A flawed article in the Observer
JVL Introduction
In this analysis, Talal Hangari looks at Sonia Sodha’s recent article Keir Starmer was right to exile Corbyn. Labour has a duty to voters, not rebellious members.
He shows that its four central assertions:
- The Labour Party was “characterised” by “institutional antisemitism” under Jeremy Corbyn
- Jeremy Corbyn “accused the EHRC of ‘dramatically overstating’ the extent of antisemitism in the party ‘for political reasons’.
- Under Starmer, Labour has made “progress in … proscribing antisemitic organisations”.
- Corbyn failed to “accept responsibility and show any contrition for the antisemitism he presided over”.
are all misleading or plain wrong.
This article was originally published by Campain on Fri 24 Feb 2023. Read the original here.
A flawed article in the Observer
In this paper, I discuss Sonia Sodha’s article on Keir Starmer’s treatment of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left in the Observer: “Keir Starmer was right to exile Corbyn. Labour has a duty to voters, not rebellious members”, 19 February. I conclude that its errors make it a flawed piece of journalism.
A series of errors and misleading statements
1. The Labour Party was “characterised” by “institutional antisemitism” under Jeremy Corbyn.
The term “institutional antisemitism” is vague and requires clarification. If it means that there was more antisemitism in the Labour Party than other major political parties, or that there was more antisemitism in the Labour Party than in British society generally, no reliable data has been presented anywhere to support either of these claims. Indeed, available statistical data suggests the opposite. If it means that the Party treated antisemitism less seriously than other forms of bigotry, I would counter that Labour adopted a specific definition and set of examples of antisemitism in September 2018 (the IHRA working definition of antisemitism) before adopting similar definitions for other forms of bigotry. The APPG definition of Islamophobia, for example, was adopted in March 2019. The claim that Labour was “characterised” by “institutional antisemitism”, without any clarification of what that means, is misleading at best, if not a falsehood.
2. Jeremy Corbyn “accused the EHRC of ‘dramatically overstating’ the extent of antisemitism in the party ‘for political reasons’.”
This distorts Corbyn’s original statement. In fact he said that “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.” Nowhere did Corbyn accuse the EHRC of overstating the extent of antisemitism. The EHRC did not even investigate the extent of Labour antisemitism; it focused on the party’s handling of complaints. Corbyn’s claim was that, in general, the scale of Labour antisemitism was overstated by Labour’s political opponents. Credulous journalists might believe that Corbyn wanted to “reopen Auschwitz”, or that Labour was “an existential threat to Jewish life”, or that “the whiff of blood lust” emanated from its conference – all claims made in the media – but reasonable people know better.
3. Under Starmer, Labour has made “progress in … proscribing antisemitic organisations”.
This claim is at best misleading. Starmer has proscribed a number of organisations, some of them for supposed antisemitism, and others for explicitly political and factional reasons. Labour List reported at the time that the proscription of Socialist Appeal was “described as a ‘tidying up exercise’: the group is considered … to be a successor organisation to Militant, and this move is designed to refresh the legal position on that.” In other words, Socialist Appeal was not proscribed for antisemitism. It was proscribed for political reasons, namely, for being a communist faction. Similarly, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty was proscribed because of its Trotskyism, which the Labour leadership considered incompatible with the party’s aims and values, not because of antisemitism. The reduction of Starmer’s policy to “proscribing antisemitic organisations” is misleading; it omits the political character of the proscriptions. Sodha fails to substantiate her claim that the other organisations proscribed by the Labour Party were antisemitic.
4. Corbyn failed to “accept responsibility and show any contrition for the antisemitism he presided over”.
In a 2019 television interview, Corbyn said about antisemitism: “Obviously I’m very sorry for everything that’s happened”.
In 2018, Corbyn said: “I am sorry for the hurt that has been caused to many Jewish people. We have been too slow in processing disciplinary cases of mostly online antisemitic abuse by party members. We are acting to speed this process up.”
In 2018, regarding the mural controversy, Corbyn said: “I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and antisemitic”. He added in a statement that he was “sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused” by antisemitism “in pockets within the Labour Party, causing pain and hurt to our Jewish community in the Labour Party and the rest of the country.”
In 2018, Corbyn said: “In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject. I apologise for the concerns and anxiety this has caused.”
Whatever one thinks of these apologies (many Labour members would say the Labour Party was over-apologetic under Corbyn), it is indisputable that they were made. The claim that Corbyn has not accepted responsibility, or shown any contrition, is false.
***
Once again, the mainstream media shows itself to be a purveyor of misinformation when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left. The systematic deception of the public on such important issues is a plague across the spectrum of the media, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, dispelling fictions requires a great deal more effort than producing them.
Talal Hangari is a writer and activist studying at the University of Cambridge
© 2023 by CAMPAIN. Proudly created with Wix.com
Scott Ritter recently categorised the majority of mainstream journalists as stenographers.
Here is a prime example of a Guardian/Observer stenographer.
The underlying premise of the Observer article was that the Observer knows best. The interests of the commentators and editors employed in the MSM are more important than the beliefs and principles of the people who are members of political parties, who should be either ignored or suspended and expelled. It’s an elevation of corporate priorities over and above those of even a bourgeois democracy. As an open statement of intent, it’s pretty impressive. Power is not for the likes of us. Ever.
