Do I think that Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite? (Well, let’s consider a few facts …)
Many years ago, I wrote an article for a well-known film magazine. The subject matter was how Israel was unfairly treated in the media. My piece was politely shelved, the reason being that the readership were inclined to relate to “the perfidy of the Israeli state against the victimhood of the Palestinian people” and, apparently, nothing would subvert that.
How times have changed. As have my views on Middle East politics.
I still believe, on the Left, there is much insensitivity and a clunkingly hostile use of political language. I also believe, in essence, that Zionism was a liberation movement, a visceral, emotional reaction to the pogroms, massacres and expulsions of the Jewish people that culminated in the Holocaust. “Paranoia confirmed,” as Simon Schama described it.
But, these days, I have little energy in trying to convince others that Israel — in its current configuration — is being ‘misunderstood’.
Presently, my priorities lie closer to home: in the Labour Party, with the perception that racism and antisemitism are running rife in the party. So, after the storm, is there any veracity to these continuing allegations?
I’ve never encountered any antisemitism in the Labour party, since I joined three years ago. That’s my personal experience. You’d think having been on outings with the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-Fascist Action in the 90s — protesting at David Irving Holocaust Denial seminars; attempting to stop a Skrewdriver gig, and being victim of an antisemitic attack myself — I’d maybe notice the stench of bigotry and Jew-hate if it was indeed an epidemic within the Party.
What I have encountered, however, is a constant and relentless stream of smears against Corbyn that I believe are hyperbolic, deranged, distorted and often groundless. If he is authentically an antisemite — then why the need for the lies, distortions and untruths on Brexit, Northern Ireland (in which he played a tangible part in securing peace) and National Security? Why paint him as a Czech spy, cult leader or Putin’s stooge? Either — one could argue — he is all of these things or none. Welcome to the world of besmirching and slander.
Let’s briefly look at some of the recent charges:
‘Wreathgate’ when examined forensically leads to little, except the will by his critics to try and conflate the ‘actual’ Munich Terrorists buried in another country with other political characters . We know this because Channel 4 referred to “the attackers” (the Munich ‘attackers’ are buried in Libya, and NOT Tunisia). In any case, he did not lay a wreath for any terrorist connected or unconnected to Munich — it was a peace conference and his business at the cemetery was to remember the victims — mainly civilian — of an Israeli airstrike in 1985 that was universally condemned. Even by Thatcher and Reagan.
Put it this way, if you can find any of these other ‘supposed’ Munich terrorists (named by the Daily Mail) in the credits of Spielberg’s 2005 film Munich — a film that might want to briefly mention any ‘masterminds’ instrumental in the 1972 Munich atrocity — I’ll tear up my party membership!
The mural from six years ago, was not defended by Corbyn — but a cursory comment was tweeted referencing a banker who’s not even Jewish (Rockefeller). He called Hamas and Hezbollah his ‘friends’ at one meeting— which lead to the perennial singalong of ‘Friend! Friend! FRIEND’ by critics in a mocking tone reminiscent of The Inbetweeners.
But missing is always the accompanying narrative: did he accept money from any organisation? Did he give out information that lead to any deaths? Did he orchestrate an actual bombing? If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, then this accusing but frivolously vague finger-pointing, I feel, is the nadir of political dialogue.
The IHRA definition and examples continue to be a controversy. Though Labour — contrary to other parties — have spent inordinate time on this issue: implementing the definition and trying to improve upon it. Crucially, though, it has to be noted that the ‘Definition’ was never something to be set in stone, it was guidance, a work in progress. Never the Ten Commandments. Kenneth Stern — the man who drafted the document — has expressed his indignation at how the document has been abused to suppress freedom of speech (ie, the voice of Palestinian injustice). Others — Including the EU and various academic experts — felt the definition in its current form was found wanting. Geoffrey Robertson QC called it “unfit for purpose”.
Still, Labour — unlike any other UK political party — heeded the wishes of their detractors and adopted the definition in full — although with protective caveats, to protect free speech (just as Margaret Hodge once suggested).
