EXCLUSIVE: Jewish News editor tells The Canary his paper was wrong to call Jeremy Corbyn an ‘existential threat’ to Jewish life

Britain’s three most prominent Jewish weekly newspapers –Ā Jewish News, theĀ Jewish ChronicleĀ and theĀ Jewish Telegraph –Ā published aĀ joint front pageĀ describing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as an “existential threat” to British Jews on 25 July. Stephen Oryszczuk isĀ foreign editorĀ ofĀ Jewish News. Here, he speaks exclusively toĀ The CanaryĀ in a personal capacity about why he feels the attack was wrong. But beyond that,Ā he suggests how we can come together to fight the scourge of antisemitism, and how to do so without hindering free speech and justified criticism of Israel.
PART I – Who is Stephen Oryszczuk?
Q: Could you introduce yourself?
A: Iām foreign editor atĀ Jewish News (JN), the UKās largest Jewish newspaper, one of the three papers that just published a shared front page attacking the Labour Party over antisemitism. That random assortment of consonants after my first name is Ukrainian origin. Iāve been in this role for six years, and speak here in a personal capacity. Before theĀ JN IĀ was an editor at a Jewish news TV channel based abroad.
Q: But youāre not Jewish, I understand?
A: Nope, although there may be some J-genes back there on my dadās side, probably the ones that manifest as love of food.
Q: How did you come to work for a Jewish newspaper?
A: By complete accident! Iāve been covering the Jewish world for a long time now, particularly Israel. The boss of the TV channel actually preferred his journalists to be non-Jews. He said we could be more objective. Iām not sure thatās true, but that was his take on it. Iāve always been taught to look at things objectively, to keep my head when all about are losing theirs. Itās so important given the passions on the subjects I cover. Unfortunately, last week passion became apoplexy.
Q: Do you report on antisemitism too?
A: Yes, it seems to be taking over my life at the moment. Iāve reported on every kind of antisemitism – far-right, far-left, Islamist ideology, Christian theology, or just plain old tweeted ignorance. In the current media climate you can lose touch with the fact that it comes from everywhere. If you speak to the Jewish communityās most prominent anti-racism campaigners, they say thereās a resurgence in far-right / white supremacist antisemitism thatās being missed in all this.
PART II – The issues with that front page
Q: I understand you have issues around the shared front page?
A: Some of the phraseology I take a giant step back from, vicious personal phrases like āCorbynite contempt for Jews,ā which is one step away from calling him a Jew hater. Itās repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist weāre trashing. I just donāt buy into it at all. Who knows, I may change my mind, something may yet out, but for now it seems completely unfounded. The rhetoric doesn’t match the reality. But ā and itās a big but – Iām not Jewish. The papers are for the Jewish community. I’m speaking for me but they speak for the Jewish community, and many Jews have echoed Dame MargaretĀ Hodge in calling Jeremy Corbyn an ‘antisemite’, so if the community is beginning to feel that way, I respect my paperās right to reflect that, just as my editor and news editor respect my right to dissent. Fair play to them.
Q: So you donāt share your paperās views?
A: Some bits I do, but I donāt share this frothy-mouthed obsession with adopting the IHRA definition and its examples word-for-word if you think you can do better at contextualising it. I do agree that this must be a shared exercise with the Jewish community, not just lip-service. If the full definition is thenĀ accepted with accompanying notes, fine. And if the parties canāt agree, thatās fine too, but at least try! I also donāt share the papersā vitriol. In fact I think itās counter-productive. I do understand the rage, but I vehemently oppose the personal nature of the attack, just as I opposed Hodgeās attack, although itās her choice to do so. For me, it was a profoundly unjust accusation, to say the least, and more than proves the point that when applying the label of āracistā it should first be warranted.
Read on...
Support us and go ad-freePART III – Issues with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism
Q: Talk us through this new antisemitism definition and your take on it.
A: Your readers may already know this. The IHRA is a relatively new multi-state body. The UKās delegate is former Tory minister Sir Eric Pickles, who also chaired Conservative Friends of Israel. Their definition includes 11 working examples, seven of which relate to Israel. As a journalist covering Israel, what can and canāt be said in this regard is of direct relevance to me – it affects my day-to-day work. More broadly, the question of what is or isnāt antisemitic is highly relevant to our reporting. So I take a professional interest, but as with most journalists, Iām a big believer in free speech, so thereās a personal interest too.
Q: Whatās your take on it?
A: The main definition is vague, the examples lack context and qualification, and those campaigning so hard for its verbatim adoption, with their strident opposition to context, at the very least need to explain why theyāre so against giving it depth, given how many leading barristers have raised concerns about it. Many Jews share those worries but their voices are not being heard. Increasingly, if anyone does voice it, they are seen as antisemitic for doing so! I would be truly fearful for our country and the right to free speech if that were the case.
Beyond that, I understand the urge to tighten up and update – antisemitism is an old hatred with new masks, and when people say āIsraelisā or āZionistsā they can often mean āJewsā. Like most people, I feel I know antisemitism when I see it. You sense it, you smell it. Howard Jacobson described it as “a toxin you taste on your tongue”. That kind of instinctive gut feeling doesnāt sit comfortably with the clamour to define it, but I know that itās completely subjective if you donāt,Ā and like most people my starting position is to support whatever helps tackle the scourge. That said, this definition is causing so many problems that I sympathise with those who wantĀ toĀ rip the whole thing up and introduce a new one with just two words: āJew hatred.ā
Q: Are you surprised that itās come to this situation, that itās become such an issue in the Labour Party in recent years?
A: Yes and no. Yes because itās a progressive party with a history of defending minorities. No because the party leadership now hails from the left, rather than the centre-left, and you get a lot of strident criticism of Israel on the left of British politics, which can sometimes cross the line.
PART IV – Reaction in the Jewish community
Q: The papers, yours included, said āUnited We Stand,ā – is that correct?
A: Yes, the big Jewish mainstream organisations back it, as do many councils and public authorities, and Labour should have taken this more to heart, but itās important to say that some Jews donāt back it. Theyāre a minority but not an insignificant one. A petition against the papersā stance had about 700 Jewish signatories in its first 2-3 days. Itās no surprise, clearly not every Jew thinks alike, certainly not on Israel.
Q: Why havenāt we heard from them in the publications making these claims?
A: Itās partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could ā and arguably should ā have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. I should have done more. We are, after all, called āJewish News.ā Iād like to think we could be braver and risk the wrath of the many to give voice to all, because weāre just an echo chamber otherwise, and that creates its own problems. But ultimately itās not my call – itās not my paper, itās not my community. There are various factors to consider and I respect that, I respect my editor hugely. But it does sadden me. Thereās a Jewish saying: ātwo Jews, three opinionsā – possiblyĀ a conservative estimate! It expresses the wealth of views held on any given subject, voiced on any given Friday night. Itās a tradition I love from a people I love, and I think theyād say that habit has served them well over many hundreds of years. But on Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.
Q: Why is that?
A: From what I know, it goes back 50 years, to the war Israel fought in 1967. A century ago, it was different. British Jews openly held vastly different visions for the Jewish future, from complete immersion and assimilation, to the full withdrawal from non-Jewish society. Zionism back then was just one competing idea, and not too popular. Even after the war, when support for Zionism was boosted by the horrors of the Holocaust, there was still widespread Jewish resistance to the Zionist project and bitter divisions in the Zionist camp. Thereās an excellent recent book on the different opinions of British Jewry by Jewish sociologist Keith Kahn-Harris called Uncivil War, in which he traces the change. From 1967, he says: āSupport for, and loyalty to Israel became a taken-for-granted feature of almost all Jewish communal institutions. The argument that Jews should not undermine Israel through public criticism became mainstream. The institutional infrastructure of western Jewish communities was transformed to reflect the centrality of Israel⦠Support for Israel became a Jewish political priority, with the growing strength and importance of lobbying groups⦠and the defence of Israel taking a central role in UK umbrella institutions such as the Board of Deputies.ā That situation persists today, and I think it is important to understand the Labour-Jewish community stand-off at least partly through that prism i.e.Ā constitutional support for Israel.
