maandag 23 september 2019

“Ally” Jon Lansman wanted Jeremy Corbyn removed

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor The Electronic Intifada

The Electronic Intifada

“Ally” Jon Lansman wanted Jeremy Corbyn removed



Jon Lansman addressing the Jewish Labour Movement at Labour conference 2018.
 Joel GoodmanZUMA Press
Jon Lansman, a prominent figure in the UK Labour Party [ and a zionist Jew himself (RB) ], advocated that Jeremy Corbyn be removed as party leader three years ago.
The revelation challenges Lansman’s reputation as a key Corbyn supporter.
In 2016, Lansman told Labour activist Graham Bash that the left would be much better served if Corbyn was replaced by John McDonnell, the shadow finance minister.
Bash recounted his conversation with Lansman to The Electronic Intifada.
Two other veteran Labour left-wingers, who once had good relations with Lansman, told The Electronic Intifada similar stories, on condition of anonymity.
One said that in 2015, Lansman had expressed to them a wish that McDonnell had contested that year’s leadership election and won instead of Corbyn.
But Bash was clear that when speaking to him, Lansman had been “much more active than that,” and was pushing for Corbyn’s exit.
Asked via email to comment on why he had privately advocated for Corbyn to be replaced with McDonnell, Jon Lansman replied: “This is not true. I back Jeremy 100 percent.”
He did not address the specifics of Bash’s account that were put to him. He did not reply when asked in a follow-up if he was denying that the phone call with Bash ever took place.
Asked about the 2016 conversation, a Labour spokesperson said Jeremy Corbyn had had no knowledge of it before now.
A spokesperson for McDonnell declined to comment.

“Extremely dangerous”

Active in the campaign to elect Corbyn as head of the UK’s main opposition party, Lansman later became chair of Momentum, the left-wing group established amid the wave of popular support for Corbyn.
Lansman now sits on Labour’s ruling national executive.
Bash is an executive member of the Labour Representation Committee, a left-wing group that boasts shadow finance minister John McDonnell as president.
“I felt this talk was extremely dangerous,” said Bash of his 2016 discussion with Lansman.
Bash asked Lansman if he’d spoken to John McDonnell about taking over as leader.
Bash recounted Lansman’s reply: “John [McDonnell] told me to fuck off.” Bash said he’d politely told Lansman to follow McDonnell’s advice.
Bash said that he was only speaking out now because Lansman “has supported the witch-hunt of many on the left.”
Lansman is hostile toward Jewish Voice for Labour, a left-wing group which defends Palestinian rights.
In an email exchange with the group, Lansman wrote that “neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organization itself can be said to be part of the Jewish community.”
He also suggested that Jewish Voice for Labour was “part of the problem,” implying that the group was anti-Semitic.

Lansman and Zionism

Lansman has an ambivalent attitude towards Israel and Zionism, the state’s ideology.
While he has made some comments critical of Israel, he has spoken with disdain about anti-Zionist Jews, failed to defend Corbyn from “Labour anti-Semitism crisis” smears and repeatedly called for prominent Labour figures falsely accused of anti-Semitism to step down, or be expelled.
Lansman has suggested that it is anti-Semitic for the left to even use the term “Zionism” – unless praising the ideology.
A source in Westminster told The Electronic Intifada that Corbyn is privately so angry with Lansman that he is no longer welcome in the party leader’s office.
A Labour spokesperson denied this, saying Lansman had visited the office “regularly,” and as recently as the summer.
Lansman also denied it saying, “I’ve been to the leader’s office more than once this week.”

Divisions on the left

Corporate media outlets hostile to Corbyn have for years attempted to stoke talk of divisions between the Labour leader and John McDonnell – probably Corbyn’s closest political ally.
Because of that, Bash says, he had not revealed Lansman’s words to “anyone other than the closest comrades” until now.
In conversations with The Electronic Intifada, Bash recalled that his phone conversation with Lansman took place in 2016.
It occurred months after Corbyn was elected leader in 2015, but “well before” the coup attempt against his leadership in June 2016, Bash said.
On 24 June that year, right-wing Labour MPs led by Labour Friends of Israel supporter Margaret Hodge launched an attempt to replace Corbyn as leader.
The attempted ouster led to a leadership challenge by right-wing Labour MP Owen Smith. The challenge failed. Corbyn won the leadership election with an increased majority of member votes that September.
Hodge’s plan had been in the works since at least May of that year. Lansman appears to have been thinking along similar lines around the same time.
Outrage among right-wing Labour MPs against Corbyn that summer often focused on Brexit.
Hodge was more interested in helping manufacture an anti-Semitism “crisis” against Corbyn, some press reports indicate.
Bash recalls that Lansman didn’t raise any specific problem he had with Corbyn. But, according to Bash, Lansman said the Labour leader “wasn’t being specific enough, clear enough, sharp enough” and he “didn’t think that he was very effective.”

