Labour’s
newly drawn up Anti-Semitism
Code of Conduct has set the cat amongst the Zionist pigeons.  It has also caused confusion amongst those
who are our allies such as Jewish Voice for Labour who have given the code a fulsome
welcome.

I
believe the reaction of JVL and others on the Left to the new Code is mistaken
and naive.  It is based on the idea that
you can ignore the Code’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, a definition whose sole purpose is to
conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and nonetheless make a silk purse out
of a sow. 

The
fake anti-Semitism smear campaign was not driven by a lack of an anti-Semitism
code or definition anti-Semitism. The expulsion of myself, Marc Wadsworth and
Cyril Chilsom was the consequence of a political campaign by the
representatives of the Israeli state inside 
the Labour Party.  This code of
conduct is not going to prevent the expulsion of Jackie Walker.

On
the contrary, Jennie Formby, Jeremy Corbyn and Jon Lansman are going to be
eager to demonstrate that even with this
code Jackie is going to be expelled. 
The case of Jackie Walker is going to be a litmus test as to whether
this code rationalises false accusations of anti-Semitism.

Those
who believe that this code marks the end of the false anti-Semitism campaign
are sadly mistaken. They are guilty of wishful thinking. People are choosing to
ignore the content of the Code and
instead are  bowled over by vacuous
phrases about ‘civility of language.’
This code deserves a much more rigorous analysis.

The
fake ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks of the last 2 years have been about Israel,
despite the howls of anguish whenever such a suggestion is made, this is what
the leaders of British Zionism themselves say. In their Open Letter to Corbyn,
the Presidents of the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council,
Jonathans Arkush and Goldstein were quite open about this:

‘Again and
again’ they wrote,
‘Jeremy Corbyn has sided with
anti-Semites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left’s
obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel’. 

Arkush and
Goldstein framed the anti-Semitism attacks within the context of ‘the far-left’s obsessive hatred of Zionism’.
Arkush subsequently accused
the
Jewish group Jewdas, with whom Corbyn had shared a Seder
night of being a ‘source of virulent
anti-Semitism’. As a parting shot Arkush, who had
effusively
welcomed Trump’s election together with his anti-semitic entourage, when
retiring as President of the Board of Deputies accused
Corbyn of being an anti-Semite. Nonetheless Arkush had no difficulty in demanding
that ‘Corbyn must ensure Labour branches
adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which some hard-left activists have
lobbied against.’

Why
have the Zionists demanded that Labour adopts the 250+ word IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism? Well the events of the past few weeks in
Palestine supply the answer.  There is a
very simple definition of anti-Semitism drawn up Dr Brian Klug, in a lecture
‘Echoes of Shattering Glass’ at the
Jewish Museum in Berlin in 2014. It consists of 21 words:

antisemitism is a form of
hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than
what they are.

Indeed
even this is somewhat wordy.  The Oxford
English Dictionary definition, ‘hostility
to or prejudice against Jews’  takes
up just 6 words.  Why does the IHRA need
250+ words?  Because that is what you
need in order to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  Anyone who has any doubts should read the
intemperate and barely
literate attack on Labour’s Anti-Semitism Code by the editor of the Jewish
Chronicle, Stephen Pollard

‘instead of
adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the
parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.’

This
is the problem as far as Pollard and friends are concerned.  The new anti-Semitism code doesn’t
specifically say that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism and therefore it is not
kosher.

Marie
Van der Zyl, Arkush’s successor and Goldstein complained this week that “It is for Jews to determine for themselves
what antisemitism is. The UK Jewish community has adopted in full the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Antisemitism.’  What this means is that there is no rational
or objective basis to allegations of anti-Semitism.  It is whatever Israel’s supporters say it is.
So if someone is accused of anti-Semitism then we can dispense with examining
such trifles as evidence and move to the sentence.  Kafkaesque or what?

So
if someone suggests that the behaviour of the Israeli state in seeking to
ethnically cleanse the West Bank is no different in principle from that of the
Nazis then that is anti-Semitic if someone thinks it is. Of course although Van
der Zyl and Goldstein say it is for Jews to determine what anti-Semitism is,
there are some Jews, such as anti-racist or anti-Zionist Jews who don’t count.  They are the ‘wrong sort of Jews’.  It is the racist and chauvinist Jews who get
to decide.  By allocating one single view
to the whole Jewish community Goldstein and Van der Zyl are unwittingly engaging
in the very anti-Semitism they decry!

The
reasons for this obsession with definitions of anti-Semitism are not hard to
find. You don’t have to look very far. This week saw a violent
attack by Israel against the Palestinian village of Khan al-Amar, an
exercise in ethnic cleansing. Now that is real
racism. We have only recently witnessed the murder of 120 unarmed
demonstrators by Israel in a clay pigeon shoot in Gaza, an action defended
by Labour Friends of Israel.

This
code is problematic because it is a continuation of the same muddled approach
to what is a very simple problem, which is the weaponisation of anti-Semitism
against critics of Israel and anti-Zionists. 
Although in principle it concedes that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism
are separate and distinct, in practice it gives hostages to fortune. People are
in danger of being deceived by the Code’s vague and deceptive wording into
sacrificing agreed principles.

Of
course the Code has led to the predictable denunciation by the apostles of
intolerance and bigotry, prime amongst them Stephen Pollard, the Editor of the
Jewish Chronicle. Anything other than a statement saying that anti-Semitism
equals anti-Zionism would be unacceptable to Pollard or the Board of Deputies.

Ivor Caplin, the new Chair of the Jewish
Labour Movement had a meeting with Jennie Formby and others this week, just
before the announcement of the code and he was more than happy with it.  Not realising or understanding that one of
the objectives of the anti-Semitism witch-hunt is that it should never end he
declared himself quite happy with the Code.

However if we were simply to take our guide
from the Zionist reaction then yes, we should support the new Anti-Semitism
Code of Conduct. However this would very foolish and I would summon in my
support Comrade Leon Trotsky. In a ‘Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra
Leftists’ entitled, appropriately ‘Learn to Think’ he wrote

The
policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy
of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every
sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time
orient itself independently in the internal as
well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond
best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the
war period as to the period of peace.

In other words, just because the Zionists
say they oppose the new Code of Conduct, that is no reason to support it. Their
argument is tactical. In fact Caplin is correct. The Zionists have got much
of what they want. However it suits them to pretend that the Code is awful
because in that way they can ensure that in its implementation it will be their
interpretation of the Code that prevails. 
We should heed Trotsky’s advice and learn
to think and examine the Code
from our perspective not theirs.

The Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct

Introduction

The first thing to ask is whether or not
this Code is going to stop the expulsion of Jackie Walker and lead to the
reinstatement of those already expelled. If not then it is useless.  The witch-hunt is not about words on a piece
of paper or abstract definitions of anti-Semitism but a state-driven
politically motivated attack by the supporters of imperialism and Zionism.

The second thing to ask is why
anti-Semitism?  Why should there be a
separate definition of anti-Semitism? This focus on a form of racism which is a
marginal form of prejudice is itself racist. 
It is the victims of the Windrush scandal, the targets of mosque
bombings and racial attacks, the hounding of Roma by
vicious racists like John Mann MP and the police and state racism against
Black and Asian people which should be the subject of Labour Party codes.  The focus on a privileged white group which
suffers not at all from state racism is in itself racist. If there was a real
problem of anti-Semitism today why would the very tabloid press which employed
Katie  Hopkins and Richard Littlejohn
stand opposed to anti-Jewish racism?  The
fact that the Sun and the Mail oppose ‘anti-Semitism’ (whilst not hesitating to
attack George Soros as an alien Jewish financier) should suggest what the real
agenda is.

Thirdly the Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct,
instead of rejecting outright the bogus IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism takes
it as its starting point.  Yes it negates
its most offensive examples but the fact is that it nonetheless adopts the
definition, including many examples. It is unfortunate that the JVL and others
didn’t reread the Opinion
of Hugh Tomlinson QC:

‘The IHRA Definition does not purport to provide a
legal definition of antisemitism. It does not have the clarity which would be
required from such a definition.’

As Stephen
Sedley said in Defining Anti-Semitism the
IHRA ‘fails the first test of any
definition: it is indefinite.’  Not
only that but it is ‘protean in character
and as open-ended’.

Tomlinson
observed that

‘The use of language is unusual
and therefore potentially confusing. The phrase “a certain perception” is vague
and unclear in the context of a definition. The use of the word “may” is also
confusing. If it is understood in its usual sense of “possibility” then the
definition is of little value: antisemitism “may be expressed as hatred towards
Jews but may also be expressed in other (unspecified) ways”. This does not work
as a definition.

