There are things to be put off. But most of them can only be delayed for so long. The issue of Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism is one of them.
I have not avoided this issue because I am not a Jew. I have done so because I know how divisive it is in Labour. And I kept telling myself it was outside the remit of this blog, so I should leave it alone.
That, though, is wrong. This blog is about making change happens that impacts on the well being of those excluded from many of the benefits of living in the twenty-first century, both here and elsewhere. Call it, if you like, about creating a greater bias in society towards those who would otherwise be suffering both actual and relative poverty. And, in a democracy that requires that political parties with that bias be electable.
Jeremy Corbyn's stance on antisemitism does not help his party become electable. Far from it in fact. It does the exact opposite.
I am utterly baffled by Corbyn's stance, which I suspect is actually that of Seumas Milne, his de facto chief of staff. I also suspect that in reality it attracts little real support in Labour beyond the Leader's Office. But that's not the point. What is the point is Labour wholly miss the point by saying the difference between its rules on antisemitism and those of the IHRA relate to just one half of one example. That's to simply evidence the inability of the Labour leadership to see the issue that they are creating.
You don't show support for an oppressed group by saying you understand their oppression better than they do. If you decide their cause is just you listen to them. You accommodate their concern. And you ensure that your practice evidences that.
The Jewish concern is real, and just. And it has been ably summarised in the IHRA rule's. That said, I have no doubt that Code is not perfect. I can say that with confidence because there is no such thing as a perfect rule capable of covering all situations, seen and unforeseen. So that must be true here as well. But what that means is that perhaps the most important issue is that you then apply this rule equitably.
This country has a long history of equitable application of the law, and so of rules. We expect those who interpret law to apply their common sense. We think they should interpret actions and rules so that the punishment fits the crime. And we do not expect rules to be applied unjustly, according to their letter, when that is inappropriate. That is what equitable interpretation requires.
That is what is needed here because I would, for example, defy anyone on earth to come up with a set of rules that define precisely when opposition to the action of an Israeli government becomes antisemitic. It would be impossible to do so. But it is still possible to have a rule that makes clear there is a difference, because of course there is. And then wise judgement can determine when it has happened.
The same wise judgement can also, if exercised, differentiate the intensely difficult issues around the Palestinian issues of concern, that also have to be properly respected. But again, you can't codify all such concerns.
So what was expected of Labour was that they might understand this, and that they should adopt a definition that was widely accepted, and which was widely also appreciated to accommodate the complexities of this issue. Then it was expected that Labour would put in place the right processes to ensure that those antisemites in its ranks (who, very obviously, exist) be appropriately rooted out. In other words, what was not expected of Labour was that it establish a whole new definition of antisemitism requiring a whole new range of judgements to be developed, but rather that it showed the wisdom of respecting an acceptable body of thought and use that wisely in its own proceedings.
That is the test Labour has failed.
It has, bizarrely, never got to the stage of being appraised on whether it can appropriately use the best guidelines rules, or not. Instead it has fallen at the hurdle of making sure it has rules fit for purpose.
I regret that. This failure does threaten many Jews, whether practicing their faith or not. And it fails Labour because it shows it cannot exercise the sound judgement on the processes of good governance that are in turn ultimately the processes required of good government.
Both issues matter. Put your weight on them where you will. It makes no difference. You still have to despair that a process that should have been so easy to deliver, where it is was clear all the nuance belonged in the equitable interpretation of the best available rules, can have gone so horribly wrong.
And this is important. It is part of Labour's ongoing litany of inability to deliver clear leadership in opposition that fails to incite confidence that there might be good leadership if they were put into office. Which means that the chance of the required bias towards those with real needs in this country is reduced.
Labour needs to stop arguing with itself.
It needs to listen.
It needs to respect.
It has to appreciate that there will always be diversity of opinion, and to have the modesty to realise that in the position it is in it cannot ignore that, or always assume it is right.
It needs to deliver.
And it is not.
On this issue.
On Brexit.
On being an effective Opposition.
And that is why, left of centre as I am, I still have great difficulty in embracing Corbyn.
I'm not engaged in political debate to debate who and how many can dance on pin heads.
I am in this debate to make sure that all, in their glorious and mutually respected diversity and difference, can have an equal chance to do so. And that there are enough pinheads to go round.
I wis Labour was doing that as well.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Great perspective Richard. I wish Corbynites were able to be as constructively critical as you: rather than blindly obedient. Then Labour could draw a line under the AS issue by doing the right thing. I wish we could oppose a hard Brexit too.
I am reminded of what Jeremy Corbyn said in 1917 about the overthrow of the Russian monarchy.
“the only way forward for the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is on the basis of a return to the principles of genuine workers’ democracy and socialism which formed the basis and inspiration for the October revolution”
and on the end of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989
“sees the movement leading in the direction of genuine socialism”
In other words, he thinks there’s a genuine version of everything good that is just out of reach. Corbyn sees fakes all around him, not imperfect versions of goodness.
But his warnings issued before the Dissolution of the Monestaries, and the possible consequences were fully borne out. The 1540s was a terrible decade.
Jang Sung Taek wrote:
“I am reminded of what Jeremy Corbyn said in 1917……” Gosh! Isn’t he wearing well?
JS says: “I am reminded of what Jeremy Corbyn said in 1917 about the overthrow of the Russian monarchy.”
Do you mean 1971 perhaps? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Jeremy Corbyn’s parents were both born after 1917, let alone JC himself!
I’ve no idea if JC sees fakes all around him instead of imperfect versions of goodness but after the MSM’s constant and often petty/downright ridiculous attacks on him I couldn’t blame the poor sod if he did.
He’s too wishy-washy for my tastes (reminds me of a Miss Marple vicar) and I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve yelled at the telly, usually PMQ, “For crying out loud, man, give it some moxie!… You’re leader of the opposition not leader of the local boy scouts for Christ’s sake!”
Despite that I’d rather 650 JC types in Parliament than 650 IBS’s or Cameron’s or Osbournes et al types.
Good morning, Richard. On the IHRA and the Labour Party Code of Conduct on Anti-Semitism, I’d recommend checking out Adam Wagner’s threads on Twitter – if you haven’t already.
On Labour Party unity, I think you’re right that Labour “needs to stop arguing with itself” – or at least it needs to better manage the public perception of the arguments that will always be there. Given the recent history of the party (since September 2015), it’s not a reasonable position to locate the responsibility for public displays of disunity with Corbyn (or Milne, for that matter).
Revtge latter, Corbyn us the leader
Please don’t pretend he is the victim or not responsible or you make my point for me
I should have said “all” the responsibility.
And yes, he is clearly in a position of some (but not total) power in the party, but you wouldn’t deny that he has been subject to sustained attack by members of the PLP, would you – including his Shadow Cabinet? There’s a collective responsibility to come across as a credible government because, as you say, what matters is that we have a government that applies the greater bias you describe.
Of course he has been subject to attack
He’s no good
He’s economically clueless
Has no idea of leadership
And not a poliucy worth mentining as yet
And cannot land a punch on the Tories
I am not a fan of the Labour right: far from it so don;’t associate me
And I know Jeremy Corbyn. Dammit, my work helped him get whee he is, without a doubt
And he is not up to the job
Of course he should be criticised
Why the heck not when he is clearly not delivering what we need?
Richard, I am disappointed that you have chosen to join in the totally unjustified attacks on Jeremy Corbyn regarding his actions on antisemitism.
I can only speak from personal experience of over a period of 60 years; neither my Jewish comrades nor I have ever experienced any antisemitism within the Labour Party nor any other party of the left. I agree. Statistically, there will be some who are anti-Semitic, but like lions in Norway there will be only a few, and they will not be in their natural habitat. An aid to judgement is context. How does AS within the Labour Party compare with AS within other political parties? Survey evidence suggests it is less of a problem within the Labour Party and has, in fact, declined under JC’s leadership. Within the Tory Party, there is a real problem. Notice that debate is absent within the MSM. Notice also how the bigger problem of Islamophobia is ignored.
JC has devoted the whole of his political life to opposing racism in all its forms. No fair thinking person can remotely believe he is anti-Semitic. No right-thinking person believes these attacks on Labour have anything to do with AS. These attacks are supported only by the pro-austerity and pro-war factions within the PLP.
There is the talk of this pro-austerity and pro-war faction breaking away from the official Labour Party and joining with Vince Cable & Co. I imagine Richard that you will be approached to help polish their economic policy turd. Don’t walk into that trap.
Your comment makes me despair for the left
I have not attacked Jeremy Corbyn for his attitiude to antisemitism
Can’t you even see that?
I am attacking him for his sheer political incompetence that is failing millions
If you can’t see that I despair.
Richard,
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree quite strongly with you on this issue of Labour and the IHRA “definition” and the Labour Party’s Code of Conduct.
First of all the “definition”, as assessed by a panel of Jewish commentators, as set out in the Guardian article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/antisemitism-ihra-definition-jewish-writers
You will note that the two distinguished lawyers in this panel, former Lord Justice Sedley and Geoffrey Bindman, one time head of the Law Society, are both strongly critical of the “definition’s” ambiguity and openness to misinterpetation. And I put the word “definition” in quotes, because, as Stephen Sedley makes clear, it is only a working definition ( to quote – “(IHRA, an intergovernmental body of 31 states) as a “non-legally binding working definition”)
Lord Justice Sedley also notes that:
“The UK government, which has adopted the “working definition” and the examples, was warned by the Commons home affairs select committee in October 2016 that in the interests of free speech it ought to adopt an explicit rider that it is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, or to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. This was ignored.”.
Effectively, Labour has followed the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Geoffrey Bindman writes as follows:
“Unfortunately, the definition and the examples are poorly drafted, misleading, and in practice have led to the suppression of legitimate debate and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, clumsily worded as it is, the definition does describe the essence of antisemitism: irrational hostility towards Jews.
The 11 examples are another matter. Seven of them refer to the state of Israel. This is where the problem arises. Some of them at least are not necessarily antisemitic. Whether they are or not depends on the context and on additional evidence of antisemitic intent.”
And this brings me to your appeal to the Law of Equity, which is certainly one of the glories of English Law. However, I think you are far too trusting in how equitably the law will be applied. As Jacqueline Rose says:
“Today the argument is different: that we are confronted with a new antisemitism which targets the Jews uniquely as a nation. This view is being mobilised to crush the global grassroots movement Boycott, Divestment and Sanction. Alongside the appeal to international law, BDS, however imperfect, is the only nonviolent protest on offer against the actions of the Israeli state towards the Palestinians. It is a view also being used to clamp down on any comparison of Israeli policies with apartheid. Compare again Barenboim: “It follows that [this law] is a very clear form of apartheid.””
One only has to look at my former Council, Barnet, on which I served as a Councillor for four years, to see the possible effect of a full adoption, without more, of the IHRA working “definition”.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180731-london-council-seeking-to-outlaw-bds-citing-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism/
So, Barnet is seeking to ban conscientious activity that is within the law, a clear infringement of Human Right to freedom of expression! (NB: they are also seeking to deprive Jeremy Corbyn of his allotment, that lies within Barnet Council – see https://antisemitism.uk/barnet-council-begins-discussion-about-stripping-jeremy-corbyn-of-his-allotment-over-labour-party-antisemitism/)
Two final points: first, on listening to the Jewish community.
As Jacqueline Rose says: “In the UK, the Jewish community does not speak with one voice. We should not assume that any one definition that gains predominance at a given time, or even majority support in many strands of the Jewish community, is therefore closed to ongoing discussion.”
However, I accept that Laura Janner-Klausner’s point that:
“If the Labour party wanted to prioritise antisemitism by choosing a bespoke definition then it could have listened to the full diversity of the Jewish community. We did speak out — loudly. Jews and allies stridently called on the Labour NEC to consult widely. This did not happen. Instead, the chosen definition and consultation process were totally inadequate.”
has considerable validity.
However, it is worth noting that there is widespread support for the amended IHRA “definition” as set out here: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180724-calling-israel-racist-is-not-anti-semitism-insist-international-jewish-coalition/)
Finally, Mark Fraser’s point about outside influences, which you dismissed. I could cite more references to the clear way in which the antisemitism row has been largely confected – which is NOT to say that antisemitism doesn’t exist in the Labour Party: of course it does, but it is being addressed, and has been shown to be of lower incidence in the Labour Party a) than in most other Parties, including the Tories, and b) since Jeremy Corbyn became Leader, but forebear to do so, and simply cite the following from YouGov https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-polls-show-anti-semitism-in-labour-has-actually-reduced-dramatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/, and observe that the “Enough is Enough” demonstration in Parliament Square took place before the Local Elections, when Labour were 7 points ahead in the polls. As people say, “Go figure”.
You too c0mpletely miss the point Andrew?
I cant say how disappointed I am
For heaven’s sake, stop arguing about angles on pineahds and get on with addressing the big issues
If the left is ever going to change the world it really has got to change its behaviour radically
Richard, this is not a pinhead. The LP Code has adopted the IHRA definition in full. It has reworded a few of the examples. The main bone of contention is whether it is anti-semitic to describe Israel as a racist state. Those who are driving this campaign do not represent the “Jewish community” as a whole – I am Jewish, and they don’t represent me, so I assume you will respect that? The campaign is driven by Zionists, but there is also a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism. I and many others consider that Israel is in many respects a racist state — look at the recent legislation passed by the Knesset. The IHRA examples have been used to demonise as anti-semitic even Jewish anti-Zionists. Corbyn is taking a principled stance. Why can’t you support that?
I would have thought the reasons are apparent in what I wrote
They are apparent in what you have written
An equitable interpretation of this code would allow criticism of the actions of some Israeli governments that have been, and are, racist
I cannot see for a minute Labour interpreting the guidance any other way
Purely pragmatically then I see nothing in them that prevented Labour adopting them and entirely avoiding this issue so that it might concentrate on securing power when it might use that power to assist finding real solutions to the very obvious issues that exist in Israel
That would be a vital pragmatic win
And in the real world that is, in my opinion, what matters rather losing on a principle for no gain at all
If Labour’s going to fight corruption in high places, as one might wish, it appears it’ll have it all to do. Are you following this? https://twitter.com/fcawhistleblow?lang=ca
Noted
Not time to do it all…
Wow. Egg shells – line them up!!
The issue of the Labour party’s attitude to the Jewish community is yet another one of those toxic issues that can trip up an embattled leader (and Corbyn is definitely in that category from within).
But you are right. Corbyn and his advisors should have chosen their battles carefully and adopted the IHRA definition in good faith if only to make those members of the Jewish community who are also part of the Establishment (and therefore more potentially troublesome to Labour) happy. Having accepted it, Labour may have been in a better situation to discuss it and maybe improve it long term.
Yet again I mention the UBS documentary on the Vietnam War (2017) because of the lessons it gives us about human society. We think that we are polarised now – that we are riven with extreme views – but when the students were shot at Kent State University in Ohio protesting about that war (some of the victims were just passers-by it seems), the documentary reports that over half the American public who were asked about the incident approved!!! The lesson to me is that human society has a propensity to be naturally polarised around extreme events like war and other types of conflict. This polarisation opens the gate for people’s individual bias and prejudices to manifest themselves – just like they are doing now.
The point I’m making is that when the 3 Jewish publications said that Labour was an ‘existential threat’ my reaction to that was that it was just not justified. Even if it is because Labour had handled the issue clumsily – of all the org’s in the world that could be a threat to the Jewish existence, the British Labour party was not even in the Top 100 as far as I am concerned.
So Labour’s way of handling this created an over-reaction. It would have been much more useful to society if the 3 Jewish publications could have been just as unanimous and passionate in (say) bringing back the Jewish tradition of Debt Jubilees during these times of austerity or calling upon the British Government to end austerity (have any of them done this – I don’t read them – someone tell me?). And maybe they would have done this if Labour had been willing to accept the IHRA definition? Can we totally rule out some form of Establishment Labour bashing here via a Jewish channel? But even if that is so, Labour should not have given them the opportunity. Bad call.
There is the IHRA definition itself. The part I have the most trouble with is that it is considered to be anti-Semitic if you relate the behaviour of the Israeli Government to that of Nazi Germany.
No doubt any statement of self determination as a people from any country can seem biased against those who speak differently or look differently or whom do not like to play cricket for example . Look at the UK’s own arcane rules for granting citizenship – even these tip the nod to some disturbingly nationalistic ideas.
We know from history that the Nazi’s used their legal system to ennoble and give rationality to their wicked, inhuman, vicious, and evil destruction of European Jews. We must however recognise that this can happen again to other peoples – even in Israel – with the right configuration of the wrong people in charge. We must also recognise contemporary concerns over the growth of the far-right and far-right attitudes globally as we still recover economically and socially from the 2008 crash and the orthodox (and stupid) ways in which we tried to deal with it which has done more harm than good. One of the growth engines of Nazism was economic problems . History tells us this.
To not use Nazism in a redolent or comparative sense may only render us blind when it is in our midst again. And without that reference – what would one call it? The inability to call out Nazi tendencies when we see them will only benefit extremists with their own, new final solutions whether they be in Israel or say, Burma. As one TV documentary aptly put it in its title: The Nazis: A Warning from History. That is what Nazism is to me. A reference point. Valid in that it applies to all or any peoples when they behave in a certain way because it is a slippery slope to inhumanity.
But even if Corbyn and his party feel the same way as I do about using Nazi behaviour comparatively in the context of Israel, the IHRA definition is not their most pressing task. That task is be a united effective opposition and be attractive to all in the hope that we can rid this country of the worst modern Tory party we have ever seen (yet).
A Tory party who have been playing with far-right nationalistic populism and language for long enough and whom present a still ongoing existential threat to ALL of us as long as they are allowed to continue.
Thank you
You seemed to get it
I know that I used my contribution to make some points of my own but I say again, that I support your blog in that Corbyn/Labour needs to pick its fights carefully and focus on BREXIT as well as the removal of this really nasty Tory party whom we have put up with for far too long.
It is a question of priorities. Good leadership prioritises – always.
It is sadly lacking in this case.
Labour does indeed have some anti-Semites in its midst but so does wider society and Labour and the rest of society will go on taking these people to task. Anti-Semitism will live on unfortunately but this Tory Government can still be (and must be) removed for the good of all.
I wholeheartedly agree Labour has those with AS views
And of course it is not alone
I wish it would tackle them
But it should never let any such policy be used to tackle those who legitimately criticise the behaviour of some in Israeli politics when their actions are clearly racist
I am not sure how I could be clearer
And I happen to think it could do that using the IHRA rules
More important, the compromise of doing so (and compromise it is, I know) would increase the chance of Labour getting into power to effect real change on this issue
Surely that is the aim?
My thoughts – doubts – over Mr Corbyn as leader (and hence prospective prime minister’ are best summed up by mis-quoting Shakespeare – ‘he does not have that which I would fain call master’.
Richard,
You might ask why the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of antisemitism isn’t adopted.
You seem to accept the definition promoted by the IHRA rather uncritically, which surprises me. Some crucial information about it is helpfully summarised here:
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/a-briefing-document-on-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/
Sir Stephen Sedley has also written about it here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3909&utm_content=ukrw_subs
See my reply to Natasha
I have nothing to add
@ Richard Murphy
I would love to hear your thoughts on the following articles:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brian-klug/code-of-conduct-for-antisemitism-tale-of-two-texts
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/shaun-lawson/enough-of-these-disgraceful-slurs-against-jeremy-corbyn
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/establishments-bringing-semitism/
Please refer to my reply to Natasha
You are missing the point oif my comment, entirely
Richard,
Tony Greenstein comes to similar conclusions as you about the mistakes Corbyn is making as Labour leader, but asks “what’s wrong with the “Oxford English dictionary definition of antisemitism, ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ consists of 6 words? What possible reason is there to adopt a 500+ word ‘definition’? As the distinguished former Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, who is himself Jewish, observed the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.”
What’s your view of Tony’s analysis, which suggests amongst many other revealing insights, that the IHRA rule’s are not just an imperfect set of rules in an imperfect world, but have been misappropriated from their intended use, which their original author categorically stated were not to be used politically ?
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2018/08/appeasing-your-enemies-adopting-their.html
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2018/08/are-there-any-limits-to-corbyns-ritual.html
I will reply here but the ppint will refer to many of the comments being made.
The issue hee is not whether or not the guidance is perfect, or whether Labour has done a better or worse job in adapating it. Discussion on that point entirely misses the issue, and entirely misses the point I was making.
The IHRA guidelines are good enough.
And I have deleted all those who say they do not allow criticism of Israel, because they very clearly do. So that is an absurd and factually wrong claim, in my opinion.
TRhe point I am making is that this is politics. And to claim that any definition of anitsemitism is not political is itself just absurd: of course it is. And Labour has failed the political test here.
It has not satisfied the Jewish communtiy, when it would not have been hard to do so.
It’s failing to root out antisemites, who obviously exist.
And it is failing to close the issue, which is deeply damaging it.
Nor is it appeasing anyone.
That’s is my point.
And to discuss angels on pineahds, as almost all commentators have one, disappointingly proves how inept most on the left are at politics.
So long as the left cannot realise that there is no such thing as perfection on the defintions to be used in identity politics, and what matters is behaviour, it will continue to get this whole issue wrong.
In the process it will alienate vast numbers of people.
And that is the whole point I am making. But apparently without anyone wanting to pay much notice to it. And so we will continue to watch the Tories dismantle all that is of value.
This time I do despair.
If I hav no replied to your own comment it’s likely because this comment applies.
Richard, its obviously political, and you’ve pointed out Corbyn’s and Labour’s failings, as has Tony Greenstein, who’s gone a step further and made it very clear what he would urge Corbyn to do: confront his critics head on. But what positive action plan would you advise? What are “the right processes to ensure that those antisemites in its ranks (who, very obviously, exist) be appropriately rooted out”, when its apparent that Labour’s right will only be satisfied with Corbyn’s scalp, meaning that claims of anti-Semitism are only a useful for now tool in their aim, otherwise they’d be taking aim on sections of UK society that has more anti-Semitism than Labour, like the Tory’s or the general population?
This is not a left / right issue
For heaven’s sake get over that
Corbyn is leader
He’s not going anywhere
So he’s got to act like a leader
His job was to make sure antisemites could be rooted out
And instead he’s made that much, much harder and delivered a gift to his opponents
That is the scale of his incompetence
If he’d said the IHRA rules were good enough and it was the way that Labour used them that mattered – to tackle the problem it has (and which it is not alone in having) he’d have dealt with the issue
But instead he let people attack him
And he’s let the Tories off their failings
And given himself cover to not talk about Brexit, which he should be doing
And in the process – as my whole piece was about – he’s failed what Labour should be about
And that is why I said this
I am at a loss as to why people cannot see this
I conclude that it really is true that many on the left care more about procedure than they do about people who need a functioning left of centre government
And I’ll tell you – that is deeply depressing
Please consider the actual evidence on the presence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. I have prepared a summary of the relevant evidence from two YouGov surveys on the matter.
Summary spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/file/nxr4c66eia8te0c/YouGov_Antisemitism_Surveys_2015_%2526_2017_%2528Labour_vs_General_Population%2529.xlsx/file
2015 Survey: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/921pn4p2fh/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_MergedFile_W.pdf
2017 Survey: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bs0i5dmt7s/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_170803_JewishOpinions.pdf
As they clearly show, not only is the current prevalence of anti-semitic attitudes in the Labour Party much lower than in the general population, anti-semitic attitudes have decreased in the Labour Party since Jeremy Corbyn assumed the leadership. Labour does not have an anti-semitism problem, at least, not by the standards of British society.
“Jewish people consider themselves to be better than other British people” under the 2017 survey was copied incorrectly. The actual statistics are 12% total vs. 11% in the Labour Party
So it has a problem then
You have not provided any evidence of the so called Jewish concern other than statement saying that we should all in Labour get behind a set of imperfect rules that don’t allow for criticism of Appalling Apartheid State of Israeli Government.
Even the author of IHRA Mr Stern comments on that
Labour have stated clearly that they are happy with IHRA subject to allowing 2 small mods to allow for such criticism of Israel action
Plus some parties actually funding this nasty type of defamation that’s flowing out of social media from various right wing groups some funds from Israel supporting people who don’t like Corbyn
Please refer to my reply to Natasha
You utterly miss the point of my comment
And when you, Richard, say :
‘Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on antisemitism does not help his party become electable. Far from it in fact. It does the exact opposite.’
You miss the paradox that it has been Corbyn’s disregard of being ‘electable’ that has made him electable. His stance may be stubborn, but it is principled. He won’t be bullied into changing his mind, he never has. And when people say – look at the damage he’s doing to the party – all those media hacks bullying him for being Corbyn- then they are victim blaming. Not a nice look.
If Corbyn was electable he’d be 15% ahead in the polls
I find it very hard to understand the complacency of those who think what he is achieving is good enough when it is woefully inadequate
Dear Richard,
I’m not in the party and I have many policy issues with the current manifesto. However in a post within which you write;
“Labour needs to stop arguing with itself.”
I’m disappointed that you can write;
“He’s no good
He’s economically clueless
Has no idea of leadership
And not a poliucy worth mentining as yet
And cannot land a punch on the Tories”
You may be frustrated with people who miss the point you make here about his political skills but I’m frustrated with your writing like a Daily Mail leader writer. Who do you think you’re helping here?
I’m sure you won’t make the mistake others have made with you by judging that this point is any wider about your skills or positions than it plainly is.
I stated the truth as I see it
As most thinking people I know see it, come to that
And who am I helping? Dammit, I’m speaking truth to power. Is that now unacceptable?
And I would remind you, Corbyn has power, even if he likes playing the victim.
But if you think I’m not entitled to speak that truth as I see it on my blog then very politely you’re reading the wrong blog
“And who am I helping? Dammit, I’m speaking truth to power. Is that now unacceptable?”
Plainly not but it is occasionally maladroit. I’m only speaking truth to power here you understand.
“.. if you think I’m not entitled to speak that truth as I see it on my blog then very politely you’re reading the wrong blog”
I’ll continue reading … for the tax and economics topics in the same way I follow Brian Cox for his physics and general science output and Wren-Lewis for when I want to know what mainstream economists are saying. But no longer for anything outside their expert specialisms, sadly.
Richard it is the lot of those speaking out the uncomfortable truths that they are attacked and demonised, then debated, then accepted and then it becomes the normal conversation of society.
Leaders and pioneers always have had many sharp arrows stabbed into them or aimed at them.
Take heart nobody kicks a dead dog.
You rightly pointed out it is the behaviour in which they conducted the review that is the root of the issue. ‘You have to be and act as a manager before we make you a manager’ is a maxim of Proctor and Gamble.
Likewise how you create and conduct policy development when out of office should be as good or better than when actually in the hot seat of office.
Behaviour of auditors in acting for shareholders is more important than the tick box rules they followed.
Well said and I hope that detractors set aside their prejudices and opinions and listen for the gold in what has been written.
Richard,
I’m surprised you say Corbyn doesn’t have a policy worth mentioning.
Don’t you think that the focus on antisemitism in the Labour party since he became leader (and the silence on antisemitism elsewhere) is related to his policy of opposing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
No
I am utterly opposed to what Israel is doing
It is profoundly wrong
That is glaringly obviously so
I make the point to make it clear that this is not something Jeremy Corbyn alone thinks
And I still think he has hopelessly mismanaged antisemitism
Richard,
You are right to say that Corbyn is not the only person opposed to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. But which other party leader is opposed to it?
And if you think what Israel is doing is profoundly wrong, why do you favour a definition of antisemitism which is intended to inhibit criticism of what it is doing?
Did you read what i wrote?
I said that the job is to use the Labour system to tackle antisemitism, not to argue what it is
I do not think anyone in Labour would be charged with antisemitism for criticising Israel’s policy on ethnic cleansing
And that is precisely my point when I wrote about equitable interpretation.
There was a precise point to all I said – not leats that Labour could have dealt with all the issues in the way it wanted with the IHRA definition in place
Richard,
I read what you wrote several times.
You didn’t answer the questions I posed at 9.33, but here’s another one.
You say “I do not think anyone in Labour would be charged with antisemitism for criticising Israel’s policy on ethnic cleansing”, Don’t you think that whether they would be charged or not would depend on what definition of antisemitism is adopted?
of Course I do
But I do not think the IHRA definition would permit this
And norvdo I think there any chance such a claim would arise in Labour
That is what equitable interpretation is about
I really was being very clear
@ Richard
Thank you for being clearer with the point of this article was trying to make.
Considering most people who replied mis-understood your article, maybe you have to consider that it was not clearly written.
Saying that i agree with what Pilgrim Very Slight Return wrote.
I put quite a lot of effort into being as clear as possible
And I think it was clear
But it appears there is collective blindness on this issue
It deeply depresses me
And the young people I speak to say it alienates them
@ Richard
Thanks for the reply.
You and others are right when saying that there are bigger issues that need to be focused on by the labour party.
I agree with the sentiments stated by Phil Espin too. However, this is definitely being used by the media and will continued to be used regardless of other more important issues.
Keep up the fantastic work you are doing!
According to my Ancestry DNA analysis I have 1% Jewish and 1% Middle Eastern genes in my system. They appear to have found a way of getting on with each other since to my knowledge and those who know me I’m not suffering from schizophrenia. I’m not sure that can be said about the Labour Party!
The key is in the title of the blog: “Labour needs to get back to its purpose”. Instead it gets sidetracked by issues which a party and a leadership with a little more political nous would have put to bed, if only to get some critics off their back, but instead shoots itself in both feet.
But it does beg a question: what is its purpose? The biggest existential threat in the immediate future is leaving the EU. But it neither opposes nor has anything sensible to say on Brexit.
We have had for the past 8 years, as Pilgrim VSR says above, the worst Tory government of modern times – and I would argue they have been engaged in class warfare against anyone not in the top few percent – and who are an ongoing existential threat to the vast majority in this country (and particularly to those not blessed with good health or good income or wealth or secure employment) and yet Labour seem to have no idea what their purpose is with respect to those citizens who once were their natural constituency and are suffering under a cruel and despicable party who are continuing to dismantle every last vestige of welfare. Maybe some Labour MP’s are happy with this.
Thank you for a breath of freshe air that I very much appreciate
That task is be a united effective opposition and be attractive to all in the hope that we can rid this country of the worst modern Tory party we have ever seen (yet).
Mrs Thatcher does have some competition. Is the solution simply more of the Labour Party 1997 to 2010? We built too few homes, did not encourage organised labour, academies appeared in education inequality in wealth grew. There are also, a lot of positives, the NHS flourished, in work benefits grew, school budgets expanded e.t.c. I feel that the core of the task is to get people to realise that they can have the services and society that they want and that this is a political decision, but the hideous portrayal of money trees, no money left, childrens debt, generational war call, in my opinion, for a far more radical leadership than the present Labour Party. As an entryist in the 80’s and now a champagne Trotskyist, though I never met Mr T. Ali, perhaps the time is right to return to my roots though what paper I would sell outside Cowley BMW plant as the stream of cars pass I do not know. I do know that the struggle goes on.
I agree
Labour needs to be far more radical
A blog is coming…
You really need to do your research. The IHRA definition has been condemned by the man who wrote it in the first place Kenneth Stern. He has publicly condemned the way it has been deliberately used to suppress free speech by pro-Israel activists:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/07/22/labour-was-right-to-clarify-the-ihra-antisemitism-examples-just-ask-the-man-who-defined-them/
It was originally written as a draft for the European Union Monitoring Centre (EUMC) to be used for data collectors, and was never actually meant to be used as an official document for a definition of antisemitism, but it ended up being taken up by the IHRA. And the version being passed off as the IHRA definition, which they want Labour to adopt isn’t even the version approved by the IHRA in the firsts place, it’s essentially a fraud.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/1907/
I did not say it was perfect
There are no perfect definitions
I said how it is used is what matters
And I said its acceptance to the Jewish community is what matters
And I said its equitable interpretation matters
But you ignore all that and so forget what I was saying – which is that Labour can and should be doing something much more important
I conclude you don’t give a damn about being in government
That is the only obvious conclusion to draw
Excuse me, Richard, but as a gentile, you really need to understand that there is no such thing as the “Jewish community”; and to assume that we all think the same way, and have the same political views (esp on I/P) is ignorant, lazy, and uninformed at best, and actually AS and racist at worst.
On the one hand you call for greater radicalism by Corbyn and Labour, whilst at the same time propose utter capitulation to the Z lobby over, not the actual IHRA *definition* of AS, to which the Labour Party has fully agreed, btw, but to just one of eleven “examples”.
You severely underestimate the powerful interests behind this smear campaign: if you have time I would recommend reading this blog on just one of the major protagonists (the JC editor).
This would appear to be someone who, like the Terminator, will “absolutely not give up until [Corbyn] is dead” (politically, if not literally).
https://ducksoap.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/do-stephen-pollards-political-views-give-a-clue-to-why-he-opposes-corbyn/
as well as this recent Jacobin article:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/04/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-party
I agree the Labour Party needs to be far more radical: this would entail standing up to rightwing PLP, as well as those elements of the Tory- and Z-supporting Jewish diaspora, and absolutely not appeasing their never-ending demands, the end result of which is a deliberate trap: to define AS in terms that would ensure Corbyn’s suspension from his own party due to his support for Pal – which is the ultimate goal of this entire charade.
That was your last comment here
No one calls me racist when that is the last thing on earth I am
I think you’re being rather naive if you think that this issue will go away if Labour adopts the full (fraudulent) IHRA definition.
The fact is the people pushing this have no interest in the issue of antisemitism, and are using the issue utterly cynically for their own purposes. Firstly, if the full definition is adopted the Labour right will use it to justify a witch-hunt to hound Palestinian activists out of the party, and they will use it to hound as many of Corbyn’s allies out of the party as possible (most of whom are pro-Palestinian) and leave him isolated with the ultimate goal of getting rid of him.
This is what they are really after. and if you don’t believe me, they are already planning to use the definition to get Corbyn suspended for some obscure comments he made years ago which might technically fall foul of the definition:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/08/03/with-sky-newss-latest-smear-against-jeremy-corbyn-its-clear-a-new-coup-is-now-underway/
This gives you an idea of the mentality of the people behind this and their real motives. So they are really putting him in a position where he has no choice but to oppose the adoption of the IHRA definition to prevent a viscous coup and civil war in the party.
If you want someone to rail against then rail against the Labour right who are using the AS issue for their own cynical political purposes. It’s they who keep bringing the issue up again and again in cahoots with the right wing media and some right wing pro-Israel parts of the Jewish community.
I disagree
In fact, I think this is utter nonsense
And whilst I utterly support the right of Palestine, and completely oppose the territorial claims Israel makes on territory that is rightfully Palestine’s, if you think making this the big issue for Labour is going to help it get elected and so help those who believe in the rights of Palestine then you are seriously mistaken.
Which was my point all along.
If maintaining ideological purity while hair-splitting over semantics is what really drives Jeremy Corbyn (as I suspect it does, as it does so many perpetual political ‘rebels’) then he should really quit politics and go write a book.
Politics is a give-and-take game, where progress is usually made in increments, not in fell swoops. A good politician keeps his or her goal in sight, but realises there is a lot of ground to cover and compromises to be made before the goal is realised.
Corbyn has a pathetic history, as leader of the Opposition, of not actually doing much at all, because he can’t seem to bring himself to drop nitpickery and move forward. He needs to get a grip on it, or pass the baton to somebody else who will.
Thank you Richard for a most constructive blog that has helped alter my own thinking. I guess I was blinded by my disgust at the overt manipulation of our political process by a vociferous minority acting through and on behalf of a foreign power and egged on by a political party and half of one, both in thrall to that same power.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat and Corbyn needs to find a way to get past this as you rightly point out. I honestly don’t think it makes a massive difference to most voters though.
Thanks
And you may be right. It does not make a massive difference to most voters. But it does to enough. And it stops the real work being done. And that does make a difference.
I suspect that had Labour (presumably the NEC rather than Corbyn as an individual) adopted the IHRA examples in full, rather than the Commons Select Committee version, we would still be here discussing pretty much exactly the same thing.
No we wouldn’t
That would not be possible
I suggest you stop being crass
Because that’s what such comments are
And I am happy to say so
For heaven’s sake start addressing the real issues and stop being paranoid
“I would, for example, defy anyone on earth to come up with a set of rules that define precisely when opposition to the action of an Israeli government becomes antisemitic. It would be impossible to do so. ”
When you switch from ‘Israeli’ to ‘Jew’?
If that is the case Labour has emphatically got the wrong rules right now
Richard, I am afraid that as far as I am concerned antisemitism is a debased currency. It has been used too freely to subdue criticism of apartheid in Israel, and as a weapon in Labour infighting. The trouble is that in the long run, the fight against antisemitism may be counterproductive. I do not think Israel can survive as a state with its present policies. Silencing criticism makes it harder for policies to be recognised that will allow it to survive. If you or I were Palestinian, would we be antisemitic? And will Israel’s policies towards Palestinians strengthen or weaken that antisemitism?
In domestic politics, I think that the fight against antisemitism is striving for a poor second best. My wife and I grew up in Northern Ireland, where the first thing you had to know about a person was whether they were protestant or catholic. Just in case you said the wrong thing. What is wonderful about living in England is that nobody cares in the slightest. To my mind that is true equality. Politeness is better than nothing, but it is not equality. Paraphrasing Gandhi, equality is not worth having if it does not connote the freedom to be insulted.
Labour is much hung up. not just on antisemitism, but on LGBT (pronoun use), BAME, X chromosomes etc. Perhaps this is a necessary first step, but if you have to think what group does this person belong to before you speak or write, it is just so far short of equality. And if we have progressed beyond that point, it is pushing in the wrong direction.
In reading Labour discussions, I find substitution useful. Replace Blairite with Jew, or Progress with Israel and see how it sounds.
Or try it on your comment “The IHRA guidelines are good enough.”. “Neoliberal economic theory is good enough.” They aren’t and it isn’t.
You make a good case, and argue it clearly and carefully, and I completely agree. It is depressing that some of your respondents (and many more out there) still don’t get it. Keep up the good work, although I worry you have no life…
I promise I have a life Sarah
At least, I try!
Richard,
The Jewish Voice for Labour website has a new article today with a conclusion comparable to yours, albeit arrived at from a somewhat different direction:
“So my plea to Jeremy and his supporters for how we go forward from here, is quite simple: Get back to discussing and promoting Labour’s core issues over which it is at war with the Tories . . .”
Common ground?
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/enough-already-2/
I hope so
Richard, would you call for pragmatism over something you really understand, and care about deeply? For example, country-by-country reporting? Would you agree that the OECD scheme for CbCR is good enough, and the tax justice movement should applaud it and move on? The Zionists have cleverly turned this issue into one about Corbyn’s leadership, so getting the support of Margaret Hodge, Yvette Cooper, and other long-standing opponents of his. Nothing he can do will stop them, it is naive to think so.
Sol
But I was pragmatic on country-by-country reporting. I wanted much more than we got at the OECD. But what we got was ‘good enough’ and I worked hard to get that ‘good enough’
As I now want that ‘good enough’ in public. I could ask for more. But I want what we can get much more than perfection. So I am wholly pragmatic in my approach
And on the remainder of your comment, of course the right are using this. And my comment is Corbyn should not have given them the chance. Good leaders don’t. He did. He created the problem. They have exploited it. That’s politics
It’s very much a chess game that is being played with Corbyn, and he’s not particularly good at it.
I totally accept your point about the ‘give and take’ in politics, and Corbyn tries his best to negotiate the moves, if not particularly well.
I understand what you are saying, and why you say it.
Just to express why I believe he continues to hold out against this IHRA definition…
His main problem is his personal ethics, which tend to rather good and ‘worthy’. When other politicians get by by ditching any ethics and changing their mind about things in order to conform to the populism of any particular moment, Corbyn sticks to his personal conscience. That isn’t very helpful at the top of politics.
It’s clear why he prefers to adopt a rational definition of AS, rather than the irrational one touted around governments, who embrace out of fear of being called anti-Semitic.
As has been clearly expressed by a number of people here, the working definition (which was never intended to be a definition, just a set of points to be debated, but embraced as a whole by the supporters of Israel), is an effort to clamp down on freedom of speech.
Of course, Corbyn can’t accept it as it stands, as it goes against everything he has stood for all his political career. But maybe he will need to swallow it for now, to be revisited in the future for adjustment. But I very much doubt that he will do that.
The killer part of it which refers to comparing the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis is the most irrational, and it’s wider implication is enormous. The logical extension of this ‘clause’ extends far beyond the question of anti-semitism.
Comparing the governments of any past or future horrific regimes to the Nazis would make those critics into racists…
The genocide of the Hutu by the Tutsi government in Rhuanda – Racist against Tutsis.
The white South African regime – racist against Afrikaans.
The genocide of Native Americans – Racist against White Europeans.
The genocide of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs – racist against Orthodox Christian Slavs.
This goes to the core of Corbyn’s being, and accepting it would, for the first time in his long political career, compromise his own ethics and political purpose.
As I have said time and again, I do not think Labour need in any way use any guideline to clamp down on free speech
It is an interpretation that this is the goal of the IHRA as I see it. You can disagree. But you actually agree with me by doing so
And so Labour can when applying the ruling make clear that is not the case
As I always argued
Two things.
Firstly, Kenneth Stern, the man who wrote the IHRA definition is himself OPPOSED to it being used as the ‘be-all-and’end-all’ definition. He has spoken extensively against it being seen as official, and has been heavily critical of the way its wording has been exploited to stifle discussion of Israel and Palestine. He has repeatedly stated clearly that the definition is a work-in-progress only.
Secondly, when you say, “The Jewish concern is real, and just,” you are ignoring the reality that a great many Jews, including myself, are more concerned with repairing the IHRA definition than we are with the hysteria surrounding “anti-Semitism in the Labour Party”. There are a few hundred incidents of AS under investigation by the party at the most, which in a party of over 500,000 is a tiny proportion. Furthermore, just because they are being investigated does NOT mean the accusations are genuine. There are numerous examples I have seen where the complaints made have been thoroughly laughable.
“And it has been ably summarised in the IHRA rule’s”
But it hasn’t. Partly because the concerns you state are not ‘Jewish concerns’. They are ZIONIST concerns, which in practice amount to saying that Israel must never be criticised and the rights of Palestinians must never be promoted. These are the concerns that are currently causing all the furore. I personally am becoming more than a little offended by the insinuation of this furore that, because I am Jewish, I am morally compelled to identify with Israel and to defend it, no matter what ghastly actions for which it is responsible.
I have answered all these issues
I even discussed them in the initial blog by making clear equitable interpretation meant the issue could move on,as is obviously necessary
What are you accusing me of?
I am accusing you of hindering the progress we need towards an effective government willing to really tackle these issues, just as much as the right very clearly are using this issue for that purpose
Why play their game when there is a viable way forward?
I’m sure the analysis above is well-intended, just as I’m sure this reply will be dismissed by many of the above ‘concerned-for-labour’ replies as coming from a ‘Corbyn cultist’ (not a member of Labour, not a big fan of Corbyn, BTW), so here goes nothing.
1) You make the big mistake of talking about ‘the Jewish concern’ in the way the MSM do, as if there were just one, homogenous Jewish community, which is what the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies want you to think. In reality, there is a swathe of progressive Jewish activism on the left that is being invisibilized by the right for political reasons – Jewish Voices for Labour, Jewish Voice, Jewdas, Jewish Voices for Peace, Jews Against Zionism, etc. etc. etc. These groups *never* get quoted by the MSM because they are not involved in the current ‘labour antisemitism’ kabuki theatre and because they are supportive of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is why there is a furore over the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.
2) Specifically, the part of the IHRA definition which is contentious is the part which states that saying Israel is a racist endeavour is itself antisemitic. Since the first set of basic laws of the constitution of Israel established it as a Jewish state, they thereby removed citizenship rights from the then-hundreds of thousands of Muslims livng there, the ones who weren’t ethnically-cleansed or murdered in setting the state up (e.g. Qibbyah, Deir Yassein, Khan Yunis – read Israeli historian Avi Shlaim’s excellent The Iron Wall on this). The recent Jewish State Laws openly boast this Apartheid character of Israel and simply make plain what has been legally, socially and juridically the reality since 1948, that Muslims are second-class citizens in their own land even as that land continues to be stolen from them by the illegal settlement movement. However, if I repeat this truth then I am being antisemitic under the IHRA definition – the truth literally becomes anti-semitic.
3) In relation to point 2) above, this is why the IHRA definition is so important – its functionality against the BDS movement. In the US at the moment over half the States have passed some kind of anti-BDS legislation in strict defiance of the First Amendment of the Constitution which forbids them from doing any such thing, so that the ACLU has begun legal action. In states across Europe there have been a variety of actions to try and make BDS action similarly illegal, not because the BDS movement is antisemitic or because any of the thousands of Jewish progressives who take part in it are the ‘self-hating/second-class Jews’ our MSM treats them as, but because a powerful alliance of extreme-right non-Jewish and Jewish political actors are becoming concerned about the success of the BDS movement and wish to stop it in its tracks by simply forbidding any/all of its criticisms of Apartheid Israel (there, I said it..), at the same time that Israeli politics drift more and more to the extreme right. To the extent that there is a conspiracy (steady, Jon!), this is a conspiracy of the extreme-right (including the Blairite right of Labour), which is why the Hitler-supporting Daily Mail and neo-Nazis such as Paul DeLaire-Staines (aka Guido Fawkes), the man who tried to ally the Federation of Conservative Students with the National Front, are happily joining in.
4) The screaming antisemitism rubbish being tipped over Corbyn follows a long stream of similarly abusive excrement is easy to dismiss, simply by looking at Corbyn’s extensive record of philo-semitic early day motions long, long before he could even have conceived of being Leader. If we had a genuinely free press instead of the unsavoury collection of corporate whores we currently ‘enjoy’, a cursory glance through Hansard (which I invite you to do) would have invited guffaws of ridicule at the idea that Corbyn somehow presents an existential threat to the Jewish community in the UK. Instead, literally the same right-wing MSM that suggested in 1945 that Clement Atlee would set up a personal Gestapo in the UK if he won, instead of establishing the NHS (amongst other, great progressive actions) is peddling the same nauseating garbage about Corbyn (who is admittedly not an Atlee).
5) Since Corbyn became leader, that same wide swathe of extreme-right opinion (again, including the Blairite right) has ‘discovered’ that Corbyn is: 1) a bully; 2) a misogynist; 3) an antisemite (1st time); 4) an IRA sympathiser; 4) a Czech spy; 5) a Russian spy and lastly and most successfully 6) an antisemite and racist (2nd time). It should by now have become readily obvious to even the most cynical observer (which I am) that what is going on here is nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with stopping a progressive, pro-Palestinian from getting anywhere near No.10 so that those companies, countries and MPs making a shedload of money out of invasions and destruction of Middle Eastern and Northern African countries and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians (who are only muslim and therefore unimportant) from Libya to Syria can carry on regardless…
6) Did I mention the al Jazeera revelations yet? Israeli ambassador Mark Regev’s offer of £100,000 for anyone ‘taking down Corby? No? Then, gentle reader, please stop screaming ‘antisemite’ at me, wipe the flecks of saliva and go and have a look at these videos, beginning with Part 1 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc&vl=en
7) Richard, I love your work one economics and tax avoidance, but how come someone who is naturally and normally so cynical about government relationships with corporate tax avoiders seems to be so naively taking the UKAIPAC’s antisemitism smoke-and-mirrors at face value? Have you spoken to the left-progressive Jewish groups? No? Why not?
8) OK, rightists, take your best shot! I expect that people who find Apartheid Israel’s actions acceptable will be vicious in their inability to recognise the cognitive dissonance represented by thinking you’re progressive and parroting ‘It’s all Hamas’ fault!”
I note all you say
I knew it all
But you completely and utterly miss what I was saying in my blog. The clue was in the title, and I have reiterated it often enough to not do so again. I just repeat, if all you argue in 1 – 6 is true, why has Corbyn fuelled the issue by letting the criticism happen?
So re 7. Yes, I have spoken to quite a number of Jews sympathetic to Labour. They almost without exception things along the lines I have written
I have no dropped my usually caution or cynicism. I am simply saying that Corbyn has failed those who need him in power by letting this be an obstacle to achieving that goal
I remain utterly opposed to so much of what the Israeli government does
And I am no antisemite
But I do want a government who can push forward the real issues that need resolving – on this matter and others and think Corbyn has done a great deal of harm to that prospect by not realising that Labour could have dealt with this much more effectively than it has
I am bemused that those with supposed political insight cannot see that
Richard, I think this post has been received as one of the most controversial I’ve seen here, even by people who usually agree with you. This suggests that if Corbyn did adopt the IHRA rules he would be upsetting a significant number of his core supporters who disagree with them, and who support Corbyn for his principles on such matters.
He probably hasn’t handled this issue as well as could be, but I don’t think it is as simple as adopt the definition and move on to more important things.
Adam
Surprisingly, not that well read
And ignored on Twitter, where the other stuff I write is getting much more attention
So this is an issue for some (some only) on the left, most of whom did not read what I wrote
One regular commentator here will not be appearing again
And others think I am right
On reflection, do I regret it? No
Has anything changed my mind? No
Do I think my comment on pragmatic equitable process covered what labour should be doing? Yes
Would that actually help rebut the inappropriate use of this definition, which will exist (as it does now) well beyond Labour? Yes, definitely
And did I ever say Corbyn was a racist? No
Or side with those who have said so? No
Shall we move on?
I think this will be my last comment on this issue and I will now close them on this post
I have work to do