Labour Party matters

Someone pointed out the other day that it takes first-hand experience of a given subject or incident to expose how distorted ‘news’ can be. Personal involvement in any story jolts you into that illuminating, lightbulb moment when you suddenly realise how partial, one-sided or misleading ‘the News’ often is.

I looked back at our archive and found “On a Loop.” It's a shame, but it’s as relevant now, at the tail end of 2020, as it was in 2012. Here’s the gist:

Most pro-Israel bloggers like myself would find life much simpler if there were no Palestinian civilian casualties, no settlements, no disputed borders, no ultra religious Jewish extremists making claims on behalf of God. But, proceeding further down that path, it would be easier for us if Israel stopped protecting its citizens as assiduously as it does so that we could produce heart-rending footage of injured Israelis. We could make our case more effectively if the ‘apartheid wall’ was dismantled and the suicide bombers provided us with some photogenic carnage. How much easier life would be for we Israel supporters if Israel was swept into the sea altogether and we could make the case for Israel all day long, unopposed. Then we’d be laughing. 

I’m not writing about the Middle East today. Not directly - but as usual the Middle East’s presence is felt in the shadowy form of a big fat elephant. It’s the very thing that hasn’t been properly scrutinised in the context of the crisis in the Labour Party.

The EHRC report has come down hard on Corbyn’s Antisemitic Party. Because of the obvious need to stick to ‘facts’ and not to be derailed by squabbling over subjectivity and ‘feelings’, the commission pared a litany of submitted grievances against Corbyn’s Labour Party right down to substantive issues only; straightforward matters of legality. You know, actual breaking of the law.

While this approach concentrates the mind, it also lets a whole lot of flotsam through the net to muddy the waters and clog up the works. It’s sad that the EHRCommission took (or had to take) the factual, ‘substantive only’ tack, sticking to indefensible, irrefutable, “Illegality-only” evidence - in order to convince their opponents of the validity of the report. Of necessity, the emotional stuff, the real, true racist stuff had to be sidelined, just because of the enormity of the opposition. As Paul T Horgan says: 

The EHRC report) takes no account of Corbyn supporters targeting a chant calling for Israel to be destroyed at Jewish demonstrators protesting against anti-Semitism. Verbal abuse against Jewish people at party meetings and conferences is not counted. The party members who hounded Jewish woman MPs such that they had to leave Labour is not included. The Labour members cheering Chris Williamson on when he complained that the party was ‘too apologetic’ over anti-Semitism are not part of Corbyn’s claimed statistic.

There are several aspects to this saga. Number one is Keir Starmer. He’s a politician, which I suppose is some sort of an excuse in itself. A 'par for the course' type of thing. 

So when he was exposed at the time of the last General Election, doing rather more than toeing the party line by explicitly assuring Andrew Marr that he’s 100% behind Jeremy, his current posturing (strong, decisive leadership - grovelling apologies to the Jewish community) starts to look decidedly 'realpolitikish', however much we might wish it were otherwise.

Like the lawyer he is Starmer followed the brief and stood by Corbyn’s side for years no matter what.

Today it’s a different brief but highlights the same thing - he doesn’t do what’s right, he does what’s politically convenient.

The public won’t forget he propped Corbyn up. pic.twitter.com/NKRNQtupHn

— CCHQ Press 🤲😷↔️ (@CCHQPress) October 29, 2020

Nevertheless, for now, let’s give the benefit of the doubt to Sir Keir, if you like. Just please don’t let him do any more kneeling.

All of a sudden everyone in the Labour Party not committed to the ultra-left is deserting the sinking ship. Even Jeremy Corbyn’s protégé Angela Rayner gave a brave account of herself on Newsnight, standing firm under Kirsty Wark’s mildly fierce searchlight. I mean, “how are you going to get yourself out of that?” is a question going begging. 

And Shami in your ermine robes, wherefore art thou? Oh yes, and Seaumas Milne. Why so shy? No-one holds him to account do they? Perhaps the BBC’s conspicuous lack of curiosity about Milne is related to his former associate editorship of the Guardian.

So now that the Corbyn supporting faction and the equivocators who were well on board with Jeremy Corbyn’s Antisemitic Party during the good times are jumping ship. It wasn’t me! they shout in unison. 

Which brings me back to the elephant in the room. Israel.

Melanie Phillips has: 

Much of the bigotry against Jews expressed by Labour members is tied up with the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel.

However, there is general bafflement in Britain over the association of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment, with a widespread belief going way beyond the Labour Party that the claim of antisemitism is being used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.

I blame the media for the decades of partial reporting that thrust ammunition into the hands of the haters.  It allowed the very word ‘Zionism’ to stand for evil. Why, the word itself is almost an anagram of Nazi. If you could stomach listening to Chris Williamson screeching at Andrew Neil you’d know what I mean. 

The Balen report was suppressed by the BBC at the cost of several hundred thousand pounds (of my money.) If the Labour Party can be skewered by a forensic, facts-not-feelings inquiry, why cannot the BBC?

Could the EHRC investigate the BBC and examine the not-very-subtle “anti-Israel” agenda that all the usual BBC stalwarts and equivocators are now carefully distancing themselves from, as they turn to interrogate their Labour party counterparts?  All of a sudden Mishal ‘homemade contraptions’ Husain and company are getting all self-righteous on behalf of ‘the Jewish community’. 

Has the BBC taken the oath? Has it sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or will selected bits of it do?

Each time we spot another heartfelt “what about Israel’s ’treatment’ of the Palestinians!?” followed by another possibly well-meant but utterly misguided attack on Zionism (and therefore Jews) it originates from some agenda-driven, holy, high-up employee of the Associated Press or Reuters parachuting some agenda-driven hack into some godforsaken theatre of war to fulfil a tailored and tacitly preordained brief. That’s according to Matti Friedman. 

Should the media care to tell the whole truth it would expose the true nature of the Palestinian Cause. The very existence of Israel must not be accepted as justification for any of the disingenuous Palestinian grievance-mongering we’ve been force-fed by the media, yet ‘getting rid of Israel’ is the stated aim of Palestinian zealots, Hamas and its supporters, however unpalatable that truth might sound to virtue-signalling, Western, pro-Palestinian advocates and BDS activists. 