The apparent confining of
antisemitism to an attitude which is “expressed” as a hatred of Jews seems too
narrow and not to capture conduct which, though not expressed as hatred of Jews
is clearly a manifestation of antisemitism. It does not, for example, include
discriminatory social and institutional practices.

Tomlinson
goes on to argue that because it ‘lacks clarity and comprehensiveness’ it has a

‘potential
chilling effect on public bodies which, in the absence of definitional clarity,
may seek to sanction or prohibit any conduct which has been labelled by third
parties as antisemitic without applying any clear criterion of assessment.’

Tomlinson’s
third criticism revolves around the structure of the IHRA. Because the actual
definition itself speaks of ‘hatred’ all the illustrative examples ‘must be regarded as examples of activity
which can properly be regarded as manifesting “hatred towards Jews”.

Analysis of
the Code of Conduct

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews,
which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical
manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish
individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and
religious facilities.”

that ‘The IHRA definition captures the idea of hostile conduct towards
individuals and institutions on the ground that they are Jewish.’ This is unmitigated
rubbish. A lie.  The definition doesn’t even
mention ‘hostile conduct’ – it defines anti-Semitism in terms of hatred not
hostility – thus raising the bar to actual anti-Semitism.

Secondly you cannot be racist
against institutions.  The inclusion of
‘Jewish community institutions’ is itself absurd as well as non-Jewish
individuals.

You might
think that the example ‘Making
mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews
as such or the power of Jews as collective’ was uncontroversial but the
reference to ‘Jews as a collective’ is
a reference to Israel.  Israel is a
nuclear state, a regional superpower.  So
referring to Israel’s military might could be termed ‘anti-Semitic’ even though
it is true. There has been much talk of the Jewish vote in places like Barnet
recently.  Is this anti-Semitic since it
refers to Jews collectively or is it only when supporters of Palestine refer to
Jewish support for Israel that it is anti-Semitic?

Likewise ‘Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as
a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.’ Why mention the
Israeli state? Isn’t it enough simply to define Holocaust denial as an example
of anti-Semitism? Given the way Zionists use word association, referring to the
blood  that Palestinians shed is quickly likened
to the medieval blood libel. Is it too much to expect that references to
Israel’ s use of the Holocaust as a propaganda weapon might also come under
this illustration?

Then there
is the example ‘Holding Jews
collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’.  Yes this is anti-Semitic but Israel calls itself a Jewish state so that is precisely what it
is doing – claiming that Jews throughout the world support its war crimes.

Paragraph
12 is particularly problematic because it states that ‘the Party is
clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any
other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is
therefore a form of antisemitism.’ Historically the idea of a
Jewish state would have been held to be anti-Semitic.

Lucien Wolf,
a leading member of the Board of Deputies and the Conjoint Committee, its Foreign Secretary before
the first world war, noting that  the
Zionists claimed that ‘all the Jews as forming at the present
moment a separate
and dispossessed nationality’ , commented
that

‘I
have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism.’

In short if
the ‘Party is clear’  that Jewish people form a nation, which is
what the right to self-determination means, then it is adopting an anti-Semitic
position!  Only anti-Semites maintain
that Jews are a nation apart rather than a member of the nations amongst whom
they live.  Let us be charitable and
assign this to political ignorance, it is nonetheless unacceptable that in a
document supposedly devoted to combating anti-Semitism, at its heart lies an
anti-Semitic postulate.  The whole basis
of the world Jewish conspiracy theory rests on the idea that Jews are a nation
apart.  Of course the Zionists agree with
this because Zionism is a form of Jewish anti-Semitism.  As the founder of Political Zionism Theodor
Herzl, who is buried in a grave on Mount Herzl in Israel, explained at the
height of the Dreyfus Affair:

‘In
Paris… I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began
to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness
and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.’

We should
instead point out that far from anti-Zionism equalling anti-Semitism the exact
opposite is the case.  Zionism shares
with anti-Semites the belief that Jews do not belong in the diaspora.  Historically Zionism accepted most of the
anti-Semitic libels against Jews, that they were asocial, absorbed in money and
allied trades because they lacked a homeland. 
Zionism was a movement of blood and soil nationalism.  It is a movement that never fought
anti-Semitism, which is why the current crop of allegations of anti-Semitism
are so comical.

