by Eamon Dyas

The new definition

Although the process had begun much earlier, the change in the definition of antisemitism began to have a direct bearing on the British body politic after Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party since 2015, took the party close to government in the 2017 general election. It was only in the aftermath of that 2017 election that the new definition assumed a significance that was to indelibly shape the future of British national politics.

Through the expedient of altering the previously settled post-war consensus of what constituted antisemitism the new definition became the tool by which a political leader of a potential party of government was overthrown

Defining Israel as a colonial settler enterprise and criticising Israel for its treatment of the indigenous population of what Zionists consider Eretz Israel was now to be considered antisemitic. The extent to which this change represented a radical departure from what went before can be gauged from the fact that on 10 November 1972 the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 3379. That resolution officially defined Zionism – the national ideology of Israel – as a form of racism. Although it was passed by the General Assembly largely through the votes of what is known as the countries of the global south the fact that it held the status of a UN resolution acted as an inhibition on the extent to which the new definition of antisemitism held sway in the global north. This view of Zionism as a racist ideology was only revoked in 1991 as a condition imposed by Israel for agreeing to attend the Madrid Conference – a conference that represented another failure to maintain a check on Israel’s expansionist ambitions.

Since then, despite the continuing aggressive assertion of the Zionist expansionist ideology within successive Israeli governments the new definition of antisemitism is the one that now operates on the sensibilities of the western electorates. It made its first effective outing at the centre of British domestic politics as a response to the British establishment’s need to ensure that a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn would never become the government. Given the man he was, any claims of antisemitism (or the accommodation of antisemitism) would have been patently ridiculous using the post-war definition when applied to someone like Jeremy Corbyn – a life-long opponent of antisemitism or racism of any kind and so the new definition became the one that formed the basis of their attack.

Yet, if we ignore Margaret Hodge’s outrageous verbal assault on him inside the House of Commons in July 2018, the subsequent campaign against Corbyn was not based on any direct charge of antisemitism on his part. Rather the accusation was that he presided over a political party that, after his election as leader, had become institutionally antisemitic – antisemitic according to the new definition that is.

The implication of this charge was that those who joined the party in droves after he became leader were for the most part themselves antisemites. However, it is generally accepted that those who were attracted to the party after his election as leader did so because they had been disillusioned by the way that the Labour Party had evolved into a softer version of the Conservative Party and the manner in which it no longer defended socialist ideals. For them Corbyn represented a new approach to politics that combined a traditional commitment to socialist policies in its domestic application (the return of the utility companies to public ownership and a properly funded NHS) and a modern repositioning of Britain’s foreign policy (one that was more sympathetic to oppressed people everywhere, including the Palestinians at the hands of Israel). 

The fact that the domestic policies proposed by Corbyn’s Labour Party would benefit everyone including the Jewish component of the electorate was not acknowledged by those determined to bring him down. For them, it was the policies he proposed on the issue of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians that condemned him. Despite the benefits that may have accrued for the less privileged element in society in the event of his domestic policies being implemented it was Corbyn’s support for the Palestinian cause that was perversely twisted into something intolerable and worthy of the most egregious claims of the party being antisemitic according to the Zionist definition that made it unbearable for them.

The Zionist charge then became the main point of attack by Corbyn’s enemies inside the Labour Party and among the liberal media. Such was the hysteria built up around this charge that, if the liberal media and those making the claims were to be believed, by 2019 the Jewish community was living in constant fear and significant numbers were reported to be considering fleeing the country. 

The new definition in the service of genocide

But it appears that the successful removal of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party leadership and then his removal from the Parliamentary party has not been enough for his Zionist enemies. The breakout of Hamas from the Gaza compound in October resulted in an assault by Israel on Gaza in November 2023 that involved a level of destruction and killing on the part of the Israeli armed forces not seen since the 1948 Nakba. During these actions the Israeli armed forces have destroyed the life-sustaining infrastructure of the enclave, the libraries, universities and schools, cultural and recreational centres as well as hospitals and centres of civic administration. On top of that almost half of the buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or badly damaged and at the latest count more than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed (with a further more than 8,000 missing). Of those identified as killed more than 23,000 were women and children. Then, of course there is the ongoing blockade imposed by the Israeli armed forces that continues to deprive the Palestinian population of food, water and medicine.

These crimes were identified as a plausible genocide in a finding by the International Court of Justice which on 26 January 2024 instructed Israel to take action within one month to protect the civilian population of Gaza. Those actions included access of the population to food, water and medicine – an instruction that Israel continues to refuse to comply with. 