 Injustices and suffering, abuses of human rights, all the stuff that the Pro-Palestinian justice warriors are so virulently passionate about when they blame it on Israel, emanate in reality from the Palestinian leadership’s corruption and religion-based racism. The people are sacrificial lambs; expendable currency in the war against the Jews on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn’s friends, Hamas, the PA., Iran etc. 

The so-called Palestinian cause was seeded with hatred of Jews. It flourished in the West alongside Tony Blair’s legacy of mass immigration and it took hold in left-wing politics through Islam-friendly expediency. Now antisemitism disguised as Pro-Palestinianism is actually fundamental to the contemporary Labour Party’s remit. How are you going to untangle that, Sir Keir?

Litigious news and other stories

This on antisemitism by @afneil was a depressing, yet informative, explanation on how it spreads on the Left and in so-called academia. pic.twitter.com/RGFdiJeDTa

— Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes_) July 25, 2020

So the BBC is cancelling Andrew Neil to make way for more diversity and youth-orientated content. Well, there does seem to be support for left-wing, antisemitic-flavour broadcasting.  Jeremy Corbyn’s go-fund-me pot has reached a quarter of a million pounds and rising, so the demand is obviously there.

‘Adolf Hitler’ and ‘B’stard Son Of Netanyahu’ help fund Corbyn’s legal costs  by Adam decker

A Go Fund Me page set up to finance the former Labour leader's court battles has raised £231,000 due in part to the generosity of self-proclaimed racists.

[…]

“Among the most generous donors are former deputy leader of Liverpool City Council Derek Hatton who’s given £1,000, prominent anti-Israel campaigner and Labour member Susanne Levin who’s offered £500 and music producer Brian Eno, who’s provided £500.”

Update! As you were! The fund has so far reached  (a staggering!) £300,000 

Strangely, the BBC seems to be embroiled in a complicated tangle of litigation, would-be litigation and counter-litigation. Who’s suing whom? It’s as farcical as one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up’ farces that cry out for the erudite clarification of a Captain Blackadder.

Panorama has been going since 1953! In all that time the BBC has exposed many scandals and injustices, but I have found just three litigious cases involving something that could be interpreted as vaguely ‘philo-Semitic’. 

In 2005 a case involving the BBC’s John Ware drew a complaint from the Muslim Council of Britain. 

From the BBC report:

"MCB secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie complained the show was "purposefully trying to sabotage" the progress Muslims were making in the political mainstream.

Panorama reporter John Ware also found groups affiliated to the MCB promoting anti-Semitic views, the belief that Islam was a superior ideology to secular British values and the view that Christians and Jews were conspiring to undermine Islam.

MCB secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie complained the show was "purposefully trying to sabotage" the progress Muslims were making in the political mainstream.

"John Ware's team have made a deeply unfair programme using deliberately garbled quotes in an attempt to malign the Muslim Council of Britain," he said.

The BBC rejected that complaint.

Another case followed a couple of years later when the BBC was made to pay damages. 

BBC's Panorama in libel payout to Islamic charity boss (May 2007)

"The former general manager of Islamic Relief UK, Waseem Yaqub, today accepted undisclosed libel damages and a public apology from the BBC at London’s High Court over a Panorama programme called Faith, Hate and Charity.

Mr Justice David Eady was told that the programme was broadcast on BBC One and investigated the London-based charity Interpal which gives funds to charities on the West Bank to help needy Palestinians.

It was said to reveal that some of the charities were linked to Hamas and helped build support for the movement by spreading Islamist ideology.

22nd July 2020  and we’re back in the room. John Ware is at the centre of a sue-storm; a blizzard of articles appeared in the press. Who’s suing whom? I can’t reliably put the articles in chronological order, but things are happening. 

'That Panorama’ was aired on BBC Two one whole year ago.  “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” A bit like this blog - the question is rhetorical. David Collier had already exposed the tsunami of Corbynite/ Momentum antisemitic material that had engulfed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, both in real life and on social media. A certain amount of momentum had been created, a demonstration had occurred in London and more and more ‘incidents’ were being unearthed. Yes, we all knew the answer to the question. Labour definitely is antisemitic,  but the Panorama exposé was still unexpected.  The BBC allowing such an overt critique of their beloved Labour Party?  Whatever next?” 

Here’s what was next. The Labour Party’s vengeful treatment of the “Panorama whistleblowers” became the subject of a court case resulting in Labour being forced to apologise and to pay damages to the seven former employees appearing in the programme. The BBC published this report, no byline:

Anti-Semitism: Labour pays damages for 'hurt' to whistleblowers 

The party has issued an unreserved apology in the High Court for making "false and defamatory" comments about seven whistleblowers who spoke out in a BBC Panorama programme last year.

The individuals had criticised the then leadership's handling of complaints.”

Laura Kuenssberg also produced a report. 

Labour’s agony over anti-Semitism far from over

Astonishing still that the Labour Party, a political movement based on fighting for equality and against racism, found itself in a situation where its members and officials have been playing out a battle over anti-Semitism for so long - on the airwaves, in constituency meetings, in executive meetings and also in the courts. The argument is not settled.”

You can say that again! Next, still on 22nd July, an indication that a challenge is in the offing; The Guardian,

Corbyn-era Labour figures may challenge antisemitism settlement by Jessica Elgot and Lisa O'Carroll

Senior party members understood to be mulling legal action over verdict on treatment of whistleblowers

“Key figures in Labour when Jeremy Corbyn was leader are mulling a challenge to the party’s settlement with a BBC journalist and seven of its former staff over a libel case relating to a Panorama programme last year about its handling of antisemitism.

It is understood the former Labour leader himself as well as his former director of communications Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology set to be read at the high court on Wednesday.”

and also from The Guardian:

Antisemitism settlement plunges Labour party into civil war 

“Jeremy Corbyn’s statement caused astonishment among litigants in libel action.

Labour’s decision to pay a six-figure libel settlement to ex-staffers who claimed the party was failing to deal with antisemitism has plunged the party back into civil war, with Jeremy Corbyn publicly condemning his successor’s decision to settle the case.

Corbyn’s statement caused astonishment among the litigants in the libel action, with the Panorama journalist John Ware confirming to the Guardian that he was “consulting his lawyers” and raising the prospect of another costly court battle over Labour and antisemitism.

