Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

On the Moshé Machover Labour Party Expulsion.

with 25 comments

Leaflet Handed Out at Labour Conference. 

Key Sentences  of Machover’s article,

Nazi collaboration

In other words, a friendly mention of Zionism, indicating an area of basic agreement it shared with Nazism.

Let me repeat: we must go on the counterattack against the current slurs. It is correct to expose Zionism as a movement based on both colonisation and collusion with anti-Semitism.

Jewish Socialists’ Group statement in support of Dr Moshe Machover

Dr Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party.

Dr Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged:http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/fight-antisemitism-and-defend-free-speech

Moshe Machover has been a friend of the Jewish Socialists’ Group for more than 30 years. He has spoken at JSG meetings, written for Jewish Socialist magazine, and participated in campaigns for social justice with us. We know him as an outstanding and sophisticated thinker and analyst, a fighter for human rights and social justice, and a consistent opponent of all reactionary ideologies and actions.

The JSG is not affiliated to the Labour Party but we have strongly criticised the right wing-led campaign to smear left wing activists as antisemiteshttp://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statement-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the-jewish-socialists-g

The Labour Party has a duty to take action against genuine examples of antisemitism and other forms of racism and bigotry. In line with the Chakrabarti Inquiry, however, we:
• favour education rather than heavy-handed disciplinary measures
• expect transparent, fair and just process with regard to complaints against members
• support Shami Chakrabarti’s desire to encourage respectful free speech within the Party.

The JSG chooses to support individuals suspended or expelled from the party on a case by case basis. In this case we fully support Moshe Machover and call for his expulsion to be rescinded and for his immediate reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party.

The JSG recognises the article by Moshe Machover, that has been cited, as a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.

The JSG rejects any McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

Solidarity with Moshe Machover!

The controversy began when the Times reported this leaflet being distributed outside Labour Party Conference.

The Weekly Worker asserts the following:

Expelled for saying the unsayable

Labour Party Marxists attracted much praise and support from delegates at the Labour Party conference, in particular because of the excellent ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism’ article written by Moshé Machover. Since then the right has taken its revenge. Around the country anyone who has expressed a liking for the LPM online or forwarded an article could well be on the receiving end of an expulsion letter. One of them is Moshé Machover. LPM’s Reg Kingston spoke to him.

The man himself blames Israel and the “useful fools” of Labour’s Right Wing for his loss of Party membership.

Frankly, I enjoyed your article, but I didn’t anticipate it would cause so much fuss. How do you explain the vehemence of the attacks? Why is this happening?

It’s the result of a conjunction of two things. I follow the Israeli press very closely and the wider political discussions in Israel in general. Quite some time ago – and I’m talking about before anyone imagined that Corbyn would be Labour Party leader (least of all himself!) – there was a feeling in Israeli establishment circles that they were losing the propaganda war. They responded with the Hasbara campaign.1

This was part of a decision to go onto the offensive: in a sense, it’s the last-ditch attempt to rescue the international reputation of this state. They are losing credibility in the arena of what could be called ‘international opinion’, but – more importantly – they are losing the Jewish public outside Israel, especially those under 30. There is a clear generational shift in opinion. These people are becoming very critical of Israel and its colonisation project.

You could see a sign of this at the Labour conference on September 27, in Jeremy Corbyn’s closing speech. His call for Israel to stop the oppression of the Palestinians and to end their savage treatment won loud applause.2 This was a sign of the times. It’s an indicator of what the general public has come to feel – including a large percentage of Jewish people, especially the youth.

Remember, the Israeli establishment identified this quite some time before Corbyn’s breakthrough was on the agenda. They had already decided to go on the attack internationally, using this ‘dirty bomb’ tactic of labelling as ‘anti-Semitic’ any criticism of Zionism and its colonisation project.

In the UK, they found useful fools in the form of the Labour right wing. The Israeli state’s propaganda tactic of smearing all criticism of itself as anti-Jewish coincided with the Labour’s right’s need to discredit Corbyn and the left of the party.

Now Corbyn has plenty of enemies – both inside and outside the party! So this smear tactic was eagerly seized upon – including by people who care absolutely nothing about the issues of Israel-Palestine, the Jews, Zionism and all these important questions. They are totally cynical in their use of these issues. As Chris Williamson’s phrase goes, the Labour right ‘weaponised’ the sensitive and complex issue of anti-Semitism for the sake of narrow, factional advantage against a left in the Labour Party that was growing and threatening to overwhelm them.

