Labour leadership candidates are openly throwing Corbyn’s ethical foreign policy under the bus

Labour leadership candidates 2020
Ed Sykes

One of Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest legacies was to move the Labour Party away from the disastrous Tony Blair era in terms of foreign policy. Corbyn placed ethics, international law, and human rights right at the centre of this agenda. But it seems that the people seeking to take over from him as leader are openly throwing this ethical legacy under the bus.

Bravery in the face of injustice

Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem reported previously that, between 19 January 2009 and 31 May 2019, Israelis killed 3,534 Palestinians; and Palestinians killed 191 Israelis. During Israel’s 2014 bombing campaign in Gaza (which reportedly killed at least 1,483 Palestinian civilians), 327 Holocaust survivors and their descendants wrote an open letter calling Israel’s treatment of Palestinians an “ongoing genocide”. They insisted:

Genocide begins with the silence of the world…

“Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!

Jeremy Corbyn won the 2015 Labour leadership election in this context. A peace-prize winner, he was a longstanding critic of Israeli state crimes and firm supporter of Palestinian rights; and a vote for him marked not just a break from economic austerity domestically, but an ethical break from corporate warmongering and corrupt foreign policy. His strong, principled stances helped to push Labour membership over 500,000 – the biggest number since the 1970s.

As award-winning Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has pointed out, however, some supporters of Israel have undertaken a “systematic campaign” to “blackmail… anyone who dares to criticise Israel” with accusations of antisemitism. And in the UK, veteran anti-racist campaigner Corbyn has been a key target of this campaign. A number of prominent Jewish left-wingers, meanwhile, have vocally opposed this propaganda. A new poll also suggests that a large majority of Labour members and left-wingers believe that antisemitism allegations against the party have been “wildly exaggerated by the right-wing media and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn”.

Cowardice in the face of propaganda

But this propaganda campaign against progressive internationalists isn’t going away just because Corbyn’s stepping down as Labour leader. The right-wing Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD), for example, has now pushed all Labour leadership candidates to back a highly controversial list of demands. Many Jewish left-wingers have firmly opposed this divisive list – which, as Jewish Canary editor Emily Apple has written, essentially asks Labour to “ignore socialist Jews” and “Jews who don’t support the actions of the Israeli state”.

Rebecca Long-Bailey – the progressive frontrunner of the leadership race, with numerous promising policies – has apparently capitulated to her opponents already. Because she has backed the right-wing BoD’s exclusionary demands, disappointing and alienating many Jewish and non-Jewish left-wingers in the process. This is despite her apparently recognising the desperate need to resist the smear campaigns of the UK’s billionaire media and its right-wing allies. What’s more, her tactic hasn’t even stopped opponents coming after her with the same propaganda that Corbyn faced.

On 13 February, this debate intensified at the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) hustings, as Long-Bailey again disappointed:

As Canary co-founder Kerry-Anne Mendoza tweeted:

Novara Media‘s Aaron Bastani echoed this sentiment:

And sharing numerous examples of racism from before and after the establishment of the Israeli state, he stressed:

Who’s a Zionist?

Long-Bailey also called herself a ‘Zionist’ because she agreed with “Israel’s right to exist and right to self determine”.

The political Zionist movement was the ethno-nationalist call to colonise Palestine and establish the state of Israel. Some early Zionists supported “binationalism”, which sought “equal rights to Jews and Arabs in a unified democratic system”. But that never happened. And since its formation, the Israeli state has allegedly been responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. As right-wing Zionism has increasingly dominated Israeli politics, meanwhile, leading Zionists and Israeli politicians have found themselves cosying up to fascists.

Left-wing Jewish group Jewdas has slammed the creation of a false link between criticising Zionist Israel and discriminating against Jewish people. It clearly wrote in its guide on How to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic:

Jews do not represent the Israeli government any more than British people represent the British government. …

There are many, many Jews and Jewish organisations that oppose the Zionist ideology and Israeli occupation and apartheid.

It also pointed out that:

political Zionism is a comparatively new movement within Jewish thought (150~ years old)… Jews do not have a responsibility nor a natural tendency to be Zionists.

Many people responded in shock to Long-Bailey calling herself a Zionist (especially considering that even the right‘s favourite candidate, Keir Starmer, didn’t do so):

In short, sucking up to supporters of Israel may not have helped Long-Bailey to get their support (the right-wing JLM, for example, backed Lisa Nandy); but it definitely has helped her to alienate principled internationalists on the left whom she should be appealing to.