Q: How does the IHRA definition threaten free speech?
A: If you have a system that automatically labels someone as antisemitic for voicing potentially legitimate thoughts and opinions, thatās a huge threat to free speech, and itās not weird to think so. It stains people whose arguments would automatically trigger a suspension, an investigation, their naming and shaming in the press, all sorts of trouble, if itās simply an IHRA box ticked with little consideration around it.
Q: What part of the definition do you think endangers free speech?
A: Itās more of a worry with some of the examples, if theyāre applied or interpreted broadly and without context, or if theyāre misunderstood. For instance, thereās one sub-example that says itās antisemitic to claim Israel is a racist endeavour. Thereās a subtle but important difference between claiming Israel is racist and Israel is a racist endeavour. The IHRA example refers only to the latter, but theyāre not easy to prise apart, especially since some Israeli laws form its constitution, so you can understand how itās confusing. One is arguing that the policies and practices of the state of Israel are racist; the other is arguing that the very state itself is racist. Most Jews would deem the first fair comment, the second a big no-no, and itās the second that the IHRA prohibits. Hands up who could easily tell the difference..?
Then thereās the counter-argument: that weāve long been able to debate and take a view on the basis and foundation of states, so if you feel Israel was set up along racist lines, despite the Declaration of Independence saying what it does, then you should be free to argue that. Jon Lansman addressed this in hisĀ GuardianĀ piece, in which he said it raised the most alarm bells on free speech. He said:
It cannot possibly be antisemitic to point out that some of the key policies of the Israeli state, observed since its founding days, have an effect that discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity.
A day later, Israel passed the āNation State Bill,ā which even Israelās defenders said risks discriminating against its non-Jewish minority. So itās a live issue and people must feel able to discuss it without being labelled racist themselves. Thatās my main concern: the IHRA definition, in its original form, was intended to defend against antisemitism, and I hope it still does, but in so doing it could prohibit reasoned arguments on Israel that are genuinely made.
Q: Do you think Lansmanās argument is valid?
A: Valid or not, the question is: if I made it, should I be labelled a Jew hater, if I sought to argue it legitimately and reasonably, and applied the same principles to other states? You have to consider context and intent.
Letās say I made my argument with reference to Jerusalem. Youād ask if Iād held Israel to a higher standard, which is another IHRA example, but Israel is unique in so many ways ā where else in the world do you find a situation like Jerusalem?
My point is that this isnāt tick-box stuff, itās far more complex. Iām not saying all these things arenāt antisemitic. They often are, but only an idiot would argue that this isnāt now becoming an absolute minefield for those who mean well, which by its very nature will scare people away from making legitimate criticism. Thatās the negative impact on free speech Iām worried about, thatās my concern. Iām as keen as anyone to get rid of racists, but it should be the racists, the antisemites, not all the rest who get caught up in the dragnet. Thatās why I think you need context and explanation, and thatās what the Labour Party sought to add.
PART V – Why free speech matters
Q: Are there any examples of that impact on free speech you mentioned?
A: One example is that a Jewish peer has been writing letters to university vice-chancellors on behalf of a pro-Israel organisation in the UK, advising them to cancel Israel Apartheid Week activities or risk falling foul of the IHRA definition. At least one university did so. It saddens me that the IHRA definition and its examples are already being used to silence potentially legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy that have, for many years, been considered a studentās right to voice. Has the IHRA now silenced that? If so, what will it silence next? Thatās my worry. If you push the IHRA [definition] verbatim, it seems that this is what you get. We all need to protect against that.
Q: So in your view, what is ālegitimateā criticism of Israel?
A: That’s the million-dollar question!Ā When it comes to that fine line on Israel and some of these examples, one personās legitimate criticism is another personās antisemitism. I hope they can agree something most can live with. I think itās possible. For me, as with so much else when it comes to antisemitism, it boils down to context and intent.
Q: Can you explain what you mean?