[…]

Mark Lewis, the solicitor who acted for Ware and the whistleblowers, revealed to the Guardian that he had been approached by 32 individuals who want to take action against the party for a range of allegations, mainly centring on the fallout from the leaked report.

On the same day (22nd July) The Jewish Chronicle came out with:

The Corbynites have lied with impunity - now they face the legal consequences

"John Ware explains why he sued the Labour Party - and why his case is merely the first of several against alt-Left sites and individuals who lie

A year ago, the Labour Party declared all-out war on the BBC. Why? 

I was the reporter on a Panorama programme in which seven former Labour staffers blew the whistle about antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party. They explained how they felt a growing factionalism had created a safe space for antisemitic views inside the party.

Labour responded by accusing me of having flouted journalistic ethics. I had, Labour alleged, knowingly promoted falsehoods and invented quotes. I had misrepresented and fabricated facts.

You don’t need much experience of television to know that the BBC’s editorial processes simply don’t allow for such mammoth corruption of the editorial process, especially a programme that examines such an incendiary subject as the relationship between the leader of the Opposition and antisemitism. Every line of my commentary was trawled over by the editor, lawyers and the BBC’s editorial compliance panjandrums. The whistle-blowers were also extensively cross examined."

Also on 22nd July 2020, Jewish News printed this:

Panorama journalist John Ware planning to sue Jeremy Corbyn By Jack Mendel

The journalist behind BBC Panorama’s on Labour’s antisemitism row is planning to sue Jeremy Corbyn for libel.

Labour falsely accused Ware of “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public” regarding the show.

Media lawyer Mark Lewis said: 'I can confirm that I have been instructed to pursue claims' against the former Labour leader

It’s irritating when journalists like Philip Collins allude to 'journalistic ethics' as if the BBC were a paragon of excellence in the journalistic ethics department. In one paragraph in an otherwise laudable essay, titled “Time to root out Corbybites once and for all” Collins wrote:

“The response of the Corbyn team to the allegation that Labour was not really serious about investigating antisemitism was to pour scorn on the journalistic ethics of the BBC.”

If it weren’t for the fact that this particular Panorama was a remarkably unrepresentative example of the BBC’s normal output, ‘journalistic ethics-wise’  Collins would have had a valid point. 

I can think of but one or two other exceptions to the BBC’s default Labour-leaning perspective, one, in particular, comes to mind.  Jane Corbin’s Panorama titled “Death in the Med’ where she quite rightly sided with the Israelis over the Mavi Marmara affair. If I’m mistaken and the other cases I’ve cited were in fact ‘the norm’ for Panorama, the BBC in general and not exceptions at all, please forgive me. I had the impression that Panorama’s output since 1953 has generally been in accord with the BBC’s left-wing ethics rather than plain and simple ‘journalistic ethics’.

“To declare war on all of the mainstream media is a disastrously stupid strategy for any political leader. In due course, Sir Keir will be well advised to be much more forensic than this in his choice of media enemies. He will need some — a media bogeyman is always handy in politics — but it most certainly ought not to be the BBC.”

..adds Collins. Why ever would a self-proclaimed Labour supporter like Philip Collins suppose Starmer is likely to alienate the BBC? The BBC loves Labour under Starmer and I daresay it’s mutual.

I have no idea what Seumas Milne and Len McCluskey are up to, but if antisemitism is really going to be deemed beyond the pale they’ll have to carefully consider the best use of the monies generously donated by ‘Adolf Hitler’ and ‘B’stard Son Of Netanyahu’

The BBC is dumping Jane Corbin I hear, as well as Andrew Neil. I rest my case. (M’lud.)

Bandwagons and virtue-signals

Another thing that has been doing the rounds, (anyone know if it’s been on the BBC?) occurred during the Labour Party’s deputy leadership hustings, in which freshly deposed MP Ruth Smeeth had a good go at the panel for doing zilch about antisemitism, and for staying silent while her female Jewish former colleagues were being attacked, trolled and insulted. 

Absolute hero @RuthSmeeth calling out those who left Jewish women to fight alone, and the candidate(s) who shouted at her when she talked about antisemitismpic.twitter.com/U8O3IwfZad

— Luisa Attfield (@l_attfield) February 11, 2020

I’m afraid Dawn Butler is too stupid to realise that she came off worst, with Angela Rayner a close runner-up. The issues with Dr Rosena Allin-Khan we’ve dealt with before, and I find it unsettling to watch Dr Allin-Khan making political capital out of her animosity towards Israel while bolstering her credibility in the antisemitism related virtue-signalling department.

In other words, it was only when she gave a selective and partial account of Israeli hospital visiting arrangements for parents of young Palestinian patients that she observed the vile material from antisemites who were attracted by her anti-Israel rhetoric and piled in, eager to jump on the Israel-bashing bandwagon.

At the JLM Deputy labour leadership hustings, @DrRosena shared her personal experience of dealing with antisemitism, and the strength & solidarity she has showed in not backing down to racists pic.twitter.com/eXEznn6rth

— mandelbrat (@mandeldril) February 11, 2020

I look forward to the EHRC report and the changes it will bring.

I will uphold the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.

I support an independent complaints process.

I will support JLM as the provider of antisemitism education.

I will expel the racists.

Enough is enough. pic.twitter.com/dBF3FBnXKf

— Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (@DrRosena) February 12, 2020

She made a huge big deal about sticking to her guns and ‘not apologising’ (for what, exactly? - perhaps for ‘calling out’ the antisemitic trolling - as if that was the same thing as standing up for Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman and Margaret Hodge. (Oh dear, that sounds a bit too like a squad) The whole thing is also available on Facebook.

Luvvies' Lament

Just in case you missed this in the Graun: Concerns about antisemitism mean we cannot vote Labour

From The Letter:

“The coming election is momentous for every voter, but for British Jews it contains a particular anguish: the prospect of a prime minister steeped in association with antisemitism. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour has come under formal investigation by the EHRC for institutional racism against Jews. Two Jewish MPs have been bullied out of the party. Mr Corbyn has a long record of embracing antisemites as comrades. 

“We listen to our Jewish friends and see how their pain has been relegated as an issue, pushed aside by arguments about Britain’s European future. For those who insist that Labour are the only alternative to Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit, now, it seems, is not the time for Jewish anxiety. 