It’s a dirty war.

  1. Hasbara is a Hebrew word for the public relations efforts of the Israeli state to disseminate abroad positive propaganda about itself and its actions. 

More information.

As battle rages in UK Labour Party, Moshe Machover expelled after asserting ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism’


The grounds for this expulsion appear weak, Manchover’s convoluted, most would say, twisted argument about the details of the relations between ‘Zionism’ and Nazism merit taking apart not being slammed down.
It is a well-known trope – that the Nazis wanted to be rid of the Jews, and the Zionists wanted Jews to settle in Israel, so they could negotiate for new people to populate Palestine. So they did deals. He provides few qualifications for this picture, as can be seen in this sentence, “its collusion and collaboration with anti-Semitism, including up to a point with Nazi Germany”.
He then ends in an extremely contentious, many would estimate, deeply insulting, claim, based on an extension of the phrase “up to a point” to the assertion of systematic “collusion with anti-Semitism.”

We see the flaws in this kind of argument by applying it elsewhere.

It would be interesting for those who claim to support Black Lives Matter to imagine what if people were to go on about the links between Marcus Garvay, considered a founding figure in the movement for black liberation,and the Klu Kkux Klan.

In 1919 Garvey formed the Black Cross Navigation and Trading Company. With $10,000,000 invested by his supporters Garvey purchased two steamships, Shadyside and Kanawha, to take African Americans to Africa. At a UNIA conference in August, 1920, Garvey was elected provisional president of Africa. He also had talks with the Ku Klux Klan about his plans to repatriate African Americans and published the first volume of Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey.

Now in point of fact Marcus Garvey was a figure of some courage and stature, who fought John Crow and Racism.

Nobody is going to base a whole critique of his politics on this incident.

Nobody with any honesty, who is not out to launch a stunt, is going to offer a serious set of alternative politics to the Israeli government and the politics of the different strands within the Zionist movement with the kind of tendentious stuff offered up here.

There is a better response to those seeking to pit themselves against the ‘Hashbarh’ with these rusty arms, it is to answer them, and not expel them.

Now we can see some of the results.

This is one recent comment on the expulsion.

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Written by Andrew Coates

October 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm

25 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So if we don’t draw a line here where do we draw it?

    Plus Livingstone set the precedent for this particular argument.

    Wherever these lunatics belong it is not in the Labour Party.

  2. As there are different forms of Zionism, there are obviously different forms of Anti-Zionism. So I would just say “antizionism does not lead automatically to antisemitism” (even “zionist” historians acknowledge it) and it’s easy to know when it leads to antisemitism. Criteria have been listed by several people or institutions. Generally it’s a combination of criteria (5 or 6) not just one which enables us to say that an individual or a group who pretends to be antizionist is in fact antisemitic…. See for example Norman Geras http://fathomjournal.org/alibi-antisemitism/
    and my article (in bad English) http://www.mondialisme.org/spip.php?article2093
    How to identify the sources of Left anti-Semitism in order to fight it
    as well as this one in French which I will try to translate one day
    (on the sources of Left antisemitism)
    I have no reason to think Machover’s antizionism is antisemitic but I am sure he thinks he can write say anything, he will be never misunderstood. I just hope this incident will help him and other on the Left to recognize antisémitism EXISTS TODAY and is a murderous ideology TODAY….


    October 6, 2017 at 3:32 pm

  3. I think the point about writing that “will never be misunderstood” is a crucial one Yves.

    Clearly when you write words of the genre, ” an area of basic agreement it shared with Nazism.” you are open to many things.

    Andrew Coates

    October 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm

  4. Also note he is explicitly suspended for membership of the CPGB.

  5. Was it not Labour Party Marxists?

    Andrew Coates

    October 6, 2017 at 4:59 pm

  6. Thanks Roger for the LP letter itself which as he says above also centre on LPM membership and the CPGB being incompatible with membership of the Labour Party.

    So the reports that he is simply being expelled for the article on the leaflet are inaccurate.

