Is Jeremy Corbyn antisemitic?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party
I believe accusations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party can shed light on identity politics and nationalism.
First, to set context, I must make two disclaimers:
First, although identity movements are based on a nationalist template, not all of them are fully nationalist, and the degree is important. In the case of Jewish identity, some Jews feel their identity is based mostly or entirely on Israel, while others do not. There is a significant gulf between these two perspectives.
Second, I am not an admirer of Jeremy Corbyn, although Britain would probably benefit from his domestic policies. He is thoroughly hated by the Tony Blair wing of Labour, including The Guardian. But when Blair went to war in Iraq, ignoring and over-riding widespread opposition within Labour and the country, it was nearly inevitable that someone with an anti-war record—like Corbyn—would wind up as head of Labour. Blair’s supporters cannot rewind that decision. If Corbyn is ever driven from public life, he will only be replaced by someone similar; Blair broke the old Labour coalition.
When Blair did so, Corbyn re-made the Party based on his own vision, and he did this partly through his Momentum organization. Whatever his supporters see in him, he has two undeniable virtues: he won’t wage an unnecessary war; and if he says he believes in something, he’s almost certainly telling the truth.
This is not to imply that what Corbyn believes always makes sense, or that he could be trusted to resolutely fight a necessary war. But still, he has virtues that Tony Blair conspicuously lacked.
That said, let’s move on to some—not all—of the accusations of anti-Semitism against Corbyn and the Labor Party:
The Hajo Meyer Incident
In 2010 Corbyn hosted an event on Holocaust Memorial Day in which Hajo Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, compared Israel to Nazi Germany. When this became a matter of public note in the summer of 2016, Corbyn apologized and said he disagreed with Meyer’s argument:
Mr Corbyn said views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone”.
He added: “In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject.”
“I apologise for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45027582
Peter Willsman
Around the time that the Hojo Meyer incident became a public controversy, 60 rabbis issued a statement saying that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party was “severe and widespread.”
Taking an aggressive tone in an internal Labour meeting, Willsman made three points: that the Jews making these charges were “Trump fanatics,” that he had never seen any evidence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and that the 60 rabbis had not offered evidence of anti-Semitism in Labour.
Critics demanded Willsman’s ouster. He apologized and that appeared to end the matter.
The IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism Controversy
In December 2016, the Labour Party adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/196
Most of the text of the Working Definition consists of eleven examples of antisemitism. Four of the examples equate certain kinds of criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism, and there was concern that the Working Definition could be used to stifle free speech, even by one of the authors, Kenneth S. Stern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_S._Stern
In July 2018 Labour’s National Executive Committee:
adopted a new code of conduct that defined antisemitism for the purposes of disciplinary cases brought before the National Constitutional Committee, which was intended to help make the disciplinary process more efficient and transparent.[8] The new code of conduct included the IHRA working definition on antisemitism, but was criticised for amending or omitting four out of the eleven IHRA’s examples of what constitutes antisemitism, all relating to Israel,[190][191][9] and adding three other examples.[192][10] The two amended examples are no longer described as antisemitic but as either wrong, in the case of “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”, or something to be resisted, in the case of “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The two omitted clauses are those stating that it is antisemitic to claim that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations”.[
This led to intense controversy:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council criticised Labour, saying that the new rules “only dilute the definition and further erode the existing lack of confidence that British Jews have in their sincerity to tackle anti-Semitism within the Labour movement”.[209] Following the adoption of the new code of conduct on antisemitism, Labour MP Margaret Hodge accused Corbyn of being “an anti-Semitic racist”.[210] The code was also accused by law lecturer Tom Frost of failing to apply the Macpherson Principle which says “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”[211] On 16 July, more than 60 British rabbis wrote a joint letter to The Guardian, saying that Labour had “chosen to ignore the Jewish community”. The signatories included Harvey Belovski, Laura Janner-Klausner, Danny Rich and Jonathan Wittenberg. The letter said that it was “not the Labour party’s place to rewrite a definition of antisemitism” and noted that the full IHRA definition had been accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and 124 local authorities.[212][213] Later in July, in a move which they described as unprecedented, three UK Jewish newspapers The Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph all carried the same front page commentary in a joint editorial, claiming that a Labour government under Corbyn’s leadership would prove an “existential threat to Jewish life” in the UK[214] and “Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands of Labour and Momentum member would need to be expelled.” A spokesman for Labour said a Labour government posed “no threat of any kind whatsoever to Jewish people”.[215]
[Preceding quotes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Working_definition_of_antisemitism ]
In the end, the Labour Party reverted to the original, unmodified IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, with all eleven examples, along with
a clarification by Jeremy Corbyn that the definition and its examples will not silence criticism on the actions of the Israeli government or speaking out in favour of Palestinian rights.
Reading about this controversy was (for me), confusing in extreme. It’s like reading about an intense religious dispute from the 1300s—there’s some underlying context or power dynamic that cannot be grasped from a modern perspective.
