Corbynism acts against antisemitism. And trips over its own feet

Many Brexiters believe that the world is watching Britain, expecting it once more to roar so the whole world not only hears it, but heeds it.

My own view is that there may be people out there who don’t follow every detail of British political news. For their sake, here’s a little context.

The Conservative Party, which tends to be in power most of the time, is in power right now. Just. Clinging on by its fingernails as it tries to prepare for Brexit. Since there’s no formula for Brexit that finds favour even across the Conservative Party, let alone the nation, the government is one of the most unpopular for decades.

In Opposition is my own party, Labour. It ought to be 15 or 20 points ahead in the polls. Instead it languishes stubbornly two points behind. Why?

Two years ago Labour elected one Jeremy Corbyn to the office of leader. It was then flooded by new members principally committed to keeping him in that role. It’s all ‘Jeremy for Prime Minister’, ‘Jeremy, man of integrity’, ‘Jeremy: the second coming of JC’, and so on.

I may have made up that last one, but you get the drift.

These new members, or Corbynistas as they are technically known, are turning Labour from a party into a cult, in which they can follow not a leader but a guru, offering him not so much support as worship.

They may not have noticed how lamentable our position is in the polls. So they certainly aren’t asking the obvious question, ‘why?’

The answer is the same as the explanation for why the Conservatives tend to be in power most of the time. Conservatism is deeply anchored in Britain. It is strongly helped by a firmly right-wing press that looks for any stick with which to beat Labour. That means Labour leaders start off at a disadvantage, so where a Conservative merely needs to be competent, a Labourite has to be brilliant.

Sadly, only a worshipping Corbynista could be persuaded that the blessed Jeremy displays such brilliance.

Corbyn: out of his depth

The current stick with which the media are beating Labour is an accusation of antisemitism. The revered Jeremy promised to do something about it as soon as it was advanced. And then did practically nothing.

The leading instance of the party, the National Executive Committee or NEC, did adopt the definition antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It wouldn’t, however, adopt all eleven the examples of antisemitism that accompany that definition. It balked at four, which it felt would stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.

This was a matter of principle. Corbynism could not tolerate this limitation on its freedom of speech. There was no way those four examples could be endorsed.

Suddenly the stick got far bigger and far more hands came forward to wield it. So Corbynism gave way. ‘Well, OK, we’ll accept three more of the examples. But not the fourth. Oh, no, that would be a step too far, a red line crossed, that we will die in the trenches to oppose.’

Then came 4 September 2018. On that date, the Corbynist NEC decided that, well, after all, on mature reflection, it could accept that final example too. Though it has come up with a little statement about how it still asserts its right to free speech about Israel, which, funnily enough, no one had challenged in any case.

Margaret Hodge, who is both a Labour MP and Jewish, summed up the problem just two days earlier. Had Labour adopted the entire IHRA definition with all the examples immediately, it would have defused the attack from the outset. Now it’s too late, and the dispute will fester on. In my view, an incompetent leadership has made it look as though Labour was unwilling to confront antisemitism seriously until forced to do so. By only caving in under pressure, it appears nasty, curmudgeonly and at the same time spineless – the worst of all possible worlds.

That’s not to say that early adoption of the full IHRA definition would have won the wholehearted support of the entire Jewish community. Many British Jews support the Conservatives. Many are more than happy to work with the right-wing press to hammer Labour. All we could have hoped for was to win the argument with the non-aligned and detoxify the accusation. But to do that would have required political professionalism, not at all the hallmark of the Corbynista.

Outside the NEC meeting where the IHRA definition was finally adopted in full but far too late, were protestors with placards proclaiming ‘for the many, not the Jew’. That’s a neat riff on the Corbynist slogan, ‘for the many, not the few’.

In reply to a recent tweet of mine, expressing my annoyance over some new Corbynist cockup or other, I was offered an even better riff: ‘for the many sheep, not the thoughtful ewe’. I liked the reference to thoughtfulness, because a failure to think things through is the central characteristic of Corbynism. As it wends its way from blunder to blunder, making our party look nasty and incompetent.

Leaving us adrift in the polls, behind a deeply unpopular government that should be trailing in our wake.

Is Labour really anti-Semitic?

There was a time when to be a British Jew was virtually tantamount to being a Labour Party supporter.

That was the case of the Jewish side of my family. My mother was an active Labourite, working as a secretary to a Labour MP during the Second World War, and true to that loyalty right up to her death at 94 two weeks ago.

Like her, I’ve never voted for any other party, and remain a member to this day.

That makes it sad to see that a breach has opened up between Jews and the Labour Party today. A personal sadness for myself. But also ultimately for the Labour Party itself.

The current conflict focuses on Labour’s refusal to adopt in its entirety the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA). Or rather, not to accept all the accompanying examples.

Three Jewish papers express their anger at Labour's stance

As it happens, the IHRA’s text is weakly drafted and open to multiple interpretations. Take this suggested example of anti-Semitism:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

The Labour leadership objects to it because they see it as limiting the freedom to criticise the state of Israel. However, I see no basis for saying it prevents anyone saying that when the Israeli government reduces the rights of its Arab citizens. Nor does it prevent anyone arguing that by doing so, the Israeli government and many citizens are displaying racist attitudes. As they are.

Indeed, it does not even prevent anyone arguing, as I do, that setting up the state of Israel was an error. It has always struck me as way for Americans and Europeans to salve their consciences over Europe’s failure to learn to iive with its Jews. In effect, we said ‘we can’t learn to live with you, so go away and set up your own country, even at the cost of the people living there today.’

Today, though, it’s far too late. The state of Israel exists and is home to about 6.5m Jews. That’s a reality with which anyone trying to argue about Middle East politics simply has to come to terms.

What is it about that example that annoys the Labour leadership? What argument do they feel it limits their right to express? Do they want to protect the freedom to argue that the Jewish population of Israel has no right to self-determination?

Let’s see where that argument would lead in practice. If that population has no right to self-determination, Israel has no right to exist. If it has no right to exist, then it’s legitimate to use force to bring it to an end. And what would happen to the Jews in the region? We would be backing a policy of ethnic cleansing of Jews.

Is that a position anyone in Labour really wants to take? I can’t imagine a more clearly anti-Semitic stance.

It makes no difference that Israel, while asserting the Jewish right to self-determination denies it to the Palestinians. The bad behaviour of the Israeli government does not justify Labour backing the use of violence against Israel’s citizens.

Another IHRA example of anti-Semitism to which Labour leaders object reads:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Again, what right are they trying to uphold? Comparisons with the Nazis are the most facile and futile of arguments. Unless a government has deliberately set out to exterminate an entire race, the comparison is false. Injustice, collective punishments or excessive force against civilians are shameful crimes that Israel has committed, but so have the US and Britain. Perhaps a parallel with them would make more sense than a comparison with the Nazis.

In any case, why would Labour pay a high political price just to allow some of its members to make so lazy and intellectually weak a case?

Because the price is high. Had Labour simply adopted the full IHRA definition and examples, it would have won itself some credit with the Jewish community. It would have undermined the opponents who are now making mileage from the accusations of anti-Semitism. Instead, they have handed their enemies a weapon they could hardly have hoped for in their wildest dreams.

There is, however, another explanation. I’m afraid things turn a bit ugly at this point.

It could be argued that this is all about too little. There are only around a quarter of a million Jews in Britain. Labour could win every single Jewish vote and fail to win an election, or it could lose every single one and still get in.

Besides, though I don’t have statistical evidence for it, my persona experience suggests that British Jews have moved to the right since my mother was young. Like many immigrant communities, they started out on the left while they were poor and oppressed. But as they became prosperous and assimilated, many drifted rightwards.

So maybe there aren’t many votes for Labour to win among the Jewish. How much do they matter to figures in the leadership who suspect them anyway, because of their sympathy for Israel?

The people who matter much more are those traditional Labour voters who, out of xenophobia and delusion that Brexit would benefit them, went over to the far right. That’s why we have the paradox of figures on the left sharing a platform with the hardest nationalists, notably veteran left winger Kate Hoey posing for photo opportunities with Nigel Farage, then leader of the crypto-fascist United Kingdom Independence Party.

After all, there are several million of those voters.

The calculus is easy to follow. On the other hand, many of us in Labour would like to see it being a little more principled than that.

A party that cosies up to the hard right but can’t will make no concessions to show some respect for Jews? That’s not the party my mother and her friends backed in the forties.

How I wish we could get that party back.