newspapers and Why did you think this inquiry was relevant when it really doesn�t come to any conclusions?newspapers

I wasted an inordinate amount of time transcribing bits from yesterday�s Home Affairs Committee hearing, starring Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti; stupid really because I knew that if I just hung on for a day or so there would be an official transcript. 

Sure enough, here it is. 

Of course, when you�re looking at print you can examine every syllable at your leisure, but in black and white you don�t get the nuances of the actual panto performance. 

The visuals and the audio add that extra something. You don�t get to hear Keith Vaz�s peculiar delivery in a transcript. He sounds as though he�s doing a half-hearted impression of Brian Sewell. I suppose it gives him an air of authority; part disdain, part superciliousness, part pomposity, and all the more oleaginous when used to pay a compliment, and in this instance to express profuse gratitude to Jeremy Corbyn for attending.

 (So he didn�t have to attend if he didn�t want to?)

There are several other media responses worth looking at if anyone�s interested. Patrick Kidd has made it the topic of his Political Sketch. Times (�)  �A masterclass in ducking the question� 

The Spectator�s Katy Balls noticed that Chuka Umunna  �Has started to make a habit of using the Home Affairs Select Committee to grandstand about his party�s woes.�

The Today programme also mentioned it: Susan Hulme. 44:10

�It�s believed to be the first time an opposition leader has been questioned by a commons committee. But-- they certainly weren�t deferential.�

She played a handful of sound clips from the hearing. I think both Sarah Montague (who had introduced the item) and the presenter, Ms Hulme, found the whole thing rather amusing. More amusing than absolutely necessary. Somehow I don�t mind anyone else finding it amusing, but I strongly object to the BBC doing so. 

Harry�s Place has it of course. 

Keith Vaz said:

Many regard this inquiry as a whitewash because it does not contain any facts and figures, and it did not take evidence from some of the principal people accused of antisemitism. Why did you think this inquiry was relevant when it really doesn�t come to any conclusions?

Other people might be wondering this as well. It now transpires that Naz Shah�s suspension has been lifted.  Exquisite timing.

newspapers and Jeremy Corbyn: "I think I got away with it"newspapers

I watched this rather nasty hearing on the subject of antisemitism by the Home Affairs Committee, chaired as usual by Keith Vaz, who opened proceedings with a few warm remarks about his long-standing friendship with the chief witness.

Towards the end of the hearing Jeremy Corbyn was asked if Shami Chakrabarti�s report clarified what antisemitism is. He duly obliged with the following definition:

�Antisemitism is where you use epithets to criticise people for being Jewish, you attack Jewish people for what they are, it is completely unacceptable, and I would have thought it�s very obvious what antisemitism is, just as much as would be very obvious what Islamophobia is -  if you criticise Moslem people for what they are, what they are alleged to believe, even if they believe in it or not, and I think in the report Ms Chakrabarti makes it very clear that we have to condemn both of those with great vigour equally.�

Shami Chakrabarti was sitting behind Jeremy Corbyn, and she appeared to be acting as his �minder�. She nodded and shook her head, scribbled away on a pad and occasionally slipped a post-it note onto the table in front of her client. 

Next to Ms Chakrabarti in the front row, directly behind Jeremy Corbyn, sat a stern-faced man in a dark suit who Keith Vaz referred to as �Mr. Rotherham.�  He and Ms. Chakkrabarti gave each other meaningful looks, and he too passed a post-it note to Mr. Corbyn. Keith Vaz spotted this and scolded them. 

t�te-�-t�te

Keith Vaz queried Ms Chakrabarti�s independence in the light of her last-minute decision to join the Labour Party. He suggested that people might regard her report as a whitewash.

�No no�, protested Mr. Corbyn. �Shami is completely independent�. 

There was a great deal of waffling about what Mr. Corbyn meant in his accidental comparison between Israel and �Islamic states�. He insisted that he meant it �lower case�  i.e., Islamic states in general, not �the� Islamic State.

�Ms Chakrabarti, there is no need to nod at the back� said Mr. Vaz. 

This did not go down very well with Ms Chakrabarti and the stern-faced man. Both glared thunderously thenceforth.

Victoria Atkins, James Berry, David Burrowes, Nusrat Ghani, Tim Loughton, Stuart C McDonald, Chuka Umunna, and David Winnick were the MPs who questioned Jeremy Corbyn.

The JC.com  has published a summary. Here�s a short extract;

He said he �totally and profoundly disagreed� with the views of Holocaust denier Paul Eisen. 

Mr Corbyn reflected on his meeting with Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush earlier this year, which, he said had �lasted quite a long time. We got on quite well. Look if we want a strong cohesive society, we oppose antisemitism because it divides us�. 

The Labour leader said he had attended events about the Israel-Palestinian conflict where Holocaust deniers had been removed for making antisemitic comments regarding the Shoah. 

He had travelled to Ealing in west London for tea with Raed Salah because the sheikh was under house arrest, he added. 

Questioned on why he had accused Guardian journalist and JC columnist Jonathan Freedland of "subliminal nastiness", Mr Corbyn said Mr Freedland had "made comments detrimental to my character".

Mr. Corbyn spoke of his agreeable conversations with �Mr. Akrush�, mispronouncing his name repeatedly.   Nusrat Ghani�s approach was rigorous and rather fierce. When Mr. Corbyn kept including �all forms of racism� in his replies she insisted on talking specifically about antisemitism. 

Mr. Corbyn responded to her adversarial tone by becoming increasingly insouciant. 

She asked if he intended to accept the invitation to visit the leader of the Israeli Labour Party.  His evasive answer implied that he would not be accepting it, and it�s widely believed that he hasn�t actually replied at all.

Victoria Atkins was also fittingly adversarial. She raised the subjects of Stephen Sizer and that �cup of tea with Raed Salah�

�I had a discussion with him�, said Corbyn. 

He explained his relationship with Paul Eisen: 

�Paul Eisen founded a group called Deir Yassin Rembered. Deir Yassin was a village that was destroyed during the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.�

An anti-Israel version of an event, plucked from its proper historical context, unchallenged by the committee. When controversial matters appertaining to Israeli/Arab history are being distorted I do not believe members of the Home Affairs committee are capable of identifying propaganda. 

As I�ve said so many times before, Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk have always embraced the Palestinian version of events as if they were definitive, absolute and conclusive. 

Corbyn�s total lack of interest in historic events from the pro-Israeli perspective belies all his disingenuous claims about bringing people together, engaging with both sides or talking with �people you disagree with� to secure �peace�. He claimed to have visited Israel many times, and to have spoken to Israelis, but he did not go into detail. 

David Winnick is too doddery for his shirt I�m afraid, and his supposed support for Israel is half-hearted bordering on full-scale elusive. He appeared to be saying that Israel is guilty as charged, but blaming Jews for it is racist. 

 �Bombardment of Gaza� intoned Corbyn.

David Burrowes livened things up a bit by mentioning the Hamas Charter, and Keith Vaz obligingly read out the well-known passage, as follows:

 �The prophet, peace and prayer be upon him said: the time will not come until Muslims will fight Jews and kill them until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees which will cry �O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him� �

�It�s unacceptable but you have to talk to extremes on both sides.� said the witness.

Chuka Umunna wondered why Corbyn didn�t �call out� Mark Wadsworth, the individual from Momentum who had offended the Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at the infamous launch of the Chakrabarti report. He said he�d seen the video. In fact we�ve all seen the videos of what happened. From every conceivable angle.  He also brought up Jackie Walker�s offensive comment about Jews financing the slave trade.

Tim Laughton enquired about the role of Seumas Milne, Corbyn�s right-hand man and director of communications. 

�Is he a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah?�  

�You�d better ask him. He�s a man of immense intellect and a scholar. He�s written many books (so has Ernie Wise) and he works extremely hard...�

There is a video, said Mr Laughton, showing Milne praising Hamas for their spirit of resistance and declaring that they would not �be broken� 

He was not allowed to show the video to the committee, but Mr. Vaz promised to write to Mr. Corbyn about it at a later date. 

Stuart C McDonald wasn�t sure if the report defined what antisemitism is. Corbyn duly obliged:(forgive the repetition.)