Corbyn for leader

Accounts of how Corbyn was first successfully elected leader in September 2015 often mention how McDonnell and Lansman took turns standing outside Labour’s offices in Parliament to pressure MPs to nominate Corbyn.
Hardly any Labour MPs supported Corbyn’s socialist, internationalist politics. But grassroots pressure persuaded just enough of them to “lend” Corbyn their votes, on the basis that it would be a more balanced leadership election, giving the membership the widest possible options.
Corbyn has long opposed injustice in Palestine. He has worked closely with such groups as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Palestinian Return Centre, which calls for Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to lands from which they were expelled in 1948.
At the start of the summer of 2015, few people – including even some of his supporters – expected Corbyn to win. He was initially running to make a political point and push Labour’s left into the debate over party policy.
One source previously close to Lansman told The Electronic Intifada that Lansman wanted to use the election campaign as a “stepping stone” to reinvigorate the Labour left, even if Corbyn lost.
By the spring of 2016, his supposed ally was having doubts about Corbyn as leader.
It became clear during the coup attempt led by Margaret Hodge that summer that the Labour membership, which overwhelmingly backed Corbyn, would not stand for it.
Despite Lansman’s private misgivings, Momentum strongly supported Corbyn during the failed coup.
Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist with The Electronic Intifada.

The Trump administration's crackdown on campus criticism of Israel is Orwellian






The Trump administration's crackdown on campus criticism of Israel is Orwellian




Trump’s department of education is using the threat of defunding to achieve its political goals – to great effect

Mon 23 Sep 2019 
South Building at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.South Building at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Photograph: Gerry Broome/AP
I
f you criticize Israeli policy, you will lose your federal funding. That is the message the Department of Education is sending with its threat to withdraw federal support for the Consortium for Middle East Studies, operated jointly by Duke University and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, if it does not alter the content of its programming.

Just three months after Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, ordered an investigation into a conference about the politics of the Gaza Strip that the consortium had sponsored – an authoritarian threat, in and of itself – the Department of Education issued a letter demanding that the Duke-UNC consortium remake its curriculum. Or else.
The Department of Education’s letter, published last Tuesday, charged that the Duke-UNC program was failing to meet its federal mandate – by focusing too much on cultural studies and topics like “Love and Desire in Modern Iran” and not enough on “advancing the security and economic stability of the United States”. In other words, it seems the program was teaching its students about the complex and varied cultures of countries in the Middle East instead of how to dominate them.
The letter did not mention directly the conference on Gaza, during which several well-respected American, Israeli and Palestinian experts spoke. But it didn’t have to. The DeVos-ordered investigation is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to crack down on campus criticism of Israeli policy – a goal to which the administration made its commitment explicit when it appointed Kenneth L Marcus assistant secretary of civil rights in the Department of Education. That the investigation was followed by the threat of defunding is an indication of just how serious the Trump administration is about this goal.
Marcus’s confirmation was opposed by major civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, as well as by the National Bar Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Council of Jewish Women. The reasons are manifold – for example, Marcus’s opposition to affirmative action, his spotty record on disability rights, and his shaky commitment to LGBTQ equality. A letter signed by the more than 30 groups that opposed Marcus’s nomination noted: “Mr Marcus’s attitudes and beliefs fail to demonstrate a commitment to protecting students of color from discrimination.” It also observed that Marcus had, since leaving the Bush Department of Education, sought to use anti-discrimination law “to chill a particular point of view, rather than address unlawful discrimination”.
By “chill a particular point of view,” what the civil rights groups’ letter was referring to was Marcus’s work as a professional pro-Israel operative, and, more specifically, his efforts to use civil rights law to shut down the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement (BDS) on university campuses. Marcus articulated his strategy in a 2013 op-ed for the Jerusalem Post. “At many campuses, the prospect of litigation has made a difference,” he wrote. “If a university shows a failure to treat initial complaints seriously, it hurts them with donors, faculty, political leaders and prospective students.”
Pace Marcus’s op-ed, the threat of litigation or the withdrawal of funds would be enough to pressure universities into clamping down on BDS and BDS-adjacent activism. But, more recently, since assuming his post at the Department of Education Marcus has attempted to take this strategy even further, pushing the government to define the BDS movement as antisemitic and designate anti-occupation and Palestine solidarity activism as violations of Jewish students’ civil rights. A range of groups, from the free-speech watchdog Fire to the liberal pro-Israel lobby J Street, have warned that the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism poses serious threats to campus free speech.
In the Orwellian grammar of the Trump era, though, the repression of left-wing viewpoints is free speech; federal intervention in university curriculum is academic freedom. The Department of Education threat against the Duke-UNC consortium is yet another example of the Trump administration’s spectacular hypocrisy and cynicism, not to mention its clash-of-civilizations-style Islamophobia – among other things, the Education Department’s letter accused the Duke-UNC program of devoting disproportionate emphasis “on understanding the positive aspects of Islam.”
Yet the significance, and the reasons behind, the education department’s attack on the Duke-UNC program goes beyond just Israel-Palestine and even the politics of Middle East studies. In a Trump administration marked by unceasing staff turnover, stark policy reversals, and more general unpredictability and chaos, one of the few constants has been the president and his allies’ hostility to institutions of higher education.
There is a long history of right-wing antipathy to universities, seen as breeding grounds for unpatriotic thought, cultural deviance, and liberal decadence. The Trump administration’s higher policies have largely reflected this view – from the appointment of right-wing, education war stalwarts such as Besty DeVos and Marcus to Trump’s signing of a farcical “free speech” executive order intended “to defend American students and American values that have been under siege”. And the UNC-Duke consortium letter was not even the sole higher-education-related punch the Trump administration landed this week. The National Labor Relations Board announced it would move to strip the right to unionize from teaching and research assistants at private universities.
Indeed, when it comes to higher education, the Trump administration’s approach is uncharacteristically coherent, to fight its enemies – variously conceived of as liberals, Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, LGBTQ people, people of color, and women – by enforcing ideological constraints, amplifying conservative viewpoints, dismantling or manipulating anti-discrimination statutes and, when possible, slashing federal funding.