Some of the proscribed organisations were challenging the unevidenced yet repeated claims of widespread antisemitism in Labours ranks, seeing them as part of yet another orchestrated political smear. The evidence supports their perceptions.
Of course many in the factional anti-Corbyn campaign group that Forde reported about, suggested this challenge to their asserted ‘widespread problem’ was a ‘denial of antisemitism’ and therefore antisemitic. But it wasn’t any such thing, it was clearly about its scale.
In addition, in contrast to Starmer, the EHRC stated that Labour members had the democratic right to speak clearly on their perceptions of the scale of Labour’s antisemitism.
In one survey 70% of Labour members tended to agree about the exaggerations. Surely those attending monthly Labour meetings and exchanging with other Labour members were better placed to witness the claimed regular if not everyday antisemitic abuse, than an Observer journalist?
It is a dangerous time when journalists pursue a politically biased narrative which is based on what many see as plain lies, for the word ‘overstating’ is far too polite.
Such misinformation undermined our very democracy, and the sad thing is I think such journalists know this very well.
Institutional antisemitism means systematic, structural discrimination against Jews throughout an organisation, which is clearly absurd and needs to be stated as such.
I was slightly shocked by Sodha’s column simply because it was so naive. She has clearly not actually read the EHRC report and was unable even to quote Corbyn correctly, something for which the Observer has now published a rather mealy-mouthed apology. She quotes bits of conventional wisdom as if they were established fact, not only about antisemitism but also in referring to the 2019 election result as ‘Labour’s worst defeat since 1935’. The most basic research would have shown that (even ignoring 2017) Labour got a bigger vote and vote share in 2019 than in 2010 or 2015 and also that replacing Corbyn by Starmer produced no electoral benefits at all for three years, until the Conservatives started on their sensational orgy of self-destruction.
Of course one no longer expects either accuracy or objectivity from the Observer, but one does expect a rather better class of obfuscation.
Much of this critique is fully justified. The original article is disgracefully misleading. However, the writer is wrong to claim that Sodha had stated that Jeremy Corbyn had accused the EHRC of overstating the antisemitism in the party for political reasons. That would, indeed, have been gross misrepresentation of Jeremy Corbyn’s words. But she didn’t say it. What she DID set out to imply was that in criticising opponents inside and outside of the party for such overstatement he was being denialist: a fiction which Starmer clearly wishes to perpetuate in defiance of the Forde report.
A lie repeated…………irony that JC fought against anti-Semitism all his life. The classic ‘Moral Panic’.
The saddest thing about the unquestioning acceptance of all the smears against Corbyn and the Labour Party under his leadership is the way criticism of Israel has now been silenced. At a time when it has never been more necessary. Even the current wave of violence being perpetrated by the most extreme government is either ignored by mainstream commentators and politicians or presented as merely defensive. The diminishing number prepared to put their heads above the parapet and challenge this narrative are largely ignored. Thank you JVL for all you do to give us a voice and show we are not alone.
The Guardian/Observer’s two-faced attitude on these matters has not significantly changed since back in 1967, after Enoch Powell’s Rivers Of Blood rant, a Guardian editorial assured readers that “Mr Powell is not a racist”!
I made much the same points in a letter to the Observer’s readers editor. It was never even acknowledged.
I’ve seen Ms Sodha many times on Sky’s newspaper reviews slot, breathlessly expounding all the correct liberal echo-chamber views in that smug, self-unaware manner that the clueless middle class have made their own.
Call me prejudiced, but I make it a point never to trust anyone who inhales through their mouth.
In answer to Jeff Gillett, if he follows the link to Sodha’s original article he will see that she did originally misquote Jeremy Corbyn as stated but that the Observer subsequently acknowledged and corrected the mistake; very grudgingly and without any apology. Searching online reveals that the amended version is now the official text. You have to look quite hard, and know what you are looking for, to find the original. The Guardian and Observer seem very proud of their willingness to correct mistakes but this is not in fact as good as not making them in the first place.
Jeff Gillett’s comment is negated by the correction that appeared in Sunday’s Observer. It corrects the very claim she makes about Corbyn, exaggeration and the EHRC. How did Sodha’s farrago of (ironically) exaggerated and invented tosh make it into the paper’s prime comment slot? Does nobody on the Observer check the commentator’s assertions against the (ready accessible) texts? Were the subeditors asleep? During the week before Sodha’s piece appeared, there were articles applauding Sir Starmer’s decision to keep Corbyn out of the Parliamentary Labour Party in the Times by David Aaronovitch and in the Guardian by Polly Toynbee. Were they and Sodha all at the same briefing?
Caroline said:
Even the current wave of violence being perpetrated by the most extreme government is either ignored by mainstream commentators and politicians or presented as merely defensive.