    Andrew Coates

    October 6, 2017 at 5:46 pm

  7. Andy your being too soft on LPM and Machover. He quoted Heydrich in a way we that suggested we should take with good coin his support for a Jewish homeland. Machover is not an idiot and knows this was opportunistic rhetoric too cover up the nazis murderous hatred of the Jews whether Zionist, liberal, communist or orthodox. This leaflet was deliberately offensive and downplays the anti Semitism of the Nazis by repeating their propaganda.

    dave k

    October 6, 2017 at 7:36 pm

  8. There are a number of issues here.
    If a robber with a gun demands that I hand over my wallet, I will comply. If anyone suggests that I am complicit with the gunman, they are fools or worse. I think the analogy stands up for the relations between some Zionist leaders ( and some of those were dodgy) and the Nazis.

    Involvement with sectarians such as the CPGB rarely brings advantage.

    Some leaders of the JLM, not for the first time, are using the accusation of anti-Semitism to attack anti-Zionists and supporters of BDS.

    It leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth when a majority of those being disciplined are anti-Zionist Jews.


    October 7, 2017 at 9:52 am

    • Yes I think both Dave and Badger’s comments are justified.

      Andrew Coates

      October 7, 2017 at 10:48 am

  9. The confluence of antisemitism and Zionism is a straight up fact and the collaboration of Zionists with antisemites goes back to the inception of the World Zionist Organisation. Likewise, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis is a straight up fact and it was the mainstream of the Zionist movement that welcomed Hitler’s rise and collaborated. Paradoxically, the more openly fascistic of the Zionists who we now know as Likud, condemned the collaboration at first but some of their number offered the Nazis an alliance while WWII and the Holocaust were in progress.

    Re Machover’s political associations, he is not now, nor has he ever been a member of a party in the UK other than the Labour Party.

    Mark Moody

    October 7, 2017 at 12:03 pm

  10. You have confirmed everything I have ever said against anti-Semitism.

    Andrew Coates

    October 7, 2017 at 12:18 pm

  11. Machover’s leaflet quotes the architect of the holocaust, Reinhard Heydrich, as though he’s a reliable source, whose word can be taken at face value. Machover’s not a fool and he and his “Labour Party Marxist” chums surely knew quoting a leading Nazi as a source and repeating the crude anti-Semitic trope of equivalence and collaboration between (an undifferentiated) “Zionism” and the Nazis, would cause a shit-storm. I suspect they intended to provoke their own expulsions:

    “Heydrich himself wrote the following in an article for the SS house journal Das Schwarze Korps in September 1935:

    “‘National socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way. On the contrary, the recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood, and not as a religious one, leads the German government to guarantee the racial separateness of this community without any limitations. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry throughout the world and the rejection of all assimilationist ideas. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.5)

    “In other words, a friendly mention of Zionism, indicating an area of basic agreement it shared with Nazism.

    “Of course, looking back at all this, it seems all the more sinister, since we know that the story ended with the gas chambers a few years later. This overlap is an indictment of Zionism, but the actual collaboration between the two was not such an exceptional thing, when you accept that the Zionists were faced with the reality of an anti-Semitic regime.”

    A more objective, and accurate, description of Nazi policy and, specifically, Heydrich’s role (ie his *actions*, not just a few out-of-context *words*), even prior to the holocaust, can be found in Karl Dietrich Bracher’s ‘The German Dictatorship (1969):

    ” … a (German) Foreign Office memorandum of 25 January 1939 brutally spelled out the policy of expulsion to all its foreign missions and opposed support of a Jewish state in Palestine: the objective was the further splintering of ‘world Jewry’ and, at the same time, the intensification of anti-Semitism in all countries to which impoverished Jews were now beginning to emigrate […]

    “Deportation of all Jews to the East and ghettoization were the next steps, and Heydrich, referring to Hitler’s will, issued the relevant special orders to the chiefs of the Einsatz units on 21 September 1939. That this was the road to the extermination of the Jews was generally agreed on. A number of SS commandos even then preferred a simpler solution than the complicated deportations: simply shooting victims who ‘attempted to escape’. Heydrich also called the ghettoization the ‘anticipation’ for the ‘strictly secret … final goal, which will take somewhat longer. It had become a matter of millions of Jews (in addition to the decimation of the Poles). Expulsion turned into herding together, and the final goal became the final solution: mass murder.”