The failed Watson plot exposes what really scares Corbyn and his coterie






The failed Watson plot exposes what really scares Corbyn and his coterie





Sun 22 Sep 2019 

Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, holds his hand up in front of his face. ‘If people want to remove me, let the members remove me’: Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters


O
n the eve of the Labour conference, a poll was published that gave Jeremy Corbyn a negative personal approval rating of minus 60 points – yes, you read that right, minus 60 points. These are depths of unpopularity never plumbed by any opposition leader in the more than 40 years that pollsters have been recording this figure. Even Michael Foot wasn’t that disliked by the British public in the run-up to Labour’s landslide defeat at the hands of Margaret Thatcher in 1983. To have a candidate for prime minister who is that repellent to the country is a problem for Labour, especially when it is facing a general election. To Mr Corbyn’s allies, the answer is obvious – the deputy’s head must roll.

The plot to oust Tom Watson by abolishing his post ought to be shocking and yet it is not that surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to the Labour party since it came under the control of Mr Corbyn and his friends.
The stakes at this conference season are extraordinarily high. The Brexit crisis is coming to some kind of climax and nearly everyone assumes that an election will soon be upon us. The Lib Dems, who are pushing Labour into third place in some polls, put on a show of celebration of their recent successes at their Bournemouth conference. The Tories will strive to seem confidently together when they meet in Manchester next week. Labour was already facing a struggle to mask its divisions during its week in Brighton, not least because the party’s splits about Brexit have not been resolved by the latest tortuous iteration of its policy. Labour’s difficulties in that regard gave the party even more of an incentive, or so you might have thought, to do its best to put on a united face about everything else. The conference ought to be an opportunity to showcase Labour’s programme, present the party as fit to fight that looming election and project themselves as ready for government. Even dissident Labour MPs had decided to be co-operative. Many are staying away from Brighton. Most who have made the trip to the Sussex coast went with the intention of not rocking the boat.



And yet Mr Corbyn’s allies chose this moment, the last Labour conference before an election, to dynamite any pretence of unity and reignite the party’s civil war by conspiring to overthrow Mr Watson. They went about it in the most underhand and yet also clumsy way conceivable. The position of deputy leader, a fixture of Labour’s constitution for many decades, is directly elected by the members. Mr Watson secured the role in 2015 by winning a vote. If they wanted rid of him, there was a democratic way to go about it. That would have been to put up a challenger. “If people want to remove me, let the members remove me,” he told the Today programme on Saturday.