A: OK, so imagine if Iād said what Kahn-Harris said – that British Jewsā political āpriorityā is to support Israel. Iād be reported for antisemitism for suggesting Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK, one of the IHRA tick-boxes. Iād be antisemitic. Would it make a difference if I was repeating what Iād read in a book? What if I was a PhD student researching identity choices of ethnic minorities and this was my conclusion after two years studying statistics and interviewing hundreds of Jews? Likewise, if I were to talk about Jewish lobbying, as Kahn-Harris does, that too would make me antisemitic, because that too could tick an IHRA box. YetĀ I think itās a good thing, it’s legitimate and Israel needs a robust defence in the world of public opinion,Ā so am I stillĀ antisemitic? In the context of Kahn-Harrisās book, which explores the way Jews think about Israel, none of this is antisemitic, itās just factual, his intent is to inform. But taken out of context and placed in the wrong hands it could be nasty if the intent is to hurt – you need only think of those age-old myths and tropes about Jews controlling the world, or being parasites in a host country, to understand why. The point Iām making is that context and intent donāt just matter, theyāre crucial. And tick-boxes donāt give you any of that. So screaming that you only want the tick-boxes and nothing elseĀ doesnāt crack the nut, it cuts the whole tree down.
Q: Perhaps a more common example these days is Nazi comparison?
A: Sure, and I would hope that most sane people could understand why Jews feel deep pain when someone likens Israelās treatment of Palestinians to the Nazisā treatment of Jews, when there can be no equivalence whatsoever. So like the other examples, it seems on the face of it to be always antisemitic. But on the day we published our joint front page with other Jewish newspapers, a Jewish reader wrote to us explaining how his Jewish father personally believed that Jewish people in Israel had ended up committing similar types of atrocities against Palestinians as Hitler committed against the Jews, how the irony of these parallels was not lost on many people, and how his Jewish father never considered saying so to be antisemitic. If his father thought as he did because he cared about Jewish values, was he an antisemite? Likewise a woman in my village in Devon, in her mid-80s, who wouldnāt harm a fly, spoke to me back in 2014 – when Israel was bombing Gaza ā and said something like: “Of everyone, youād have thought Jews wouldnāt do this to another people, given what they went through with the Nazis. Itās like itās happening again.” Is she an antisemite? Iām pretty sure the thought of it would make her cry, but the IHRA definition says sheās a racist, pure and simple. Itās about context and intent again. And Labour sought to add that.
Q: How do you determine what is and isnāt antisemitic at the paper?
A: From my perspective Iāve always heeded the advice of the Community Security Trust (CST), which defends the Jewish community and which I admire. They taught me that context is crucial. For example, if a former mayor with a history of baiting Jews using wealth stereotypes mentions Hitler supporting Zionism as an historical aside while defending someone accused of antisemitism, the context suggests it might be not be benign, even if heās avoided ticking an IHRA box. If the leader of a country vowing to āwipe Israel off the mapā asks questions about the Holocaust, itās unlikely to be scholarly research. And if 327 Holocaust survivors and their descendants invoke the well-known Holocaust phrase ānever againā over Israel and Gaza, context tells you that theyāre unlikely to be Jew haters, despite them ticking an IHRA box. Itās the same with that Jewish Auschwitz survivor Corbyn hosted in parliament. Plenty would say that if the Nazis had killed his family and almost killed him, he surely has a right to speak. If he draws parallels then who are we to say otherwise? Is he antisemitic? If itās a tick-box then he is, but itās not black and white. The CST recognises the action alone may not tell the whole story, so why canāt Labour? The times when you donāt even need to ask second questions are the times when people tell you thatĀ you’re writing your editorials for Mossad, a familiar charge at the JN!Ā That’s when you donātĀ need to dig too much deeper!
Q: So youāre saying that the IHRA definition reduces antisemitism to a tick-box exercise?
