Formby stands firm against criticism

What the Labour Party has done is to engage with the IHRA guidelines as a living document, which is generally a good thing, and indeed what it would appear was intended by the writers of the IHRA definition. It does not read as something intended to be a code of conduct, but rather as the basis for raising awareness and deepening understanding of modern antisemitism. Even the short 40-word definition (which is really the working definition according to the IHRA) is described by the IHRA as “non-legally binding.”

But Labour has nevertheless tried to make it into a Code of Conduct as well as, it seems, putting in place the foundations of what could be an educational campaigning effort.

Labour’s document is based on the IHRA guidance plus a few points from the Chakrabarti report and some other sources.

However, the row now taking place can’t be seen outside of the context of a factional battle between the Jewish Labour Movement on the one side and Jewish Voice for Labour on the other. Both sides have lost sight of the content and purpose of the IHRA definition and guidance. They see it as an icon, a sacred text, either to applaud and venerate or to despise and condemn.

Labour has produced a document that confirms its adoption of the IHRA definition and basically reproduces the substantive points from the IHRA guidelines but with additional points and commentary.

JLM is determined to condemn this because they wanted Labour to adopt the exact wording of the IHRA guidelines word for word. (That’s been the demand of the JLM, Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews.) This is despite the fact that it is clearly based on the IHRA guidelines and includes all the substantive points (except maybe one – see below). This could be called the Morecambe and Wise objection – the new guidance includes all the right points, but not necessarily in the right order.

JVL welcomes Labour’s new guidelines precisely because it’s a departure from the exact wording of the IHRA guidelines, even though they know that it includes the same content. They also welcome it because a) it comes from Corbyn’s allies and they know which side they are on, and b) the JLM are against it.

So both sides are now spinning the document to be a bigger departure from the IHRA guidelines than it really is in order to have a faction fight about something symbolic rather than something real. Paradoxically, we now have JVL supporting a document that is based on and substantially the same as the IHRA “full definition” (working definition plus guidance) and the JLM opposing it.

It’s probably the case that Jennie Formby, with the authority of Corbyn and his circle, made a deliberate decision to adopt the IHRA guidance in substance but not in appearance in order to offer something to both sides. Acceptance of the approach of the IHRA but, as a face-saving measure for JVL and others who opposed the IHRA definition, not simply signing up to the IHRA text.

It isn’t true that four of the 11 examples have simply been left out. They have been addressed in a different way, some more clearly than others.