Another Holocaust Denier Linked to Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has been a Patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since at least 2003. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) was founded in 1982 but almost collapsed in 1998. One of its executive members, Francis Clark-Lowes, helped "resuscitate" it by serving as its National Chair between 1998 and 2001. Later he served as one of its Directors.

Francis Clark-Lowes is a Holocaust Denier and was obsessed with "Jewish power" from the beginning of his involvement with the PSC.

In January 1999 he wrote to his fellow members of the PSC committee urging the PSC to recruit more Jews because "non-Israeli Jews in the West are, as a body, an extremely potent force". In the same note he complained that:

"only rather bland statements follow about the unworthy use of ‘the holocaust’ [his quotation marks], and anything which might conceivably be construed as revisionism is avoided like the plague."

In May 1999 Clark-Lowes told a conference that:

"a cursory review of holocaust literature reveals that most of the books on this subject are written by Jews, and their almost exclusive concern is the suffering of Jews. I ask myself whether this process has more to do with buttressing the ‘fantasy’ ... of Jewish identity than with understanding the nature of atrocity...At the risk of being labelled a revisionist...I want to suggest that there is something wrong with the use of the Nazi atrocities for this purpose...It is for this reason I find it better to avoid the word ‘holocaust’, and to refer instead to ‘Nazi massacres’, or ‘Nazi atrocities’.

In 2000, he wrote to all member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign suggesting that they should engage with Jews because "they are more likely to be interested and to have the power to influence Israeli politics than any other group. Their influence on those in the West with the power to exert pressure where it matters is also likely to be greater."

Clark-Lowes is a close friend of Paul Eisen - the self-declared Holocaust Denier whose events Corbyn has attended. In 2005 when Eisen declared himself to be a Holocaust Denier, Clark-Lowes defended him, writing that "unconsciously or consciously almost all criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinians undergoes a process of amendment to comply with the demands of Jewish power." and that "Whatever the truth about the Nazi atrocities, we agree, I think, that Finkelstein is correct is describing 'the Holocaust' as an industry. To me that industry is a tangible representation of Jewish power."

Clark-Lowes himself eventually came clean declaring "I am proud to call myself a ‘Holocaust denier.’"

Eventually, Clark-Lowes was expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in 2011 and appealed at its AGM in January 2012. In his appeal speech he spoke of the "Holocaust myth" and the need to challenge "Jewish ideology". The members of the PSC voted to uphold the expulsion - although 20% refused to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn was present at that AGM!

So once again Corbyn is faced with awkward questions about his relationship with a Holocaust Denier. When did he become a Patron of the PSC? How many events organised by Clark-Lowes has he attended? How may meetings has he had with Clark-Lowes? When did he become aware that the PSC was being run by a Holocaust Denier?

What explanations will Corbyn come up with to explain yet another association with a Holocaust Denier?

Why a Corbyn Win Might be Good for the Jews

It is looking increasingly likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be elected to lead the Labour Party and this is causing concern among Britain's Jews because of Corbyn's links to antisemites. I think that a Corbyn win could be very good for the Jews precisely because of those links. Here's why.

My starting point is to ask what we're all so worried about? Yes Jeremy Corbyn has come into close contact with a significant number of people who are antisemitic and this suggests that he does not take the issue very seriously. But is there anybody seriously suggesting that Corbyn himself is antisemitic? I don't think so. And I don't think he is. So what damage can he do to Britain's Jews if elected Labour leader?

If he wins, he will be given a much stronger platform from which to spread his far-left anti-Israel position. That may, in turn, fuel higher levels of antisemitism. But we already hear that position regularly whenever there is a flare-up in the fighting. Corbyn may have a stronger platform if he wins but that platform will bring with it a stronger level of scrutiny, beyond what he is used to. His anti-Israel position will be challenged in a way it has not been before. We have already seen how badly he deals with those kind of challenges (see his Channel 4 News interview).

As a candidate and front-runner in the leadership campaign he is already coming under attack because of his links to antisemitism but so far he is getting away with not answering the questions that those links raise. He will get no such lee-way as Leader of the Opposition.

For a short time (before Corbyn is forced out) there will be an opportunity to shine a spotlight on pro-Palestinian antisemitism like never before. It might not be politically fatal to Corbyn but hopefully it will be for pro-Palestinian antisemitism.

Am I being hopelessly naive? Is this just wishful thinking? Or do you agree with my analysis? Please let me know what you think.

Jeremy Corbyn and Hezbollah

Jeremy Corbyn has never been shy of his long-standing support for the Palestinian cause. He is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and regularly talks at pro-Palestinian rallies. This association, however, seems to be coming back to haunt him somewhat.