A: Absolutely. All definitions listing supplementary examples run this risk. Are you telling me something so complex as antisemitism can be reduced to that? If thatās your argument, the onus is on you to prove it. And if youāre going down that road, you need to make damned sure they stand up, that theyāre contextualised, and that theyāre not too broad as to capture lots of potentially legitimate criticism, because youāll tie yourself up in sifting and stain a lot of people in the process. In other words, you need to show, or be convinced of, underlying Jew hatred, or āintent,ā before you deem someone a Jew hater, because it can affect peopleās jobs, peopleās lives. You need to know that what theyāre saying or doing is hatred towards Jews, not just hatred towards Israel. Not only do I not apologise for saying so, I canāt say it loudly enough. If I could megaphone it to every Labour MP currently plotting how best to screw Corbyn on this, I would. So, you have to be sure that someoneās an antisemite before the formal process triggers. If that means setting the bar a little higher, as the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended, then so be it. I worry that some people forget what an awful label it is to attach to people, not to be done lightly. The IHRA itself recognises the importance of accompanying suggestions. It explains that antisemitism āemploys sinister stereotypes and negative character traitsā. The CST also recognises this. Just last week it discounted hundreds of incidents as ānot antisemitic,ā including anti-Israel activity that did not involve āantisemitic language, imagery or targetingā. So the CST ā charged with defending the Jewish community against antisemitism – knows you need something else, some āevidence,ā as a spokesman said. So I ask: why all the fuss about Labourās code? Itās rarely difficult to find. Antisemites tend to show their true colours sooner or later, whether it be in āantisemitic language, imagery or targeting,ā as per the CST, or elsewhere in the context of what theyāve done or said.
Q: Do you have any other concerns with the IHRA definition?
A: I think the core definition itself is appalling. To call it woolly and vague is an understatement. It defines antisemitism as āa certain perception of Jewsā that āmayā be expressed as hatred towards Jews. How on earth is that a decent definition? Imagine a police officer pulling you over for having a certain perception of speed that may or may not be expressed as speeding. Itās ridiculous. Then there are the IHRA examples, with no explanatory notes, so widening the scope. The bigger the box, the more ticks it will get, and the more difficult it will be to find those who need ticking off, those who need casting off, and those who were simply piping off legitimately. In the meantime, it stains anyone who falls within its reach.
Q: So youāre in favour of the Labour Party amending it?
A: They didnāt amend the definition. They drew up a code of conduct that took most of the definition as its basis but added bits to make it more useable and explanatory and removed the bits they disagreed with. Theyāre entitled to do that, but they didnāt really consult. I feel that what Dame Margaret Hodge said about Jeremy Corbyn was awful and wrong, but what she said later ā on Womanās Hour I think ā was a fair idea. She said Labour could have said yes to the definition in its full form, then got together with Jewish representatives to pull together guidance that contextualises it, to be read in accompaniment with it, or words to that effect. But they didnāt do that, so Jewish leaders were left furious. They thought Labour had no right to tinker. They also felt the code had loosened the definitions to such an extent as to allow antisemitism. I can see it from both sides. I certainly understand why Labour did it, just as I understand why the Home Affairs Select Committee, in 2016, was concerned enough to recommend that the definition came with qualifiers. The MPs suggested adding to the definition to say that Israel criticism needed antisemitic intent. Thatās what Labour did. They also filled in gaps, including derogatory terms for Jews, stereotypical tropes and negative physical depictions, which the IHRA missed.
Q: Were you pleased that they did this?
A: I wasnāt pleased or displeased – I just felt they needed to. I felt they had understood the importance of context and intent. I also appreciate that they built on the definition elsewhere. I felt Labour needed to draw a clear red line for its membership and say ādonāt overstep this mark or youāre outā, but I also felt that mark needed the qualifiers, as per the MPsā recommendation. Yet for mainstream Jewish representatives and for Jewish media outlets ā my newspaper included ā that was tantamount to treason, a grave insult to Jews, an existential threat, and all the other dramatic phrases we heard. I believe Labour tried to do the right thing, but that it did it in absolutely the wrong way in not consulting widely before putting its code out there. Why on earth would you not make sure those most affected by it were OK with it first? I just donāt understand that. Offering to consult now feels like an after-thought. It was a real snub, even though the code itself is on the right lines.