“But antisemitism is central to a wider debate about the kind of country we want to be. To ignore it because Brexit looms larger is to declare that anti-Jewish prejudice is a price worth paying for a Labour government. Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next? 

“Opposition to racism cannot include surrender in the fight against antisemitism. Yet that is what it would mean to back Labour and endorse Mr Corbyn for Downing Street. The path to a more tolerant society must encompass Britain’s Jews with unwavering solidarity. We endorse no party. However, we cannot in all conscience urge others to support a political party we ourselves will not. We refuse to vote Labour on 12 December.” 

John le Carré (David Cornwell), Fay Weldon, Joanna Lumley, William Boyd, Simon Callow, Antony Beevor, Sathnam Sanghera, Janina Ramirez, Trevor Phillips, Jimmy Wales, Suzannah Lipscomb, Tom Holland, Frederick Forsyth, Peter Frankopan, Ghanem Nuseibeh, Dan Snow, Fiyaz Mughal, Tony Parsons, Dan Jones, Maajid Nawaz, Oz Katerji, Nick Hewer, Ed Husain, Terry Jervis

The Guardian goes on to explain that several of the signatories don’t normally vote Labour in the first place, and: Labour antisemitism row: public figures say they cannot vote for party under Corbyn

“A Labour party spokesperson said: “It’s extraordinary that several of those who have signed this letter have themselves been accused of antisemitism, Islamophobia and misogyny. It’s less surprising that a number are Conservatives and Lib Dems. 

“We take allegations of antisemitism extremely seriously, we are taking robust action and we are absolutely committed to rooting it out of our party and wider society.”

Maybe the BBC will mention this tomorrow. If so, it will be interesting to see what their take on it will be.

Almost unbelievable

We’ll have to wait and see…. I’ve waited, but I haven’t seen much.

If you wanted to find out 

How this shambles came about

Like the man upon the stair

Certain details weren’t there 

I hope you think it’s fair to say

They weren’t there again today.

Of course, you can always look elsewhere.

It seems that the NEC has the final say as to whether a case can be referred upwards, or dumped. There were just three individuals tasked with making this decision. 

A clash of diary dates meant the at least one and possibly two of the three were last-minute substitutes. One panellist was Keith Vaz, which is surprising enough, all things considered. He voted for reinstatement, and another of the trio voted against. The decider fell to someone who is an active anti-Israel campaigner by the name of Huda Elmi.

As we know, Chris Williamson was duly readmitted.

I understand one potentially mitigating factor in this fiasco is that his re-admittance might have been partly a procedural strategy - a kind of emergency caused by a deadline for members wishing to stand for re-selection. It seems that had Williamson not been reinstated his future candidacy would have been ruled out. I may not have fully grasped that - but that seems to be the gist.

This is almost unbelievable but you better believe it anyway. I’ve seen Corbynite fanatics defending Mr Williamson - for example insisting that the antisemitic mural wasn’t antisemitic, but of course, this is about a pattern of behaviour, the final straw being the speech in which he said the Labour Party had been too ‘apologetic’.  I mean, how can an avowedly anti-racist party be too apologetic?

Should they just have been a little bit apologetic? 

It’s a pity the BBC isn’t interested in Huda Elmi  and her suitability for participation on this crucially important panel.

Update:

Statement on Chris Williamson pic.twitter.com/WGYx9os2A0

— Tom Watson (@tom_watson) June 27, 2019

Update 2:

I thought Sky had a slight edge on the BBC this afternoon in the breadth and depth of their reporting of this subject. However, the BBC’s Simon McCoy was more objective than Ben Brown, who seemed to be carrying out his role as devil’s advocate with rather more enthusiasm than is absolutely necessary when interviewing Louise Ellman.

I wasn’t especially impressed with Kay Burley; on balance, it was Sky's Sam Coates who presented the most professional coverage of the story this afternoon.

Looking at the Twitter responses to Tom Watson’s Tweet of the 90+-signatory letter, the majority of Williamson’s defenders have relied on the same set of ill-informed anti-Israel allegations to support their case.

Criticism of Israel was a recurring theme, obviously founded on the ‘half-a-story’ reporting we’ve been pointing out for years. You get “Stolen Land” “Apartheid State” “Jewish Lobby” “Baby murderers” and so on.  I realise that most who see themselves as supporters of the ‘Palestinian people' are predisposed to accept, unquestioningly, the full quota of hostile antisemitic propaganda that is put before them. 

The media aspires to be ‘better than that’, but the supposedly impartial BBC itself is full of people primed and programmed to approach the Middle-East conflict through the same hazy Palestinian viewfinder. They have little curiosity or originality. Jeremy Bowen and Tom Bateman are just two examples. Yolande Knell, too. Their one-sided approach is at the heart of the current epidemic of antisemitism.

Apart from anti-Israel rhetoric,  the Twitter trend is towards insisting that they “can’t see anything antisemitic” in what Chris Williamson has ever said or done.  And why indeed should they be expected to know that endorsing the obnoxious antisemite Gilad Atzmon or any of the other discredited Labour Party members amounts to antisemitism? These people wouldn’t recognise antisemitism if they were slapped round the head with a wet swastika to cries of “Heil Hitler”. Well, maybe then.

I see several baronesses in the list of signatories, but with one glaring exception. So, where’s Shami?

IAASAC (It’s all a smear against Corbyn)

Have you tried to follow the BBC’s heavily over-promoted series “Line of Duty”? I found it unwatchable due to the unconvincing plot, unsympathetic characters, stilted acting and those interminable acronyms. (‘Tell us what you really think”, I hear you say.)

If you’re into acronyms, I give you CAABU (Council for Arab-British Understanding) and CEPR (Council for European Palestinian Relations.) (The latter set doubles up as “Centre for Economic Policy Research.”) 

The first two acronyms stand for lobbying groups that act on behalf of Arab causes. They lay on parliamentary jaunts to various trouble spots in the Middle East. Ostensibly sightseeing and information-gathering trips. The sights they’re shown are selectively orchestrated in order to persuade our MPs to take on the anti-Israel crusade and bring it on back home. 

If you care to tap CAABU into ITBB’s search engine, it will bring up many pages of tagged posts dating back to the era of lengthy and somewhat convoluted articles, which probably bored the pants off you. 

