Labour, antisemitism and woolly language

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/labour-antisemitism-and-woolly-language

Version 0 of 1.

Keith Kahn-Harris (How a radical new form of anti-racism can save Labour, 30 May) makes some interesting distinctions. That anti-racism requires Labour to defend the targets of antisemitism “however unlikable they might find us” is absolutely correct. A distinction I wish he would have explored is the one between defending Israel’s right to exist and defending its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. To be pro-Palestinian does not entail opposing Israel’s right to exist. To believing in Israel’s right to exist does not entail defending all the actions of the Israeli state.

My question is: what does it mean to be a Zionist? What does Kahn-Harris mean when he says that the majority of British Jews are Zionists? He says, confusingly, that they either self-identify as such or support the principle of Israel as a Jewish state. Wouldn’t the first group also do the second? But then, what does “as a Jewish state” imply? Repression of the Arabs in it? Claims on adjacent territory? These are the sorts of flashpoints that now need careful analysis, and I think Kahn-Harris could usefully do that. There is too much woolly use of language.Jeanne WarrenGarsington, Oxford

• As one of the “wrong sort of Jews”, an anti-Zionist, I hope I will be allowed to contribute to the continuing debate over antisemitism in the Labour party.

Keith Kahn-Harris tries to come up with a simple solution to the problem, but only confuses the picture even further. We should, he says, support “the right of minorities to pursue their own political agendas, even if they are abhorrent to you”. I disagree, strongly, and will continue to oppose agendas that ignore human rights and refuse to accept that not all Jews (or any other ethnic group) think the same way.

It is perfectly valid to oppose the political concept of Zionism, as long as this isn’t done on the basis of the ethnicity of the person making the point. I might well be in a (growing) minority of Jews in opposing Zionism, but that does not and cannot make me an antisemite.

Antisemitism involves attacking Jews because they are Jews, not because of what they believe. The right to oppose what people believe is, and must continue to be, one of the foundation stones of democracy.Mike ScottNottingham

• Keith Kahn-Harris has a very one-sided solution to alleged antisemitism in the Labour party. He proposes that anti-Zionist supporters of the Palestinians must show “unconditional … ‘sullen solidarity’” with Zionist Jews. But Zionist Jews, who support, passively or actively, a racist Jewish state which is busily constructing an apartheid regime – Kahn-Harris does not enjoin them to show solidarity with anyone, either Palestinians or anti-Zionists. This is odd, to say the least, from someone who claims to have been advocating dialogue for years. The “self-sacrifice” – his phrase – is all on one side.Richard BarnesWindermere, Cumbria

• Thank you for the clear and uncompromising Keith Kahn-Harris piece. What if the ethno-religious minorities he says should not be pursued have within them their own forms of racism? Surely these minorities internal to those groups should themselves still be called out, not least by the wider group to which they claim allegiance, for their discriminatory views. Otherwise we would be left defending or denying the indefensible, by turning a blind eye. Much as the Labour party has done towards its own internal racism.Ya’ir KleinLondon

• In seeking to explain that antisemitism is not widespread and severe in the Labour party, Pete Willsman proves, with his own words, that it is present in the highest echelons of the party, including the national executive committee of which he has been a member for years (Labour suspends NEC member over Israeli infiltration claim, 1 June). He also holds high office in other influential groups within the party. That he can still hold such views, having been reprimanded recently for a similar offence, is a sad reflection on the state of the party’s leadership to which he has close ties.

It is also clear that his political judgment is sadly wanting. In a recent report to the Grassroots Labour group Willsman explained that after four hours canvassing in Oxford, on two streets chosen at random, he found “no discernible drop in the support for Labour”. This apparently shaped his advice to the NEC when it met to discuss the manifesto for the recent EU elections.

That his assessment was wrong is something of an understatement. In the election the Labour party received 6,444 votes in Oxford compared with 13,015 at the equivalent election in 2014, on a 9% higher turnout. In comparison the combined vote of the Lib Dems and the Greens was over 28,000, an increase of over 100% from 2014. Such wishful thinking and sloppy analysis among the leadership of an opposition party when our government is so badly wanting is not what Labour members and supporters need.Jim MetcalfBury