�Antisemitism is where you use epithets to criticise people for being Jewish, you attack Jewish people for what they are. It is completely unacceptable and I would have thought it�s very obvious what antisemitism is, just as much as would be very obvious what Islamophobia is. If you cri�icise Moslem people for what they are - what they are alleged to believe - even if they believe in it or not, and I think in the report Ms Chakrabarti makes it very clear that we have to condemn both of those with great vigour equally.�

Is everyone expected to swallow that?  Yes, he really did use a glottal stop, and yes, I think he really does believe the above. It seems he doesn�t actually think Muslims believe what they profess to believe, namely Islam. He evidently doesn�t believe that the more devout they are the more antisemitic and homophobic they�re likely to be. He equates antisemitism (hatred of Jews) with Islamophobia, (criticism of Islam) both of which he regards as racist. 

James Berry: 

�Mr Corbyn, do you agree that Israel has the right to exist? " 

�Sorry?� 

�Do you agree that Israel has the right to exist?� 

�The State of Israel exists of course� 

�Then you agree that it has the right to exist?� 

�Yes, and all proposals that are put forward are actually -- that our party�s policy is for a two state solution.� 

�Do you understand why Jewish people find it at best offensive and at worst downright antisemitic to have to continually justify Israel�s right to exist?� 

�I�m sure they do. There are issues about Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people and occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza, and all proposals for a peace process are based around the removal of the settlements and of course an end of the siege of Gaza. Listen! I�be been there many times, and what�s happening is wrong. The killing is wrong..� 

�On both sides, presumably� 

�Absolutely, but there isn�t a way forward that doesn�t involve dialogue, that doesn�t involve acceptance of the rights of Palestinian people  and recognition of a Palestinian state, that surely has to be the right way forward.�

The siege of Gaza!

The settlements!!

The �treatment� of the Palestinian people!!!

The occupation!!!! 

No-one challenged him on any of that, so I think Jeremy Corbyn could safely say �I was antisemitic a couple of times, but I think I got away with it.�

newspapers and Miscellaneous observationsnewspapers

There�s a bit of a �grateful for small mercies� flavour to some of the responses to Shami�s antisemitism report. John Mann and Jonathan Arkush both seemed reasonably satisfied with it. 

We�ll have to see how Keith Vaz and his merry men handle it tomorrow.

Incidentally, Ed Stourton began the interview by mentioning the death of Elie Wiesel.

The BBC�s obit was respectful, but the early morning reports of his death on radio 4 bulletins - not so much. For some reason they shoehorned something about Wiesel�s critics (who doubted the enormity of the Holocaust) into the report  Work experience guys on night duty I suspect.

*******

Did you read Fraser Nelson�s review of Andrew Marr�s interview with Andrea Leadsom? 

He called it a �scratchy job interview� (I wonder if Speccie writers make up their own headlines) I didn�t think it was scratchy at all - at least any scratchiness came from the direction of the interviewer rather than the interviewee. 

This business of trying to destroy �Leave� people by bashing them over the head with a wet Nigel Farage is beginning to grate. The media has managed to toxify Nigel Farage so that letting slip the merest whiff of agreement with anything he�s ever said or done is to commit virtual suicide by association. The very mention of �That Poster� is enough to trigger sufficient unsafety to reach outer space. My god. It�s almost like �Settlements� 

Mention �Settlements� and you�re finished.  Poleaxed by misdirected outrage.

*******

My constituency MP, minister for DEFRA, has come out in favour of Michael Gove. Good for him. 

The media has been really mean to Gove, amplifying the back-stabbing label for all it�s worth. I actually believe his version of how events panned out with Boris.  As Gove says, Boris could have stood if he really wanted to. The downside of it all is that it reveals a lack of judgment on Gove�s part - or at least a prolonged case of hope triumphing over experience.

I think the media despises honesty whenever they suspect an MP is suffering from it. They want their MPs to be back-stabbing, ruthless and robotic. I don�t know why. That�s my honest opinion and, for now, I�m sticking to it.

newspapers and The Chakrabarti report and other disastersnewspapers

Believe it or not, I often refresh my brane by looking (through my impartial spectacles) at arguments diametrically opposed to my own. We all know how easy it is to slip into the habit of confining yourself to your own circle, if only to snaffle new currency to revitalise your tired old arguments. 

So many articles have appeared about the Chakrabarti fiasco that I wasn�t even going to add to the verbiage, but on the other hand, I didn�t think hiding in a cupboard would look much better. I�ll leave the disastrous launch to everyone else, incriminating videos and all, and stick to the other disaster - the allegedly inadvertent insult within Corbyn�s speech. 

