This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/corbyn-labour-decisive--antisemitism-israel-claims-jewish

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Corbyn's Labour must be more decisive on antisemitism claims Corbyn's Labour must be more decisive on antisemitism
(about 7 hours later)
Labour’s perceived problem with antisemitism has been compounded by the party leadership’s failure to act immediately and emphatically in response to a string of incidents over the past few weeks. Labour’s swift suspension of Ken Livingstone following his inflammatory remarks about Hitler and Zionism may herald a decisive point in the escalating furore over antisemitism.
If the Labour whip had been withdrawn from Naz Shah as soon as her past social media posts came to light, despite her profuse and sincere expressions of regret, it would have sent an unmistakable message to those within the party who may hold, or stray into, antisemitic sentiments. The leadership may have finally understood that immediate and emphatic action is needed to deal with people whose comments and posts on social media have fostered antisemitic sentiment.
Instead, the 32 hours that elapsed between the emergence of Shah’s posts and her suspension allowed David Cameron to attack Jeremy Corbyn on the issue in the Commons, and outrage to build within the Jewish community, other Labour MPs and in the media – both social and mainstream. Jeremy Corbyn’s 32-hour hesitation in suspending MP Naz Shah from the Labour whip after social media posts came to light not only allowed David Cameron to attack Corbyn on the issue in the Commons. It meant outrage in the Jewish community and among other Labour MPs and in the media – both social and mainstream – intensified. And it created a licence for Livingstone to pour fuel on an already-burning fire. His gross misrepresentation of history and suggestion that Hitler and Zionism shared similar aims turned the flames into an inferno.
Corbyn has ordered an internal inquiry, led by the respected peer Lady Royall, initially to examine claims of antisemitism at Oxford University’s Labour Club and since widened to take in other recent incidents. But his critics say he must immediately adopt a clear stance of zero tolerance of antisemitism, which in practice means swifter action. What happens next? An internal Labour party inquiry, led by the respected peer Lady Royall, is already under way. It was ordered by Corbyn to examine claims of antisemitism at Oxford University’s Labour Club, and since widened to take in other recent incidents. Corbyn’s critics (and some of his allies) say he must institute a clear policy of zero tolerance of antisemitism, taking instant action wherever and whenever it comes to light.
The problem is defining antisemitism; any expression of Jew-hatred or Nazi sympathy is straightforward but the difficulty lies where opposition to or criticism of official Israeli policies becomes entangled with its citizens, or Jewish people around the world. One problem comes in defining antisemitism. Expressions of Jew-hatred or Nazi sympathy are straightforward. The difficulty lies where opposition to or criticism of official Israeli policies becomes entangled with its citizens, or Jews around the world.
Some argue that any criticism of Israel is de facto antisemitism because of the state’s uniquely Jewish character. Others say opposition to the present Israeli government’s policies is entirely legitimate, and has nothing to do with antisemitism. Some argue that any public criticism of Israeli government policy is de facto antisemitism because of the state’s uniquely Jewish character. Others say that opposition to the present government’s policies is entirely legitimate.
But this is a complex area. Opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories – which stretches back almost 50 years and implicates administrations across the political spectrum – is not confined to criticism of the current pro-settler government of Binyamin Netanyahu.
And some critics of the occupation go further. They explicitly or implicitly question the establishment, and continued existence, of the Jewish state in what was previously Palestine; that is, they question Israel’s right to exist.
Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, head of the UK’s Movement for Reform Judaism, said on Radio 4’s Today programme that such a view challenges the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. “It’s interesting that other peoples have the right to self-determination but we can turn round to Jews, especially at Passover, and say you don’t.”
Related: Naz Shah suspended by Labour party amid antisemitism rowRelated: Naz Shah suspended by Labour party amid antisemitism row
In between is a complex area. The Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza stretches back almost half a century and incorporates Israeli administrations across the political spectrum. Criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians is not confined to the current rightwing pro-settler government of Binyamin Netanyahu – but that does not equate it with antisemitism.
Some critics of the occupation go further. They explicitly or implicitly question the establishment, and the continued existence, of the Jewish state in what was previously Palestine; that is, they question Israel’s right to exist per se.
Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner said on Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday that such a view challenges the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. “It’s interesting that other peoples have the right to self-determination but we can turn round to Jews, especially at Passover, and say you don’t.”
In the same exchange, the Jewish writer and broadcaster David Baddiel took a different view. “I think you can go very, very far – you can say Israel should not exist. If you’re anti-Zionist, you don’t believe it should have been established in 1948, that’s a political position, it’s fine.” But, he added, it was easy for such a stance to then slide into antisemitism.In the same exchange, the Jewish writer and broadcaster David Baddiel took a different view. “I think you can go very, very far – you can say Israel should not exist. If you’re anti-Zionist, you don’t believe it should have been established in 1948, that’s a political position, it’s fine.” But, he added, it was easy for such a stance to then slide into antisemitism.
Picking a way through this is extremely challenging, particularly given the vehemence of the debate on Israel-Palestine. Neither Labour’s internal inquiry nor that of the home affairs select committee is easily going to define a clear red line where opposition to Israeli policies might cross into antisemitism. Picking a way through this is challenging, particularly given the vehemence of the debate on Israel-Palestine. Neither Labour’s internal inquiry nor that of the home affairs select committee is easily going to define a clear line where opposition to Israeli policies might cross into antisemitism.
Alongside those who reject any criticism of Israel and those who adopt the binary opposite view, there is a third background element to the current furore. Some virulent opponents of Corbyn may be seizing on and fuelling this issue as a way of attacking the Labour leader. Hannah Weisfeld, director of Yachad, a leftwing UK Jewish group which supports a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, said: “Of course you can oppose many policies of the Israeli government – many Jews and Jewish organisations do. That does not make you an antisemite. But… being a leftwing supporter of Palestine is not a vaccination against antisemitism. It’s time to redefine the boundaries between antisemitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel in public life.”
Only when the fog created by diehard opponents of Israel, diehard supporters of Israel and diehard anti-Corbynistas has cleared, can real progress be made. Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism and a Labour party member, said Livingstone was a symptom, not the cause. “I am nervous that by focusing on one large personality, we are not dealing with the issues that lead him to make such a statement. The first step is to admit you have an institutional problem and then … to set out strategies to deal with that.”
Alongside those who reject any criticism of Israel and those who adopt the binary opposite view, there is a third background element to the current furore. Some virulent opponents of Corbyn may be seizing on and fuelling this issue as a means of discrediting the Labour leader. The din created by diehard opponents of Israel, diehard supporters of Israel and diehard anti-Corbynistas risks drowning out those who want clarity and progress.