Palestine, Corbyn and the Labour left
JVL Introduction
Phil Bevin, who worked in the Leader of the Opposition’s office under Jeremy Corbyn, stresses how brave and principled Corbyn was, arguing that he refused to be bullied and browbeaten on the central issues of antisemitism and support for Palestinian rights.
Bevin revisits Corbyn’s response to the EHRC publication and insists he was correct in what he said, and in his refusal to back down.
He was also correct in understanding the dangers of adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism trying, unsuccessfully, to oppose it; but was let down by left allies who thought they knew better.
What Corbyn could do was always constrained by the half-hearted commitment of some of his supporters; as Bevin puts it, harshly, ‘”the ‘wider left’ did not support its leader at the time and has consolidated its weakness since he stepped down…”
But he did more than anyone else to put Palestine high on the agenda and despite all efforts Starmer has not been able to dent the firm commitment of the bulk of Party members to that cause.
This article was originally published by Skwawkbox on Tue 17 May 2022. Read the original here.
Guest article: Palestine, Corbyn and the Labour left
In the first in a two-part series, former LOTO staffer Phil Bevin looks at the apartheid, ‘systemic brutalisation’ and ‘culture of militarism’ of the Israeli government – and Corbyn’s ‘act of real bravery’ in refusing to apologise for stating a fact
Loading article text…
This is a revisionist nonsense. Yes, Corbyn lacked support from people on the so-called left as well as the Labour right of course, but he and his closest aides made a terrible mess of calling out the antisemitism smear, which was much wider than just about stifling pro-Palestinian voices – it was about stopping a socialist alternative. They only appeased the smears and it just got worse, even as they jettisoned comrades.
That dreadful interview Corbyn did with Andrew Neil shows unequivocally how far away from getting to any grips with the smear was. It was a car crash.
The EHRC response was too little far too late – by then Corbyn was long gone as leader. It’s pointless going over this. The only thing left is for Corbyn to say sorry. But I think we’ll never hear this. We need new socialist leadership who are much smarter on their feet. It’s time to move on.
Is the byproduct mentioned here – that of raising awareness of the Palestinian cause – worthy? Of course, but it could have been so much more.
Jeremy Corbyn was a courageous leader and I admire him. But in my view Jeremy made a fundamental error in supporting the two state solution. If you support the two state solution then by definition you accept the legitimacy of Ethnic Cleansing to achieve a political objective. Once you have conceded that point you have already lost the argument. No Labour should accept the legitimacy of ethnic cleansing and no Labour leader should accept that it is OK to deprive an indigenous community of their human rights and consign them to the fate of stateless refugees.
I agree with Dave. This kind of rewriting of history is dishonest. I refer people to p.306 of the Leaked Report:
Jeremy Corbyn himself and members of his staff team requested to GLU that particular antisemitism cases be dealt with. In 2017 LOTO staff chased for action on high-profile antisemitism cases Ken Livingstone, Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth, stressing that these cases were of great concern to Jewish stakeholders and that resolving them was essential to “rebuilding trust between the Labour Party and the Jewish community”.
Corbyn threw his friends under the bus and began his leadership trying to appease the JLM. Just look back over my blogs.
One particularly instance stands out and I’m going to put it up when I do a blog on Israel’s Supreme Court where he praised the court as being ‘independent’
Corbyn’s problem was that he never understood the nature of the attack on him nor was he an anti-Zionist. He never took the trouble to get to grips with the nature of the beast. Not once did he oppose the IHRA per se. He fiddled at the edges.
Why is JVL still spreading this pernicious revisionism?
I find these comments a bit depressing. It was always obvious that nothing Corbyn could possibly have done would have satisfied his opponents. It now seems that nothing he could have done would have satisfied his ‘supporters’ either. Of Corbyn it can truly be said that with friends like his he did not need enemies.
In the immortal words of the ‘should have been poet laureate’ Bob Marley, “Get Up, Stand Up, Stand Up for your rights…..don’t give up the fight”, ’cause if you do you get Sir Keir. I’ve always felt uncomfortable living on my knees. Jeremy Corbyn does not like a fight, but I’m afraid that’s what the class struggle is.
Rory says “nothing he could have done would have satisfied his ‘supporters’ ” – this is daft. He did plenty for the left of course but we cannot ignore his failure to counter the biggest smear campaign I’ve ever seen in British politics and one that is still fully operational against the left.
You could argue that the smear campaign was impossible to counter and it is best to capitulate but you need to make that argument.
Yes, I have to agree that this is revisionist nonsense and that friends were thrown under the bus, but this whole discussion begs the question of who from 650 MPs should be PM? If we are being idealistic, I can’t conjure up a single one. Are we stuck with a form of relativism?
Some of those on the left who purported to support Jeremy Corbyn’s political agenda have proven to be “fair weather friends” and worthy of the title “fake lefts”.
In continuing to play the parliamentary game of political charades by putting out conciliatory feelers towards those such as Starmer by bringing his kind into the shadow cabinet, but who rewarded Jeremy with the worst kind of political backstabbing not seen in the Party since Nye Bevan who, despite all his previous political rhetoric, bowed to Hugh Gaitskell and the Party’s pro-NATO, right-wing and betrayed the left by dropping his opposition to nuclear weapons at Party conference in the late 1950’s.
Corbyn has regrettably shown, despite his years in parliament, he’d learnt little about the political nature of the Labour Party’s right-wing, who are, and always have been, as big a bunch of careerist, political scoundrels as one could ever wish to meet and that sadly was his political downfall.
There is always a tendency for people on the left to blame each other for failures rather than looking at objective factors. The fundamental failure of the Corbyn project was the loss of the 2019 election. This had become inevitable because significant parts of the Labour Party, including many and perhaps most Labour MPs, made a clear and conscious decision that they would prefer to lose rather than win with Corbyn as leader. In electoral politics if you are prepared to lose you will lose.
It is an interesting question what would have happened if the PLP had rallied behind Corbyn after 2017. There would still have been major challenges, notably Brexit. Oe can say however that although unity would not have guaranteed success division guaranteed failure.
Everyone now seems to be suggesting better ways in which Corbyn could have dealt with his internal opponents. He did not however have the power to make them disappear. There is little point in thinking about ways to negotiate with people who have no interest in negotiation.
As a late, and rather tangential comment: reading this made me think about the wording in IHRA (and it is correct as quoted) “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” …
Now that is interesting because it says ‘a state of Israel’ and not ‘the state of Israel’. *The* state of Israel, as conceived and implemented till now is a racist, settler-colonial project, in my view. *A* state of Israel might be something else in the future, just as South Arica transformed, at least formally. (There are many other examples such as former slaving states like Britain are no longer transporting and owning captured human beings, though racism still exists). That has implications as to whether any campaigner crosses the line IHRA has created. It doesn’t say opposing all ethnic supremacy is antisemitic. I dislike Islamic Republics with unequal rights as much as a Jewish state built on such values.
[JVL adds: Jonathan Freedland made much of the fact that the definition says “a” not “the” state of Israel a couple of years ago. But the IHRA is clearly not convinced!
Here is its offical French translation : “le refus du droit à l’autodétermination des Juifs, en affirmant par exemple que l’existence de l’État d’Israël est le fruit d’une entreprise raciste;”
And German: :Das Aberkennen des Rechts des jüdischen Volkes auf Selbstbestimmung, z.B. durch die Behauptung, die Existenz des Staates Israel sei ein rassistisches Unterfangen.”
In each case the offical trnaslations say “the” not “a”…
Anyone able to check out the other 25 languages into which the definition has been translated?!