About a month ago he was asked on Channel 4 News about a video in which he spoke of "our friends from Hezbollah" and "friends from Hamas". During the questioning he got quite angry but went on to say that he used the term in a "collective way" but that he does not agree with either Hamas or Hezbollah.

This week, the Daily Mail reported that Corbyn had written a letter of support on behalf of Rev Stephen Sizer who had posted links to antisemitic material on his facebook page. Rev Sizer posted a link to an article entitled "9/11 Israel did it" and commented "Is this antisemitic?...It raises so many questions." This, of course, was not the only time Rev Sizer had done something like this and many similar examples can be seen in this article by Daphne Anson.

According to the Daily Mail, Corbyn wrote to Church authorities claiming that:

"Reverend Stephen Sizer seems to have come under attack by certain individuals intent on discrediting the excellent work that Stephen does in highlighting the injustices of the Palestinian Israeli situation."

In the same article Corbyn's links to Paul Eisen's Deir Yassin Remembered organisation is discussed. Eisen is an avowed Holocaust denier writing:

"I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers… Deny the Holocaust! For my money, a child of six can see that something's not right about the Holocaust narrative... For me, "Holocaust Denier" is a label I accept."

According to the Daily Mail article, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign disowned the group in 2007. But this is actually not true. Tony Greenstein tabled a motion at their 2007 AGM calling for such a move on the basis of DYR's antisemitism but the motion was actually rejected. Corbyn's office rejected any connection between Corbyn and Eisen but would not comment on the claim that Corbyn donated money to Eisen or that he attended their events. He was also not available to comment on his connections with Rev Sizer.

In my opinion the question of donating money to DYR in its early days is not relevant. At that time nobody knew it would become a vehicle for antisemitism and Holocaust denial. But what cannot be denied is that Jeremy Corbyn's involvement with the pro-Palestinian movement has brought him into close contact with some unsavoury characters.

His endorsement of Rev Sizer is not a one-off. In 2012 Corbyn was one of the main speakers at the Al Quds Day rally in London. One of the other main speakers was, of course, Rev Sizer. For many years now, the rally has been a vehicle for support of Hezbollah. From at least 2006 these rallies have featured Hezbollah flags and placards declaring "We are all Hezbollah". 2012 was no exception as pictures from the organisers and others show.

In fact, here is Jeremy Corbyn himself posing in front of a Hezbollah flag at the 2012 rally:

Jeremy Corbyn poses in front of a Hezbollah flag

He says he does not agree with what Hezbollah do but he certainly seems to have no problem associating with those who do.

Conveyor-Belts and Suicide-Belts

Recently, David Cameron made a speech about extremism and in it he said:

"any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it... as we counter this ideology, a key part of our strategy must be to tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent. This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative."

Anonymous Mugwump took this to mean that Cameron had signed up to the "conveyor-belt" theory of Islamism which argues that non-violent Islamism leads to violent Islamist terrorism. AM argues very strongly that this is incorrect and, as usual, provides numerous academic and non-academic sources to back up that view. AM argues that "there is no causality between Islamism and terrorism" and his sources show that support for Islamism doesn't make someone any more likely to support terrorism.

David Paxton has written a strong rebuttal arguing that Cameron did not mean to invoke the "conveyor-belt" theory, rather he meant that Islamism provides the "mood music" (as Maajid Nawaz puts it) for violent Islamism.  He says that there is a link between Islamism and terrorism even if it is true that being an Islamist doesn't make you more likely to be a terrorist.

This is obviously a crucial question and, with some hesitation, I think both AM and DP are both right and wrong. 

AM's point (as I have understood it) is that supporting the Islamist ideology does not make you more likely to become a terrorist or to undertake acts of violence. Therefore tackling non-violent Islamist groups will not reduce terrorism. DP's response that the Islamist ideology is inherently violent because it supports state violence may be true but not really relevant to the discussion about reducing terrorism in Britain. 

DP argues that even if it is true that there is a personality type that is drawn to terrorism, there nevertheless has to be an Islamist ideology in existence for there to be Islamist terrorists. He writes:

"The people who might follow the path that ends with terrorism would still be considered fairly ‘normal’ in society in terms of their characteristics and potential before they start on the path. The same person with a tendency towards that search for excitement and adventure might go to the Army after growing up with one identity and to Jihadist organisations if growing up with another. The variable is the alternative identity and its viability. So even if there is no movement between the two Islamist groupings (I suggest this is unlikely and that we do not have the studies yet to be conclusive either way), the non-terrorist Islamist is still assisting the development of the violent one by creating, propagating and articulating the grievance, the cause, the ideal and the identity. They are also assisting by working against the validity of the alternative identity, namely that of the country they live in."