    That Machover can quote some words from Heydrich as carrying any weight whatsoever in his (and the so-called “Labour Party Marxists”) filthy campaign to equate Zionism with Nazism, just goes to demonstrate how politically bankrupt and morally degenerate he has become. That I have to repeat some well-known facts about Heydrich and the attitude of the Nazis towards all Jews (Zionist or not) in the late 1930’s, demonstrates how close to David Irving-type revisionism this supposedly “Marxist” professor has now positioned himself.

    Jim Denham

    October 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm

  12. The expulsion of the LPM-associated people is really quite pathetic. While Machover’s article is offensive, ahistorical and offers fodder to antisemites, he’s a good deal less of an antisemite than Walker, Livingstone and Loach., who as we all know, are all going to escape untouched. I almost feel sorry for Machover in the way he’s sort of been offered up to “prove” they are serious about tackling antisemitism… when they clearly aren’t..

    Philip Carmel

    October 7, 2017 at 3:06 pm

  13. Walker, Livingstone and Loach have pull in Labour. They can’t be expelled. Too embarrassing and too difficult.

    Dave Roberts

    October 7, 2017 at 3:18 pm

  14. There are some pretty contentious sentences in this,

    Defend Moshe Machover – rescind his expulsion!

    7th October 2017

    Defend Moshe Machover
    – rescind his expulsion!

    LRC Statement

    Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover has been expelled from the Labour Party. Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the ‘60s to the ‘80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine.

    The Head of Disputes has accused Machover of writing an “apparently anti-Semitic article” according to the – extremely contentious – International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA definition which conflates all criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism; he further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party”, because he has, on occasion, written for the Weekly Worker.

    His principal ‘crime’ is the accusation of antisemitism. Anyone who looks objectively at the evidence will see that what he is ‘guilty’ of is putting the record straight on historical links between some German Zionists and the Nazis. Clearly uncomfortable historical facts should be banned. One report on the issue said it was outrageous that he had quoted “the author of the holocaust”, and went on to quote the same Nazi!”


    Andrew Coates

    October 7, 2017 at 3:50 pm

  15. Andrew your comparison of Zionism with the Garvey movement is confused at best. Although given that it was from time to time described as Black Zionism, a Biblical reference please note, not unusual. It strikes me that your confusion lies in a lack of understanding of Zionism the mainstream of which is racist as a result in part of the colonial settler nature of the state of Israel.

    Allow me however to unpick just one strand of your ball of confusion. You asserted that: “It would be interesting for those who claim to support Black Lives Matter to imagine what if people were to go on about the links between Marcus Garvay, considered a founding figure in the movement for black liberation, and the Klu Kkux Klan.” Which assertion misses the point that many of those involved in BLM know very well that Garvey saw affinities between his movement and that of the white supremacists of the day. It is also a matter of fact that pretty much all socialist discussions of Garveys movement discuss his contacts with the KKK.

    You are of course correct if you are arguing that those wishing to work with BLM should not concentrate on the reactionary aspects of Garvey or for that matter Malcolm X and the Panthers. But socialists can and must discuss these questions or they will not be able to explain why socialism is the only road to social liberation and the ending of racism in society. Your position, if taken up, would lead to socialists failing to challenge reactionary ideologies in liberation movements sowing confusion and division at a later date.

    Mike Pearn

    October 7, 2017 at 3:58 pm

  16. Firstly let me say that this attack on Moshe Machover, a person who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, has backfired badly on the Zionist witch hunters. I welcome that.

    We can argue about the merits of quoting Heydrich’s views on Zionism but I think it is pretty uncontentious that:
    i. The Nazis favoured the Zionists within the Jewish community over and above the non-Zionists/anti-Zionists and what they termed ‘assimiliationists’. If you doubt what I say read the right-wing Zionist historian Lucy Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews.

    ii. The Zionist movement in Germany, which WELCOMED Hitler to power as did Berl Katznelson and the leaders of the Jewish Agency (just read Tom Segev’s 7th Million p.18 or Nicosia’s Zionism and antiSemitism in Nazi Germany p.108). They saw the rise of Hitler as a golden opportunity to build the Zionist movement.

    iii. The Zionist movement in Germany consciously used their position as the Nazis’ favourite Jews to demand parity with the non-Zionists despite being in a small minority. Dawidowicz writes that ‘The Zionist demand for parity stunned the non-Zionists. The C-V Zeitung of 9.5.35. branded it ‘unjustified, disruptive and astonishing’ (p. 241, War Against the Jews).

