Motion on antisemitism and policymaking in the Labour Party
JVL Introduction
This motion, drafted before yesterday’s NEC decision was known, was passed at a branch in Islington North this evening, 5th September 2018. Suitably modified in the light of the outcome of the NEC meeting, it will be forwarded to the Islington North GC.
We publish it here as a guide, identifying as it does some principles which should underpin any motions on this subject
Motion on antisemitism and policymaking in the Labour Party
The Labour Party has come under extreme pressure to accept wholesale and without question or qualification the Working Definition of Antisemitism drawn up by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), despite only six of the 31 IHRA member countries endorsing and adopting it. Most recently, this has taken the form of a non-negotiable demand to rescind the decision taken by the NEC in July to adopt a new Code of Conduct on Antisemitism, which clarifies ambiguities in the IHRA document and ensures freedom of speech on Israel and Zionism where such speech is not antisemitic.
As a result of this pressure, the NEC decided to revisit this decision at its 4th September meeting.
At the time of writing, the outcome of that discussion is not known, but whatever decision is made, Islington North CLP urges the Party to confidently assert its commitment to internationalism and its support for the Palestinian struggle for equal rights and against the illegal occupation, including support for Jewish and Palestinian activists campaigning together within Israel.
Drawing, in part, on the NEC Code of Conduct, this CLP confirms the following principles:
• Labour is an anti-racist party. Antisemitism is racism. It is unacceptable in our Party and in wider society.
• While consultation with wider groups is important, Labour Party members make policy, and cannot be made to feel inhibited about participating or intervening in debate about Israel/Palestine.
• There is a vital distinction between antisemitism, properly understood as hostility or hatred directed at Jews, and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel or the ideology of Zionism. Opinion about Israel Palestine and Zionism may be judged to be racist where there is evidence of antisemitic intent, but the assumption should be that support for Palestinian human rights is not directed against Jews but is expressed in good faith, in line with anti-racist principles and out of a desire for justice and equality.
• Labour accepts the MacPherson recommendations in the Stephen Lawrence Report, that allegations of racism must be taken seriously and investigated in accord with due process, which means, in a fair and timely fashion and based on verifiable evidence.
• Labour is committed to protecting freedom of expression, including contentious opinions as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998. This includes opinions about Israel and its policies, and about political strategies seeking to influence them.
This CLP therefore calls on the Labour Party at all levels to:
• make clear and detailed commitments to support Palestinian rights.
• include a broad range of Jewish opinion in further consultations, which might mean one-to-one or small group meetings, and build constructive relationships with Jews with whom Labour shares common ground, both within and beyond the Party
• confidently resist pressure from bodies that are hostile to the Labour project or to the leadership to compromise on any of the above principles.
• facilitate and encourage wide-ranging discussion on all these issues, which is neither led nor limited by the agendas of official organisations or institutions.
• work with a range of minorities, including Jews to develop robust, common responses to the alarming rise of the racist far right, in this country and across the world, particularly in Europe.
This came to late for our Constituency meeting this eve.
[Sorry !]
The text of this resolution forms a useful basis for moving forward. I would, however, suggest that the phrase expressing “support for the Palestinian struggle for equal rights and against the illegal occupation” be changed to read “support for the Palestinian struggle for full nationhood, for equal rights in Israel and in the territories occupied by Israel and against the illegal occupation of these territories.”
But since this resolution was sent in things have changed. Michael Segalov, who has often written in support of Jeremy Corbyn suggests in an article published in The Guardian (7th September 2018) that while “Palestinian experiences at the hands of the Israeli government, and even Israel’s formation, can be legitimately described as racist”, “denying Jews the right to self-determination in principle should fall foul of this newly drawn line.”
This contention is probably based on the spurious argument that to deny only the Jews this fundamental right is an indication of anti-semitism. Many JVL members will have read Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner comments on the IHRA “working definition” published inter alia in The Guardian. She wrote, “Stating, for example, that the right to Jewish self-determination is fundamentally a racist endeavour is not legitimate criticism, but a denial to Jews of the same rights given to all other peoples – which I also want for Palestinians.” Michael Segalov seems to hold the same position.
This is a very dangerous position, one which could if pressed would certainly lead to my expulsion. Why so?
Socialists have always supported “the right to self-determination” of majority populations with long-standing occupation of a given territory, so that these emergent nations can be liberated from their oppressors. Historically political Zionism has invoked this “right” for a minority against the indigenous majority. Today, of course, the majority of the inhabitants of Israel are Jews not Palestinians – and Israel is busy creating settlements on the West Bank with a view to creating in the future a Jewish majority there.
But even if we concede “the right of self-determination” to the Jews of Israel within its internationally recognised borders, where they are a majority (albeit not of long-standing), that is not the same as according this right to the Jews, that is the Jewish diaspora plus Israeli Jews. The five to six and a half million Jews of the US exercise their self determination by living there and not in Israel and the million or so living in the EU do likewise.
The slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination” has frequently been used cynically by those with no interest in national liberation as such – only if it can be seen as a way of weakening the enemy or masking discrimination. Thus President Wilson at Versailles argued for this right – point ten of his fourteen points – invoking the idea of popular sovereignty His aim, however, was to weaken the Bolsheviks who also used this slogan and break up the Ottoman Empire, allotting its parts to the European imperialist powers which had emerged as victors of WW1. Under Stalin the right of self-determination, like other political rights, became a meaningless black-comedy rendered even more farcical in the establishment of the Birobidzhan Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the 1930s.
Since its inception Zionism has waved the banner of Jewish national self-determination. Similarly Israel has had relations with some Kurdish leaders in order to weaken the governments of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Notwithstanding the frequently deceptive use of the slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination”, we socialists should be clear: it refers to long-standing majorities occupying a given territory; it does not refer to recently established settler communities.
Let’s be clear: denying that the establishment of the State of Israel can be justified by reference to the right of nations to self-determination doesn’t mean being in favour of wiping out its Jewish population. And calling into doubt the use of the slogan when referring to a diaspora doesn’t constitute anti-semitism.
The only parallel I can think of is Marcus Garvey’s idea of establishing “political freedom on the continent of Africa, the land of our fathers”, uniting “the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world to give expression to their own feeling; [with] “the 15,000,000 of the United States, the 180,000,000 in Asia, the West Indies and Central and South America, and the 200,000,000 in Africa.”
Of course, for many – see, for example, Roger Silverman’s account of his father’s position [Wordpress 2nd September] – the formation of the State of Israel after WW2 was justified by the need to save the victims of the Holocaust in the light of the refusal of the victorious powers to admit Jews in large numbers and guarantee them full civil rights. Whether or not you agree with this justification, it has nothing to do with “the right of nations to self-determination” and clearly involved the denial of that very right to the Palestinians.
Why does this matter?
The vast majority of members and supporters of the Labour Party will be delighted if a new consensus allows us to move on to fight the daily injustices and indignities imposed by capitalism and by the May government in particular. Holding my views regarding the emergence of the State of Israel has never impeded my participation in this fight alongside others with very different views on Zionism. Nor should it. That is not until now, when Michael Segalov, in the article cited above, declares that the view I and many others hold would “fall foul of this newly drawn line”.
Let’s be clear: the Zionist insistence on the right of world Jewry to self-determination is a crucial element in Israel’s claim to moral legitimacy.
Now – and this is truly absurd! – there is a real danger that the “newly drawn line” – the Biblical shibboleth – between those who deny that world Jewry has this right, on the one hand, and those critics of Israel like Michael Segalov and Rabbi Janner-Klausner, on the other, who insist that it does, will be used to expel Labour Party members – including Jewish ones like myself.