Corbyn’s comments ‘like Rivers of Blood’

Lord Sacks says Labour leader’s remarks on Zionists were an echo of Enoch Powell

JEREMY CORBYN’S criticism of British Zionists was the “most offensive” statement made by a senior politician since Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, a former chief rabbi has said.

In the strongest criticism of Labour’s leader yet by a senior Jewish figure, Lord Sacks said Mr Corbyn was an “anti-semite” who “defiles our politics and demeans the country we love”.

He said Mr Corbyn had “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map”.

But Labour yesterday hit back at the remarks, branding them “absurd and offensive” and denying that Mr Corbyn was anti-semitic. Mr Corbyn is locked in a row with Jewish Labour MPS over his refusal to accept an internationallyrecognised definition of anti-semitism.

The National Executive Committee, Labour’s ruling body, is expected to try to defuse the row by voting next week to accept the full definition.

But there is mounting concern it will be “watered down by caveats”, which could include measures to stop retrospective action being taken, effectively protecting Mr Corbyn and Seumas Milne, his communications chief, from being investigated for past remarks.

The NEC is expected to include an addendum to protect the freedom of speech, to prevent legitimate criticism of Israel from being shut down. But Euan Philipps, of Labour Against Antisemitism, said adopting a code with caveats was a “false compromise”.

Mr Corbyn’s latest row with the Jewish community came after footage emerged of him in 2013 stating British Zionists had two problems: “One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony.”

Lord Sacks, who was chief rabbi for 22 years, told the New Statesman: “The recently disclosed remarks by Jeremy Corbyn are the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech. It was divisive, hateful and, like Powell’s speech, it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

Lord Sacks said Mr Corbyn had implied “Jews are not fully British” and that he was “using the language of classic pre-war European anti-semitism”.

“When challenged … first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates,” he said. “This is low, dishonest and dangerous. He has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow.”

A Labour spokesman said “comparison with the race-baiting Enoch Powell is absurd and offensive” and Mr Corbyn “is determined to tackle anti-semitism” within the party and in society and that Labour is “committed to rebuilding trust with the Jewish community”.

Mr Corbyn yesterday faced fresh criticism after a recording of remarks he made in 2010 at a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign surfaced in which he suggested MPS who took part in a parliamentary debate on the Middle East had their comments prepared for them by the Israeli ambassador.

The charge of hypocrisy could soon be added to the ever-growing list of criticisms levelled at Jeremy Corbyn. In an attempt to draw a line under the racism crisis that has afflicted the party since Mr Corbyn became leader, Labour is said to be preparing to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism, after months of refusing to do so. Except the new definition is expected to come with “caveats”. It may not be imposed retrospectively, meaning that Labour members who made comments in the past that would be deemed anti-semitic today will not be disciplined.

All this invites the question: if the comments are wrong now, why were they not wrong a couple of years ago? It would be astonishing if Labour were to trumpet strong new measures to address antisemitism within its ranks that just so happen to protect its leader and his aides from investigation over what they have said in the recent past. The defence that these things are historical will not wash. One of the attractions of Mr Corbyn to his fans is the consistency of his views, deemed a sign of integrity. Furthermore, Labour figures never tire of attacking their political opponents for things they have said in the past.

Mr Corbyn has a long history to answer for. Over 40 years, he has shared platforms with extremists of all varieties. In recent weeks, his presence in 2014 at a highly controversial wreath-laying ceremony in Tunisia has been uncovered, as have comments he made in 2013 in which he said, among other things, that British Zionists “do not understand English irony”.

This last incident has led Lord Sacks, chief rabbi between 1991 and 2013, to describe Mr Corbyn as an “anti-semite” for depicting some British citizens as “essentially alien”. Lord Sacks is not a man known for hyperbole. But he said the Labour leader’s intervention in 2013 was the most divisive and offensive statement made by a political leader since Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood Speech. He added that, when Mr Corbyn “implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-semitism”.

These are extremely serious accusations. If Labour adopts a ban on retrospective action, however, they could never be investigated by the party. Surely Labour moderates will not stand for that?