Labour move to curb anti-semitism row is compromise that likely won’t work
What is the significance of the Labour National Executive’s decision to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism, together with examples, subject to a qualifying statement about freedom of speech(your report, 5 September)?
It is certainly an uneasy compromise that will only partly reassure the Jewish community throughout the United Kingdom about the party’s intentions. The question of freedom of speech has clearly been fudged; leader Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas on the matter were rejected in favour of a more bland statement in support of liberal expression of ideas. The question of whether it will work and reconcile the more strident elements on both sides is really something that will be determined only through time.
The reassurance to the Jewish community should come from the fact that Labour has accepted the code in full, as have most political parties and other organisations. Whether it will be enough to reassure the academic community and its concern for freedom is more doubtful. I was looking at Exeter University professor Ilan Pappe’s 2011 book ‘The Forgotten Palestinians, a work that documents his views on discrimination against the Palestinian community within the borders of Israel since 1948. Without doubt the book does cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the state of Israel and touches on the notion that it is in some ways an apartheid state. It is an authoritative, well-researched document but could easily be interpreted, though wrongly in my view, as anti-semitic. What would be the response of the Labour leadership if sections of it were to be quoted in branch meetings, in conferences, or in the social media?
It ought to depend on the tone and context of the words used, of course. But the qualified adoption of the IHRA code by Labour certainly does not resolve how the matter of of free, non-discriminatory speech about the Israel/ Palestine situation can be protected.
BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes
It is normally a characteristic of authoritarian regimes to impose one view of historical events on the population. In Stalin’s Russia anyone who suggested that the Bolshevik coup d’état of October 1917 was anything other than a glorious proletarian revolution would end up in the gulag or worse. In Erdogan’s Turkey a jail sentence awaits anyone who describes the Armenian genocide as anything other than a period of civil unrest. Yet imposing a particular view of a historical event is exactly what the IHRA definition seeks to do, by insisting that criticism of Israel as a fundamentally racist state is anti-semitic.
I happen to believe that the Balfour Declaration was a racist act by the British government of the time, awarding the Jewish people a “home” in someone else’s country. I believe the basic premise of the Israeli state is racist, allowing, as it does, anyone of Jewish origin to become a citizen while denying the “right of return” to those Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948 by Israeli paramilitaries, and mercilessly shooting down those who attempt to do so.
I know others may interpret these events differently. I respect their right to do so. They should respect my right as a member of the Labour Party for almost 50 years to have my own view.
ROBERT CAIRNS
Harrietfield, Perth