Corbyn ally filmed calling Jew “Nazi” (& Omar accused of “dog-whistle” antisemitism against Bloomberg)

November 10, 2019

Photo above: German passersby laugh at a destroyed Jewish shop on the morning on November 10, 1938.


Yesterday evening was the anniversary of Kristallnacht (the Night of Broken Glass). 267 Synagogues were destroyed in Germany and Austria, along with many thousands of Jewish homes, hospitals, schools and shops. Over 700 Jews were summarily executed on the streets of German and Austrian cities and another 30,000 were arrested and sent to concentration camps (including my grandfather’s brother who was taken to Buchenwald on November 10, 1938).

Yet western governments continued to appease Hitler afterwards and block the escape paths for other Jews in 1938 and 1939.

After Kristallnacht, the Nazi state then imposed a fine of one billion Reichsmarks ($400,000,000 in 1938 terms) on the Jewish community in Germany for damage caused in the pogrom.

More here:

A Brazilian soccer team wore Stars of David on their jerseys in memory of Kristallnacht victims.


A Jewish home ransacked in Vienna.



[Notes below by Tom Gross]

All these posts below are from my (public) Facebook page in recent days


The New York Post reports that a tweet yesterday (Saturday) by controversial far left Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar referring to possible presidential contender Michael Bloomberg and philanthropist Leon G. Cooperman has left critics accusing her of “dog-whistle” antisemitism.

(In February Omar apologized for several blatantly anti-Semitic tweets. And in March former Ku Klux Klan head David Duke called her “the most important member of the U.S. Congress.”)

Yesterday’s questionable tweet came in response to a CNBC article revealing that Cooperman would be supporting Bloomberg in his 2020 presidential bid.

“I wonder why,” Omar said, adding a suspicious “hmmm” emoji. Bloomberg and Cooperman are both Jewish.

A broad array of critics said her new tweet about Bloomberg was veiled anti-Semitism and a wink to followers.

“I suppose you think it’s all about the Benjamins? We get your insinuation. True to form,” countered Michael Dickson.

Even Czech tennis legend Martina Navratilova criticized Omar saying: “This is a wrong thing to say Congresswoman. Generalizing is wrong no matter which ‘group’ of people one talks about. It’s about assigning labels, and I hate that.”

Her tweet came just hours before Omar was to address the Council of American Islamic Relations in Washington, DC, for their annual gala. CAIR is the same organization that she spoke to in March, when she was accused of downplaying the 9/11 attacks as “some people did something.”



The Associated Press reports:


Tom Gross adds:

I attach an opinion piece from yesterday’s New York Times by Bret Stephens titled “Run, Mike, Run!”

He writes:

“Mike Bloomberg should run for president, for two reasons that ought to be dispositive. First, he would be a very good president, potentially a great one. Second, he stands a much better chance of beating Donald Trump than anyone in the current Democratic field.

“The main question is whether Democrats are inclined to allow the former New York City mayor to save them from themselves.”




Every day in Britain, new examples of antisemitism from allies of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, are emerging.

Among a few:

From today’s Mail on Sunday (including the video, which is extraordinary to watch):

Video footage (still photo, above) shows hard left trade union leader and ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Steve Hedley, shouting “Nazi” at British Jew Richard Millett.

Millett responds “Feel better?”, to which the highly paid union leader says: “Better than you, obviously. But then again, you’re one of the chosen people, so you might feel better than me, huh?”

Millett told the Mail: “I don’t see how someone who makes such obviously antisemitic remarks can hold such a senior role at a union. He should resign from his position… I feel these people have been emboldened to say what they really think and can get away with it now that Corbyn is Labour leader. And if he becomes Prime Minister, nothing is going to stop them.”

Hedley is facing calls to resign from his £105,000- a-year role as Senior Assistant General Secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union over the outburst.

In 2016, Hedley faced criticism after saying: “I think all the Tories are an absolute disgrace. They should be taken out and shot.”