"Caabu works with politicians, conducting in-depth parliamentary briefings and situation up-dates on the Middle East, in addition to taking politicians to the region. Caabu organises public and private meetings to raise awareness and tackle important issues in the Arab world. Caabu has also taken on a strong educational and media role. In 1967 a public opinion poll showed that 98% of the British people knew little or nothing about the Arab world and negative stereotypes about the region and Arabs were commonplace in the media. [...] Challenging anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia, has remained at the heart of Caabu’s work not least with the rise of hate crimes, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment.

Caabu is a non-profit organisation funded by donations and membership fees."

"The CEPR focuses on taking parliamentary delegations to the Middle East while meeting with Hamas leadership in the area. In 2010 the CEPR was involved in taking a large number of European parliamentarians to the Gaza Strip and Egypt on the anniversary of 'Operation Cast Lead’. The delegation, the biggest ever to Gaza, was led by British Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman and included over 50 parliamentarians 13 European countries. The visit included meetings with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas,[2] Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa."

 Craig has buried his important post ‘Huge news’ underneath (his own) avalanche but it’s still gasping for air and I’m having a go at reviving it; flask of brandy at the ready.

Brought to you by Hamas

“Well, whatever else you might say about the Guido Fawkes website it can still do some decent digging.
Today's Guido exclusive lays out the evidence that Jeremy Corbyn faked the figures to avoid declaring his wreath-laying trip to Tunisia.
Guido also notes that his trip was funded by the Council for European Palestinian Relations.
What Guido doesn't mention though is who the CEPR are. They are Hamas's representative in Europe.
This strikes me as a huge story. Wonder if the BBC will think so too?”

Well, obviously not. It’s all very well for the magic grandpa to be mired in that boring old, yawn-inducing, yesterday’s old-hat dodgy MPs expenses story - but having your hols subsidised by Hamas? That’s another thing altogether. It should be huge. 

Yes, we know gramps calls Hamas his friends, and we can see that the term ‘friend’ could be interpreted in a million multifaceted gradations of grey, but Hamas is a terrorist organisation dedicated to the eradication of Israel even if it has to pay-to-slay every Jew, one by one. Funded by us.

When Craig posted the front page of the Times on this blog last night at about 10:30pm, I searched the BBC’s website for their usual display of forthcoming newspaper front pages. Oddly, at the time, there was no sign of the Times at all, only the Telegraph and a few of the tabloids. I’m assuming Craig took the image off Twitter. (?) However, it did pop up on the website eventually in all its glory.

 Having minimised the topic during the Marr show, (since it was splashed all over the front of The Times, the way Andrew Marr and the reviewers all but ignored the subject was more conspicuous than ever) later in the day the BBC found an agreeable (to them) angle on the story. They made a great big deal out of a ‘Muslim and Jewish women’s conference', thereby equating antisemitism with Islamophobia, a concept is so far from reality that it’s an absolute disgrace that the BBC is still trying it on. 

The BBC has also been treating us to snippets from  Shami Chakrabarti’s cringe-worthy performance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge show. 

Sky seems able to secure far more relevant interviewees than Marr manages to tempt onto the set these days - despite the fact that Ridge is such a hopeless interviewer. Her questioning is flabby, superficial and altogether unconvincing, and what’s with that squinting, screwing up the eyes thing? Intermittent short-sightedness? Or is it meant to indicate scrutiny? Deep, probing scrutiny?

Anyway, for your un-enjoyment, here’s Shami equating antisemitism with Islamophobia and “all racism” and begging us not to “personalise” it.

Shami Chakrabarti says she spoke to Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey last night and "so far our impression is that Theresa May has not moved an inch on her red lines" #Ridge.

Get live updates on today's political stories here: https://t.co/q2DW9wNbzD pic.twitter.com/J4M03Cmrud

— Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) April 7, 2019

Corbynistas everywhere are fighting back. In the tradition of “It’s all a smear against Corbyn", they’re saying that the whole thing has been dredged up simply to deflect from the fact that “Labour is leading in the polls”.

Any Questions. The one about Islamophobia

This is pretty much the same topic as the previous one, but I might as well create a separate post for the edition of Any Questions already noted below the line, in which Iain Dale disgraced himself with some unadulterated gobbledegook about Islamophobia:

 “Everybody knows what it means, and just because someone has a different coloured skin and prays to a different God it doesn’t make them your enemy” 

But what if they are pale-skinned, and their God has stated unequivocally that they are your enemy and they should hate you?   And what about Andy McDonald MP, who expressed exactly the view I mentioned in my previous post, namely that all written or spoken criticism of Islam automatically implies the author's approval of murder.

“look at some of the writings that take place. it’s not just on social media. It’s on our Main Stream Media! Where people are writing with bile directed at people of the Islamic faith… […] but it seems to have got into the box of “It’s ok to say this”. We have got to eradicate (the rhetoric) from our national and international life otherwise these things will happen again.

 Even Jonathan Dimbles noticed what he did there. 

“Andy McDonald, those individuals whom you describe who write in a very ugly and prejudicial way, clearly are not the individuals who would commit the kind of atrocities that occurred in Christchurch. Are you saying that you think there is some kind of linkage between their writings and the uh uh um disordered, demented behaviour of the people like this person who is going to be charged very probably with this crime?

Undeterred, McDonald expanded his point thusly:

“I think undoubtedly so, if people who are writing for what are otherwise respected publications and which have wide circulation, and there are many people who have been on panels such as these, who’ve had those views and have written articles in those terms, I think they’ve got to look at themselves in the mirror today and say what contribution does that make in fomenting that level of antagonism and prejudice and discrimination against people, and they are playing a very very active role in that and I think they’ve got to question how they behave and the sorts of languages (sic) that they indulge in and I really do urge them to think very carefully about this because they are part of the issue. 

Perhaps realising the serious implications of what he just said, he appeared to row back:

“I’m not saying for one minute that they would sanction or approve such horrific events, but it’s the sort of environment that they establish, of acceptable discrimination or denial of the problem of Islamophobia, and those are the sort of things that have got to be addressed.

On antisemitism, it’s quite a different story.