In other words, the kind of person drawn to terrorism could have channelled those characteristics in a productive way and would have done so had it not been for the existence of Islamism. I think this is very similar to what Maajid Nawaz writes:

"despite the absence of empirical evidence either way, what cannot be denied is that there is a relationship, a link, to whatever extent, between believing that it is okay to kill apostates, and actually killing them. It is silly to deny that a pre-requisite for the act of killing apostates, is the belief that it is okay to kill them."

Well, firstly, there is empirical evidence which AM provides. But more importantly he's absolutely right, it is silly. So silly, in fact, that I don't think anybody would suggest it. Of course an Islamist terrorist must sign up to the Islamist ideology. But that isn't actually the question we need to answer. 

What we are concerned with is stopping terrorism and that means identifying its causes. As AM argues very strongly, adherence to non-violent Islamism is not one of those causes. Rather, there is something innate in a person that leads them on the path to violence. If that is true then tackling non-violent Islamism will not reduce terrorism.

DP argues that the existence of the Islamist ideology drives them on a specific path to terrorism and that without that specific ideology they would channel their innate characteristics towards something else. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of ideologies and paths that lead a person to terrorism. In Europe, only a tiny proportion of terrorist incidents are the result of Islamist terrorism. If the Islamist ideology disappeared overnight, the person drawn to a path of terrorism would find plenty more to follow.

So it would seem that AM is correct and that there is no causal link between Islamism and terrorism. The kind of person who is going to become a terrorist would become one even without the existence of the Islamist ideology. However, there is one vital point which DP alludes to and which I think makes Cameron's approach vital and that is the nature of the terrorism.

An Islamist terrorist is signed up to the Islamist ideology and that seems to include the desire to murder apostates. As a result, Islamist terrorism is more deadly than other forms. Despite making up only a very small proportion of the total number of terrorist incidents in Europe, Islamist terrorism is responsible for the vast majority of the deaths from terrorism in Europe. This is not because the other terrorist groups are incompetent, it is because the Islamist terrorist wants to murder as many random people as possible whereas other terrorist groups do not.

In this regard, if the Islamist ideology disappeared overnight we would not have fewer terrorists but we would have fewer deaths from terrorism. In this regard there is a causal link between Islamism and terrorism. On this basis, if our aim is to reduce the damage caused by terrorism then tackling the Islamist ideology is a crucial part of the fight. In short, we are not aiming to stop the conveyor-belt but we should aim to stop the suicide belt.

BDS Still Desperate

While not as bad as highlighting a "victory" from 2003, the London BDS group is still desperate to find events to crow about. Their latest is the story that Veolia was fined £130,000 for breaches of security law that led to the death of a worker near Aylesbury.

I'm not going to comment on the logic or morality of using the death of a company employee in Britain as a political weapon against Israel, I'll just point out that the death was in 2004 and the fine handed down in 2010.

BDS Antisemitism in Birmingham

Mark Gardner at The CST highlights a youtube video of BDS activity in Birmingham. The campaigners in it visit a number of Tesco shops placing stickers on Israeli products before piling them into trolleys and leaving them in the aisles or bagging areas with anti-Israel posters. Amongst the Israeli goods targeted were, in the words of one activist, "loads of kosher stuff."

I don't think BDS is inherently antisemitic. I think it is wrong and counter-productive and some of its proponents may be motivated by an antipathy towards the Jewish people. However, trying to get people not to buy Israeli oranges and encouraging Tesco not to stock Israeli peppers is not an inherently antisemitic campaign.

Nevertheless, targeting the Kosher section is antisemitic in effect. Because its effect is to encourage Tesco not to have a Kosher section which harms British Jews as Jews. Below are some pictures from the video showing the campaigners focussing on Kosher products.

Happy Passover? Not if these BDS Campaigners can help it.

Scouring the Kosher section for Israeli products

BDS campaigners don't want Tesco selling Kiddush wine to Jews

Or Sabbath Candles

Or Kosher soup

BDS Getting Desperate

You know things are bad for a campaign when it has to go back to past events. But how bad must it be when their latest victory is 9 years old?

London BDS posted the following tweet last night:

Follow the link and you'll see that the event referred to happened in 2003!