PART VI – The role of the Labour Party
Q: Do you believe Labour and Corbyn are an existential threat to the Jewish community in the UK?
A: Of course not, but itās not for me to say, Iām not part of the Jewish community in the UK. I speak to many Jews day-to-day and many are genuinely concerned. I do believe that we would see some leave the UK if Corbyn was elected, which for me goes beyond sad. So yes, when Jews say the conversation around the dinner table on a Friday night is one of fear for the future, I believe them. As well as foreign editor, Iām also the newspaperās leader writer. Thatās the weekly editorial section – ours is called āVoice of the Jewish News.ā Iāve been doing that for about three years now. Itās an honour, especially for a non-Jew. I donāt believe theyād ask me if I wasnāt tuned in to the thoughts of the community.
Q: So you donāt think Corbyn warranted the abuse?
A: No, because I donāt believe heās antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. Heās anti-Israel and thatās not the same. But it says something that I even have to say that in 2018. Yet again, context is crucial, and the context to the accusation is the last three years, the constant examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party, the suspensions not expulsions, the Chakrabarti recommendations not being implemented, the lack of ownership or responsibility from the top… Jews feel Corbyn has failed to properly own up to the problem and assure them heās going to get on top of it. So I really donāt think he can be surprised by the rage. To say heās been slow on the uptake is putting it mildly. I have a great deal of sympathy for Britainās Jewish community, especially left-wing Jews. Theyāre exasperated, and now, to top it off, they see Labour raising the burden of proof on Jew hatred, introducing this element of āintent.ā You can understand the disbelief and upset. They see Labour making it more difficult for Jews to shout āracismā and theyāre asking why should it not be less difficult, given the difficulties to-date. They say Jews should be allowed to define their own racism, with the antisemitic label in the hands of the victim.
Q: As a journalist at the centre of this story for three years, what do you say to those who think there has been a smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn?
A: A āsmearā is the spreading of falsehoods, of āfake news,ā and weāve (Jewish News) never done that, not intentionally anyway. But I do understand why people would think along those lines, because of the sheer volume of news about it. I too have questioned the timing of some of these āfindingsā of very old clips, which always seem to be released at crucial moments. Is it by chance that news of him hosting an event linking Nazis to Gaza came out now? Is it by chance that news of him suggesting Holocaust Memorial Day be changed to Genocide Memorial Day came out now? Is it by chance that their support for the anti-Zionist network came out now? āNowā being when heās under maximum pressure. Iām just saying: ask the question. As journalists weāre taught to be sceptical.
The question is whether there is an intention to taint him. Some are certainly out to get him, but without revealing sources, all I can say is that itās sometimes questionable where these things come from. At the end of the day, most Jews just want Corbyn to get on top of Jew hatred.
For me, criticism is fine, but this has sometimes felt like character assassination, and Iāve always thought we were better than that. Iād much rather we stuck to our core business of news. That may be cover-to-cover Corbyn and Labour for all I care – if it is newsworthy then it is justified. But to keep doing these front pages attacking him is starting to feel uncomfortable, and not just for me. Several Jews, independently and privately, have told me in recent days that theyāre worried all the noise is āturning people against themā, that it is becoming counter-productive. The other concern Iāve heard, particularly in relation to Hodge, is that she risks ācrying wolfā at a very sensitive time. So of course all this hysteria worries me. These are a people I love, and a people with fears. I want them to make their point forcefully, and for it to register, but to be mindful that over-making it can blunt it.
PART VII – Steps in the right direction
Q: Is the picture completely bleak or is there hope?
A: I still think this code of conduct can be discussed this summer and more agreeable wording thrashed out. Lansman says that of the four IHRA examples Labour didnāt replicate word-for-word, three are covered by its code, including accusations that Jews are more loyal to Israel, holding Israel to higher standards, and making Nazi-Holocaust-Israel links. If that is the case, the gap between the parties should be far smaller than all the screechy rhetoric and endless column inches suggest, so letās see if Labour can tighten these elements up. Likewise, most Jews value free speech, so I would hope that Jewish representatives could recognise the risk of curtailing legitimate criticism and help Labour find a way of catching genuine antisemitism while leaving politics free. What Iām saying is, thereās wiggle room on both sides. The question is whether theyāll wiggle. With mediation from a conflict resolution specialist, they could find something acceptable to both. But that requires vast amounts of bitter animosity being put to one side.