“While the incidences of antisemitism are restricted to what is thankfully a very tiny proportion of what is a huge membership of over half a million, when accepted for what it is, we’re not in denial about it, and we will deal with it and we’re doing everything in our power to eradicate from our movement we have an absolute zero tolerance, what I would - I think that’s how we should approach it but I would - in terms of Islamophobia there’s a different attitude to it - it’s almost ‘casualised’, as if it’s acceptable, and Baroness Warsi has spoken out very loudly and long about that being rife in the Conservative Party and I just would urge colleagues across the house to take that seriously and root it out because at the moment, not enough is being done.  

Responsibility rests with politicians, responsibility rests with the media as well - to express themselves in appropriate terms, because it’s ‘othering’ and scapegoating of others is disastrous for a cohesive society.

Andy McDonald has some gall. As if antisemitism hasn’t been rife in the left for years.  As if it's restricted to a very small proportion of the party. As if the Labour Party hasn’t been in the business of ‘othering’ Jews for years. As if the Guardian hasn’t been spouting antisemitic bile for years. As if Seamus Milne isn’t a rabid Jew-hating anti-Zionist fanatic. As if antisemitism hasn’t been "casualised" as if it’s acceptable. As if the Corbyn’s Labour Party hasn’t  got to look at themselves in the mirror today and say what contribution does that make in fomenting that level of antagonism and prejudice and discrimination against Jews and Israel, and playing a very very active role in that.” As if Baroness Warsi expressed herself in appropriate terms.

Above and below: examples of people slamming each other.

As for double standards on 'terrorism', well,

I couldn't listen to Any Answers all the way through - but as far as I could tell, they skipped this topic altogether and leapt straight to Brexit. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do. If not, I can hardly believe that no-one at all had anything to say about the tenor of this discussion. Even the M.P. who is always identified as "of Palestinian origins" (impeccably sacred credentials there) avoided answering the question in a similarly Islamophillic fashion. She deviated, almost immediately, onto a mini-diatribe about poverty and deprivation. 

Oh Jeremy Corbyn

Being a bit of an Islamophobe I used to regard Maajid Nawaz with a cautious amount of suspicion. Or a suspicious amount of caution - as you would, considering his history.

All those naive Glastonbury-goers who sang for this man. He’s nothing but a Brexiteer fronting an anti-Semitic populist hard-left party, with utter creeps like ex-Guardian USSR-apologist Seamus Milne lurking behind him in the shadows https://t.co/NfRw0xs2ZB

— Maajid - (Mājid) [maːʤɪd] ماجد (@MaajidNawaz) July 24, 2018

 Yes, I know, I know. But with one outstanding tweet, he’s brought me round. Hats off to you sir.

It seems that while his underlings were wrestling with the semantics of bespoke definitions of antisemitism that allow antisemites to be antisemitic without being racist, Dear Leader was elsewhere. Unless Guido was having a laugh with one of those Alison Jackson parody photos, Corbers and a companion were spotted carrying a pallet, the sort of thing one does when preparing for a house move.  Watch out, Theresa and hubby. (I’ve temporarily forgotten his name. It’s not Brian, is it?) 

I was thinking, long and hard (in the manner of a deeply introspective intellectual like James O’Brien) about self-inflicted wounds, some real, some not so much. 

In my (pretty little) head I was playing with the idea that the Labour Party’s shilly-shallying over these four examples of antisemitism that they find so troublesome, has become a self-inflicted wound, which appears as unnecessary and self-destructive as Israel’s recent Nation-State bill; the law that has caused so much consternation.

Labour says the NEC’s position is that it wants to strengthen the party’s ability to eradicate antisemitism in their ranks, rather than weaken it. They say the IHRA definition is all well and good, but it’s flabby, open to interpretation and unenforceable.

They claim that their ‘improved’ version tightens everything up and sets out what is and what isn’t acceptable. Clarifying their red lines, if you like, and creating a more enforceable mechanism for rooting out antisemitism in the party.   If that were the honest, sincere and genuine aim for rejecting the IHRA definition as it exists, it would be worth giving this argument the time of day, or even the benefit of the doubt. 

That excuse is weakened by the slightly contradictory claim that adopting the full IHRA definition of antisemitism would stifle legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies, which is such demonstrable clap-trap that I hardly need link to demonstrations by Israelis themselves against the Nation-State bill.

The Labour Party has yet to prove, or indeed show, that the intent behind this fiasco isn't just what I said before. Creating a bespoke version of the definition of antisemitism tailor-made to allow antisemites to be antisemitic without being thought racist. 

As Kier Starmer said the other day, why not just accept the one-size-fits-all definition and move on? If one agrees with that, this whole business is an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound and quite pointless. And obviously dumb enough to hand a propaganda victory to the other side.

There are two things that need pointing out here. Number one. The BBC has used unnecessarily inflammatory language when reporting the Israeli bill. Deliberately? Who knows.

They initially reported that the bill characterises Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, rather than a principally Jewish state, (which they duly amended on their website following a complaint.) The way the bill is being reported by the BBC clearly herds the viewer firmly towards one conclusion; that it’s an apartheid law - an apartheid law for an apartheid state.

I concede that we haven’t heard a great deal from Labour’s NEC in the form of justification for their apparently self-destructive stance, but we do at least know that they have some sort of defence, albeit one that lacks credibility.

I have yet to see much (anything at all) in the way of justification for Israel's Nation-State bill in the mainstream media.

Apart from on blogs. Don’t forget, Israel cannot afford to be as complacent about its national character as Britain appears to be (more fool Britain.) Britain assumes its ‘values’ are a given; now and forever. It’s not surrounded by openly hostile adversaries (arguably) and doesn’t feel threatened. At least it’s not being bombarded by hundreds of projectiles or hearing calls to wipe it off the map. It hasn’t got hundreds and thousands of Hezbollah rockets pointed at it, poised, ready to go, at the whim of the Ayatollahs. So far Britain hasn't got quite so many potentially hostile inhabitants who just might, one day, overturn its precious values.

However; much as we might understand the rationale behind such a bill, it is a slap in the face for diaspora Jews, and people like me who support Israel and have to defend it with the odds heavily stacked against us and exacerbated by inflammatory language and one-sided reporting from the BBC.

