Editing the definition of anti-Semitism speaks volumes about Labour
What with the Government in disarray, our football hopes raised and dashed, and the emergence of a very disturbing brand of institutional racial politics that I describe as the “diversity dictatorship”, we’ve had lots to worry about recently. Clearly, one can’t worry about everything all the time, but as I was reminded last week, whether one worries about it or not, one thing that never seems to go away is Corbynite Labour’s problem with Jews.
In the latest instalment of the party’s now almost comic inability to recognise its problem with anti-Semitism, a row is escalating over Labour’s refusal to adopt the complete, internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism as laid down by International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
The current row has escalated since a leaked document suggested that members of Labour’s National Executive Committee were told by its head, Jennie Formby, that the party’s only Jewish affiliate group had accepted the defective definition. It hadn’t. Far from it.
Among other deletions, Labour excised from the IHRA definition the following examples of anti-Semitism: claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour, and comparing Israeli actions to the Nazis.
Although the UK Government, Welsh Assembly and 124 local authorities have adopted the full IHRA definition, including these examples, dear old Labour prefers a shorter version. Labour’s reason? To “prevent criticism of the Israeli state or Israeli
policy for its differential or discriminatory impact on different ethnic or religious groups”, in the words of Formby. Or, in other words, Labour doesn’t want to include all examples of anti-Semitism because it actually holds the views that they entail – as Formby’s absolutely classic defence for her party’s problem with the Jews makes clear. To Labour, reserving the “right” to criticise Israel (read: rabidly condemn Israel without reference to fact or history) is paramount. That it inevitably leads the party into clearly anti-Semitic territory is no surprise to anyone with half a brain; to Labour, however, the response continues to be to pretend that there is no problem, or to make only the most superficial noises of disapproval.
And on it goes. The party’s wilful failure to grasp the basic nature of its problem will continue as long as it doesn’t recognise the connection between the irrational anti-Israel a position and anti-Semitism. I’m not holding my breath for change any time soon, but the fight must go on.