Defining anti-semitism

At this “crunch point” in the Brexit negotiations, you’d expect Labour to be focusing on, well, the future of the country, said The Independent. Instead, Jeremy Corbyn’s party is embroiled in yet another row over anti-semitism – in particular, whether it should adopt the definition of it approved by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This definition is accepted by “the Government, the devolved administrations, the Crown Prosecution Service, more than 100 local authorities and 31 countries” – but it’s not good enough for Labour’s National Executive Committee. Last week, it signed up to the broad 38-word definition itself, but to the fury of Labour MPS, it baulked at including the IHRA’S examples of what constitutes anti-semitism. You’re “a f***ing anti-semite and a racist” Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP, reportedly told Corbyn. (She denies the “f***ing”.) The Parliamentary Labour Party has now passed a non-binding motion for all its MPS to abide by the IHRA’S full framework – and the group will hold a fill ballot in September.

There a good reason for the NEC wanting to alter the guidelines, said Shaun Lawson on Open Democracy: the original formulation suppresses “legitimate criticism of Israel”. The NEC takes issue, for example, with the following instances of what the IHRA views as anti-semitism: comparing Israeli policy to Nazism; describing the existence of Israel as a “racist endeavour”; applying “double standards” to the Jewish state. It’s easy to see how imposing such rules could deter criticism of Israel – indeed, on some British campuses, they’ve already been used as the basis for stopping pro-palestinian events. It’s not as if the NEC is the only body to have reservations, said The Guardian. In 2016, Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that criticism of Israel be considered anti-semitic only if there is clear “anti-semitic intent”, a recommendation almost identical to the NEC’S. As former appeal court judge Sir Stephen Sedley wrote last year, criticism of Israel or Zionism is “not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law”.

Even so, it’s deeply troubling that the Corbynites only seem to worry about free speech when it comes to Israel-bashing, said Brendan O’neill on Spiked. The slightest verbal challenge to Islam or the trans movement is seen as censorable; but say anything inflammatory about Jewish people or Israel and they insist on a “tougher burden of proof”. You may wonder why Corbyn pushed ahead, knowing the political ructions this would cause, said Daniel Finkelstein in The Times. He did so because like so many in his party, he sees Israel as the embodiment of “the evil of Western imperialism”. For him, creating a safe space for anti-israel comment matters far more than creating a “safe environment for Jews”. Of course he’d resist any definition of anti-semitism that would expel party members for equating Zionism and racism: Corbyn himself “regards Israel as the ultimate racist endeavour”.