Paragraph 14
is politically incoherent. It states that ‘It
is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to
the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own
nations.’ In paragraph 12 Jews formed a separate nation of their own and
two paragraphs later they are members ‘of
their own nations.’  Furthermore it
entirely reverses the dual loyalty principle. It is Zionism which holds that Jews should be more loyal to Israel than
their own nations. One of the most repeated forms of abuse levelled at
Jewish anti-Zionists is that they are ‘traitors’.  How can one be a traitor unless one’s first loyalty
is to Israel?  It is Zionism which
demands a dual loyalty.  That is why in
October 2013 the American Embassy distributed to American Jews a Questionnaire asking
them ‘to indicate where their allegiance
would lie if there was a crisis between the two countries.’

The
Code states, quite correctly that it ‘is not permissible to use
“Zionist” … as a code word for “Jew”. 
Which is true but in that case why is the Jewish Labour Movement allowed
to call itself Jewish when it only represents Zionist Jews (&
non-Jews)?  It is this hypocrisy and
double standard that runs throughout this politically incoherent code.

Likewise the
suggestion that the term ‘Zio’ ‘should have no place
in Labour Party discourse’ is another concession to the Zionist narrative.  ‘Zio’ is short for Zionist. To suggest that
it is anti-Semitic means that Labour is effectively saying that Zionist is
equal to Jew, the very thing paragraph 15 warns against!

Paragraph
16’s statement that ‘It is not antisemitism to
criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such
examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent.’ is welcome
but it is immediately contradicted by the reference to Chakrabarti’s comment
that ‘Labour members should resist the
use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in
debates about Israel-Palestine’ because they are ‘incendiary’. 

On the
contrary people should feel free to make comparisons between Israel’s policy of
ethnic cleansing and the Nazi practice in this regard.  If only to bring Israelis face to face with
the consequence of their own policies and politics. Israeli politicians never
hesitate to accuse their victims of being Nazis.  Why should we not compare e.g. the
demonstration last week in Afula against the sale of a house to an Arab in a
‘Jewish city’ to when it was the policy of Nazi Germany that Jews should not
live in ‘Aryan’ towns and villages?

Many on the
Left will be tempted to welcome this document as being better than might be
expected.  Perhaps it is, but
unfortunately it goes down the road of confusing and conflating anti-Semitism
and anti-Zionism.  We should be stating that
today the advocates of Zionism are to be found holding hands with the far-Right
including anti-Semitic politicians. 

It is no
accident that the Israeli government has just reached an accord with the Polish
government over a Holocaust law which renders it an offence to publish books on
Polish complicity in the crimes of the Nazi occupiers and on occasion it was
Polish nationalists who initiated the attacks on Jews as was the case in Jedwabne
in 1941 when villagers herded up to 1600 Jews into a barn which they then set
alight.  Netanyahu has invited
over, on a state visit in the summer, Viktor Orban of Hungary who not only
waged an overtly anti-Semitic campaign against George Soros, but he has described
the pro-Nazi dictator of Hungary during the war, Admiral Horthy, who presided
over the deportation of nearly half a million Jews to Auschwitz, as an ‘outstanding statesman’. When Ken
Livingstone pointed to the support of the Nazis for Zionism he forgot to say
that this support was reciprocated. 

All over
Europe anti-Semitic politicians and far-Right and fascist parties combine support
Zionism and Israel with Islamaphobia. 
From Marine
Le Pen in France to Geert
Wilders of The Netherlands to Germany’s Alternatives for Germany [Loathed
by Jews, Germany’s far-right AfD loves the Jewish state, Times of Israel,
24.9.17] to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, the founder of
America’s alt-Right who describes himself as a White
Zionist.

The implicit
assumption running throughout this Code of Conduct is that there is a thin line
dividing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism is often a cover
for anti-Semitism.  Although this does
occasionally happen what is far more frequent today is the reverse – it is
anti-Semites who use support for Israel and Zionism as a cover for
anti-Semitism.  No better example is
there than Tommy Robinson, the British fascist who combines support for Israel with
befriending
anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.

The Anti-Semitism Code of Conduct is not the
panacea that many people are hoping it will be. 
By avoiding the topic of weaponisation of anti-Semitism my prediction is
that it is going to prove all but useless in the battle against the false
anti-Semitism smears.

Tony Greenstein