Gideon Bull was forced to resign as a Labour Party election candidate on Friday after calling a Jewish female colleague “Shylock”. Corbyn supporters immediately rushed to Bull’s defense saying he “didn’t have racist bone in his body” only for a letter to be leaked that evening showing that Bull used the words “N**ger” and “P*ki” while he was a Labour councilor in the London borough of Haringey.



Labour general election candidate Kate Ramsden was forced to quit last week after she likened the actions of Israel to those of a child abuser.

The candidate, for the Scottish constituency of Gordon, said she was resigning for “personal reasons”.

Zarah Sultana, a Labour general election candidate for Coventry South, apologized earlier this week for saying she would celebrate the death of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.



BuzzFeed reported yesterday that another Labour MP, the acting shadow international development secretary Daniel Carden, changed the lyrics of the Beatles song Hey Jude to “hey Jews” while singing on a trip from the Cheltenham festival to London.

Carden, the Labour candidate for Liverpool Walton district, denies mocking Jews. The Liberal Democrat party leader, Jo Swinson, described the allegations as “disgusting”. She said: “At a time when the Jewish community feels under threat due to rising antisemitism, politicians have a duty to stand with them, not mock them.”

The allegations follow comments by the former Labour home secretary (under Tony Blair) David Blunkett that “antisemitism and thuggery” within the party made him despair and urged moderates to “stay and fight” in the party to ensure the “voice of reason” prevailed following the moderate Tom Watson’s decision to stand down as deputy Labour leader last week.


Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland writes:

“I understand that to many, all this will sound overwrought. I’m afraid that Jewish history has made us that way, prone to imagining the worst. We look at our usually sparse family trees and we can pick out the pessimists, those who panicked and got out. It was they who left their mark on us. You see, the optimists, those who assumed things would work out for the best, they never made it out in time.”

Here is the full article:

Many Jews want Boris Johnson out. But how can we vote for Jeremy Corbyn?
By Jonathan Freedland
The Guardian
Saturday November 9, 2019

For most progressive-minded, remain-leaning folk, is it even a dilemma? I’m not sure. To them the logic must seem simple and straightforward: they want to eject a cruel and useless government and stop Brexit, and that means denying Boris Johnson a majority and replacing him with Jeremy Corbyn, who will end austerity and hold a second referendum. Job done.

I wish it were as simple as that for me. But it’s not.

Because while I want desperately to avoid Brexit, and while I have nothing but contempt for Johnson and his hard-right party, the prospect of Prime Minister Corbyn fills me with dread. Not, I stress, the prospect of a Labour government, committed to spending billions on schools, hospitals and houses – Britain needs that badly – but specifically the notion of Corbyn and his inner circle running the country. The thought of it prompts in me, and the overwhelming majority of the community I grew up in, a fear that we have not known before.

I’m referring to Britain’s Jews who, for the first time in their history, have concluded that someone hostile to them is on the brink of taking democratic power. Yes, of course, not every single British Jew holds that view. But the most recent poll found that 87% regard Corbyn as an antisemite, meaning an anti-Jewish racist.

Why? The recitation is now wearily familiar. Recall that Corbyn’s first reaction on hearing of a plan to remove a mural filled with hideous caricatures of hook-nosed Jewish bankers was to ask, “Why?” Or that he decided to challenge two “Zionists” not on their arguments but by suggesting that, though they “might have lived in this country for a very long time”, they “don’t understand English irony”. Or that, when a Palestinian Islamist preacher was found by a British tribunal to have peddled the medieval and lethal myth of Jews feasting on the blood of gentile children, Corbyn declared that man a very “honoured citizen”, and invited him for tea in the House of Commons. (And those are merely some of the greatest hits; the full discography runs much longer.)

For four years, Britain’s Jews have – naively, perhaps – waited for the moment when one of these revelations would prove too much for the Labour faithful, shocking them into action. Perhaps it would be the discovery that, despite evidence against hundreds of party members – including those trafficking in grotesque neo-Nazi imagery and Holocaust denial – only a handful have actually been expelled. Or maybe it would be the BBC Panorama investigation that showed how Corbyn’s team repeatedly interfered in antisemitism cases as they went through a supposedly independent disciplinary process, “mainly so they could let their mates off the charge”, as one whistleblower, driven to the brink of suicide, put it. Or perhaps it would be the fact that Labour has become only the second political party ever to be investigated for institutional racism by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (the other was the BNP).