Yet Another Council Declares BDS Illegal

First there was Leeds City Council, then the North London Waste Authority now its the turn of Canterbury City Council. All three have explicitly and publicly told BDS campaigners that their attempt to have Veolia excluded from public contracts is illegal. In the most recent example, Larissa Laing, head of Canterbury's neighbourhood services said:

Canterbury must choose its waste collection contractor under procedures laid down by Europe and adopted by this country under the Public Contract Regulations 2006. We do not think that activities in the Middle East relate to what we are considering in this contract.

Will the BDS campaigners listen? No. As I've explained before, the BDS campaign chooses to focus on Veolia because it guarantees them things they can call victories. Whenever Veolia doesn't win a tender the campaign leaders can declare it a victory and everyone agrees and congratulates themselves. This is one of the reasons why Normal Finkelstein calls the campaign a cult.

So you can be sure that this latest inconvenience of a council pointing out that BDS is illegal - and thereby also showing that not a single "victory" is actually real - will be ignored.

Where to Draw the Line?

Obviously Israel must be able to decide who is allowed into the country of Israel and that means that there must be a hard border somewhere around it, with fences and crossing points etc. As I see it, there are four possible options for approximately where that line might be drawn:

1) Along the River Jordan
2) Along the Green Line but east of Jerusalem
3) Along the Green Line and through Jerusalem
4) Along the Green Line and west of Jerusalem

Which is the best? How do we judge?

I think that the following criteria must form the basis for any evaluation:

1) How successful would it be at ending the fighting?
2) Would it ensure that both sides have their legal rights?
3) How easy is it to practically implement?
4) How easy is it to politically implement?
5) Is it economically and socially beneficial to the individuals most affected?

With those criteria I think that option 2 fares best and here's why.

Placing the border along the Jordan River (1) is simple to implement practically and most beneficial to the individuals since it proves everyone in Israel and Palestine free movement. It may be possible to ensure that both sides have legal rights with some kind of federalised system. However, politically it is extremely difficult and most importantly it will not end the fighting.

A border running through Jerusalem (3) is bound to be difficult to implement and will be extremely bad for the economy of the city. It will end the fighting and should ensure national rights to both sides. Politically, though, there is no appetite for physically splitting the city in two. That goes for international opinion as well. Europeans who celebrate the collapse of the Berlin Wall aren't going to support the construction of a Jerusalem version.

Placing the border west of Jerusalem (4) would not end the fighting, it would only localise it to the city. Everyone inside the city would suffer from economic difficulties and there is no chance of political implementation. Sharing the city would lead to tensions that would probably eventually boil over into outright war between the sides.

If the border runs east of Jerusalem (2) this would end the fighting, be simple to implement practically and be beneficial economically to all residents of the city. Both sides would have their national rights. Politically, it is difficult to implement.

In my view, of the four options only the second one is feasible. All the others present real physical problems whereas the second presents only the challenge of convincing people to accept it.

I'm sure many (maybe most?) readers will disagree and I urge you please to lay out your counter-arguments in the comments or by email.

BDS Fails to Impress in Liverpool

A planning meeting in Liverpool was left distinctly unimpressed by BDS campaigners. Here's the report from local paper the Liverpool Daily Post:

At this week’s meeting, proposals for a new waste gas burning centre in Garston stirred up objections from the local branch of Friends of the Earth and Friends of Palestine, owing to company Veolia’s record running a controversial landfill in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
While the not-in- my-backyard brigade are often out in force at council planning meetings, the concerns emanating from within the kaftans of the objecting 50-somethings of Garston were seemingly a backyard too far for planning chair John Mackintosh, who in his own inimitable way tried to steer business back to more local issues.
At the point at which the lady objector warned that “what is happening in Israel could happen in Garston” (not, sadly for some, the building of a large wall around the district, but questionable waste disposal policies and their health risks), Big John felt compelled to remind her and the committee that “We’re talking about Garston here, not Gaza” – although his Everton drawl did make the two places sound indistinct, if only in name.
Development control manager Mark Loughran perhaps summed it up most succinctly when reminding the committee that “morality, ethics and human rights” were not really considerations for planners – without doubt a view that many of those present at the meeting to unsuccessfully oppose developments in their own backyards would ruefully concur with.

The planning application was approved and the official report [pdf] on the meeting makes absolutely no mention of anything remotely to do with BDS.

Another Council Declares BDS Illegal

The most important target of the BDS 'cult' is the French multi-national Veolia. Unfortunately for them, their demands that councils exclude the company from public contracts is completely illegal. Leeds City Council told local campaigners as much last year.

Now the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has reiterated reality.

NLWA said it had received “letters and representations” on the issue, while it faced protests at its meeting last week. But the authority said: “The legal position is very clear and these are not issues that the NLWA can or will in any way take into account"

Will the BDS 'cult' listen this time?