As I struggled with this material, I did have one insight. Almost everything in the IHRA Working Definition is about anti-Semitic speech, and the speech of concern is mostly not crude and direct abuse, but coded anti-Semitism.
Even incitement to violence receives far less attention than criticism of Israel.
Do we live in a world where illegal actions—murders, assaults, vandalism—can be almost ignored in a discussion of anti-Semitism? Within the hothouse of identity politics, yes, apparently we can.
And within that same fevered context, claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is “an existential threat to Jews,” as if he were shopping for crematoria in his spare time, likewise makes perfect sense to his critics.
The “Freedom For Humanity” Mural
A touchstone for critics of Corbyn is the controversy over the mural “Freedom for Humanity.” After complaints of anti-Semitic images in the mural, it was destroyed by local government in 2010. In 2016 the issue re-surfaced again.
The artist said it was an anti-capitalist mural, and critics said the features of the capitalists were exaggerated in a style similar to Nazi propaganda. But the Nazi caricatures I found were more exaggerated, more obviously hateful and disturbing, than those in “Freedom for Humanity,” where, frankly, the capitalists look like grumpy old Muppets. And in any case the symbol above the capitalists is the “All-Seeing Providence,” a Christian symbol usually associated with the Freemasons. That image is also on the back on the dollar bill.
It’s unproven that this mural had an anti-Semitic subtext, although the artist clearly wished to make the capitalists unattractive by exaggerating their features. But many of the figures portrayed are not Jewish.
I don’t care to put an actual Nazi caricature in my blog, but here’s a link for comparative purposes:
The reader, I trust, will see the difference between the Der Stuermer image and “Freedom for Humanity.”
If there’s an anti-Semitic message in “Freedom for Humanity,” it’s subtle…and there is absolutely nothing else in this work that shows the slightest trace of subtlety, starting with the title.
Corbyn sympathized with the artist when he heard the mural was to be destroyed. He compared the incident to Nelson Rockefeller painting over a Diego Rivera mural because it contained an image of Trotsky [actually, it was Lenin], which indicates that Corbyn believed the mural was destroyed because of its leftist message.
That’s it—that’s the entire controversy: thin broth indeed.
Comments on the Preceding Examples
What can we glean from all this? The headline might be “Everyone is Deeply Confused About Nationalism.” Because when you dig down far enough, anti-Semitism (as understood until Netanyahu’s time) is not really the issue. In the past, anti-Semitism meant the blood libel, pogroms, the Inquisition, Auschwitz, Baba Yar, murder, rape, seizure of property, forced conversion and exile. Today—in the UK—it’s about coded speech and criticism of Israel.
When Hajo Meyer (and others) compare Israel to Nazi Germany, of course that’s false. Nazi oppression was far more systematic and barbaric than what Palestinians suffer under Israeli occupation—and that’s not to say that Palestinian suffering isn’t real.
But it’s also a statement that’s designed to shock. It’s directed at people who believe that Nazi Germany was uniquely evil—which is most everyone, and at people who believe Israel is uniquely good—which is less than everyone. When you hear Israel compared to Nazi Germany, a fair-minded listener is bound to feel the injustice of it—Sure, Ariel Sharon was an asshole, but he was no Reinhard Heydrich.
Still, it’s effective rhetorically, because it forces you to remember Sharon’s complicity in Sabra and Shatila. No, not Heydrich at all, but still, he should have gone to prison for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
When the Jewish newspapers of Britain accuse Corbyn of being “an existential threat to Jewish life,” then they have frankly lost all credibility on Corbyn or anti-Semitism. Corbyn will not kill any Jews, unless they die of sheer political frustration, waiting for him to take a clear position on Brexit.
And if the “existential threat” accusation doesn’t discredit the rest of the charges of anti-Semitism against Corbin, then consider this statement from the Jewish newspapers:
Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands of Labour and Momentum member would need to be expelled.
Why, that sounds like a purge, doesn’t it?
Here’s what the IHRA itself had to say about its eleven examples:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
[followed by the eleven examples]
“Could….include”? “Taking into account the overall context”? It doesn’t sound as if the authors of the IHRA examples imagined their work being used for a political purge, does it? And yet that’s precisely what the Jewish newspapers had in mind.
This debate is not about anti-Semitism, and it’s only peripherally about the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, either. This is mostly about nationalism.
If Corbyn’s election, or even his increasing influence, might result in a foreign policy defeat for Israel (particularly if the UK recognized the Palestinian Authority diplomatically), then Corbyn almost automatically becomes the target of Israeli nationalism.
Is Mossad coordinating this anti-anti-Semitic campaign in the UK? There’s no evidence of that, but if it were ordered to do so, obviously it would. Would the Prime Minister of Israel order this? If he was convinced that Corbyn were a threat to Israel’s international standing, then yes, of course he would—-and so would any other head of an intensely nationalistic state in the same situation. This is not a matter of bad people–though they may be bad enough–but of a dysfunctional, maladaptive ideology.