Understandably the actions by the Israeli government in Gaza has provoked many decent people, including Jewish people, to take to the streets in protest against these genocidal actions and to express their support for the Palestinian people. In London these protests have been taking place every Saturday since the start of the Israeli assault and have been attended by huge crowds. Recently, the demonstrations have been targeted by counter-demonstrators, presumably consisting of people who either support the ongoing genocide in Gaza or feel that such demonstrations should not be permitted to take place because the condemnation which they represent is directed at the actions of the State of Israel. Alongside the presence of these counter-demonstrators powerful political voices have been raised in an attempt to have the marches banned. 

Over the past six months those voices have attempted a number of strategies designed to put pressure on the Metropolitan Police to ban the marches. From early on the Zionist lobby sought to have the police arrest anyone on a demonstration who used the slogan “From the River to the Sea, Palestinians will be free” claiming that it was a hate crime that came within the new definition of antisemitism. The claim was that it implied the elimination of the Jews from the lands between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. The fact that the sentiment behind such a slogan was not interpreted in that way by those organising the Palestinian marches was simply ignored by those whose object it was to bring an end to the marches. Those same people knew full well that the same sentiment was regularly used by the Zionist leadership of Israel only, in those instances it was clearly a reference to the Judaification of these lands at the expense of the Palestinians. For instance, the 1977 election manifesto of what became Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party actually stated: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” and as recently as 18 January 2024 Netanyahu himself used similar wording while referring to the area “west of the Jordan river.”

With their main emphasis having shifted from the victory over the pro-Palestinian element in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party and subsequent purge of those elements from the Party under Starmer, attention shifted to those expressions of Palestinian solidarity amongst the general population. All was looking good for the Zionist lobby on that front with subsequent victories involving the curtailment of the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Then it all began to unravel for them in the aftermath of Israeli actions that began in October 2023. Despite the best efforts of the Israeli propaganda and disinformation machine to frame these events as a war against terrorists, a new constituency of ordinary people emerged in Britain who were repelled by the barbarity of what Israel was doing in Gaza. But even before that new constituency took form, in early October 2023 and in obvious anticipation of the likely reaction to Israeli actions, we witnessed Suella Braverman writing to the Chief Constables of England and Wales in her official capacity as Home Secretary suggesting that even the waving of Palestinian flag could be a criminal offence in certain circumstances. She also said in her letter:

“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section public order offence.” (“Waving Palestinian flag may be a criminal offence, Braverman tells police”. The Guardian, 10 October 2023).

When confronted by this expression of pro-Zionist sentiment on the part of the then Home Secretary, Keir Starmer agreed that the waving of the Palestinian flag might be seem as provocative in certain circumstances. He then sought to out-bid Suella Braverman’s Zionist credentials by calling for the colours of the Israeli flag to be displayed at the Wembley arch for England’s forthcoming match against Italy on 17 October. (See: “Flying Palestinian Flag in UK ‘may not be legitimate’, says Suella Braverman”. The Independent, 11 October 2023).

Unsurprisingly, it was the Labour Party that not only took the lead on this issue but expanded it in a way even more constrictive of free speech when, on 30 October 2023, it suspended the Labour MP, Andy McDonald for stating that “We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” at a protest in London organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Despite that fact that he included Israelis and Palestinians in his wording the mere use of the expression “between the river and the sea” was sufficient to condemn him in the eyes of Starmer’s now Zionist-compliant Labour Party.

The justification used for his suspension was explained by a Labour Spokesman:

“The comments made by Andy McDonald at the weekend were deeply offensive, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism which has left Jewish people fearful for their safety.”

Note that even the Labour spokesman did not a claim that such words engendered fear in the entire Jewish community, only that it left “Jewish people fearful for their safety”. No doubt some Jewish people might decide to express fear as a result of utterances or symbols that assert the rights of the Palestinian people to their land but there are also significant numbers of other Jews who have consistently been part of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London for many years. Yet the political establishment and the media have chosen to de-legitimise those Jews as Jews and instead have only accepted those Jews with a pre-disposition to Zionism as the legitimate voice of the entire Jewish community. It is from such sources that all these contrived “threats” to the safety of the Jewish community emanate and these are the same people and organisations that wish to have the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide marches banned or at least significantly curtailed.

