JVL letter to councillors in Newham
Dear councillor
As Jewish members of the Labour Party, and of the new Labour group, Jewish Voice for Labour, we are opposed to adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism due to be tabled before the council on Monday September 18.
We believe the IHRA document sows confusion in the fight against antisemitism and racism, which must be a key priority at this time of rising right-wing hate-mongering against ethnic and religious minorities. We also believe it poses a threat to freedom of expression, which it is a key duty of local authorities to protect.
We understand that councillors may feel obliged to endorse the motion out of a commendable desire to support and defend Jewish constituents, but in our opinion this would be misguided. The short definition of antisemitism contained in the proposed motion is, in our view, poorly worded and indefinite, but it is the rest of the document that seriously concerns us. The greater part of it is made up mainly of examples which do not relate to Jews at all, either individually or collectively. They relate to attitudes to the State of Israel.
We urge you to read the assessment by our friends in the Jewish Socialists’ Group, which can be found here. There is also a full assessment of the legal implications of the definition from Hugh Tomlinson QC here, as well as a scathing critique from (Jewish) former Appeal Court judge Sir Stephen Sedley in the London Review of Books here.
Antisemitism may sometimes be masked by a critical attitude to the State of Israel, that is true. The IHRA definition, though, seems designed not so much to catch speech or actions clearly motivated by hatred of Jews, as to defend the State of Israel against criticism of its violations of human rights, and to justify aspects of its foundation and constitution opposed by many Jews, both within and outside Israel. We know of many disturbing cases of the IHRA document being used to limit criticism of Israel and restrict campaigns in support of justice for Palestinians. The legal opinion from Hugh Tomlinson QC makes clear that public bodies using it in this way, including against the boycott movement, would be open to legal challenge for breaching their duty under the Human Rights Act to defend freedom of expression.
Councillors should be aware that the Labour Party has only adopted the short definition of antisemitism, which was included in the Race and Faith Manifesto during the 2017 general election. We are pleased that the party has not adopted the list of examples which follow the definition in the IHRA document. Nor should Newham council.
We appeal to you not to allow yourselves to be bounced into an ill-considered decision which will do nothing to oppose real antisemitism, and is likely to have negative consequences for the perception of the Council by many anti-racists and supporters of the rights of Palestinians.
We look forward to the opportunity to engage in productive discussion with council members about these important issues.
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
on behalf of
Jewish Voice for Labour
As a Jew and an Israeli I wholeheartedly endorse this statement. I am deeply saddened and fearful about the uncritical support of Israel and the Zionist project displayed by elements within the Jewish community. I am particularly disgusted by the lack of integrity of some of those elements who seem to think that ends justify means and who have, toward that ends, abandoned all semblance of personal moral integrity. I find courage that more and more Jews are speaking out on the matter of Israeli policy and its impacts on Palestinians as well as on other, broader political and military economic concerns — human rights, civil rights, political oppression, arms sales, electronic snooping and other forms of sabotage of democratic and humanitarian process. I am also deeply disgusted at the extent to which the memory and understanding of the Holocaust has been incorporated into a hegemonic argument by Israel and the broader community, distorting our ability to debate and develop a more effective political consciousness of the nature of oppression. I will not cease to write and act on my own understanding of these issues which prompts me to draw comparisons between Israel’s use of various means to deny Palestinian rights and the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s. Although I am also critical of such comparisons and fully cognizant of the historical and political differences I see such comparisons as revealing a deeper and more disturbing truth about the nature of oppression that goes well beyond questions of ethnicity or religion. I fear we are entering a new ‘dark age’ in which fear and ignorance once again determine our collective responses to injustice at a time when clarity and decisive action are needed. Yes, there was a Holocaust and Jews suffered terribly throughout history. But so have many other groups —Native Americans murdered by the millions during the conquest, Africans torn from their native lands and sold as slaves etc. Although the underlying situations are always complex and multifacetted, our responses should not be; they should be informed by a clear-cut ethics. So, for myself, I make the choice that I do not wish to participate in oppression and that I will always interrogate critically and act where possible to prevent oppression no matter who the perpetrator is. To do so is to transcend narrow ethnic allegiance to my own ‘long-suffering’ tribe to see the broader picture of oppression in human history and to consciously choose a different path. If this makes me an enemy of the Zionist project, so be it.