But no. No revelation has ever proved shocking enough that it couldn’t be explained away by those who’d rather not see it. So publicly Labour’s luminaries insist they are fighting a “ruthless” fight against antisemitism, doing all the Jewish community has asked of them, as John McDonnell said this week, even though the facts point the other way.

We’re meant to cheer that Chris Williamson has been barred from standing again as an MP. But Jews remember that, even when Williamson’s penchant for egregious Jew-baiting was well known, Corbyn was still praising him. Just a few months ago, in fact, Corbyn called him “a very good, very effective Labour MP. He’s a very strong anti-racist campaigner. He is not antisemitic in any way.”

None of this has stopped. Labour’s crop of prospective parliamentary candidates has included several with a documented history of anti-Jewish bigotry, Twitter back-catalogues playing on all the familiar tunes of Jewish conspiracy, greed and the rest of it. Two candidates were forced to step down on Thursday, one for calling a Jewish fellow councillor “Shylock”. It suggests this is no longer a problem of one man, but that the malaise is now institutional.

And yet Labour’s high command could soon be governing the country. Labour doesn’t even need to win many seats; Johnson needs only to fail to win a majority and Corbyn will be closing in on Downing Street. What should Jewish voters and those appalled by anti-Jewish racism do about that?

Plenty advise Jews to shelve their angst in return for a government that will stop Brexit (Jews are overwhelmingly pro-remain). In effect, Jews and their would-be allies are being told that some racism is, if not quite acceptable, then a price worth paying. That seems to have been the bargain struck with those Labour “moderates” who were once so admirably vocal in their denunciation of the leadership on this issue and who are now – minus Tom Watson – knocking on doors to put Corbyn in No 10: you’ve got your second referendum, now shut up about the Jews. It’s an uncomfortable feeling, to be part of a small community that can be so quickly cast aside for the supposed greater good.

Progressives and remainers who care about racism are left with a dilemma. Some try to swerve around it by denying the evidence, telling Jews they are wrong about the racism they experience. That’s not a great look. Others (rightly) point out that Johnson is himself a bigot and an Islamophobe – as if we should accept that this is a contest of two racists and we should back the one we agree with more. Still others war-game assorted hung-parliament scenarios that might magically both despatch Johnson and deliver a non-Corbyn prime minister.

But all of this is to dodge the main point – which is that none of us should have ever been put in this position. None of us should be forced to choose between a hard Brexit enforced by an Islamophobe, and electing a man whose record fills one of Britain’s smallest minorities with fear.

Many, Jews included, ask themselves how bad would it really be. What’s the worst that could happen? Of course this isn’t the 1930s and, despite the Sunday Telegraph’s front page, most Jews would not leave the country. But that the question is even in the air, that someone who sees Jews as not quite “us” – “they don’t understand English irony” – is deemed eligible to be prime minister, makes our presence here feel conditional and shaky. And, whether Corbyn makes it to Downing Street or not, to realise that the historic party of social justice in this country finds a little bit of racism acceptable for the sake of the larger cause, and that many millions of voters agree – well, that realisation contains its own heartbreak. It means that what we thought about this country wasn’t quite true.

I understand that to many, all this will sound overwrought. I’m afraid that Jewish history has made us that way, prone to imagining the worst. We look at our usually sparse family trees and we can pick out the pessimists, those who panicked and got out. It was they who left their mark on us. You see, the optimists, those who assumed things would work out for the best, they never made it out in time.



I attach an opinion piece from yesterday’s New York Times. Like Jonathan Freedland above, Bret Stephens is a longtime subscriber to this email list.

Run, Mike, Run!
A Bloomberg-Trump contest would be one between a maker and a faker.
By Bret Stephens
The New York Times
November 9, 2019

Mike Bloomberg should run for president, for two reasons that ought to be dispositive. First, he would be a very good president, potentially a great one. Second, he stands a much better chance of beating Donald Trump than anyone in the current Democratic field.

