Politics - The Labour Party and anti-Semitism

Foreword. I am aware that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ is incorrectly used in what follows - but it has become the accepted term for anti-Jewish. The Jews, originally, were a Semitic people - but so are all the Arab peoples of the Middle East. The term anti-Semitic, therefore, applies to the Palestinians just as much as to the Jews, which makes the use of the term, when applied only to Jews, incorrect. But, as said above, it has become accepted that the term anti-Semitic also means anti-Jewish so I have resorted to using it, if somewhat reluctantly. To be clear, all references to anti-Semitic, in this post, should actually be read as anti-Jewish.

I currently find myself rather confused over the position of the Labour party and anti-Semitism. For four years, under Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party was increasingly accused of anti-Semitism - or, at least, failing to even attempt to eradicate anti-Semitism from within it’s ranks. I don’t know if this was true or not as I did not read more than a couple of the articles claiming this was the case. Some of what I read did not, however, strike me as being anti-Semitic but, instead, anti the Israeli government and Zionism. Take, for example, what Ken Livingston said regarding Hitler being a supporter of Zionism. This gave the impression that Livingston equated Hitler with Zionism - which, for me, was a rather stupid thing to say but not in itself anti-Semitic. If Hitler did support the creation of a Jewish state (and I’ve no reason to presume that Livingston made this up) then that was because he saw this as a way to get the Jews out of Europe, not that he was committed to this in the same way, or for the same reasons, that Zionists were/are. But what Livingston said was, at worst, an attack on Zionism - not an attack on all Jews. I would expect that most Zionists are Jews - but not all Jews are Zionists and what he said was not, in my view, anti-Semitic. Much of what I did read at the time was anti the Israeli state or anti Zionist, but that is not to say that there were not also many anti-Semitic views and opinions expressed at the same time - I just don’t know as I read very little of the details of the complaints aimed at the Labour party at this this time on this subject.
Following the election of Sir Keir Starmer (SKS), as Labour Party leader, the party promised to deal swiftly and firmly with any party member saying or writing anything anti-Semitic. A few weeks ago Rebbeca Long-Bailey was removed from Starmer’s shadow cabinet for re-tweeting a tweet which accused the Israeli Secret Service (MOSSAD, I presume, although there may also be other branches of the Israeli secret service) of training the police forces of the USA in the restraint techniques which, a few weeks earlier, had resulted in the death of George Floyd. Shortly after this I heard SKS being interviewed on The Andrew Marr Show (I think it was). He started by saying he was not against complaints and attacks on the Israeli government’s actions or policies but he then went on to say that Long-Bailey had joined in an attack on Jews by re-tweeting this tweet. I am confused! As far as I am concerned, MOSSAD is an arm of the Israeli government. It is most likely comprised of only Jews - but that is the nature of anything related to the Israeli government. If we take SKS’s second statement at face value then, if Israel was to annex most of the West Bank or invade the Gaza Strip and slaughter thousands of Palestinians, it could not be accused of any wrong doing as this would be an attack on Jews and, therefore, anti-Semitic. In that case his first statement could not stand up to scrutiny as it would be clear that even attacks on Israel’s policies, or attacks on arms of the Israeli government, were going to be taken as anti-Semitic. So it would now appear that the Labour Party is under the direction of Zionists and that any attack on Israel, or Zionism, is anti-Semitic and will not be tolerated. Have the Labour Party abandoned their principles only in the hope of regaining the Jewish vote which they fear they lost under Corbyn?

I would also argue, however, that the original tweet was not, in reality, an attack on Zionism or the Israeli government (even if the statement was not correct, as is claimed, in the first place). I would say that it is totally understandable that any government has agents who are able to prevent a suicide bomber, or a gunman, carrying out their intent to commit mass murder - and if killing the potential perpetrator saves the lives of many others then I’m OK with that. I have every sympathy with the Palestinian cause for an independent state of their own but I have zero tolerance for suicide bombers, or gunmen, in any country, for any cause, resorting to such cowardly and inhuman murder against non-combative citizens. I would also fully understand that one such country would be willing to instruct the security services of an ally in the techniques they have developed. Any fault, or blame, we have here lies with the US police forces using these techniques against citizens who are not terrorists - and perhaps not even guilty of any crime but, mainly, just because they are black. So, even if MOSSAD had instructed the US police force in those methods, it is, I would argue, the US who has employed them illegally and not the fault of MOSSAD, or any other agency, in teaching them. We must assume MOSSAD would have taught those techniques, if they had done so, to assist the US in preventing terrorist atrocities - not in murdering innocent, often black, US citizens. If that were true then the original tweet is not a negative comment on Israel or it’s security services but, instead, an attack on those methods being employed in the way they were by the US law enforcement officers. However, having said that, I suspect the original author of the tweet, and Long-Bailey in re-tweeting it, did intend to be commenting negatively on the activities of MOSSAD - but I repeat that such an attack was not anti-Semitic but an attack on the Israeli secret service. There is a difference.

In ending this post, I would like to make it clear that I do not advocate the eradication of Israel. I think, however, that the creation of Israel, back in 1948/9, was a mistake without the creation of a Palestinian state at the same time. The Jewish people only made up about 10% of the total population of the area at that time and to provide Israel with getting close to 50% of the land area was clearly an injustice on the Palestinians - especially those who lost their land to this and to those that lost their land to Israeli expansion after that. Even a two state solution at that time would, most likely, have led to armed struggle - but not, perhaps, for as long or to the same extent that has since occurred. It should be made clear that in 1947 the UN did propose a two state solution - which the Arab/Palestinian leaders rejected (while the Jewish side accepted it). This indicates a strong Arab objection to the Palestinians losing any of their land to the new Jewish state of Israel - but maybe the UN enforcing such a solution, against Arab wishes, might have been a better long term outcome? The UN, after all, ignored the Arab/Palestinian side by creating Israel anyway - perhaps it should also have just ignored the Arab/Palestinian side by going ahead and creating a Palestinian state regardless (even if it had to initially put in place a puppet Palestinian government)? As said, this might well not have prevented the violence and bloodshed immediately afterwards but I also think that this violence and bloodshed would not have lasted for as long as it has. This might have prevented the Arab/Israeli war of 1967 and that might have prevented the Zionists, since then, from stealing more and more Palestinian land. Without the 1967 war then perhaps the Israeli governments since then would not have followed the aggressive policies that they have - and without that then there would have been fewer grounds for complaint about the actions of the Israeli government - and without that it would, perhaps, have been a lot easier to distinguish between anti Israel complaints (as there would have been fewer grounds for this) and straight out anti-Semitism? Perhaps not - and that’s all now in the past and cannot be changed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but it does, I accept, very little to solve ongoing disputes.

What I would like to see is an Israel which stops trying to steal more and more land from the Palestinian population. I would like to see a Palestinian state created and recognised by Israel and the rest of the World. I would like to see Israel recognised by all the Arab nations, including Palestine. I would like to see the security of the agreed boundaries guaranteed by the UN and that either Palestine or Israel breaching those boundaries would be prevented (by force or by economic sanctions) - even if a UN force has to stay in the area for a long, long time. I have no issue with any Jew, rich or poor, for being a Jew - but I do oppose the Jewish state of Israel keeping the Palestinians in poverty and servitude and in it’s continued land grabbing.