for Labour in June 2017. When the Grenfell Tower fire atrocity took place days later, McNicol refused to send the help the new MP had requested, presumably for ideological right-left reasons.
The report also reveals the withholding of information from the leader’s office; officials boasting about not working professionally during the campaign; racism; sexism and more. Starmer and deputy leader Angela Rayner have ordered an investigation into the leaks, but the greatest scandal in the party’s history will need to be dealt with properly if the leadership is to retain credibility within the base – crucial if they are to keep the momentum of grassroots campaigning.
Antisemitism
Some of the disgraced officials featured in the report had been tasked with investigating cases of alleged antisemitism. The report shows that these officials deliberately slowed down the process to create the impression that Corbyn was indifferent to Jewish suffering. It worked, and a lifelong anti-racism campaigner was politically assassinated as an anti-Semite.
At root, the concocted crisis was always about Palestine, which Corbyn would have recognised as a state on day one of a Labour government. British Jews were deliberately and cynically scare mongered for political purposes, surely one of the basest tactics employed in our political history.
Starmer cannot be entirely ignorant of the reality of the antisemitism debacle. He must know that the Home Affairs Select Committee found “no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.” And that official Labour party statistics released in January showed that a total of 2,178 Labour members had been accused of antisemitism since 2017, just 0.4 % of the overall membership. Almost all the 0.4% were not genuine cases of antisemitism. A total 56 Labour members had been expelled for alleged antisemitism at the time of the statistics being published, 0.01% of party members. “A third of all cases in 2019 have the same single individual as the main complainant,” states the 2020 document.
Starmer knows that the ‘crisis’ had a major impact on Labour’s public image but he did not miss a beat in declaring his collusion with the illusion in his victory speech: “Antisemitism has been a stain on our party. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am sorry” and “I support Zionism without qualification.” A strategic move, or perhaps an indication of his willingness to ingratiate himself to power. He had previously made more neutral statements about Zionism, but in victory sought to establish his credentials, sending an apologetic letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, promising to “root out” Labour’s “antisemitism”.
Starmer is also declared supporter of Palestinian rights, opposes President Trump’s “Deal of the Century” and has appointed Lisa Nandy, a long-term supporter of the Palestinians, as shadow foreign secretary. For justice in the Middle East, Labour is required to back Palestine’s self-determination and the right of return of seven million Palestinian refugees. Both positions contradict Zionism’s basic premise, an exclusively Jewish state in historic Palestine. When Israel annexes more land, or bombs the Gaza Strip again, Starmer will have to back the oppressor or the oppressed. He will shamefully bow to the Israel lobby while innocents die, or he will take a brave stand for peace and justice. No middle way exists.
Journalism
The new Labour leader opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but once an MP (he was first elected to the Commons in 2015) he voted against a parliamentary investigation into Tony Blair’s misleading MPs Iraq. While giving Blair a pass, Starmer has been determined to see a journalist who exposed the war crimes prosecuted. In 2010, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) he played a key role in the persecution of Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, who had just published evidence of a litany of western war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the Collateral Murder video.
As DPP, Keir Starmer fast-tracked the extradition of Assange to Sweden (from where he could be easily extradited to the US) for questioning over the most dubious allegations of rape. Starmer advised Swedish lawyers to reject Assange’s offer to be questioned in London, presumably understanding that the Swedes would have no option but to drop their investigation (the case had already been dropped then resuscitated by a right-wing magistrate). This set off a chain of events that have seen this one journalist harassed, imprisoned and effectively tortured and made ill by the British state on behalf of the Americans.
Emails from August 2012 show a sickening betrayal of Assange by the UK. Responding to a suggestion that Sweden might drop their phoney rape investigation, Keir Starmer’s office sent the following message to their Scandinavian counterparts: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”.
Julian Assange remains in squalid solitary confinement at Belmarsh, the prison reserved for the UK’s most violent and dangerous criminals. Despite his sentence (for skipping bail) having expired months ago, he is forced to stay in this maximum-security prison and wait for a judge to decide on his extradition to the US on surreal charges under the Espionage Act. A dangerous precedent will be set if Assange is sent to the dangerous president, never to be seen again. Who will dare inform the world about war crimes then?