It’s interesting to see that, to date, the comments under each article are a mixed bag. The thing that the BBC never dares to mention (file it under ‘unmentionable’) epitomises double-standards and comes in the form of whataboutery. One example below:

Egypt, which defines itself in its constitution as an "Arab Republic" and an "Arab nation", with Islam as the state religion and Arabic as the only official language, criticises Israel's Jewish nation state law. #think https://t.co/2wKpivtQ0X pic.twitter.com/VGHyQ7Ov6Z

— Eylon A. Levy (@EylonALevy) July 22, 2018

Unhealthy diet

BBC Watch has published a detailed two-part examination of the connected items on the Today Programme broadcast 16th July 2018. Here and here This was also the subject of our earlier post “imagine”.

Hadar Sela offers a fact-packed synopsis of Chris Gunness’s lies and omissions, so I thought it was worth revisiting the topic in the cold light of three days’ hindsight. (Three days ago is the past, in terms of news broadcasting and the past is another country.)

Heavily biased broadcasting by the BBC (and media outlets of the same mindset) has produced the entrenched anti-Israel feeling that’s everywhere nowadays. Biased broadcasting has had such a pernicious influence that hating Israel is the default position in Corbyn’s Labour Party. This resonates with the current fiasco, with the NEC quibbling over the definition of antisemitism. Rather than accepting the internationally recognised definition, the NEC wants to exclude segments they believe would preclude or limit ‘legitimate’ criticism of Israel. They want to be free to criticise Israel, no holds barred, from its right to protect itself to its right to exist, while reserving the right to boast that they haven’t a racist bone in their body. For some reason, they don’t want to be seen as antisemitic and they don’t want to think of themselves as antisemites.

No wonder so many of them respond to what they’ve absorbed from the ‘news’ this way, with loathing, indignation, and ire. They think railing against Israel is synonymous with virtue and humanity. Being fed on a diet of lies and half-truths gives you acute outrage. The pro-Palestinian pandemic has spread to the anti-Trump protests. Wrong-headed social justice warriors get big thrills from the illusory satisfaction of self-righteousness. 

Considerable damage is done through interviews with the likes of fanatical Israel-hater Gunness when venomous fantasies remain unchallenged. Gunness knows he can get away with it because ‘man-of-all-trade’ anchors such as John Humphrys and Justin Webb are inadequately briefed and couldn’t provide factual rebuttals - had they the appetite to do so.

The BBC evidently considered the item newsworthy because two Palestinians were killed in the incident, and they were children. Teenagers.

 “As was the case in BBC World Service news bulletins, while listeners had heard plenty about two teenagers – or “children” – killed in Gaza, they were not told that the wounded in Sderot also included people in that age group.”

Gunness got away with describing the location of the incident as “a popular gathering place in Gaza City, a park where many families go” when in fact the location was an “urban warfare training facility that includes access to Hamas’ tunnel network”.

Humphrys let Gunness waste our time with his histrionic invitation to British listeners to ‘imagine’ themselves in a string of invented, dishonest and irrelevant scenarios, which were clearly dreamt up to elicit empathy for the helpless and innocent Palestinians.

But facts and statistics are available,

“in April, May and June Palestinians engaged in Hamas facilitated violence at that border carried out, inter alia, 294 attacks with petrol bombs, 20 shooting attacks, 35 IED attacks and 5 grenade attacks.” 

should a BBC researcher supply them. But they don’t, and multiple misrepresentations and factually inaccurate allegations pass by, uncontested. I’m sure even John Humphrys knows that Gaza isn’t occupied, but he let it go when Gunness said it because he very likely feels that ‘everyone knows’ it ‘kind of’ is. 

I’d go further. I think Humphrys is in awe of Gunness. Perhaps he’s wary of triggering an emotional meltdown to the embarrassment of us all.

Just as the Labour Party bows to their supporters in the Muslim community, the media kowtows to the anti-racists who require smelling salts at the merest whiff of Islamophobia. They don’t admit that the Islam-friendly anti-racists who condemn Israel so vehemently are actually racists. Perhaps it was on their behalf that Justin Webb gave the Israeli spokesman Lt-Col Peter Lerner a hammering during his attempts to make a very reasonable rebuttal.  You can almost picture Webb looking around for approval after each ham-fisted interruption.

When Tom Bateman was asked to give an account of what the Israelis were saying -  the word on the street, so to speak - he chose to give the Israeli perspective through the prism of BBC groupthink, and the ‘Israel says’ qualifier was uttered with a discernible air of cynicism.

What made me almost lol was hearing Jeremy Corbyn accuse Theresa May’s government of being ‘divided’.
Heal thyself! was the tacit chorus from the watching nation. The Hodge affair has brought a few of the formerly silent Labour MPs out of the woodwork. I heard Kier Starmer tentatively venture the proposal that the Labour Party could staunch the wound by adopting the full-frontal internationally recognised definition of antisemitism and pretend they meant that all along. Where were all these people when Shami first came up with her whitewash? 

And now…heeerrre’s Seamus:

I hadn’t seen this. It’s frightening. x pic.twitter.com/YN9JJ76UUs

— Basil Bruschetta (@SirBasilBrush) July 18, 2018

Odds and Ends

Cuddly-Islam, part 1 

'My wife can never call my name in public'

By Rebecca Seales

BBC News

Seriously? Srsly? 

A whole page devoted to this inane article on the BBC website? 

*********

Fascists

Oh yes. Trump is a fascist. It’s official.

Deflated

Justin Webb spoke to that poor Leo Murray about his inflatable Trump-in-a-nappy stunt. We used to say ‘it takes one to know one’. Maybe someone should crowd-fund an inflatable Leo Murray-in-a-nappy. (Why bother. Nobody knows who he is.) Dr. Jan Halper-Hayes’s good-humoured response took the wind out of his sails. 

*******

Women’s hour (Cuddly-Islam, part 2)

Splish-splash I was havin’ a bath when I overheard some of this conversation with Kirstie and Katie on the radio.  Did they really avoid mentioning the motivation behind this horrific attack? From what I heard the motivation appeared to be almost incidental. As if it was a natural disaster or something. An act of God.

*******

Labour's new anti-Semitism code of conduct.

I wouldn’t have mentioned this if it hadn’t been included in an early morning radio 4 news bulletin t’other day. 

"Labour has taken some of the language used in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is now widely accepted as the most useful definition and has been adopted by the government, the Crown Prosecution Service, many local councils and many other countries.

But instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic."

They're keeping the following four back for themselves: (why the American spelling I'm not sure)

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. (sic)
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior (sic) not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The Labour Party needs to be able to still use these terms and memes with impunity. They’re not antisemitic; oh no, they’ve fought antisemitism all their life. (For or against?)