Jerusalem: The Main Obstacle to Peace

It is well understood that the only viable way to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians is to go back to the original plan and have two distinct countries. This is the stated position of world leaders and the UN. It has been accepted by both sides in the conflict.

Two major issues remain, though: refugees and Jerusalem. Palestinians want Israel to grant citizenship to the millions of Palestinians registered as refugees by the UNRWA and Israel flatly refuses. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be their capital and Israel flatly refuses. However, there is a crucial difference between these issues which makes one a major obstacle to peace and not the other. This is the question of consensus.

In the same way as the two-state solution has gained unassailable consensus in the international community, so too has the solution to the refugee issue. Everyone understands that Palestinians will not become Israeli citizens and must accept compensation instead. The refugee issue is not a major obstacle to peace since the solution is there and agreed upon. All that is required is for the Israelis to agree to a proper level of compensation and for Palestinians to accept the inevitable. Those are not trivial requirements but nevertheless the starting point is known.

When it comes to Jerusalem, however, thinking is confused and unclear. The consensus appears to be that East Jerusalem should serve as the capital of a future Palestine. But does that mean that the city is to be divided into two separate cities with a border snaking through it? Should the city be shared with free movement between its two parts? Should sovereignty be divided or held by one side with some form of autonomy granted to the other?

These important questions have not been addressed and no consensus exists. There is, therefore, no viable plan for peace that could be implemented. Instead there is hand-waving and wishful thinking. The so-called Road Map for Peace leaves the issue of Jerusalem as a matter for negotiation, offering not even a hint at what the city might look like once peace is concluded.

Until there is a consensus on what Jerusalem will look like once a Palestinian state has been created, there is not much prospect for peace. It is, of course, a very complicated issue which is probably why there is such reticence to discuss it. But if there is to be peace, then there must be an international consensus on this issue, just as there is with regards to the refugees.

Without it, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators will each state their claims and reject whatever the other proposes. With it, the sides enter negotiations with a firm peace plan on the table and their job is to tweak it until it is acceptable.

There is also the question of public opinion. People cannot be convinced to agree to a non-existent plan. But, if there is consensus on a specific deal, then people can work to change public opinion in favour of it.

This is why Jerusalem is now the biggest obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

EDM Proves Illegality of BDS

A couple of weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn sponsored an Early Day Motion in the House Commons. It has so far attracted 13 signatures. The motion calls on the Government to:

facilitate and support effective EU legislation to ensure ... that economic operators aiding and abetting the building, maintenance or servicing of illegal Israeli settlements be excluded from public contracts in the EU.

This proves that the main thrust of the BDS campaign is illegal.

The BDS campaign primarily focuses on trying (and failing) to get Veolia excluded from public contracts and does so by citing current UK law:

Under the Public Contract Regulations (2006) a contracting authority may exclude an economic operator from bidding for a contract or may reject any such bid where it is found that the individual or organisation in question has “committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of his business or profession” (section 23(4)(e)).

The Public Contract Regulations are the UK's implementation of EU Directive 2004/18/EC. So if the EU already has legislation that allows for BDS why is there an EDM asking for it?

The reality is that BDS in public contracts is actually completely illegal. The "grave misconduct" clause that the BDS 'cult' relies on does not apply here. The preamble to the EU legislation states:

If national law contains provisions to this effect, non-compliance with environmental legislation or legislation on unlawful agreements in public contracts which has been the subject of a final judgment or a decision having equivalent effect may be considered an offence concerning the professional conduct of the economic operator concerned or grave misconduct.
Non-observance of national provisions implementing the Council Directives 2000/78/EC(15) and 76/207/EEC(16) concerning equal treatment of workers, which has been the subject of a final judgment or a decision having equivalent effect may be considered an offence concerning the professional conduct of the economic operator concerned or grave misconduct.

Thus it is clear that the clause only comes into effect when a final judgement has been made finding the tenderer guilty of breaking a law. This has not happened in the case of Veolia and there are therefore no legal grounds for excluding it.


This understanding was confirmed by Leeds City Council to local campaigners who refused to exclude Veolia and stated that the company had never been excluded from a contract because of BDS. The response was precisely what one might expect from what Norman Finkelstein labelled a cult - they simply ignored what they were told and insisted they were right and the council was wrong. Indeed, London BDS responded to Finkelsteins branding them a cult by dismissing him as a delusional Zionist.

Will the BDS Campaign now dismiss these MPs as Zionists too?

BDS Double Failure in North London

The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) announced last week that Veolia had been short-listed for two lucrative contracts worth a combined £4.7 billion. The final decision won't be made until December.

BDS campaigners had tried hard to convince the Authority to exclude Veolia because of its involvement in the Jerusalem Light Rail which they hold to be illegal since it benefits Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem (ignoring the benefit to Palestinians living there). Excluding Veolia from the contract would almost certainly be illegal under European and UK law and clearly the Authority was not convinced by the BDS arguments.

What makes this a double failure (aside from the two contracts) is that the BDS campaigners have themselves given up on BDS. Rather than argue that the company should be excluded because of anything to do with Israel and the occupation, the BDS campaigners have focussed their efforts on other facets of the bid. A letter sent to a local paper a few days before the decision, reprinted on the London BDS website, called for Veolia to not be short-listed. But rather than focus on its involvement with the tram system, the letter argued that:

Only two of the bidders included practical solutions to the authority’s objective of combining heat usage in the project, known as CHP. On the other hand, Veolia’s solution is not and could not be CHP.
To confirm this, we researched information from other bodies, including the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Environment Agency.

The issue of Israel was an afterthought:

Does it surprise anyone that Veolia, which has been accused of profiting from illegal Israeli settlements, shows such disregard for environmental objectives?

And in the comments on the London BDS website, reacting to their failure, one activist argued that:

Prior to the NLWA decisions on 10 Feb “Moody’s downgraded Veolia Environment’s senior unsecured ratings from A3 to Baa1″ [published on 8 February].
It is inconceivable the NLWA management informed the councillors Members of this significant development before the decisions on 10 Feb, as it failed to inform them that Veolia is not CHP and its grave misconduct in aiding and abetting war crimes.

It is most likely Veolia would have been deselected had the NLWA taken into account the true ratings of Veolia, but as with other evidence, the NLWA been withholding information from the elected Members as well giving inappropriate weightings.

When even the BDS campaigners won't put BDS at the centre of their campaign, you know they're losing and they know it.

Time to Refocus

For a while now this blog has focussed on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. It is one of the main organisations working to spread lies and misinformation about Israel intending to give the impression that a liberal, democratic country of refugees which has been under existential threat since its inception is actually the world's most evil group of people responsible for unspeakable and inexcusable crimes that are unmatched by any other country.

Fortunately for those who desire peace the campaign is suffering on three fronts. Firstly the extent to which it is infested with antisemitism and Holocaust denial has been exposed. Local branches have been forced to expel some important members because of their extremism and the national campaign released a statement claiming that Holocaust denial has "no place in the movement". This claim was rather undermined when 20% of the members refused to expel a Holocaust denier who told the AGM that the Holocaust was a myth.

The second problem facing the PSC is that it is now trying to claim that it is committed to the two-state solution. Up until recently the campaign refused to take any stand on the issue therefore being able to hide the fact that most of its members want to see Israel wiped off the map. But it has come under pressure to clarify its position and when forced to do so can only take a stand in favour of two states or lose any chance of becoming mainstream. Its members aren't happy about that.

Finally, the PSC's main campaigning tool is the boycott campaign and BDS is failing. It has failed to convince many Israel-haters let alone the wider public. Its targeting of Veolia is a sham as its members must know but won't admit. In the most recent blow, Norman Finkelstein blasted the entire campaign as a "cult".

So its fair to say that, as things stand, the PSC is likely to have a bad year. As will BDS. It's therefore time to move on and focus on something else. The PSC is still a horrid organisation whose members will gladly ignore the inconvenient fact that the Syrian regime has murdered more Arabs in the last year suppressing demands for democracy and freedom, than Israel has killed this century trying to protect its civilians from terrorism. It will still attempt to convince the world that Israel is especially evil. It will still campaign to get local councillors to break the law by illegally excluding Veolia from contracts. It will still lie about its commitment to two states and it will continue to attract and harbour antisemites and Holocaust deniers. And I will, hopefully, still be exposing as much of this as I can.

However, the Campaign is weak and need not be feared. It cannot be ignored but it doesn't warrant taking centre stage. In particular, it doesn't deserve to be on the front foot making arguments that others have to refute. It has nothing to offer that can lead to peace. No vision for the future. Only division and destruction.

Its time to refocus on the main obstacle to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Jerusalem.

PSC Members Find Place for Racism and Holocaust Deniers

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) continues to have problems with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. At their recent AGM the delegates confirmed the expulsion of Francis Clark-Lowes, a former national chair and member of the Brighton branch, for Holocaust denial.
 