The main question is whether Democrats are inclined to allow the former New York City mayor to save them from themselves.

Until last week, the conventional wisdom was that they weren’t so inclined. Then came that New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll showing Trump competitive with, or ahead of, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the six battleground states that will likely decide the 2020 election.

If Trump is this strong now, in the midst of his impeachment woes and all the general distaste for him, where is he going to be in 11 months in a contest against opponents with nicknames like “Sleepy Joe,” “Crazy Bernie,” or “Uber Left Elizabeth Warren”?

This was no doubt the thought that induced Bloomberg to hurriedly dispatch staffers to Alabama to file primary paperwork in time for its Nov. 8 deadline. The case against a Bloomberg candidacy is that he can’t possibly win the nomination when so many Democratic primary voters want to cancel billionaires, soak the rich, and relitigate the crime-fighting strategies that defined his 12-year tenure as mayor.

But the case for a Bloomberg candidacy is stronger and infinitely simpler: In a field divided between politically feeble centrists, unelectable progressives, and one talented but awfully young small-city mayor, he … can … win.

How so?

Because his money instantly neutralizes the Trump campaign’s formidable fund-raising advantage, which as of last month had twice as much cash on hand as the Obama campaign did at the same stage of his re-election campaign.

Because he also neutralizes Trump’s strongest re-election argument, which is that “whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.” The right’s charge-sheet against today’s Democrats is that they hate capitalism, hate Israel, hate the cops, think of America as a land of iniquity, and never met a tax or regulation they didn’t love. Against Bloomberg it all falls flat.

Because his views on gun control, abortion and climate change fit squarely in the Democratic mainstream without being obnoxious or frightening to middle-of-the-road America. The Democratic base will not sit out the election and squander its chances to oust Trump just because Bloomberg’s wealth offends them or because they won’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t embrace the Green New Deal.

Because even his opponents know there can be no gainsaying his ability to serve as president; or his talent for appointing competent deputies; or his mastery of the mechanics of government; or his overwhelmingly successful tenure as New York mayor; or his understanding of business and the economy; or his immediate credibility on the world stage; or his sobriety of judgment or general probity of character. Mike Bloomberg has donated more money — at least $6 billion — than Donald Trump has ever had.

Because the voters who will matter in the election — that is, those who live neither in deep blue nor deep red states — want a centrist. Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida tell pollsters they want “a Democratic nominee who is more moderate than most Democrats,” and that they prefer “one who would bridge the partisan divide,” according to a report Friday from my colleagues Jonathan Martin and Katie Glueck.

Oh, and because Bloomberg is what Trump only pretends to be: a bona fide billionaire and proven entrepreneur. In 2012, the Romney campaign tried to create a contest between “makers and takers.” A Bloomberg-Trump contest would be one between a maker and a faker.

All this should terrify the Trump campaign. Yes, Bloomberg has some weaknesses as a candidate. These include age (77), a less-than-charismatic speaking style, a reputation as a scold who wants to take away your supersized fizzy drink, his (Trumpian) reluctance to release his full tax returns, and the fact that he’s a technocratic master-of-the-universe in an era of populist demagoguery.

None of these should be deal-breakers for any persuadable voter. The real question is whether Democrats can quickly get the message that, contrary to what many of them have supposed, the election is not theirs to lose. A candidate who flubs his lines against Trump will yield the same disastrous result as one who sounds like the Party Line.

Of course, the Democrats could always get lucky. The recession might arrive by Easter. A convincing process of, and vote for, impeachment in the House could move a few Senate Republicans to vote for conviction. Some other major Trumpian scandal might come to light.

But if trouncing Donald Trump is essential to the preservation of liberal democracy, then it won’t do to cross fingers and hope he stumbles. A Bloomberg candidacy would be a gift to Democrats, the country, and the world. Sneer at it at your peril.


* You can also find other items that are not in these dispatches if you “like” this page on Facebook

All notes and summaries copyright © Tom Gross. All rights reserved.