    Heydrich who was in charge of the SS and Gestapo issued a directive on 28.1.35. that ‘the activity of the Zionist oriented youth organisations… lies in the interest of the National Socialist state’s leadership. These organizations therefor ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists). (p.118 War Against the Jews)

    I could go on. The Zionist Judische Rundschau of 17.9.35, just 2 days after the announcement of the Nuremburg Laws printed an editorial that not only welcomed the laws but said they were the fulfillment of Zionist demands. You can read the whole editorial here on the site of Israel’s Yad Vashem. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/german-news-agency-on-the-nuremberg-laws

    The fact is that for Zionism the Nazi’s belief that Jews weren’t part of the German volk accorded with their own ideas. As a settler colonial movement they saw the persecution of the Jews as an encouragement to Jews to emigrate.

    Of course the Zionists were fools as well when they took the sweet words of Heydrich at face value when he said the Nazis didn’t intend the Jews any harm. The reaction of most Jews was to boycott the Nazi state. The reaction of the Zionists was to trade with it, not because it would get some Jews out of Germany, they were going anyway, but because they saw that the wealth of the richest Jewish community in Europe would be of great benefit to their colonial enterprise.

    All Moshe was doing was touching on a fragment of what the Zionist movement did. Zionism was a movement of collaboration with anti-Semitism. It never fought anti-Semitism as we saw in Argentina under the Junta from 1976-83. At the same time as this neo-Nazi junta was torturing some 3,000 young Jews to death, Israel was trading arms with the military and refusing or losing visas to Israel for many Jewish socialists because they were ‘the wrong sort of Jew.’

    What Denham and co. can’t face up to is that the Zionists in Germany accepted that Jews did not belong just as today Israel believes that Arabs don’t belong there either. They have a racist conception of society and humanity. That is why Israel is a segregated and apartheid society where Arabs who live there do so on sufferance.

    Tony Greenstein

    October 9, 2017 at 7:50 pm

  17. “I could go on. The Zionist Judische Rundschau of 17.9.35, just 2 days after the announcement of the Nuremburg Laws printed an editorial that not only welcomed the laws but said they were the fulfillment of Zionist demands. You can read the whole editorial here on the site of Israel’s Yad Vashem.”

    Except that it does’nt. The editorial merely acknowledges that Nazi Germany viewed Jews as a separate ( non-German, even un-German) people who would continue to live as such in Germany as a recognized minority. There is no reference whatsoever to Zionism, the political movement to establish a state for Jews in the ancient homeland, then known as Mandate Palestine. The last paragraph expresses the hope that Jews in Germany would be able to reach a tolerable modus vivendi with the German government, a forlorn hope in view of later events.


    October 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm

  18. Yes, Abtalyon: but Greenstein is an obsessive, beyond rational or balanced debate and unable to distinguish between truth and lies.

    Jim Denham

    October 10, 2017 at 2:00 pm

  19. Jim Denham: I am fully aware of Greenstein’s difficulties in separating truth from lies. Here he demonstrates a deficiency in reading and comprehension.


    October 10, 2017 at 2:32 pm

  20. A further point:

    The CPGB are trying to make an issue out of this and those of us who take anti-Semitism seriously can’t. simply ignore it, much as we’d perhaps, like to. Machover and the CPGB deserve to be taken to pieces for what they have done.

    Whilst I would not argue that Machover should be expelled for his article, it has unleashed a new wave of anti-semitism, some quite vicious.

    A comrade writes:

    “I have been contacted by a prominent Jewish member of Red Labour who, after removing or commenting on anti-semitic comments on that page, was tracked down at his home and subjected to threatening phone calls from someone claiming to be a Party member. He reports not being able to sleep as a result and has reported the matter to the police.

