Michael Rosen just showed why weaponisation of anti-semitism must stop

Much-loved Jewish author and poet Michael Rosen has dismantled Israel fanatic former ‘Labour’ MP ‘Lord’ John Mann. Mann was made a peer by Tory Theresa May, apparently for his hatred for Jeremy Corbyn, and appointed as ‘anti-semitism czar’. Red Tory Keir Starmer kept him in the role.

Rosen has been a frequent target of the UK Israel lobby for his support for Corbyn and his powerful condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Last week, he spoke exclusively to Skwawkbox and the Canary on the lobby’s manufactured and dishonest outrage over a school’s decision to honour the wishes of parents and teachers by cancelling the appearance of an Israel fanatic MP.

Anti-semitism weaponisation

Now, Rosen has given permission to reproduce his viral Facebook comments on Mann and his ‘Labour antisemitism’ hypocrisy:

At the height of the claim that the Labour Party was riven with antisemitism and/or institutionally antisemitic, I pursued a theory as follows: ‘If people are combatting antisemitism only in the Labour Party and not in the Tory Party, they’re not combatting antisemitism, they’re combatting the Labour Party’.

To expand that slightly, I was in effect saying that it’s hard to take such people’s definition of antisemitism seriously if it’s only directed at people in one organisation.

One person I took this up with at the time was John Mann, later Lord John Mann. and so-called ‘Antisemitism Tsar’ I put three examples of Tory antisemitism his way: the portrayal of a significant Jewish character in Boris Johnson’s novel; the fact that Boris Johnson hosted the commentator ‘Taki’ at the Spectator magazine for nearly 6 years while Taki wrote comments that many people thought were antisemitic; and the use of the word ‘Illuminati’ by Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons directed at Jewish MPs and the Jewish Speaker.

John Mann has come up again recently – for a spat with Owen Jones over whether Mann has or has not ‘ever’ talked about Israel-Palestine. (Owen Jones has put up a video of his spat, illustrated by what OJ alleges are Mann’s words on Israel-Palestine. ) Then more recently there’s been a kerfuffle on X between Mann (who is not Jewish) and Zack Polanski (who is Jewish).

As some of the spat was about who was or was not best qualified to talk about antisemitism, I chipped in with questions about whether John Mann had commented on the three issues that I mention above: Johnson hosting ‘Taki’, Johnson’s novel and Rees-Mogg’s use of the word ‘illuminati’.

Mann came back with the comment that he had indeed commented on the last two items but not on the first. The reason why I asked about these three things is that I thought I remembered that Mann hadn’t commented on them and had asked AI if he had. AI came back telling me that there was no record of John Mann commenting on these three things. I have now posted this AI answer to my question on X, tagging in John Mann. I was obviously most regretful to John Mann that AI might have got it wrong…

So for the moment, that matter is in limbo until John Mann comes back with quotes of what he said at the time. However, I did point out to him that Johnson hosting ‘Taki’ was quite well known at the time because in some circles ‘Taki’ is famous, and of course universally, so is Boris Johnson.

I mean, given the way tweets, Facebook posts, emails, whatsapp messages and the like have been pored over, going back years, in order to find alleged antisemitism of Labour Party members – including some 50 or so Jewish ones who’ve been expelled for being…er….antisemitic (!), it’s a teeny bit surprising that John Mann hadn’t noticed Boris editing ‘Taki’ in a national magazine.

Could it be, I wonder, that my theory – as expressed above – could in any way be possibly slightly true? Could it be that some kind of double standard or two-tier policing of antisemitism had been and perhaps still is in place?
A few moments later, up popped someone who has passed comment on me in the past. He pointed out that as I had signed a letter in 2006 (see what I mean about internet scraping?) in support of Ken Livingstone, I couldn’t be taken seriously taking John Mann to task over this matter. Either my alleged crime of supporting Livingstone or what Ken Livingstone said in 2006 were of much greater significance than anything John Mann might have got wrong.

I have asked this person directly whether his point is that Ken Livingstone is a more important or significant figure than Boris Johnson and that’s why Livingstone’s alleged antisemitism was/is worse than Johnson’s alleged antisemitism?

More importantly, is there some kind of consensus in certain circles that the alleged antisemitism of left wingers is worse than the alleged antisemitism of right wingers? In the specific case of Johnson is there a view in mainstream circles that what Johnson wrote and did (as editor) is not ‘as bad’ as what Livingstone said?

If so, why would that be? We can only do this hypothetically, but can we imagine what the press would have said and would still be saying if a Labour Prime Minister had written a novel in which this is included:
————-
“Description: Katz is described as having a “proud nose and curly hair” and is portrayed as a “malevolent, stingy, snake-like Jewish businessman”.

Actions: He is depicted as someone who relies on “immigrant Labour” and visits red-light districts.

Context: The character is further described as having the eyes of an “unblinking snake” and as sending his son “pathetic presents, every five years, of low-denomination bills”.

In addition to this specific character, the same novel contains a passage mentioning “Jewish oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)” who were “fiddling with election figures”. ”
———
So what’s going on here? I suspect that the logic going on is that Boris Johnson was not and is not the enemy because he has always been a resolute friend of Israel. (Actually, don’t laugh, but ‘Taki’ who Johnson so resolutely hosted for more than 5 years at the Spectator was in his own antisemitic way, anti-Israel.) So, I’ll ask the question, are antisemitic words, tropes and even some deeds (like editing), acceptable to the media consensus so long as the person ‘stands by Israel’?

Though some of this seems like aeons ago, I’m pretty sure that it’s all going to surface again because of at least three figures: Zack Polanski, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. I’m pretty sure that Farage and Robinson’s past or present antisemitism will be ‘allowed’ so long as they are resolutely pro-Israel. Jewish Polanski on the other hand will be positioned as intrinsically antisemitic because he’s anti-Zionist. Moreover, past or present allegedly antisemitic words will be found as expressed by him or his supporters.

Shadow banning

Rosen’s analysis was praised by fellow anti-genocide Jew Miriam Margolyes, who wrote that she wants to include it in her latest book:

Extremely important post which needs much wider dissemination & discussion. May I quote this in the book I’m writing? I’ve said for years that it’s the TORIES whose imbedded anti-Semitism is beyond doubt.

It has been liked and shared thousands of times on Facebook, despite Meta’s documented shadowbanning of criticism of Israel.

Rosen told Skwawkbox that since writing his post, he has sent Mann documentation on Mann’s lack of objection to Tory anti-semitism:

The latest on it is that I sent him the AI printout that said that ‘it’ (AI) couldn’t find any evidence that he had commented on Boris Johnson (re his novel) or Rees-Mogg (re ‘illuminati’).

Mann’s long obsession with misusing accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ for political purposes includes a government-funded attack on both the Canary and Skwawkbox, which at the time were separate sites. Mann funded a study by pro-Israel ‘academics’ to say that the sites were anti-semitic. The smear failed.

The bullying Mann has been interviewed by police under hate-speech laws for an anti-Gypsy leaflet.

Featured image via the Canary