And you thought Brexit was confusing
WHAT IS Labour’s policy on a boycott of Israel? Don’t know?
You are in good company, because while Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s leader, and his Shadow Cabinet members may know the official stance, they do not seem entirely clear on how the policy should be implemented.
Kate Osamor, the Shadow International Development Secretary, threw further confusion on the matter last week when she tweeted a leading BDS group’s call for sanctions on Israel. The group backs a complete boycott, which is, as you will see, relevant.
In response, Labour moderates called for her to be sacked from the Shadow Cabinet and for Mr Corbyn to explain the policy.
During the post-Prime Minister’s Questions lobby briefing by Mr Corbyn’s spokesman on Wednesday last week there was a farcical discussion on what the party’s stance really is, and how it should be implemented. It served only to muddy the waters.
It began with a reporter asking: “Is it Labour Party policy to support a complete boycott of all Israeli goods?”
The spokesman replied: “No. Any front-bencher saying so is breaching party policy. It is not our policy to supThen Kate Osamor and Jeremy Corbyn disagree on boycotting Israel, but are Labour looking both ways on BDS?
port a blanket policy of BDS.
“The party policy is clear however… the party for example has welcomed the EU ruling on labelling of settlement goods and there are different actions can be taken to put pressure on breaches of international law such as illegal settlements and that falls under a different category to blanket BDS.”
Any clearer? A bit. But then the briefing moved on to Mr Corbyn’s own position.
Does the leader support the BDS movement? No, said the spokesman, “Jeremy… is not in favour of a comprehensive or blanket boycott”.
The spokesman went on to make clear that Mr Corbyn “does not support BDS” but does back “targeted action aimed at illegal settlements in occupied territory”.
Asked whether Mr Corbyn would himself buy Israeli goods, the spokesman hesitantly replied: “Er, yes”.
When the conversation moved on to Ms Osamor’s position, the press were told Mr Corbyn was not “disappointed” by her apparent opposition to Labour policy, because “people take different positions on certain issues”.
So there was no concern about contravention of the leader’s views, because “occasionally on issues there is some variance in position”.
When the spokesman was urged to consider the fact that Ms Osamor’s brief means the policy area comes partially under her remit, there was further fudge, ending simply with the repeated line “party policy is clear”.
Mr Corbyn had not spoken to his frontbench colleague about the issue, as far as the spokesman knew, but that could change.
things got a bit ridiculous. One journalist put forward this fair summing up: “Well, Jeremy’s position is that he does not support BDS, the party position is they do not support BDS, Kate Osamor’s position is different. Is Jeremy comfortable with that? Are front-benchers expected to follow party policy?”
The spokesman replied: “Yes.” The inevitable ensuing debate on collective responsibility took in the obvious fact that the leader’s office was not imposing the policy, a bit of pondering on why Ms Osamor had not been sacked, and some musing on the “hypothetical” case of how far a shadow minister would need to “stray” from Shadow Cabinet policy before Mr Corbyn might have a word, and indeed dismiss someone.
That section of the briefing culminated with the spokesman, perhaps sensibly, declining to get into what might happen if there was a free vote for Labour MPs in the Commons on whether Britain should pursue a BDS policy.
The best — or worst? — was saved for last. When asked whether membership of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign — which backs BDS — had been banned for shadow ministers, the spokesman said “no”.
So you can be a member of the Shadow Cabinet, which is opposed to BDS, and of the PSC, which backs it.
That point prompted the rather daft — although who could blame the spokesman by this point? — response: “I am sure members of the Shadow Cabinet are members of the National Trust and the National Trust might have policies not necessarily in line with Labour party policies.”
His comment was met with laughter from the press pack and an agreement that “we are not going to get any clarity here” before the topic moved on to the rather less complicated issue of Brexit.
Ms Osamor’s supposed explanation this week, in a letter to Labour Friends of Israel, was of little help.
She implied that while she, the party and Ms Thornberry, did not support a “blanket BDS policy towards Israel”, there was value in the BDS movement’s “wide range of targeted boycotts and sanctions in support of an end to Israeli occupation and settlement of Palestinian land”.
It may be true that a “wide range of targeted” boycotts does not equate to a “blanket” policy, but in practical terms there is little to choose between them.
It is hard to argue with LFI’s response to Ms Osamor’s attempted interpretation. “Labour cannot oppose a ‘blanket’ boycott of Israel and support the BDS movement,” LFI said.
The matter of Israel boycotts will not simply go away for Labour. The obvious point no one raised during the briefing was that of Mr Corbyn’s own position — he remains, of course, a patron and leading supporter of the PSC.
So is he not technically in breach himself of the party policy himself ? No wonder he was unable to discipline Ms Osamor.
If you were not clear on where Labour stands on this issue before, you sure as hell won’t be now.
Shambolic? Not half.
Would Mr Corbyn buy Israeli goods? ‘Er, yes’