Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/avi-shlaim-gwyn-daniel/labour-party-israel-and-antisemitism
openDemocracy
The Labour Party, Israel, and antisemitism
Avi Shlaim and Gwyn Daniel 7 May 2016
The key question, given that antisemitism along with other forms of racism has
had a continuing presence in British political life, is why now? Much hangs on
this.
Last week the Labour Party came under ferocious political and media attack for allegedly
harbouring antisemites in its midst. In the course of this, the accusers often blurred the
distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, between legitimate criticisms of the
state of Israel and hatred of Jews in general.
Two individuals were involved in the escalation of this row to new and explosive heights.
Naz Shah, in 2014, before she became Labour MP for Bradford, tweeted that Israel should
be transported to the United States as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shah
issued a dignified apology, explaining that feelings were running high during the Israeli
assault on Gaza. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London and close ally of Jeremy
Corbyn, rushed to Shahs defence but compounded the crisis with his bizarre claim that
Hitler supported Zionism in 1932 before he went mad and killed six million Jews.
Jeremy Corbyn was pilloried in much of the press for not dealing quickly enough with the
antisemitism that was said to be endemic in the left of the party. One result of this furore
has been to shift the focus of debate from any criticism of Israel to condemnation of the
critics of Israel and to bypass discussion of Palestine altogether.
Attitudes towards Israel are increasingly used as evidence of antisemitism. The argument
takes three main forms. First, while criticism of Israels policies is not antisemitic,
attempts to 'delegitimize' the state of Israel are; second, sharing platforms with Islamic
'terrorists'; third, singling out Israel, the worlds only Jewish state, for condemnation
betrays antisemitic prejudice.
For those of us engaged in the politics of the region this is a familiar trope of Israeli
Hasbara, a polite name for propaganda. The key question, given that antisemitism along
with other forms of racism has had a continuing presence on the right as well as the left
of British political life, is why now? And why has this storm broken around a man deeply
committed to ant-racism and social justice, elected to the party leadership with an
overwhelming majority, and about whom no-one, despite assiduous efforts, has
uncovered any evidence of antisemitism?
Before returning to the specific question of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, we need
to place the three issues 'delegitimisation', talking to 'terrorists', and exceptionalism
in a historical perspective.
'Delegitimisation', talking to 'terrorists' and exceptionalism
For many years the hot question was whether the best solution for the Israel-Palestine
conflict was two states or one binational state. This debate intensified after the 1993
Oslo Accord which pointed to, but failed to deliver, two states. Since Oslo, Israel has
expanded its colonies and their infrastructure on the West Bank to a point where a viable
Palestinian state is no longer feasible. By signing the Oslo Accord the PLO gave up its
many to be much worse. Israel for its part is devoting a massive effort to combatting BDS
especially as it has already had some major successes. Government ministers have
threatened targeted civil eliminations of Palestinian BDS leaders. In the UK the
government is trying to make it illegal for local authorities to divest. BDS itself is
frequently said to be antisemitic, with two US states voting to ban it.
So why the furore over antisemitism in the Labour Party now? Could it be part of a
broader campaign both against Jeremy Corbyns pro-Palestinian stance and against the
emergent success of the BDS movement? Many people express the view privately that
the charges of Jew-hatred are being deliberately manipulated to serve a pro-Zionist
agenda but not one leading politician has dared to say so openly. Why? Because anyone
who says so risks being tainted by further antisemitic tropes, for example, the suggestion
of undue Jewish influence or control of the media. It only takes one crass (and, yes,
antisemitic) utterance by the likes of Livingstone to silence those who would speak truth
to power in a way that is ethical, historically informed, and resolute.
Let us be clear about what is at stake here. As anyone who has recently visited Palestine
will know, conditions are going from bad to worse. Settler violence, soldier brutality and
casual killings, child arrests and imprisonment, land appropriation, and house demolitions
are all increasing at an alarming rate. Racism is rife. The worse Israel behaves, the more
strenuous are efforts to disqualify and discredit anyone who holds the country to account.
The Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, was predictably quick to seize the
opportunity to pronounce that criticism of Israel is nothing to do with its actions but
results from a visceral hatred of the Jewish state itself. The debate about antisemitism in
the Labour Party is a microcosm of what is happening in this wider sphere.
The debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party is a microcosm of what is happening
in this wider sphere. Use of language which accurately describes what is going on
settler-colonialism, racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing is turned back on those who use
it, seizing upon the odd remark by otherwise thoroughly decent people like Naz Shah in
order to silence anyone who dares raise their voice to protest against Israels oppression
of the Palestinians. Rather than being about a few inveterate antisemites on the hard
left or a sudden extremist Momentum horde invading the Labour Party, it is the
expression of public outrage that the UK government supports and indeed lauds a
country that commits such abuses.
To deal with the immediate crisis, Jeremy Corbyn has suspended Shah and Livingstone
and instituted an independent inquiry into antisemitism within the Labour Party. The
inquiry is intended to produce robust rules for drumming anti-Semites out of the party.
But we have to hope that the Labour leadership will not be bullied into including in a
new definition of antisemitism any of the following: supporting a one state solution,
naming Israels actions in the Palestinian territories as apartheid and ethnic cleansing,
talking to Hamas, or advocating BDS. And once the manufactured crisis over
antisemitism subsides, the embattled Labour leader should muster the courage to
resume his principled stand in support of justice for the Palestinian people.