    “This the logical consequence of the ‘free speech on Israel (including anti-semitic ones in the Labour Party)’ and the legitimisation of Nazi-Zionist equivalence that the CPGB are trying to ramp up. “

    Jim Denham

    October 11, 2017 at 2:00 pm

  21. For further information.

    No case to answer
    Stan Keable was expelled on October 2nd 2017 from the Labour Party because of his association with Labour Party Marxists, of which he is secretary. This is his reply to Labour’s head of disputes
    Dear Mr Sam Matthews
    In reply to your October 2 email, and the attached letter and “evidence”, I am writing for the following purposes.
    1. To reject the false and malicious allegation against Labour Party Marxists and against myself, by persons unnamed, of anti-Semitism, and to challenge the validity of the so-called “evidence” supplied, in that it in no way substantiates that allegation.
    2. To reject your assertion that the “expressed aims and principles” of Labour Party Marxists, of which I am secretary, are “incompatible” with membership of the Labour Party, and to challenge the validity of the so-called “evidence” supplied, in that it in no way substantiates that assertion.
    3. To demand to know who made the allegation of anti-Semitism against LPM, and the precise wording of the allegation.
    4. To demand the immediate rejection of the allegation of anti-Semitism as unfounded, because (a) the “evidence” provided transparently fails to substantiate the allegation: ie, there is no case to answer; and (b) because the allegation is obviously a continuation of the malicious rightwing smear campaign, promoted by the Israeli state, which maliciously brands as anti-Semitic all criticism of the politics of Zionism and all opposition to Israel’s apartheid-type laws and ongoing settler-colonisation of Palestinian land; and (c) because the ready acceptance by the governance and legal unit of such obviously malicious allegations brings the Labour Party into disrepute.
    5. To demand the immediate withdrawal of your decision to end my Labour Party membership as an invalid decision, because (a) no case has been made to substantiate your bald assertion of “incompatibility” between the aims of LPM and the aims of the Labour Party; (b) contrary to natural justice, no right of appeal has been offered (only the right to “challenge the validity of the evidence”); (c) instant dismissal from membership without due process brings the Labour Party into disrepute.
    The so-called “evidence” attached to your letter consists of published materials which contain not one iota of anything which can reasonably be construed as anti-Semitism, or as “incompatible” with Labour Party membership. Indeed you have not indicated any words, phrases or statements in the “evidence” which might substantiate the allegation of anti-Semitism or the claim of incompatibility with Labour Party membership. In short, there is no case to answer.
    As a lifelong communist and internationalist, anti-imperialist and anti-racist, I find the charge of anti-Semitism risible. As a child I was proud to hear my parents’ anecdotes of how, in the 1930s, they formed part of the ‘underground railroad’ in east London, giving refuge in their home to illegal Jewish and socialist refugees escaping from Nazi persecution in Germany. In the 1960s I was proud of my brother’s courageous role when he risked everything to carry ANC propaganda material into apartheid South Africa as one of Ronnie Kasrils’ London Recruits.
    The ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign, using the contrived definition concocted by the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance, and maliciously alleging anti-Jewish racism where none exists, is designed to deflect criticism of Israel and its role as US imperialism’s chief ally and collaborator in the Middle East. Its conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism misuses anti-racist sentiment to protect the real racism of the Israeli state against Palestinian Arabs. Complicity with Israel’s anti-Semitism smear campaign brings the Labour Party into disrepute.
    Labour Party Marxists does not consider the existing rules of the Labour Party, including the existing version of clause four, to be written in stone. We very much welcome the establishment of the democracy commission and the opportunity to engage with others aiming to change the rules for the better. The existing 1994 Blairite version of clause four, which you baldly assert is “incompatible” with the LPM’s aims and principles, is itself the product of several revisions since the adoption of the original version in 1918.
    Discussion of further proposed changes does not constitute “incompatibility” with party membership. Indeed, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy at its 2017 AGM set up a working group (of which I am a member) to draft a rule change proposal for a revised, 21st century, socialist clause four.
    LPM was launched by a group of Labour Party members in 2011, following Labour’s 2010 general election defeat, in response to the invitation by Peter Hain, then chair of the national policy forum, to members and party units to submit their views on his consultation paper, ‘Refounding Labour – a party for the new generation’. Our submission to the consultation, ‘Refound Labour as a real party of labour’, was duly submitted, and published in Labour Party Marxists No1 (autumn 2011), which also includes our ‘Aims and principles’. It is still available on the LPM website. Peter Hain thanked us for our contribution, and, of course, no question of our ‘Aims and principles’ breaching the rules was raised then or since. It is unreasonable to do so now.
    Rule 2.1.4.B
    Your October 2 letter quotes rule 2.1.4.B in support of your assertion of “incompatibility”.
    The first criterion in this rule is so arbitrary that its selective use to expel members of LPM or any individual would amount to unfair and malicious political discrimination. Your interpretation of the rule is clearly mistaken. Do you really propose to expel all members who support “a political organisation other than an official Labour group or unit of the party”? That would mean expelling, for example, all members of Progress, Labour First, Compass, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, Labour Representation Committee and Momentum, to name just a few.
    The second criterion for exclusion from membership in this rule – “supporting any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate” – does not apply to LPM. On the contrary, the LPM has a record of criticising those left groups which do so, such as the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition.
    LPM believes that the Labour Party will be greatly strengthened not by McCarthyite red-baiting to exclude Marxists and socialists unacceptable to Labour’s right wing, but by winning the allegiance of all socialists and campaigning for the affiliation to Labour of all socialist groups and all trade unions, and making the party – in the words of Keir Hardie – “a great movement for socialism”.
    Stan Keable
    Unison delegate to
    Hammersmith CLP

