HERE’S THE REAL MISTAKE CORBYN MADE ON ANTI-SEMITISM….

Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership team have obviously been under fire in the last few days for refusing to adopt the new IHRA definition of anti-semitism in its entirety. They have excluded certain provisions which might be used to prevent any criticism of Israel and its policy towards the Palestinians. Naturally Corbyn’s enemies have used this to dishonestly imply that he does not want to adopt the code because he is anti-semitic, and this has become a major symbolic flashpoint in the whole anti-semitism storm whipped up by the press.

Now in fact it is fine not to adopt the provisions in question if that is what Corbyn and his team want to do. Anti-semitism must be clearly defined so that it can be defeated, but this must never become confused with legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government.

However, if Corbyn is going to take this course he absolutely has to come out and defend that decision in public — forcefully, eloquently and unapologetically. This he has failed to do. He has made the classic left-wing mistake (also made by Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock) of adopting left-wing policies without coming out and fighting for them. He therefore allows himself and his actions to be entirely defined by his opponents. These opponents will not soften their stance if he does not argue back against them. In fact they will only do that if he does argue back against them. If he starts making arguments in defence of his policy that forces the debate on to his terms, makes his opponents have to respond to his view rather than the other way round.

If he and his team do not say anything, the danger is that they will just be subjected to mounting pressure to change their stance, which in due course they will end up doing, which will make them look weak. If they push back against the pressure, though, they get to create some pressure of their own, which who knows might end up causing his opponents to give in.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters have a much better handle on this than the Corbynites in the UK. If the US right tries to stop them talking about something by shouting them down they push back on the issue and explain exactly why they are doing so. This forces the debate on to their terms.

We saw the consequences of Corbyn’s approach yesterday, when his opponents in the press were able to report that Momentum itself as well 3 major trade unions had publically come out and urged him to adopt the IHRS definition in full. This might not have happened if he had forcefully shored up his position and seized control of the agenda.

CONCLUSION

Corbyn’s opponents are always trying to stop him from saying inconvenient things (on Novichok, on Syria, on Israel) just by shouting and screaming very loudly that he can’t. Ironically, if Corbyn gives in to this pressure, he loses — without doing anything to pacify his opponents. If he ignores the pressure and says the inconvenient things, he wins — and forces his opponents to debate on his terms.