“Our story” told in the United States
JVL Introduction
Jewish Currents is a US based magazine with aims that include celebrating the rich tradition of thought activism and culture of the Jewish Left. Top of the list of issues they address is how antisemitism is used and misused.
It was from this perspective that Joshua Leifer from the magazine spoke with several JVL Committee members and others in the Party. The result is this extensive report about what has been happening in the Labour Party, and about JVL, why it was set up and how our members and others who supported the Corbyn Project have been treated.
The article is broadly sympathetic to JVL although not uncritical. However, we are not “in the business” of publicising “hagiographies” (if anyone were ever to write such a thing!). We think it makes interesting reading and are pleased that this level of detail is being published to a radical US audience.
This article was originally published by Jewish Currents on Mon 7 Feb 2022. Read the original here.
The Jews Expelled from Labour over Antisemitism
To improve the British Labour Party’s electoral prospects, its leader, Keir Starmer, is pushing out the anti-imperialist, socialist left—and sanctioning a generation of Jewish activists.
Loading article text…
An interesting and thoughtful review! In response I would like to address the following two quotations.
Firstly Jon Lansman:
“If people are exposing a valid problem, you have to deal with it. The motivation of the person exposing the problem is irrelevant.”
I would question the word “valid” – in the truth of
the assumption of the Labour Party’s antisemitism. The Jewish community – is diverse and has different views of this. In this – to me it resembles the Northern Ireland community – ‘divided by religion’ – or rather denominations of Christianity. In 2016 Corbyn did indeed address the problem by instituting the Chakrabarti Enquiry into “antisemitism and other forms of racism”.
Secondly Ken Livingstone in
claiming that Hitler “was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” upset people – and that was after apologising “for upsetting people” for his remarks about the Haavara (transfer) “Agreement”.
This could have been avoided if he had more correctly
stated that Hitler in his hatred of all Jews rid Germany (as he saw it) of a group of them by allowing them to escape persecution and emigrate to Palestine under British Mandate. Emigration to Palestine (and elsewhere) was eventually replaced by Hitler’s mass extermination of six million Jews. (Some say that Hitler ceased allowing Jewish escape because he decided it encouraged the institution of a state of Israel – an idea which he loathed.)
[see also Guardian May 1st 2016]
A teeny correction: ” …Hastings and Rye, in England’s southwest ..” ?
“Now they have nowhere else to go.” I would say this is true if we stay in the Labour Party. The socialist group of MPs are not even enough to mount a Leadership challenge now. A new grouping outside of Labour could emerge and grow quickly in the current situation. Many people are desperate now and their number is likely to grow fast. A new leftwing grouping must arise to give them hope, I’m hoping that TUSC candidate Dave Nellist can cause an upset in the upcoming by-election in Birmingham.
The problem with Leiffer is his writing lacks any analysis. He seems to believe that laying out what he believes is a description of the facts will suffice. He consistently fails to ask the question ‘why’ and thus his writing adds little if anything to our existing knowledge.
In November 2020 Joshua Leiffer wrote an article The Tragedy of Jeremy Corbyn which purported to be a comprehensive account of Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ affair. It give substance to a campaign whose origins or purpose Leiffer simply doesn’t haven’t a clue about.
He reported that ‘Jewish Labour party members who raised the alarm over antisemitism began to report that they were receiving antisemitic abuse online, which they often claimed came from Corbyn’s supporters. For critics of Corbyn, this all went back to the Labour leader himself.’ Leiffer never told us who these critics were.
Despite his distance from the problem we were informed that ‘On the left, there was, and remains, a certain resistance to recognizing the extent of the problem.’ He quoted Jon Lansman talking about a ‘pervasive denialism’.
I responded with an article, the main headings of which were that:
1. The facts can be true, yet the narrative can be false.
2. The Attacks on Jeremy Corbyn had nothing to do with anti-Semitism
3. The Board of Deputies which ran the campaign has never opposed anti-Semitism
4. Anti-Semitism Was Weaponised
5. The British Jewish Community is not the American Jewish Community
The response of the editor was that ‘we simply do not have the bandwidth to publish full response articles to articles we’ve published.’
I don’t mind Leiffer calling me a ‘pugilistic activist’. However Leiffer’s claim to ‘full disclosure: he has strongly criticized my previous reporting on Labour’ is anything but full. My response was not published yet he refers to it in his article. That is normally known as sharp practice.
[This comment has been slightly edited to reduce its length – JVL web]