His problems started last April when he emailed the Brighton PSC mailing list declaring that he was

proud to call himself a ‘holocaust denier’

and then later that

I do not believe that millions of Jews and others were gassed in an industrial process of extermination

Those comments resulted in him being expelled by his local branch. Tony Greenstein claims that "not one voice was raised in his defence in Brighton PSC".  Tony then reported his comments to the Executive in May who expelled him from the national PSC as well. He appealed at the AGM but lost.

Unfortunately for the PSC, rather than show the organisation as being strongly against such overt antisemitism, the opposite is true. Problems started immediately when it emerged that 20% of the delegates refused to vote against Clark-Lowes, despite him calling the Holocaust a myth in his appeal speech.

A couple of days after the AGM, Francis Clark-Lowes posted a response to Mr Greenstein in which he contradicted Tony's claim of unanimity inside the Brighton branch. Francis wrote:

Greenstein states that ‘not one voice was raised in his defence in Brighton PSC.’ He must know this to be untrue. One voice was raised forcefully in defence of my right to free speech at the meeting where my expulsion was discussed, and several other branch members contacted me later to declare their support.

It now turns out that several members of the Brighton branch have started a reading group to "study" the antisemitic ideas of Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book The Wandering Who. Among those involved are Brenda Brown, a former chair of the branch, and Penny and Jim Porter. Every month, these members of the PSC will join the expelled Francis Clark-Lowes to discuss the antisemitic text.

The PSC claims that

Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement. 

So long as its members are happy to join Holocaust deniers to study racist books, the PSC shouldn't expect reasonable people to take their words seriously.

Mainstreaming and Slimlining

The PSC's report on its AGM claims that, in 2012, the organisation will focus on mainstreaming itself. As I've written before it currently has virtually no impact on public opinion and when it does it is often negative. Ten years of BDS campaigning has not convinced more than a handful of people and aroused significant opposition.

Any attempt by the PSC to make itself mainstream will most likely result in it shedding active members. Last year Hugh Lanning was forced on at least two occasions to declare that the PSC supports the two state solution, despite Betty Hunter reassuring members that it doesn't. The more it tries to attract support from less extreme groups the more often it will have to make similar public declarations.

The problems of Holocaust denial and antisemitism among members hasn't gone away and is unlikely to do so. The PSC will find itself forced to move against more members in the future, expelling some and angering others. It will find it increasingly difficult to defend Hamas and other extreme Palestinian groups for whom antisemitism is an important part of their worldview. People will rightly ask how they can expel Holocaust deniers in Britain while supporting them abroad.

Virtually anything the PSC does to try and make itself mainstream will alienate its members. Eventually it might well become important but not before it becomes a reasonable voice in the debate at which point it will be listened to but have nothing to say.

If any example were needed of the PSC's inability to be both mainstream and a delegitimiser of Israel then we need look no further than the Olympics. The AGM report says that it will try to use the Olympics to "raise the issue of Palestine" (as if people are currently unaware of it). Apart from the fact that the Mayor's office has already made it clear that political activity will not be tolerated during the Olympics, there is something remarkable about the PSC's approach to the Olympics to date.

One of the main claims used by the PSC to attack Israel and justify its BDS campaign is that Israel is an apartheid state. Just as South Africa was the target of boycotts so Israel should be. Given that South Africa was banned from the Olympics for nearly 20 years, why has the PSC not called for Israel to be banned? The answer is that such a call would make it politically very difficult for the likes of Ken Livingstone and the Green Party to retain ties with the PSC.

So not only is the PSC irrelevant and the BDS campaign a failure, any attempt by the PSC to make itself more important will require them to end their delegitimisation and significantly water down their BDS campaign.

The Failure and Futility of BDS

As part of my very short series of reasons not to worry about the PSC I explain how the BDS campaign has been a failure and is now completely futile.

The BDS campaign in the UK is more than ten years old now. According to the UK Foreign Office, Israeli exports to the Britain have grown every year in that period except during the first couple of years when Israel's economy faltered and again in 2009 for similar reasons. In 2010 it was worth just under £1.5bn representing a little over 4% of Israel's exports.

The campaign certainly hasn't captured the imagination of the British public. The only times that I can recall it being discussed widely in the UK media was when the notion was being thoroughly lambasted from all quarters. It's true that some trade unions have called for or even demanded a boycott but it seems doubtful to me whether even those hundred or so delegates who voted for the motions actually intended to follow it. If the annual campaign against Israeli dates during Ramadan is anything to go by, the BDS supporters are struggling even to convince Muslims not to buy Israeli produce.