No doubt you are right in general Caroline, but funnily enough whilst doing some research yesterday, I came across the following article in The Guardian:
‘Israeli settlers on the rampage isn’t a shock – it’s daily life for Palestinians in the West Bank’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/28/israeli-settlers-rampage-palestinians-west-bank-army-violence
___________________________________
As for the article dismantling Sonia Sodha’s black propaganda piece, yes, that’s great, but like literally hundreds and hundreds of other excellent articles JVL (and other left-wing sites) have posted dismantling the A/S lies and falsehoods, the vast majority of people who get to read them are on the left, and are aware – and HAVE been aware – of the smear campaign(s) against Jeremy and the left during the past seven years or so, as such, if not the specifics in respect of this or that episode.
And we – on the left – weren’t taken in by the lies and falsehoods in the first place anyway, because on the one hand we know (and knew) that Jeremy is a man of principles and integrity, and on the other hand we know that the MSM serves as the Establishment’s propaganda machine.
And my point is of course that we need to reach those who have been duped and deceived and manipulated by the fascist smearers and subverters of democracy, and the only way we can do that is by composing leaflets exposing a number of examples of the lies and falsehoods and collectively printing off hundreds of thousands of them and putting them through people’s doors all over the country.
Lying through their teeth is second nature to Psychopaths, but having just read Sonia Sodha’s abhorrent and malevolent piece, I see there’s even more to it than I thought there was, and although it is just poisonous lies from start to finish – and turns everything on its head as fascists so enjoy doing – the followong passage is the most poisonous in my view:
Last week, Starmer announced that Corbyn would not be allowed to stand as a Labour MP at the next election. Speaking after the EHRC lifted Labour out of special measures as a result of its progress in expelling its antisemitic members and proscribing antisemitic organisations, he was unequivocal that “the Labour party has changed” and that Corbyn was not welcome.
DID the EHRC lift Labour out of special measures ‘as a result of its progress in expelling its antisemitic members and proscribing antisemitic organisations’? Did they actually say as much? I doubt it somehow because it would be a blatant lie.
Isn’t it funny how totally corrupt people completely devoid of principles and integrity, like Starmer, are ‘transformed’ into good guys, and decent, honest, principled and caring people like Jeremy are ‘transformed’ into nasty, bigoted people.
If all the people who were duped and deceived by all the lies and falsehoods were enlightened and, as such, knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that they WERE, and understood exactly who was involved in duping and deceiving them, and in so doing realised how disturbing and damaging it must have been for the people who were fraudulently and maliciously targeted, it would be game over for the Psychopathic hate-mongering, fear-mongering, war-mongering fascist deceivers and smearers. Forever!
Allan Howard writes “…the only way we can do that is by composing leaflets exposing a number of examples of the lies and falsehoods and collectively printing off hundreds of thousands of them and putting them through people’s doors all over the country”.
I agree and I’ve thought the same thing myself. Obviously the logistics are intimidating and electronic communications are much easier. However, the main point I’d like to make is that, if this is done by an organisation, it must be an organisation which is impartial, not a left group or one with any political alignment. Note that this article was originally published by CAMPAIN, which is precisely such a non-aligned group. It’s a small group at the moment but is beginning to punch above its weight.
I too have found the G failing to send the usual auto-acknowledge email on receipt of a letter, a fair number of times. Here’s one such letter copied below: I omitted to include Glyn Turton’s letter published also on 22 Feb.
————–
letters to the editor: The Guardian view on Labour and antisemitism: two cheers for Keir Starmer.
“The Guardian editorial (The Guardian view on Labour and antisemitism: two cheers for Keir Starmer, Wednesday 15 Feb.) was remarkable only for being the first editorial on the subject not stridently damning Jeremy Corbyn. It was a mild enough a defence of the former LP leader, but on 22 Feb, Julia Neuberger, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Karen Pollock, Chief executive, Holocaust Educational Trust and Mike Katz, Chair of Jewish Labour Movement, weighed in with letters suggesting the world may be coming to an end.
I doubt if any of them have absorbed and given credence to the findings of the Forde Report or even acknowledged the existence of, let alone watched, Al-Jazeera’s “The Labour Files”. This important documentary series has been near-totally ignored by mainstream news media and Starmer’s one-policy LP. It speaks volumes that the LP will not even rebut any part of them, and it’s disgusting that MSM has meekly followed this head-in-the-sand approach.
The ‘one-policy’ (not really a secret) was laid out in Sir Keir’s recent speech inviting those who disagreed with him to leave: only applicable of course to those not already suspended/expelled/sidelined for spurious ‘misdemeanours’.
To add irony to the mix, I received an email from David Evans, LP General Secretary, inviting me to apply for the position of one of 20 Trainee Organisers “ensuring our Trainee Organisers reflect the diversity of our party, our communities and our country.” To reflect the planned diversity of today’s Labour party would restrict recruitment to flag-waving, Israel-loving, Corbyn despising members, leaning to the right of the party.
The Guardian took quite a beating from the letters by these prominent worthies, so I’m guessing it will be a while before the erstwhile espouser of socialist policies again veers from the current ‘true path’.”
Hangari’s critiqueof Sodha’s allegations about Corbyn is forensic. It substantiates the view of many leftists inside and outside the Labour Party about how his enemies continue to misrepresent what Corbyn said or did. The film, “The Big Lie” further documents this sad reality.