When Suella Braverman failed to use her influence as Home Secretary to bring this about by pressurising the police to arrest people on these marches for using symbols or particular slogans she began referring to them as “hate marches” that were packed with “a large number of bad actors who are deliberately operating beneath the criminal threshold.” She also claimed that some of the organisers of these demonstrations had direct links to Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Then, in early November 2023 Rishi Sunak, possibly acting under the impression provided by his Home Secretary, suggested that the pro-Palestinian march in London on 11 November posed a “clear and present risk that the Cenotaph and other war memorials could be desecrated.” He asked his Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to support the Metropolitan Police “in doing everything necessary to protect the sanctity of the Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday.” Braverman then weighed in with the statement that the march risked causing offence to millions of:

“decent British people. It is entirely unacceptable to desecrate Armistice Day with a hate march through London. If it goes ahead, there is an obvious risk of serious public disorder, violence and damage, as well as giving offence to millions of decent British people.” (“Pro-Palestinian march in London on Armistice Day ‘risks Cenotaph being desecrated’, says PM amid ban row”. The Standard, 3 November 2023).

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, refused to ban the march stating that the intelligence available to him did not meet the legal threshold for him to impose a ban. With this pressure from the Prime Minister and Braverman (combined with the pressure of the Tory M.P. Tom Tugendhat exerted on Sadiq Khan to support such a ban) having failed to move the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Suella Braverman then wrote an article published in The Times on 8 November which criticised the Chief Constable for failing to impose that ban and accused him of having double standards when it came to policing. On the same day Rishi Sunak met Sir Mark Rowley where he “vowed to hold the Chief Commissioner accountable for allowing the march to progress. (See: “Rishi Sunak vows to hold Metropolitan Police chief ‘accountable’ for allowing pro-Palestinian protest on Armistice Day”. Sky News, 8 November 2023).

When the Palestinian march on 11 November went ahead without any of the violence or disruption predicted as inevitable by Braverman and others and with Braverman having earlier castigated the Metropolitan Police Chief for his failure to ban it, Rishi Sunak decided to sack Braverman and she ceased to be Home Secretary on 13 November. It had become obvious that Braverman’s zealotry had brought with it the danger of discrediting the entire Zionist lobby.

Using the new definition as a cover for provocation

Since then, the efforts to stop or hinder the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide marches have continued with Zionist zealots a constant presence on the fringes of these marches. The purpose of this presence is to provoke any response that can then be framed as a disturbance of the peace that can be used to put further pressure on the Metropolitan Police to have them banned. To these people the mere existence of these marches is an affront to their sense of Jewishness. That sense of Jewishness views any public criticism of the actions of the Israeli State against the Palestinians as a threat in much the same way in which the State of Israel views the Palestinians as a threat. In neither case can they be tolerated.

But with the Zionist presence on the fringes of the marches over a period of months failing to evoke the required response, on Saturday, 13 April 2024, Mr. Gideon Falter decided to go for a walk. Mr. Falter happens to be Jewish but fortunately for him he is the kind of Jew that the media listens to and has consistently listened to since the days when Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, was accused of facilitating, and indeed encouraging, antisemitism in the party. That day Mr. Falter, suitably attired as an openly Jewish person, accidently found his road from the synagogue blocked by the weekly pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide march in the area of the Aldwych in London and was prevented from crossing the road by a policeman who somehow felt that his being “openly Jewish” might be a provocation to some on the march. Understandably indignant, the Jewish gentleman, took this as a slight and felt that if such was the case then it was the duty of the police to arrest anyone on the march who might hold such violent intentions towards him as an “openly Jewish gentleman”. Or so, he and the media would have us believe at the time. 

The facts of the case are that Mr. Falter is the chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism and he and his organisation were to the forefront of the use of the new definition of antisemitism in the demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn that directly led to his overthrow as leader – a fact that is never mentioned by the media in any contemporary reporting of his activities. Mr. Falter arrived at the march on 13 April together with others from his organisation. Included in his entourage was a burley henchman in sunglasses who has since been identified by Novara Media as someone who had acted as a bodyguard to Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, during a visit to London in December 2023 and who is employed by the SQR Security Group – an organisation run by two former Mossad agents sub-contracted to the Israeli government. [The Novara Media report is worth watching at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGX5y1rsEwE]. 

Also in the group was someone designated to film the contrived altercation with the police officer overseeing the area of the Aldwych targeted by Mr. Falter and his crew. A week after the filming of the contrived altercation, the video of the incident was sent to the media, and the media, as they have always done, took their cue from Mr. Falter in its interpretation of the filmed events. Mr. Falter then released a video of himself (presumably in the offices of the Campaign Against Antisemitism) in which he reiterated his outrage at the failure of the policing of the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide march in the face of the threat members of the march posed to him as an “openly Jewish” person. He went on to say that the current Chief Constable had patently failed to ensure the safety of the Jewish population of London from the elements that constituted these marches and called for his resignation. He also announced that:

“On Saturday 27th April I and hopefully others will again walk in our home city, again being ‘quite openly Jewish’. We must not be intimidated by protesters or prevented by police from exercising our rights.” (See: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/met-police-apologises-for-using-phrase-openly-jewish-as-antisemitism-campaigner-accuses-force-of-victim-blaming-13118714)

[For reasons best known to themselves the above segment which included Mr. Falter’s statement direct to camera from which the above quote was taken has been removed by Sky News.]

