Owen Jones’ choice

By Saul Freeman and Jake Wilde

Over the last week we have written an article each on Owen Jones. Although Owen and us are “of the left”, it’s fair to say that Owen occupies a different section to us two most of the time. We are variously described as Red Tories, Blue Labour, Blairites, liberal interventionists and neocons. Owen is none of those things. However Owen wrote an article on 15 March where he stated “anti-Semitism is a menace”. Condemnation of anti-Semitism is a binary choice and you either do or you don’t. So Owen’s condemnation was to be welcomed and here was something that we thought would unite Owen and us..

But when we read his article we, independently of each other, found things that made us nervous. One week on and we have decided to write this conclusion to the discussion jointly.

In 2004/5 Owen Jones was a student at Oxford. Although he describes his time at Oxford as a period where he didn’t really get involved in party politics he did take the time to edit Wikipedia entries on Israel, Hamas & Palestine.  He has written today about those entries and sought to provide context, the main one being that he was very young (19) at the time.

In these entries Owen did some of the following:

  • He identified other contributors as Zionists and used this as the basis to refute the value of their contributions on the subject of Israel.
  • He proclaimed that Jews were not an ethnic group, referring to “the notion of Jewish ethnicity” as “a lie” and used this as a device to undermine the case for Israel as the Jewish state, representing Jewish self-determination.
  • He dismissed reference to Hamas suicide bombings as “West-centric”.
  • He removed reference to Hamas war crimes as “unnecessary and out of place”.
  • He stated that the main reason Israel’s boundaries are disputed is down to the occupation of the West Bank & (as it was then) Gaza, with no reference to other more structural causes from neighbouring states.
  • He stated that “The Israeli occupation is one of THE most important issues of this period. Historians in the future will simply not understand the modern era without referring to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Arab nationalism, Muslim-West hostility, Islamophobia, September 11th, Islamic terrorism, the “war on terror”, both Gulf Wars, the Afghan war – all of these issues which dominate our time cannot be understood without reference to the occupation of Palestine.”

In these posts, edits and commentaries, we think Owen exhibited just about every one of the views and behaviours associated with the anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic Left. You can read Owen’s version of events and decide for yourself though it is unclear from his piece today whether he does or does not hold these views any more.

However it seems that Owen’s general view, as expressed today, of these Wikipedia entries is that, because they were over ten years ago, they have no relevance today and discussion of them is a sign of “grudge”. Now at face value that might be a reasonable (if dismissive) approach.  

So let us get closer to the present day. Owen claims to have impeccable credentials and points to his articles and writings since his Oxford days as evidence of him having put clear blue water between himself and the elements of the UK Left that propagate an anti-Israel agenda. An agenda that has helped land us where we are today – a UK Left riven by anti-Semitism.

There are some problems with his claims. Owen says he has never campaigned for BDS but in March 2015 he is billed on a panel to deliver “workshops on building powerful BDS campaigns”. His recent article on the government’s’ proposed ban on boycotts specifically mentioned BDS. He made the effort to denounce anti-Semitism but then rather spoiled it all by quoting Barnaby Raine, an issue addressed in more detail here.

Owen has also contributed articles for, and shared stages with, the Stop the War Coalition, who have a sickeningly long and very current history of publishing anti-Semitic articles and, on occasion, bad poetry. These recently deleted gems can be found at http://therealstopthewar.wordpress.com

He has also published a condemnation of Israel for killing a child and then refused to retract it when independent evidence proved his mistake.

And he has indulged in the modern version of the blood libel with an obsessive reference to Palestinian children injured or killed by Israel during the 2014 conflict with Hamas yet makes no reference to the thousands of Jewish Israelis (many, of course children) targeted by Hamas rockets during the same period.

We worry that such behaviour looks like tolerance of anti-Semitism. Yet if Owen understands anything about the nature of current Left wing anti-Semitism he will appreciate that his student Wikipedia posts are almost a textbook example of how we have got here. Owen’s place in the cycle is clear. At Oxford Owen was also a member of the Oxford University Labour Club, currently the subject of an investigation by the Labour Party into allegations of systemic anti-Semitic bullying and abuse. He is neither the root cause of nor to blame for OULC’s descent into the anti-Semitic pit. But if Owen cares about eliminating Left wing anti-Semitism he could use a public disavowal and forensic demolition of his “former” views as a once in a lifetime opportunity to lay bare the roots of this left-wing disease, and try to break the cycle.