Dealing robustily

Talking of missed opportunities, let’s not forget the antisemitism scandal. (Jonathan Arkush speaks for the Jews and Norman Smith speaks for the Labour party)  Lots of coverage following the “Missed opportunities” verdict from various members of the Jewish delegation following their unsatisfactory meeting with Jeremy Corbyn.

From Today, Norman Smith, Justin Webb and Barry Gardiner.  And  Ian Watson.

The Daily Politics with Andrew Neil. Peter Dowd MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in the hot seat. A little sheepish, but still loyal to Dear Leader. Andrew Neil had a long list of examples of Labour’s outrageous conduct, (reputedly lifted from Guido Fawkes) which he read out, item by item. Dowd had no answer, but he did express regret. 

The Today programme featured Kier Starmer who said the party should “deal robustily” with the antisemitism. 

We mustn’t forget Len McCluskey who has written a nasty piece in the New Statesman in which he dismisses it all as a smear. 

Did you know that Jennie Formby is a former partner of Len McCluskey a relationship from which they have a son? She’s the one who has the task of dealing with it, no doubt robustily.

Applause in the HoC

I watched Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons this afternoon.

No, not the emergency debate  secured by Corbyn .....

 “calling for a new War Powers Act that would require Parliament to be consulted on military intervention”.

As it happens, I did watch that one (which seemed to be eating into the time allocated for the following one) while waiting for the advertised business, the debate about antisemitism. (Click to view the whole thing)

Many of the most significant speeches are on Youtube already, and Guido has some of them on his site, where I notice the comments are disabled. That’s unusual for Guido. I wonder why. No I don’t.

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn was “Chuntering" during the speeches (before he left the chamber)

....but  warned he won’t take part…

Luciana Berger got a round of applause, and

So did Ruth Smeeth. The antisemitic comments she read out were not quite as amusing as Richard Dawkins's....

John Mann was terrific, and

Ian Austin was impressive.

The BBC has reported it here:

“The Labour leader, who was present in the chamber for much of the debate, is due to hold talks next week with leading Jewish groups amid criticism of his handling of anti-Semitism cases.”

They describe it in a 'glass half full' way, whereas sone of us might have put it another way “The Labour leader, who was absent from the chamber for much of the debate.."

The News Channel was much more interested in the previous business as was Corbyn.

The leader of the opposition looked even more reptilian than normal during Andrew Gwynn’s statement, but he slunk off in the middle of the debate, missing the most impassioned contributions. 

Two things

So, here’s the thing.  Well, two things.

1. Jeremy Corbyn Tweeted:

 “Appalling that @AlexSobel has received a stream of antisemitic abuse online after Channel 4 posted a video of his speech to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. We must root out this disgusting prejudice from our society.”

Well, that got an absolute drubbing, but the satisfaction faded a bit when I heard that this is 100% normal for all Corby’s tweets.

2. T’other thing is the long-awaited debate about Jezbollah. Hezbollah.

Long awaited by me, at any rate. I couldn’t find out what time it was due to start, which meant an unhealthy afternoon staring at the parliament channel and taking in a good deal of the previous debate along the way. This was about the ‘joint enterprise’ law and the unintended consequences thereof, and very interesting it was too. 

These parliamentary debates aren’t debates in the true sense. They’re speeches, read out with varying degrees of dramatic interpretation. Not interactive in the normal sense apart from interventions, either supportive or vexatious, as much of the content covers the same ground, rather like the party game, where you have to memorise a list of items, adding your own before passing it on. “My aunt went shopping and she bought….”

The moment finally arrived. (direct link to vid)

Joan Ryan’s delivery was heartfelt and excellent, and I have to say that the most impressive speeches of all came from the Labour benches. Particularly impressive were Ian Austin, Louise Ellman (obvs) and Sharon Hodgson. 

From the other parties, Dr. Matthew Offord and Theresa Villiers stood out. Jim Shannon of the DUP ditto.

Diane Abbott was there too, accompanied her deputy Nick Thomas-Symonds. Diane sat in silence, while Mr. T-S gave one of those Corbynesque “we condemn violence wherever it occurs, but..” speeches on behalf of the Labour leader’s friends. The cameras hadn’t picked up the shadow Home Secretary's presence until  Dr Offord said: “I see the shadow Home Secretary rolling her eyes at some of the comments made by Labour Back Benchers, “

The most remarkable thing was the unanimity of all the speakers with regard to the artificiality of the government’s current position, which accepts the existence of distinctly separate political and military wings of Hezbollah despite the fact that the leader of Hezbollah no less, constantly makes it abundantly clear that Hezbollah is one solid, indivisible, one-winged entity.

So why would the government (and the leader of the opposition) be so determined to maintain the charade? 

Well, the government spokesperson,  The Minister for Security and Economic Crime  Mr. Ben Wallace, was on hand to explain. Proscribing the political wing of Hezbollah, said he, would jeopardise our relationship with Lebanon. 

Well, knock me down with Hassan Nasrallah! Here was me thinking that assassinating a former Lebanese Prime Minister and intimidating and threatening the current one was a pretty good indication that this was a load of nonsense. 

“Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned on Saturday, plunging the country into a political crisis and raising the spectre of regional conflict. 

Hariri announced his resignation from Saudi Arabia, saying he sensed a "plot to target his life" as he accused Iran and its Lebanese Shiite ally Hezbollah of taking control of the country and destablizing the region. 

"Iran has a grip on the fate of the region's countries... Hezbollah is Iran's arm not just in Lebanon but in other Arab countries too," Hariri said. "Iran's arms in the region will be cut off. The evil that Iran spreads in the region will backfire on it.”

But what do I know?

Talking of delivery, why did it irritate me that Wallace continually pronounced “Huzbullah” and anti-semetic? Because I’m a pronunciation pedant, I suppose.

So here’s the thing. (That’s a kind of ear-worm now, by the way)

How can these good Labour MPs stomach serving under the current leadership? Which reminds me. While the joint enterprise law remains as is, should the government see sense and proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety, Jeremy Corbyn risks being caught up in it himself.  Maybe that’s one reason why he wants to keep things as they are. 

Yesterday in Parliament? Funny thing is, the BBC seems to have missed the whole thing.