Party’s rotten core cannot be fixed by a leader who refuses to recognise it

Afew weeks ago, the eminent historian Sir Richard Evans tweeted that, despite the “cancer” of anti-Semitism that had infected Labour, he was planning to vote for them because their manifesto was first-rate.

I know Richard Evans well. He served as the lead historical witness when I was sued for libel by David Irving. Irving claimed in court that when I described him as a Holocaust denier, I had libelled him.

After a 10-week trial, the court ruled that Irving was a “pro-Nazi polemicist” who “perverts” history and had engaged in “racist” and “anti-Semitic” discourse.

We were able to achieve this victory, to a great degree, because of the strategy devised by my solicitors, Anthony Julius and James Libson.

We traced Irving’s historical claims back to their sources, ie we followed his footnotes. We showed a pattern of distortions and manipulations.

These findings were due, in no small measure, to a team of talented historians led by Richard Evans. I, together with all people who value historical truth, owe Evans a great deal. I was, therefore, distressed to read his tweet.

I immediately took issue with it. Evans wrote to assure me that, if I knew the Labour candidate in his constituency, I would feel differently. I told him I did not think so.

In a far more expansive response, Anthony Julius made the argument that anti-Semitism was “stupid” and to vote for a party led by someone who had given such quarter to anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers was wrong.

Persuaded, Evans announced that he had changed his mind. Watching this from the other side of the pond, I was reminded of events this past year regarding the Women’s March.

On the weekend of Donald Trump’s inauguration, millions of people descended upon Washington, not to celebrate his election, but to protest.

Many were women, who came in droves with their baby strollers, children, grandchildren and witty signs. The march was a stark

I cannot march behind and could not vote for someone who engages in such fundamental prejudice

demonstration of the opposition to the new president and his agenda.

As preparation for the next march began, evidence emerged that a number of the primary leaders of this effort had engaged in overt antiSemitism or had made common cause with those who do. Though repeatedly pressed to condemn these antiSemites, they adamantly refused to do so. Many people, myself included, severed our ties with the movement.

We did so, despite the fact that we strongly supported and believed wholeheartedly in its goals. But how could we march behind leaders who embraced anti-Semites and engaged in overt anti-Semitism?

What relevance does this have to the current imbroglio over the Labour Party? Labour’s manifesto may contain many things people find appealing.

But I cannot march behind and could not vote for someone who engages in such fundamental prejudice. I do not know if Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite or not. I have no knowledge of what is in his heart.

However, his record at enabling anti-Semites is appalling. Ignoring reams of evidence, there are those who contend that he has been unfairly maligned.

In his disastrous Andrew Neil BBC interview Mr Corbyn had repeated opportunities to acknowledge the hurt his behaviour has caused British Jews and apologise for it.

He consistently refused to do so. If something I had done or said had caused such overwhelming fear that over half of the people involved say they would consider leaving the country I wished to lead, I would not offer, as he kept doing, some anodyne statement about being against all forms of prejudice. There is, of course, nothing wrong with opposing all forms of discrimination. But the issue at hand concerns one specific people who see their fears dismissed as illegitimate.

Only a few days later, when pressed repeatedly in an ITV interview to say, “I’m sorry” he acceded, but then insisted “We have dealt with it.”

Well, if they have dealt with it, why do so many Jews, including the Chief Rabbi, feel otherwise? Why did the Jewish Labour Movement’s closing submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission contend that during a 13-month close study, it became clear that not only has the level of anti-Semitism not subsided but “it has swelled”?

Why do 87 per cent of Jews in the UK think Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? Something is very rotten in the Labour Party and it cannot be fixed by a leader who piously and self-righteously refuses to acknowledge or recognise it.