Mr. Falter’s call to arms however was also covered by the online Daily Mail when in a report of the events he is quoted as saying:

“Even as the Met Commissioner apparently refuses to do anything about this, it is time for a change on the ground. Next Saturday, 27^th April, we will be walking again, hopefully in large numbers. No part of London should be unsafe for any of its residents.” (“‘The Met Police are making no-go areas for Jews’: Charity chief slams force who threatened him with arrest for being ‘openly Jewish’ near Gaza march – as he vows mass demo in response.” Daily Mail Online, 19 April 2024)

The manner in which this incident has been reported in the media has resulted in renewed calls for the resignation of Sir Mark Rowley, presumably because such a resignation would open the door for a new police commissioner more susceptible to the pressure exerted by the Zionist lobby and the media. These calls have come from predictable sources including Suella Braverman who, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 21 April, when referring to the incident claimed that: “Either this is gross incompetence, or it’s a culture coming from the top, where thugs are free to intimidate and harass while the rest of us have to keep our mouths shut and stay out of the way.” Alongside Braverman, Mr. Gideon Falter, the “openly Jewish” gentleman who attempted to cross the road had this to say:

“Racists, extremists and terrorist sympathisers have watched the excuses and inertia of the Met under his [Sir Mark Rowley] command and have been emboldened by his inaction at precisely the moment when he should be signalling a renewed determination to crack down on this criminality.

“What the Met under Sir Mark has done to the Jewish community over the course of six months is utterly unforgivable and it’s time for him to go. Enough is enough.” 

What is striking is the way in which the same strategy that was used against Jeremy Corbyn is, to a large extent, being copied here. Although Sir Mark Rowley is not directly accused of being an antisemite there is an implication that he is somehow facilitating the most extreme expressions of antisemitism when it comes to his tolerance of the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide marches. But it is not as easy to unseat a Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as it is a leader of a political party or indeed a government minister. The Chief Commissioner is not the appointee of a political party or of the government. As the UK policing think tank, the Police Foundation, explained in the course of condemning Braverman’s earlier call in November 2023 for Chief Commissioner Rowley to ban the Palestinian march of 11 November 2023: “The basis of our policing model is the common law office of constable: police constables are not employees of the executive, but independent public office holders appointed by the Crown.”  [See: https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/2023/11/the-constitutional-consequences-of-mrs-braverman/%5D

For that reason, the strategy has to be more nuanced. Hence the avoidance of direct charges of antisemitism and a concentration on the “feelings of insecurity” and “threat” posed by the marches to the Jewish community and the failure of the Chief Constable to deal with the “thugs and terrorists” that are responsible for engendering that feeling of vulnerability among the Jewish populace. 

So far, the pressure being exerted on Sir Mark Rowley has failed in its object of ousting him. However, the forces generating that pressure have not gone away. These forces are now deeply inserted in the UK establishment and media to such an extent that the UK government and the opposition Labour Party have become complicit in the Israeli genocide. With that in mind it is still too early to say whether Sir Mark Rowley will survive even in the medium term or if he does survive will he remain as steadfast in his tolerance of the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide marches in the future?

For, short of ousting him, the immediate object of Gideon Falter’s call to arms in which he invited “Jews and non-Jews” to participate in “a group walk” on the 27 April has as its object the banning of these marches by taking the decision away from Sir Mark Rowley. Although, Sir Mark Rowley has gone on record to say that the marches pose no identifiable threat to the public order, by inviting “Jews and non-Jews” to take part in a “group walk” that is designed to confront the pro-Palestine march, Mr. Falter and his allies (allies that, it should be noted, includes the far-right on this issue) are threatening to ignite the kind of disruption to the public order that will compel the Police Commissioner to bend to the Zionist will. If this tactic does not bring the required result immediately it can be guaranteed that Mr. Falter and his Zionist and far-right friends will continue to execute this tactic into the future. 

The obvious police tactic for dealing with this treat is to place restrictions on the route and behaviour of those participating in the Zionist and far-right “group walk” but whether even Sir Mark Rowley has the stomach for that is questionable particularly in the light of the political and media pressures he will be subjected to.