Q: If you were the mediator, what would you advise both parties?
A: Iād advise Corbyn to start by recognising the failing to-date: the delayed disciplinary processes and their sometimes disastrous outcomes, the lack of transparency, the production of a code of conduct without wider consultation thatās now distrusted by those most affected by it, and so on. But I would also advise the Jewish side to better recognise Labourās albeit belated progress, including the appointment of a QC, the drafting of a decision-making framework, the new time limits on disciplinary cases, the rollout of training, the continued sole recognition of the Jewish Labour Movement despite its attacks, the increasing public assertions that antisemitism is not welcome in the party, the recent speed with which antisemites are being suspended, even the attempt to clarify what it is the party deems antisemitic while incorporating the advice of the Home Affairs Select Committee – despite doing it all wrong. Both have to see that the other has a valid point. You canāt just keep throwing bricks. Iād recognise that Corbyn probably felt Jewish leaders were bullying him over the IHRA [definition] and that Jewish leaders probably felt Corbyn was deaf to their concerns, so Iād ask both parties to prove those assumptions wrong to the other. Iād then tell them success relies on cool heads, reasonable demands and a common goal ā that being the best definition of antisemitism to distribute while still protecting free speech. Then Iād keep all my fingers and toes crossed, and triple check the meeting wasnāt being recorded for someone to leak it later.
Q: What do you think will happen if they donāt reach agreement by 5 September?
A: I think both sides will press the nuclear button. The Jewish community will declare Labour āinstitutionally racistā and pursue legal action against it however it can. MPs like Luciana Berger, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann will probably walk, maybe others. Likewise, Labour could declare that it now considers the Board, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Labour Movement to have prioritised their efforts to protect Israel from criticism over their efforts to help Labour define genuine antisemitism in the party, and move to end all relations. It may then institute new relations with groups like Jewish Voice for Labour. I hope it doesn’t come to that. God bless the peacemakers!
Q: Finally, why did you decide to speak out, and to speak out to The Canary?
A: I donāt know that itās speaking out so much as speaking up. But no, it wasnāt an easy decision for me to do this, because Iāll take a lot of flak for it. Still, if it helps cool even one head in this sorry saga then itās worth it. Thereās a personal reason too, a promise I made to my grandfather – who was almost killed by both the far-left (the Soviets) and the far-right (the Nazis) –Ā to stay out of politics if you’re able, even given the area I cover. So that editorial was a real problem for me and I wanted to say ‘thatās not where Iām coming from.’ This is the first time Iāve ever said anything outside my news outlet, so I donāt make a habit of it. The other reason is to appeal to your readers, those who havenāt made their minds up yet, to say thereās nuance in this debate but also that itās not just philosophical ā itās having real world consequences. Jews are scared. Antisemitism has gone up precisely because of the debate. Thereās a middle ground to be had, and if cool heads prevail, if the Labour MPs itching to stick it to Corbyn hold back and let the right outcome be reached, then that right outcome can be found and Labour can get rid of the right people, protect free speech and win back trust. It takes an effort on both sides, and the first priority is to say āhold onā to those bullying the leadership into accepting the IHRA examples verbatim. I know the left must currently be feeling attacked and that it is likely acting as anyone would in those circumstances. Just remember that Jews are not the enemy. They were there at the very foundation of the Labour movement, playing a part. Itās been their natural home for decades. Theyāve fought the battles Labour has fought. Hang on to that great vision of seeing them side-by-side once again to fight the battles of the future.
Featured image via Stephen Oryszczuk / Screenshot
Support us and go ad-freeWe know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support
The Canary Workersā Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us weāre all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.
The Canary doesnāt have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardianās. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readersā support.
So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.