Trying to take him out the democratic way has been discussed in Corbynista circles in the past. Deciding it was too difficult to pull off, they instead tried to “disappear” him in a way that recalled how Stalin’s henchmen would have politburo members who had incurred the displeasure of the Soviet dictator airbrushed from photographs.
The move to abolish the deputy leadership was made with no advanced discussion or even notice. Nor was there any pretence that this was motivated by anything other than a desire to evaporate someone for expressing opinions Mr Corbyn doesn’t like. It was not on the agenda of the meeting of the national executive committee on Friday night, but sprung on the party’s governing body at the last minute. Mr Watson was not present. The first warning he received was via a text message while he was having dinner with his son at a Chinese restaurant in Manchester. In the wake of the conspiracy’s failure, the Labour leader’s spinners are briefing – and I am struggling to type this without fainting in disbelief – that Mr Corbyn himself did not know that his own capos were going to attempt a drive-by shooting of his deputy.
The plot was undone by the scale of the backlash from MPs, shadow cabinet members, senior trade unionists and former Labour leaders. Even some Corbyn loyalists on the frontbench thought it madness and told him so. This ultimately impelled him to tell his gang to holster their weapons. There will instead be “a review” of the role of deputy; they still want his scalp.
Mr Watson broadly speaks for the centre-left Labour tradition that was dominant in the party’s history until the Corbynite takeover and that’s one of the things they can’t stand about him. They were paranoically angry when he set up an internal party group, Future Britain, to gather together non-Corbynite Labour people. He did that after a series of defections by Labour MPs and saw it as a way to stem further losses by offering a safe place for social democrats within the party; Corbynite zealots viewed it as treachery to the Dear Leader.
The deputy leader has been increasingly bold in demanding that Labour adopts a much more robust stance on Brexit, expressing a view widely supported by Labour MPs, many of whom share his fear that the party will be severely punished at the election if it remains equivocal on the defining issue of our time. The leader and his coterie hate Mr Watson not so much for what he says but because he is a lot more representative of the anti-Brexit views of the majority of Labour supporters than is Mr Corbyn. No one is allowed to get between the leader and the adoration of the members by expressing a view that is more popular with them.
To compound the Corbynite charge sheet of heresy and deviancy, Mr Watson has taken a vigorous stand about the party’s failure to deal with antisemitism in its ranks.
It’s not just business. It’s also personal. A key player in the scheme was Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, whose clout flows from the fact that his union is the party’s largest donor and the leader’s coterie is populated with his close associates. Once such good friends that they shared a flat together, he and Mr Watson have long been locked in a bitter feud. There’s no loathing so deep as that between former flatmates who have fallen out.


Jeremy Corbyn looks pensive during the 2019 Labour party conference
Pinterest
 ‘If Labour is again rejected by the country, it is almost certain that Mr Corbyn will have to go.’ Photograph: Michael Mayhew/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar

There are also some less obvious dimensions to the anti-Watson plot, the public face of which was Jon Lansman, the chairman of Momentum. I think it is also an expression of a furious frustration that other schemes to eliminate critics, purge dissent and tighten their control of the party have not been going entirely to plan. Non-Corbynite Labour MPs are being exposed to a leadership-sanctioned and Momentum-organised effort to have them deselected and replaced with more compliant candidates for the election. This began at the beginning of September and the results are starting to come through. In much greater numbers than was anticipated, Labour MPs, including astringent critics of Mr Corbyn’s leadership, have been defeating attempts to evict them from their seats. Some have been reconfirmed as candidates by substantial margins, worrying the Corbynites that their control over the party membership is weakening.
If Labour is again rejected by the country, it is almost certain that Mr Corbyn, who will then be a two-time election loser, will have to go. Even some of his most fervent admirers will conclude that he cannot carry on as leader. His departure will trigger a titanic struggle for the soul of the party. So another, and I think correct, way of reading the failed anti-Watson plot is as a sign of how much they fear losing control. When you might expect all the focus to be on winning the election, the Corbynite left are desperate to tighten their grip on the party for fear it will be broken by another election defeat.
Authoritarian attempts to stifle dissent, ferocious sectarianism and heavy-booted stamping on the tolerant traditions of our democracy are not confined to Labour. Over in the increasingly noxious Tory party, MPs are being deselected by Brexit ultras in their constituencies, and Boris Johnson purged 21 Conservative MPs, including several former cabinet ministers, for opposing a crash-out Brexit. His enforcer, Dominic Cummings, summarily sacked an aide to the chancellor for “disloyalty” and then had her marched out of Number 10 by armed police officers.
https://avatar.guim.co.uk/user/4657340This is a big and poisonous change in the culture of British politics. Both the Conservatives and Labour used to be proud to call themselves broad churches, capable of encompassing and speaking for many strands of opinion and they made that central to their appeal to the electorate. Now both are behaving like viciously intolerant sects.
 Andrew Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer


------------------------------------------------------------------
·        
RobertBleeker
01
One can not seriously analyse the latest developments around Watson without (even remotely) mentioning the row on antisemitism, whereby Watson stood in the forefront to undermine the position of the pro-BDS Corbyn. Period.!
 Share



OPINION: Betsy DeVos’ slippery slope of religion, ethnicity and race Rutgers case will likely impact how history is taught in schools

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor The Hechinger Report




OPINION: Betsy DeVos’ slippery slope of religion, ethnicity and race

Rutgers case will likely impact how history is taught in schools

September 13, 2018
The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.
I regularly offer a course at my university called Teaching the Holocaust: History and Memory. I begin this class by asking my students how they would define Judaism. Most of the students aren’t Jewish. Responses usually include: a religion, a race, an ethnicity, a culture and a country.
I then share with my class that Judaism is a religion, a people, a shared memory and a code of ethics. This definition explains that Judaism is first and foremost a religion.
As I opened my annual discussion about Judaism this term, the question of what it is to be Jewish was making its way into the national news as The Department of Education reopened a case brought by a Zionist group (a Zionist, most simply defined, is a person who believes in the creation and protection of the Jewish state of Israel) against Rutgers University.
The case considered whether allowing anti-Israel comments on the Rutgers campus created a hostile environment for Jewish students. The Obama administration closed the case, ruling that the Rutgers campus was not a hostile environment. Assistant Secretary of Education Kenneth Marcus said the department was reopening the case “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” that would constitute a violation of federal discrimination laws, and thus fall under the agency’s description.
That is particularly alarming because it means the reopening of the case fundamentally challenges the definition of Judaism. And anti-Semitism too.
First, the Education Department suggests that Judaism is a religion and also an ethnicity. This is extremely dangerous. There is a thin, porous boundary between ethnicity and race. Judaism is not a race. Of all the responses my students give to the question “what is Judaism?” this is the answer I reject.
The last time Judaism was deemed a race was in the years between WWI and WWII as Hitler emerged in Germany. The Nazis adopted pseudoscientific racial laws. They used these laws to justify genocide, and to include as many people as possible in the racial definition of “Jew.” Judaism, however, has always been a religion, never a race.
Judaism isn’t the only term the Education Department wants to change.
They are also redefining what anti-Semitism means. They are suggesting that the definition of an anti-Semite would include anyone who denies Jews the right to their own country. With that, statements that are anti-Zionist would be considered as hateful and offensive as the more traditional tropes and stereotypes that have plagued Jews and Judaism for millennia.
For some, Judaism and Israel are the same issue, knotted together for thousands of years. Others separate out Israel as a legal issue or a human rights issue. Some Jews believe in a two-state solution, others do not; the same can be said for non-Jews.
By reopening the Rutgers case, the Department of Education has raised a series of red flags.
Anti-Semitic language is prohibited in schools. What about anti-Israel statements? Do arguments that Palestinians were/are poorly treated by Israelis fall into the same category of offensive language as other, more traditional antisemitic statements?
Any way you look at this issue, it’s politically charged.
The ways in which these questions are eventually answered by the Department of Education will have implications for how history is taught in schools.
The lines between historical fact and open classroom discussion have always been tricky. Good teachers, however, know how to manage fraught conversations by grounding them in facts, allowing students to debate and teaching students to disagree respectfully. Fundamentally, these points of disagreement give teachers the opportunity to prepare students to fully participate in a democratic society.
Any changes in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism will cloud the lens through which history is viewed, leaving those who may merely disagree with Israeli policies labeled anti-Semitic. A potential change in the definition of Judaism will spark fears of new levels racial discrimination.
This should not be the way we educate students in the United States of America, either inside or outside of our schools.
This story on civil rights was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our newsletter.
Jennifer Rich is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Rowan University, and the director of research and education for the Rowan Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Her research and teaching focus on “hard histories” (such as slavery, the internment of Japanese-Americans and the Holocaust), and how teachers can talk about these time periods in more honest and inclusive ways.