The alternative is that, in ten years’ time, the “new Owen Jones” will write an article condemning anti-Semitism on the left without being able to locate it, and will dismiss evidence of their previous anti-Semitism as “naïve ramblings” while simultaneously sharing platforms with anti-Semites.

Let us be clear. This is not about extracting an apology from Owen. It’s about grasping this opportunity to break the seemingly endless loop of left-wing antisemitism. Not about using smoke and mirrors to deflect criticism away from Jeremy Corbyn. Not about introducing false equivalence with Islamophobia, as Corbyn himself also did today.  The anti-Semitic left have denounced Owen leaving him with a clear choice to make. Either he follows through on his denunciation of anti-Semitism and refuses to have anything to do with those who indulge in it, or he provides cover for them. We hope he will choose the former and we will support him for it, whatever our differences on other issues.



16 thoughts on “Owen Jones’ choice

  1. Saul’s behaviour is becoming more and more like that of a juvenile delinquent by the minute. Perhaps the most demented bit is where he maintains that things Owen said 11 or so years ago damaged his ( Saul’s) 12 year old son.


  2. It’s an equation so simple that even Stephen (I’ll track down anything published on Jews/Israel like a bloodhound) Bellamy may be able to grasp it:
    Propagating anti Israel /anti “Zionist” vitriol creates an irrational climate of hostility that affects UK Jews. Particularly on university campuses right now, as it happens. You might have noticed something about this in the media perhaps.
    My son is heading towards university. My son is such a Jew. Simple enough for you?
    And by the way, i don’t mention the age of my son, nor will I.
    Don’t be creepy Stephen. It’s not nice, is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Saul you must have mentioned it otherwise I wouldn’t have known. I didn’t refer to it gratuitously, but to emphasise that claiming someone had been damaged by someone’s obscure mumblings that occurred when they were barely a year old is, to put it at its kindest, a tad melodramatic.

    You say that anti Israel vitriol creates hostility to Jews. I think that is a load of bollox but lets assume for the moment that it is the case.

    What do you hope to have done about it ? Tell us, the people want to know.

    Do you plan to have such rhetoric in some way proscribed ? That would be a significant dent in British rights to freedom of expression would it not ?

    Do you plan to proscribe hostile talk about any other country or is Israel being singled out for impunity?


  4. There is nothing in this tweet that suggests blood libel:

    Owen Jones:
    Western pro-Israelis totally morally disgraced. Ignoring or excusing atrocities they’d be screaming about if an official enemy responsible.

    Even the accusation that Jones is obsessed with talking about children killed by the IDF is not verified here.

    And to be fair he has a point. Saul is screaming (obsessively no doubt) right now about Serb atrocities in the 90’s. Is Saul blood libelling Serbs?

    This is getting very silly now. I wish the subject of anti-semitism was taken seriously.


  5. I’m no fan of Owen Jones but these debates interest me. I wish somebody would document this phenomenon of left wing anti-semitism. I don’t deny it exists but those making acussations never do the serious ground work. First two acussations against Owen Jones that I check turn out to be flat out lies. There’s the one I mention above and there’s this one:

    “He identified other contributors as Zionists and used this as the basis to refute the value of their contributions on the subject of Israel.”

    He absolutely does not do this. He has his own argument for describing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza an occupation and merely points out the bias of those arguing otherwise. What is the purpose of trawling through wikipedia edits from years ago in the first place? And even then you have to lie about them.


  6. There are some extremely tenuous things here, not least holding someone to account for things they said as a teenager, and have since retracted.

    There will come a point where this blog will have to named in Jones’ honour, such is the frequency of articles about him (has Saul Freemam ever considered writing a piece about bona fide antisemites??). Any protestations that this isn’t indicative of an obessession about Jones is starting to wear thin.


  7. “He has also published a condemnation of Israel for killing a child and then refused to retract it when independent evidence proved his mistake.”