    Andrew Coates

    October 12, 2017 at 11:58 am

  22. Just ignore the fucker and his attention-seeking, Jew-baiting chums in the CPGB

    Jim Denham

    October 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm

  23. Good to see that Jim Denham is his usual articulate self! One drink too many? Or more than one drink?

    Abtalyon states that there was no reference to Zionism. Wrong. It specifically mentions the International ie World Zionist Organisation.

    Continuing in this dishonest vain Abtylon states that ‘The editorial merely acknowledges that Nazi Germany viewed Jews as a separate ( non-German, even un-German) people who would continue to live as such in Germany as a recognized minority.’

    Again wrong and dishonest too.

    The editorial noted how it was the WZO Congress which had stated that the Jews are a separate people (as they continue to do so today). The editorial THEN went on to say that “Germany has merely drawn the practical consequences from this and is meeting the demands of the International Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority.”

    Could there be a more damning indictment? Nazi German was merely fulfilling Zionist demands. If I had said such a thing the cries of ‘antisemitism’ would have been deafening. Yet here is the German Zionist paper boasting of such a thing.

    The editorial then goes on to explain how wonderful the new laws will be. The Jews will be able to shape their own schools, theatre, cultural life etc. In short the German Zionists made it clear that they had no objections to what Reitlinger called the most lethal legislative ordinance known to humanity.

    So you can call me all the names you wish but the fact is that the German Zionist Federation is convicted out of its own mouth of the most appalling collaboration. It doesn’t surprise me that Denham, being a social chauvinist and a racist has no problem in collaborating with Nazi Germany. After all he supports the Zionist movement today which collaborates with America’s Alt Right and fascist and anti-semitic movements in Europe.

    I copy some of the editorial from the Zionists Judische Rundschau for people to see with their own eyes:

    ‘The International Zionist Congress has just been in session in Switzerland, a Congress which also put an end very plainly to any talk of Judaism being simply a religion. The speakers at the Zionist Congress stated that the Jews are a separate people and once again put on record the national claims of Jewry.

    Germany has merely drawn the practical consequences from this and is meeting the demands of the International Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German Nation and Jewry. The new Laws give the Jewish minority in Germany their own cultural life, their own national life. In future they will be able to shape their own schools, their own theater, their own sports associations; in short, they can create their own future in all aspects of national life. On the other hand, it is evident that from now on and for the future there can be no interference in questions connected with the Government of the German people, that there can be no interference in the national affairs of the German Nation.

    The German people is convinced that these Laws have performed a healing and useful deed, for Jewry in Germany itself, as for the Germans. Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself and is offering State protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority: Jewry’s process of growth into a nation will thereby be encouraged and a contribution will be made to the establishment of more tolerable relations between the two nations.’


    October 17, 2017 at 7:33 am

  24. I think the point that Moshe Machover is trying to make is that it shouldn’t be taboo to discuss Zionist-Nazi (limited) mutual support on creating a Jewish homeland outside Europe not that criticism of such support should form the basis of criticism of the current Israeli government. Likewise it shouldn’t be (and isn’t) taboo to discuss Marcus Garvey’s relation with the KKK.


    November 5, 2017 at 3:29 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: