Defining problem

Bob Taylor asks why Labour does not adopt into its constitution the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism (Letters, 31 July). But it already has. It has always been accepted in full by the Labour Party. You would expect nothing less from a party which has always stood up to racism.

No, the argument is about the 11 examples which follow the definition. Labour’s code adopts seven of them in full. Labour is trying to create a new disciplinary code; unfortunately, some of the examples are not as precise as is necessary, and so four have been reworded. Labour has added a new one, to deal with the classic anti-semitism of the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people, which was overlooked by the IHRA.

Labour is not alone in having these discussions. The IHRA definition was adopted by the UK government, but 40 Jewish organisations signed a global letter urging them not to accept the code. The Home Affairs select committee of the House of Commons took a similar stance.

One of the IHRA’S examples of anti-semitism is applying double standards and treating Israel differently to other countries. In 2015 the EU published guidelines for the labelling of Israeli products produced in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and was promptly condemned by the Board of British Jews, saying the guidelines “epitomise the double standard of treating Israel in a different way than other countries involved in territorial disputes”.

This would mean the EU had breached the IHRA definition,

and therefore was guilty of anti-semitism. As Bob Taylor says, embracing the definition ought not to eschew civilised debate about the Israeli-palestine situation. Unfortunately, it seems that it might well do exactly that.

PHIL TATE Craiglockhart Road, Edinburgh