Making false accusations of anti-Semitism is reprehensible, and the people involved may sense that, but their nationalism leaves them with no alternative. Merely sticking to the truth is literally unthinkable for them.
But wouldn’t Israel have too much respect for British institutions, to run a disinformation campaign against the Loyal Opposition and to potentially undermine the 2017 election? If Israel’s first loyalty were to democracy, then probably yes—if the PM were Ben-Gurion or Rabin. But an intensely nationalistic Likud PM is, well—intensely nationalistic. For the Likud, nationalism trumps democracy, and you couldn’t reasonably expect them to do otherwise, aside from the fear of getting caught.
As I said, there’s no evidence that Israel was covertly involved, and it doesn’t matter. There were probably enough British Zionists available, and since their ideology is similar to that of the Likud, there was probably no need for oversight by Mossad.
So Corbyn and a major Western political party were unfairly accused of anti-Semitism—that is, of criticizing Israeli policies. If some Jews choose an identity that is based on the State of Israel, then they aren’t dishonestly conflating anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel; instead, they do not see the difference. Jewish identity is Israel to them.
The problem with this choice of identity is that nationalism is built for war, and extreme nationalists do not have the intellectual or emotional tools to make peace. If two nationalist movements fight, there is no peace short of extermination, which is exactly the situation we see in Israel and the West Bank today. There will be no peace in this region through nationalism.
A second problem is that nationalism is also a kind of spiritual death. After prolonged conflict, who remembers the meaning of “God was in this place, and I knew it not”?
When the last Palestinian is dead and buried, will any Israeli remember who Spinoza was?
Is Corbyn anti-Semitic? I see no evidence of that, and proof by repetition doesn’t count. Some of the charges against Corbyn and Labour are stunning in their silliness—but the prestige of identity politics is such that no one ever laughs.
Is Corbyn therefore an innocent victim here? No, because he has been entirely too chummy with Hamas (and Hezbollah), calling them his “friends.” I could multiply examples, but the basic problem is that Corbyn seems to believe that some nationalist movements are “good” (like Hamas, Hezbollah and other Third World insurgencies), and that other nationalist movements are “bad;” the latter are mostly those of white people.
Let’s do a thought experiment here to fully illustrate Corbyn’s mistake. Assume that Hamas and Hezbollah gain the upper hand in the military struggle with Israel; never mind how. Assume further that this happens quickly, in a matter of a day or two—before the Israeli population has a chance to flee.
There are about 6.5 million Jews in Israel today. How many of them do we believe would be massacred in this case? Given the ideology of Hamas and Hezbollah, my guess is that at least 10% of the Jewish population would be murdered on the spot, and additional killings would depend on international pressure, especially Iran’s position. It’s quite possible that millions might be killed.
And it goes without saying that—even in the best-case scenario—that every surviving Jew would be driven out of Israel.
What would Jeremy Corbyn say or do then? Would he realize that socialists and rigorous nationalists differ radically on the value of human life? And that this implies little or no common ground between them? Would he see how his own illusions had contributed to this tragedy?
Corbyn does not understand that extreme nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with both socialism and peace; this implies that he is unfit to lead a socialist movement, and likewise unfit to lead the UK.
In his defense, however, he is not quite as deluded as either the Israelis or the Palestinians, who are both committed to a nationalist strategy that is clearly not working. Both peoples exposed to constant attack and psychological trauma; neither have a vision for the future other than endless conflict—which must end sooner or later, most likely in terrible violence.
What can we learn from this controversy?
- First, that all nationalist movements are similar.
Recall, for example, Hajo Meyer’s statement that Israel is the same as Nazi Germany. That’s not true, but it is true that all nationalist movements are built for war, and that in some circumstances any nationalist regime can behave like the Nazis, as we have seen in Rwanda, in Kosovo, and in the Rohingya district of Myanmar.
Nazi Germany is unique in the scale of its crimes, but not in its contempt for the value of human life.
- Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is dishonest.
It’s dishonest because it implies that no one would oppose Israel’s policies for any motive other than unreasoning hatred of Jews as a people. It’s a sweeping characterization of the reasoning and motives of millions of people that the IHRA has never met.
Or to put it another way, it implies that Israel’s actions are so blameless and humane that any reasonable individual would view it as a civil paradise. But many reasonable individuals in 2019 see it otherwise.
- Defining anti-Semitism as coded speech rather than harmful actions does not make Jews safer.
Endless outrage about ambiguous cases of coded anti-Semitism cannot help but blunt the shock of actual violence.
Jeremy Corbin isn’t Robert Gregory Bowers, and the Labour Party is not Gab or 4chan; pretending they are simply makes it more difficult to recognize an actual threat.
Postscript:
Thanks to synchronicity, while I was writing this essay, the following appeared:
I never thought I’d live to see disciples of Meir Kahane occupy cabinet positions in any country, much less Israel.
The Socialist Investor 