I followed a link (via Guido) to Labour List, a website I wouldn�t ordinarily read. 

I admit I only skimmed Shami�s report, but from a quick perusal I got the impression that it was largely autobiographical. Also, it seemed to me that she was trying to create a new, cast-iron definition of antisemitism of her own, a task that has defeated many better qualified minds than hers.  Was it necessary to reinvent the wheel instead of looking at the recent antisemitic outbursts and analyzing the underlying zeitgeist in the Labour Party? I thought the inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party was originally set up to investigate antisemitism in the Labour party.  It seems to have migrated, transmogrified into something rather different.

However, John Mann MP, a supporter of Israel, praises Shami�s work, which surprised me.

I wonder if he was flattered that she followed several of his recommendations. Maybe it got better as it went along?

In my view, banning the word "Zio� will only generate a substitute euphemism. 

Shami recommends that: �Labour members resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors ..� which looks almost as though she believes that the temptation to use such terms is practically irresistible - you know, naughty but nice! And they say Jeremy was never a great wordsmith.

Shami has taken full responsibility for Jeremy Corbyn�s infamous comparison between Israel and Islamic State. She thinks it�s merely a re-worded version of a paragraph in her report. By way of an explanation a commenter called Peter contributed this:

�And just in case anyone is in any doubt, below is the substantive point that the author of the report made, and which the Labour leader was referring to (the below text is taken directly from the report): 

�To suggest, for example, that all or most Jewish people are wealthy or interested in wealth or finance or political or media influence or less likely to be of the left or likely to hold particular or any views on the subject of the Middle East is a classic stereotype. Equally, to doubt the political or national loyalty of a Jewish person on account of their actual or perceived connection to fellow Jews elsewhere around the world including in Israel is (unwittingly or otherwise) to tap into an age-old antisemitic conspiracy trope that will inevitably and understandably leave your Jewish friends, neighbours or fellow activists feeling vulnerable, excluded and even threatened.....

Similarly, I have heard Muslims (en masse) being derided as inherently sexist and/or antisemitic and potentially of split or dubious loyalty in the context of Party membership and political participation. Once more, they are sometimes expected to explain and condemn the actions of Isis or particular terrorist acts before, or more vehemently, than anyone else. This is simply not fair.�

Let�s look at that statement.The first paragraph is all well and good. Peter may be right. Shami was doing what Shami does, bringing an imaginary Muslim equivalence into all matters related to Jews and Judaism.  It�s her way of �testing� an argument, and it throws us back onto the insoluble, catch 22, circularity of the status quo. (Antisemitism is racism.  Islam promotes antisemitism. Accusing Muslims of antisemitism is racist.) 

People like Shami believe every example of antisemitism must be compared with a similar example of �Islamophobia� in order to test its validity. 

To Shami this is fair, but supporters of Israel and critics of Islam see it as constructing an unnecessary and inappropriate moral equivalence. That is one reason why Shami was the wrong person to conduct this inquiry. 

As for Jeremy Corbyn�s reworded version of Shami�s essay, well, what can I say. 

�Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.�

If you�re going to create an analogy to explain the unfairness of mindlessly associating one thing with another, you could take (as in this case) �Jews� and �Israel�, and compare them to two other benign things that are often unfairly linked. For example:   

 �Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our feathered friends are for....the fashion for fascinators� 

Well, I couldn�t think of a good example, but you see what I mean. Why was it necessary to bring Muslims into it at all? And after all, the analogy he presented pitted "Jews" and �something bad� against "Muslims" and �something bad�.  Not all of us agree that Israel is something bad, or, for that matter, that the Israeli government is doing anything more than protecting its citizens from something that is extremely bad.  

And it all leads back to the BBC and the way it has successfully demonised the Jewish State till it automatically becomes �something bad� in the minds of the gormless and the uninformed, and when Jeremy Corbyn speaks as if that is a given  no-one bats an eyelid.

Somewhere online, in a comment or in an article, it was pointed out that only Corbyn and his strategists could have turned the launch of a serious report about antisemitism in the Labour Party into another bog standard promotional event for the politics of Jeremy Corbyn. Good point. They�re unstoppable.