Then there there’s the Lord Sacks affair. To quote an Associate Professor of Sociology, Kehinde Andrews, writing in the Guardian, comparing Corbyn’s comment (about British Pro-Israelis- or ‘Zionists’ — who berated a Palestinian Ambassador’s speech, after misunderstanding his sense of irony) to Enoch Powell’s reprehensible Rivers of Blood speech is as “ridiculous as it is offensive”. End of matter.
Research, polls, facts and reputable reports point to less antisemitism under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership (and an extremely small percentage of cases relative to the huge party membership). His own voting record also reveals an exemplary amount of support — shaming to his critics — for measures against antisemitism. In tandem with his lifelong fight against racism, the archives reveal Corbyn’s involvement in rallies to counter the National Front’s activities and a good relationship with Jewish leaders /people in his constituency, and beyond.
Esteemed Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, author of ‘The Iron Wall’, feels his opponents have failed by having gone through decades of Corbyn’s political speeches with a “fine tooth comb” — only to find that that they “couldn’t come up with a single antisemitic comment”. Noam Chomsky — unarguably one of the greatest political minds of our age — just described Corbyn as “admirable” and “decent” and the charges against him to be “without merit”. Lord Dubs, a refugee of the Nazis, believes that Sacks and Hodge’s recent comments do not hold water. Nor does he feel that Corbyn is antisemitic.
Incidentally, it is concerning that a byproduct of this ‘crisis’ is the undermining and depreciation of views held by several Holocaust Survivors. This is a paradox that hints at the moral void at the heart of this matter.
Interesting, by the way, that the Anti Nazi League are to reform. The reasons? The resurgence of the Far Right, Islamophobia, rising instances of antisemitism in Europe. But NEVER is ‘antisemitism or racism within the Labour Party’ referred to or cited as a pressing, real threat that needs to be acted on.
Critics of Corbyn — I believe — have created inexorable damage in their attempts to smear a man innocent of their accusations. The Disneyfication of their reasoning — unnuanced, a battle between good and evil! — might make for good headlines but they’ve characterised ‘Jews’ as some kind of homogeneous mass, inflexible in their thinking — and clumsy and iniquitous in their judgements.
While the BBC and Sky News fast track and prioritise the opinions of the right-wing or Conservative Jewish commentators — an audience are being deprived of a diversity of other Jewish voices relevant to the debate. Occasionally, the left-leaning ones are given airtime and exposure but by no means to an equal degree (or anything remotely approaching that). Remember there are over 40 Jewish groups (ranging from very Liberal to ultra-Orthodox) that support Corbyn on this issue and strongly condemn his critics.
Talking of whom — I think if anyone needs training on matters related to antisemitism, it is not the Labour leadership — but the Labour Right; those so-called ‘moderates’, whose extreme behaviour has nearly blown the party into a million pieces and their own political careers into the bargain (Dugher, Gapes, Field, and other martyrs). It is these shamelessly opportunistic MPs who need to see that their reckless weaponising of antisemitism puts flesh on the bones of those pre-existing prejudices that lie dormant everywhere. It creates antagonism, resentment, suspicion. ‘They’ demand special treatment! ‘They’ are using underhand, dirty tricks! ‘They’ have powerful people fighting their battles for them! ‘ It is a recruiting sergeant and fuel for bona fide bigots.
Ironically, this playing with fire has backfired. Labour Membership — already more than half a million — has increased dramatically to the tune of tens of thousands. Candidates sympathetic to Corbyn have been elected to the board of the NEC and there has been an increased awareness of the ‘victimhood’ of the Palestinian people. Netanyahu’s morally cackhanded intervention against Corbyn — in the form of a disingenous tweet — didn’t do Israel any favours either.
Antisemitism is a nefarious, despicable affliction that should always be dealt with swiftly and definitively. It does exist: in all political parties and in society in general.
For those people whose motivations are questionable — as Chomsky and others have pointed to — using antisemitism as part of some last-resort political itinerary to destroy an opponent is not only cynical: It is a repellent, reprehensible practice.
Just as I finish typing, I notice that it is the Tory party — not shy of blackening Corbyn’s name — that is supporting and giving credibility to the authentically racist and antisemitic Hungarian President Viktor Orban.
And, yet, the slurs continue against the Leader of the Opposition as if kowtowing to Orban is just some triviality — hardly worth mentioning.