As the movement failed to work on the masses the PSC has changed tack, deciding to focus almost all of its energy on a completely futile campaign that is guaranteed to provide it with a never ending stream of "victories". This is the so-called Bin Veolia campaign.

The campaign aims to convince local authorities to exclude Veolia from public contracts. However, under European and UK law it would be completely illegal for any government body to exclude Veolia's bid for political reasons. The PSC likes to claim that companies can be excluded if they're guilty of "grave misconduct" and that that clause applies to any company operating in the West Bank. Unfortunately, the clause only comes into effect once a company has been convicted by a court or tribunal of breaking the law.

Leeds City Council told their local PSC branch as much, going further by pointing out that the company has never been excluded by any council. The branch refused to listen, claiming that Veolia had "lost billions of pounds worth of contracts" due to BDS.

And this is why the PSC loves the campaign so much - they're guaranteed victories. Most people would quickly realise that no company is ever going to win every tender process it enters. Its obvious, therefore, that Veolia will fail in numerous bids. But for the BDSers, every time it doesn't win they can claim credit.

This is what the BDS campaign has become - lots of energy spent to achieve nothing except the continual victory claims. For example, last year the PSC claimed a victory after John Lewis stopped stocking Ahava products. Unfortunately, John Lewis then called the claim "false and misleading" and declared that the boycott campaign had had no effect on the sales of the products.

The national PSC must be aware that the campaign against Veolia winning public contracts can never achieve anything, so why do they spend so much effort on it? One possibility is that it's a very good way of appearing active, appearing to win and keeping the activists happy. Regardless, its good to note that if all the PSC can do is call for something that councils know to be illegal, then friends of Israel needn't get overly concerned.

PSC's Impact on Public Opinion

Imagine that the PSC was a significant organisation, taken seriously and respected as an important voice in the pro-Palestinian camp. Would it be reasonable to assume that its opinion would be sought on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Might its senior members be invited to contribute to the debate? Would the media report some of its activities?

Judging by what I found when I looked, the PSC is virtually ignored by the mainstream press. Even the Guardian.

In the last 10 years the Guardian have published over 7,500 items on Palestine and 35,000 on Israel. During the same period it has printed a whopping 109 items mentioning the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Here's a closer look at them.

56 are letters, of which 2 just mention the PSC in passing and 3 are signed by someone who is a committee member of a local branch. 16 are letters with numerous signatures including some from the PSC. They can claim credit, though, for 7 letters whose signatories are either exclusively PSC or were almost certainly gathered by them. There are a further 28 letters signed by someone from the national PSC, virtually all of which are from Betty Hunter.

Of the 53 non-letters 26 are news articles and 14 are comment pieces. The rest are a mixture of local news reports (7), profiles (1), obituaries (1), diary entries (2) and running stories (2).

The news articles break down as follows. 6 mention the PSC in passing, 2 report in negative terms about an activity of the PSC, 1 in neutral terms, 1 is about their interruption of the proms and 2 are references to them inviting the anti-Semitic Raed Salah. In 14 other articles a quote is provided by the PSC, though 5 of these are quotes from Sarah Colborne about her being on the Mavi Marmara and in all likelihood would have been given without the PSC existing.

What is more interesting is the comments pieces. 5 of the 14 only mention it in passing. The other 9 are all hostile or negative towards the PSC. So far as I can tell, no member of the national PSC has been a contributor to CiF.

Perhaps the importance of the PSC to the UK's discourse is best summed up by the following two comments on the live coverage of the Mavi Marmara incident.

10.38am:

A source from the Free Gaza Movement has told the Guardian that 19 people are believed dead.
There were 27 Britons on board the ships, the contact says, including Sarah Colvin from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign

11.08am:

Ben Folley has emailed to point out that I've erred in my 10.38am post, naming a couple of Britons on board. Sarah Colvin should read Sarah Colborne – she is director of campaigns at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign

When the journalist for the definitely anti-Israel Guardian who is live blogging a major event doesn't even recognise the name of the Director of the PSC - perhaps its fair to suggest that they're not that important really.

Keeping Things in Perspective

One of the dangers of focussing on a single issue is that you can lose perspective. Since I've spent some time rather focussed on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign I think its good to take a little time to remind myself of how the world really looks. So here are three reasons why the PSC shouldn't make anyone quake in their boots. In the coming few days I'll elaborate on each one.

1) The PSC has little impact on public opinion and when it does, it is often detrimental to the anti-Israel campaign. (Read more)

2) The BDS campaign, which the PSC spends such effort on, is a failure and its main element is a sham. (Read more)

3) The PSC will become increasingly toothless and incapable of de-legitimising Israel. (Read more)