    This is a flagrant misrepresentation of what happened. On Question Time, Jones made a reference to a story that had been reported by every major outlet from the new york times and the washington post to the BBC and Douglas Murray’s own Spectator. Many months later, after it came out the strike had been falsely attributed to Israel, Murray chose to pick on Jones for having mentioned it and asked him to apologize. Jones pointed out the obvious cynicism of this line of attack, as if he’d intentionally lied about this incident rather than just report it as every major outlet had. Also, Jones did not “refuse to retract” it, this implies that he ignored the evidence and still maintains that the airstrike came from israel. This is flatly untrue and anybody who reads his reply can attest to that (http://bit.ly/2fe2v3c). What he refused to do is plead forgiveness from Douglas Murray as if he’d committed some egregious act of gross malpractice, rather than just reported the same story Murray’s magazine printed. As he writes:

    “It is beyond far-fetched to expect me to have possibly guessed that what was reported as fact by virtually the entire international media — including the Spectator itself — would be proved likely to be wrong. And yet Murray acts as though I cynically plucked this from thin air and — ignoring the fact this was how British, US and Israeli papers reported it — believes the onus is on me to apologise. “It is not known what evidence, if any, Owen Jones had that the Israelis had killed this 11-month old boy,” he writes, ignoring the reports of practically every single media outlet, including his own. “It was plain at the time that Owen Jones didn’t know what he was talking about,” he adds. Was it? Even though almost everybody, his colleagues included, had accepted it as fact?”

    As for the rest of your article, I agree that Corbyn has a history of very poor judgement in choosing the company he keeps, and he lacks the sensitivity needed to tackle the anti-semitism that at times rears its head in the labour party. Jones would do well to acknowledge that. At the same time, it does sound to me a bit desperate to seek quotes from over a decade ago when Jones was 19 to attack him with, especially given his calls for tackling left-wing anti-semitism. This is separate from the merits of those attacks. For example I’d think it dishonest to suggest that Jones supports or ever supported Hamas, as he has made clear time and again in his writing.


  8. “a UK Left riven by anti-Semitism”

    Not according to The Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Their findings last year showed that those on the left are less likely to be Anti Semitic than those on the right or of the general population. Those on the centre right and firm right are more likely to hold anti Semitic views. With supporters on the far right being the biggest group for anti Semitism (no surprise there).

    Also polling carried out in 2015 by Yougov and again in 2017 on behalf of the Campaign Against Anti Semitism found that Anti Semitism amongst Labour party supporters has decreased over the past two years. Of course any Anti Semitism is bad and should be rooted out where ever it is found but it is encouraging to find that it’s nowhere near as bad as some would have us believe. I hope that the conservative party – whose figures in all of these polls are quite shocking – will now follow the example of the Labour party and commit to dealing with the Anti Semitism problem in their ranks.


  9. Pingback: On Owen Jones and his “all out war” on antisemitism | Large Blue Footballs

  10. I’d like Owen & others of his ilk who repeatedly try to conflate the lack of a Palestinian state with 9/11 as if the west somehow deserved it, to please explain why the planning for 9/11 was taking place & did not at any stage pause whilst Barak, Arafat & Clinton were at Camp David leading to a deal which had Arafat accepted it, would have given Arafat 98% of what he asked for and created an independent Palestinian State

    Liked by 2 people

    • Huh..

      So you saying Mr Jones is responsible for the face of PA for purportedly not accepting the “comprehensively 98% pro-Palestinian deal” when he would’ve been most likely in school?

      If so: Duh…! This OCD!


  11. Pingback: Owen Jones’ choice – The ramblings of a former DWP Civil Servant …

  12. SMH!

    It does sound this article is fulfilling its OCD craving whilst trying very hard to not appears so.

    For starters, here’s considerably most-powerful quote from over of your own articles which symbolically mocks one of your pointers [applicable when it comes to Israel]:
    “…There’s value in ad hominem arguments to explain that which cannot be explained logically. Once you have exhausted attempts to understand somebody’s views by the validity and consistency of the arguments then there is room for analyzing other motivations. ..” from “Brown Men Can’t Wear Tweed” by David D Paxton (no salutation!), a poor sod who has also chipped-in his own companion-piece. What? Was I expected to feign surprise at his hypocrisy?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s