Keep Corbyn’s ethical legacy alive

Labour leadership candidates may be throwing Corbyn’s foreign policy legacy under the bus. But a couple of deputy leadership candidates are still holding out.

Richard Burgon, for example, has pushed for an ongoing party commitment to peace and refused to accept the highly divisive BoD demands. He has also continued to vocally support Palestinian rights:

Fellow candidate Dawn Butler has also faced the wrath of the BoD for refusing to accept its demands.

So while the leadership candidates appear to be doing all they can to capitulate to supporters of the Israeli state and their bullying, a vote for a progressive deputy could still salvage Corbyn’s ethical internationalist legacy and help to keep it alive.

Featured image via Chris McAndrew (1, 2, 3, 4)

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. The ruling class knows that antisemitism has instrumental uses – it can be exploited to manipulate public discourse and deflect ordinary people from a powerful class struggle into divisive identity and culture wars. Therefore, any Labour leader who wants to engage in the politics of class struggle – a struggle against the billionaire class – is going to face not a fair fight on the terrain of their choosing but a dirty war on the terrain chosen by the billionaires.” ~ Jonathan Cook https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-02-12/antisemitism-threat-labour?fbclid=IwAR2ib7PbGaoXKDZ71MEhKwul0IIXo2Hbn8V-i1iyURThTb9Kz6IvfHgWFwA

    2. Those running fo leader haven’t got whot Corbyn had far from it it’s going back to blairites I had hope not to see this that the left kept them out but now once in they use any means to rid the party of those who will speak out about this problem of Israel and Palestine oh so close yet so far more crap to come

    3. The Blairites are not an opposition to conservatism, they are an opposition to those who oppose neo-liberalism, meaning their intention is to control the party to neutralise the last opposition to neo-liberalism.

      Britain will become a one-party state with a blue right wing and a red right wing, and probably the only arguments between them will be over identity politics such as what signs can or must go on toilet doors.

    4. On October 10th 1942, speaking in Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion said: ” ..the democracies, in contrast to the dictator states,recognize the Jews as people…(and so) in America there now exists a strong movement away from Zionism.” In the same speech he observed that Hitler had “revived..Jewish nationalism.” On 9th September 1941, there was a meeting in London of 20 people including Chaim Weizmann, Lord Rothschild, Ben-Gurion, Simon Marks (yes, of M&S) and Robert Waley Cohen. The latter expressed the view that the Zionists were: “..starting with the aims with which Hitler had started.” Rothschild said that in the State of Israel there would be no equal rights for non-Jews. There are many more examples of this kind. Were the origins of the State of Israel? Does the pledge of no equal rights for non-Jews make Israel a “racist endeavour”?
      Rabbi Moshe Ben-Zion Ushpizai of Ramat-Gan asserted that the Israelis must use the doctrines of Joshua in dealing with the Palestinians. There can be no compromises, peace treaties, negotiations with the Arabs who “occupy” the land of Palestine: “You shall destroy them, you shall enter into no covenant with them, you shall not pity them, you shall not intermarry with them.” Whoever stands in the way must be annihilated. Does that make the State of Israel a racist endeavour? In the journal of West Bank settlers in the early 1980s you can find this: “Those among us who call for a humanistic attitude towards our (Arab) neighbours are reading the Halacha selectively. ” The Talmud, the article explains, shows that God is sorry he created the Ishmaelites and Gentiles are “a people like a donkey”. (That’s you and me). The divine command is to “eliminate men, women and children”. “The eternal principles do not change” and thus humanistic considerations are ruled out. So, is Israel a “racist endeavour”?
      It is Peston who is the disgrace. His assertion that this is a “moral issue” is risible. The statement by Corbyn he read out is perfectly accurate: Israel was founded substantially by Zionist terrorism whose character was implicitly racist; the policies of the Israeli State towards the Palestinians have been consistently racist since 1948. That is the moral issue. Israel can renounce its racism tomorrow by treating the Arabs as equals and agreeing to the establishment of an autonomous, democratic Palestinian State. Instead, they bulldoze Arab houses and Netanyahu announces substantial expansion of illegal settlements. Racism. This is the slow suicide of Israel. Their specious claim to support a two-State solution is exposed. They never did. So what is the alternative? Bantustans for the Palestinians or a single-democratic State in Palestine. The Israelis have exhausted their depleted moral capital. They are doomed by their own racism, arrogance and dishonesty. And Peston will be recalled by posterity as a defender of wholesale racism. His disgrace is assured.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.