Assange, who has a chronic lung condition, could die in Belmarsh. Perhaps this is what the British state wants, to save them the embarrassment of extraditing him. Parliament is quiet on Assange, but as leader of the opposition, Starmer is obliged to call for his release.
With Wikileaks, the middle ground is untenable. Starmer either supports freedom of speech and the rule of law (a person cannot be extradited from the UK on political charges), or he does not.
Pandemic
With the government’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus, the Labour leader has aimed straight down the middle. He is withholding many obvious criticisms of the Johnson government, presumably until the lockdown phase is over and the public is more receptive to apportioning blame. In PMQs this week, the Labour leader challenged government claims of British “success” when the official figures, which are an underestimate, show 30,000 people have died. But by being eager to offer praise where he can, Starmer fell into the trap of repeatedly saying “hospital deaths are falling”. They aren’t falling, they rise every time somebody dies. It was a strange and possibly revealing use of language on his part.
The pandemic will end with a political divergence. A choice, austerity or socialism, will decide the future of the NHS. That Starmer abstained in 2015 on the Tories’ destructive Health and Social Care bill doesn’t auger well for us.
Jeremy Corbyn was unlucky in the sense that two national disasters – Grenfell and COVID – fell the wrong side of the 2017 and 2019 general elections. Starmer has some media support and a chaotic government that proudly declared a decline in shoplifting on a day that saw 813 people die in agony. He has Exercise Cygnus; Dominic Cummings; PPE; the list is long and growing. With these weapons at his disposal, there will be no need to abstain.
A radical change is needed – will Sir Keir seize the moment? To do so, he must break away from the deadening obsession with respectability and electability that gnaws away at the parliamentary Labour party. The middle way, centrism, is an abstraction. It has no meaning in the real world. Under a so-called centrist Labour government, the sale of parts of the NHS to the private sector was accelerated. Starmer cannot retain his pristine establishment image while delivering a revival of our health service.
Starmer
Like all of us, Keir Starmer is a contradictory person, but unlike most of us, he now holds immense power. In all the scenarios above, he faces a choice: justice or injustice; oppressed or oppressor; freedom of speech or tyranny; truth or illusion.
Soon, he must decide whether he stands for life or for death. If that seems shrill, look at the world around you and the impact of indifference.
A slogan for Keir Starmer’s new Labour? For the many, not the few For the many and the few? Not for the many, not for the few? For the few not the many? For some people, but who?
You?
by Tom Charles @tomhcharles
The US government’s push for regime change in Venezuela has implications that will be felt across the planet, including in Israel and Palestine.
Israel would be emboldened, and its position strengthened should the right wing, self-proclaimed “president” Juan Guaido take power in strategically vital Venzuela. Pro-Palestinian elements in Latin America would become isolated. Israel hopes to arrest an alarming decline in its credibility in Latin America, while the Palestinians will be hoping that one of their staunchest supporters will retain its democratically elected president, Nicolas Maduro.
Middle East
From a Middle Eastern point of view, the world is taking on an increasingly Cold War appearance. Led by the US, forces hostile to Palestinian freedom are strengthening, at least in the short-term. Israel forms part of this group, and as American power and influence grows, Israeli power also rises by default. A refusal front, headed by China and Russia, is what stands in the way of the US increasing its hegemony in Latin America and the Middle East.
Latin America had been remarkably successful in shaking off the shackles of the global system and asserting independence through the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) which isolated the US in the hemisphere, forcing President Obama to warm relations with Cuba in 2014 after decades of economic blockade. Venezuela was the avant-garde of this pan-Latin American movement. Continue reading
My journey....
Phenomenon Happened To Me
and everything else...
Daydreaming and then, maybe, writing a poem about it. And that's my life.
Construction Industry News & Views
Living life on the fringes of London
My WordPress Blog
Barcelona's Multiverse | Art | Culture | Science
Urban Dandy London 