From the horse’s mouth
Now we know. The attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party for antisemitism are about Israel after all
Jonathan Arkush puts delegitimisation of Israel at the core of what it is to be antisemitic. We suggest looking at what really delegitimises Israel in the eyes of public opinion worldwide: the ongoing occupation and theft of Palestinian land, the ever-expanding settlements, the continual flouting of international law, the cold-blooded shooting of protestors in Gaza, the shabby treatment of asylum seekers at home…
Enough is enough!
British Jews are asking ‘Do we have a future?’ says outgoing president of board of deputies
Jeremy Corbyn holds “antisemitic views” which could drive Jewish people to leave Britain if he becomes prime minister, one of the UK’s most senior Jewish leaders has said.
Jonathan Arkush, the outgoing president of the board of deputies, said Corbyn “has views which are antisemitic, and he has problematic views”.
He also criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who should have had a “stronger, clearer voice” in support of the Jewish community, he said.
Arkush, who was among senior Jewish leaders who met Corbyn in April to discuss concerns about antisemitism, told the Daily Telegraph that British Jews were asking: “Do we have a future here?”
“Delegitimising the state of Israel is antisemitic,” Arkush told the newspaper. “He was a chairman of Stop the War, which is responsible for some of the worst anti-Israel discourse.
“If he shares the prevalent discourse about Israel, then that view is unquestionably antisemitic.”
Arkush said Corbyn would need to tell Jews that he “will not accept a discourse which denies the existence of their own land to the Jewish people … I think we are all entitled to some clarity on his real views about Israel”.
Corbyn’s spokesman said the comments were “personal attacks without any evidence to support them … Jeremy has been absolutely clear that he is a militant opponent of antisemitism and is committed to driving it out of our movement”.
The spokesman said Labour had deep roots in the Jewish community and was campaigning to increase the confidence of the community, the spokesman said.
“Jonathan Arkush’s attempt to conflate strong criticism of Israeli state policies with antisemitism is wrong and undermines the fight both against antisemitism and for justice for the Palestinians,” the spokesman added. “It should be rejected outright.”
Rhea Wolfson, a member of Labour’s national executive committee, said she was shocked by the comments. “Jeremy Corbyn is not antisemitic, he does not hold antisemitic views,” she tweeted. “I cannot understand what Arkush is trying to achieve here but I know it isn’t about being constructive.
“Jonathan Arkush has never spoken for me, for many other young, progressive Jews, and he doesn’t in this article. We have a lot of work to take a lot of poison out of the debate… around Israel and Palestine, making blanket accusations isn’t constructive and doesn’t move towards a better debate or solutions.”
Arkush will hand over the presidency of the Board of Deputies this week to newly elected president Marie van der Zyl. After her election earlier this month, Van der Zyl said the board of deputies wanted to continue dialogue with the Labour leader.
“We want to see Jeremy Corbyn lead the Labour party and carry out his pledge to root out antisemitism and all forms of racism within the party,” she said.
I think the analysis is part right, part wrong. Arkush makes it clear in this interview that anti-Israel sentiment is right at the the core of his definition of antisemitism. But it does not follow that his sole motivation is to defend Israel.
He is also using these charges of antisemitism to undermine Labour, and to try to make the Labour Party toxic for the wider Jewish community, in order to benefit the party he is a strong supporter of – the Tory Party. Defending Israel and advancing the Tory Party’s interests go hand in hand for him.
When I first read this article, I thought “oh no, not more!” but on mulling it over, I feel it could represent a possible sea change in the tide of antisemitic allegations. This is because it is so obviously ridiculous and over the top, that many neutrals will begin to reconsider their position.
Arkush clearly thinks that the more you repeat something the better, and generally this is true, but if you go on too long and too stridently, people stop taking you seriously and you become a figure of fun. I think (and hope) this is where we’re getting to now.
To take full advantage, we and the Labour left generally need to mount a rapid response to him, saying we are prepared to work with people who are prepared to work with us, but he (and the JBD?) clearly have other entirely different agendas and should be marginalised. We should also look to drive a wedge between orthodox reps if possible. This won’t be straightforward, but it is possible – let’s do it!
Both David and the person who wrote the analysis are correct.
Firstly of course this is not new. In the Open Letter from Arkush and Goldstein of the JLC back in March they were very clear:
‘Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with antisemites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left’s obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel. At worst, it suggests a conspiratorial worldview in which mainstream Jewish communities are believed to be a hostile entity, a class enemy,”
If there was any doubt then accusing Jewdas of ‘virulent anti-semitism’ should have proved it beyond doubt.
But where I disagree with Dave is in attributing certain motives to Arkush. Short of getting inside his head we don’t know what his motivation is. I suspect that he sees support for the Tories and support for Zionism as entirely complementary. After all this is the man who effusively welcomed Donald Trump to power after a campaign that was full of subliminal (and often overt!) antisemitic messages about global financial elites.
The fact is that support for Zionism and support for Israel, as the West’s guard dog in the Middle East and support for the Right and increasingly the far-Right go hand in hand.
We can see this with Netanyahu’s link up with farRight regimes in Europe. Both of them seem to share a common enemy in George Soros, the archetypal Jewish financial puppet master. We even had a demonstration in Tel Aviv outside the British Embassy in support of Tommy Robinson, including our old friend Dr Brian, friend of that neutral ‘researcher’ David Collier.
The tragedy is that Corbyn refuses to draw the correct conclusions viz. that there is no anti-semitism in the Labour Party. I don’t mean that there aren’t individuals who come out with antisemitic nonsense but there is no phenomenon of antisemitism as an organised political force
As far as action within the Labour Party is concerned I feel that not enough use has been made of the devastating legal demolition of the IHRA definition and its infamous attached “examples”, by Hugh Tomlinson, Stephen Sedley, Moshe Machover and others. Promoting this piece of intellectually incoherent zionist nonsense is what not only Arkush, but the entire collection of pro-Israel organisations, and indeed our even own government, rely on in pushing their anti-Corbyn agenda. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the LP conference rejected the 11 examples last year, the LP has not shown any real leadership in resisting further attempts to impose acceptance of the examples. It seems to me that what is needed is action at the LP conference to bury this “definition” of antisemitism once and for all. I think this could be done by pointing out the potential conflict with the definition of protected speech in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. This is particularly important since the LP leadership appears to be acquiescing to the demand for LP education regarding antisemitism, which the zionist organisations have clearly set their eyes on directly controlling.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think something like the following paragraph should be included in a LP motion to congress. Perhaps some CLP has already proposed something along these lines? Unfortunately in my constituency it appears to be too late:
“We note that, while the LP has accepted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it has not accepted the 11 examples which have been attached to that definition, examples some of which, in the opinion of legal counsel, if read literally, may conflate antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel, and which if accepted by a public authority, could violate existing legal rights to protected free speech. We further note that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act does not permit the prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, and that the fact that speech is offensive to a particular group is not, of itself, a proper ground for prohibition or sanction. We therefore resolve that it would not be appropriate for any institution which accepts the examples attached to the IHRA definition, or which accepts any definition of antisemitism which, if adopted by the LP, might bring LP rules into conflict with the definition of protected free speech as defined by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to play any official role in any educational program concerning antisemitism which is organised or sponsored by the LP. “
References: http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/ihra-opinion/#sthash.sc04gnqi.Wg68dGPc.dpbs
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism