Jennie Formby, Labour NEC member and South East Regional Secretary of Unite the Union, at the 2016 Labour Party Conference in Liverpool.Wikicommons/Rwendland. Some rights reserved.
How to deal with antisemitism
while at the same time protecting free speech in the political debate over
Israel and Palestine? This conundrum lies at the heart of the argument (to use
a polite word) in the public square over a new Code
of Conduct for Antisemitism proposed by the Equalities Committee, a
sub-committee of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Labour Party.
The proposal is due to be formally endorsed by the NEC on 17 July. I shall
refer to it as ‘the NEC Code’.
The argument revolves around
the relationship between the NEC Code and a document that was issued in May
2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental
body to which thirty-one countries, including the UK, belong. One edition of
the document on the IHRA website has the title ‘The
Working Definition of Antisemitism’ and this is the name by which it is
widely cited. (Another edition does
not.) This title, as we shall see, has given rise to confusion, so I shall
refer to the text as ‘the IHRA document’. The IHRA working definition has been
widely adopted by national governments (UK included) and other public
authorities.
According to Jennie Formby,
General Secretary of the Labour Party, the NEC Code takes the IHRA Working
Definition and supplements it “with
additional examples and guidance”, thus creating “the most thorough and
expansive Code of Conduct on anti-Semitism introduced by any political party in
the UK”. Similarly, Jon Lansman, a fellow member of the NEC, calls the Code “the
new gold standard” for political parties, “stronger than anything of its
kind adopted by any political party in this country”. The Code, he says, “fully
adopts the IHRA definition, and covers the same ground as the IHRA examples”
but goes further, making it more workable. That is the view from the inside.
Wholesale indictment
Those who oppose this view
tend to dismiss the NEC Code out of hand rather than seeking to amend it. This
itself tells you something about the nature of the ‘argument’ in the public
square: it is not exactly amenable to nuance. While there are specific points
of criticism, critics typically take the position that Labour should simply adopt
the IHRA document in its entirety. This is usually accompanied by a wholesale indictment
of the NEC’s initiative or of the entire Labour Party or of the party under
Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, as this sample of comments from the week following
the Code’s appearance illustrates:
“Labour’s new guidelines show
it is institutionally
antisemitic”. The NEC Code is a “toothless
document that will only encourage Jew-hate in the Labour Party to flourish
further, unchallenged and unpunished”. “It seems Labour found [the IHRA]
definition too stringent – it prohibited anti-Jewish expression that Labour wants
to allow.” This is an “attempt to weaken
the guidelines around how and when criticism of Israel can stray into
territory that is obviously antisemitic”. Labour’s “IHRA rejection … represents
and repeats the same far left ideological, emotional and systematic
rejection of our concerns that we have faced for decades.”
These comments were all made
by people who, either in their own right or in the context of Labour’s approach
to dealing with antisemitism, are prominent figures. Their comments might
strike some readers the same way as they strike me: over the top. But in two
cases – no purpose is served in identifying them by name here – the person is
someone I have known and respected for many years. I cannot simply dismiss what
they say as false or wrongheaded, even though I believe it is.
There is a complex historical
and political background to the current debate. In part, this lies in
conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Partly it consists in hostility
to Labour from the outside or opposition to its left wing from within. But there
is another piece: the sense that some of us have who are Jewish (I include
myself) that something has been awry in the discourse about Zionism – and even
about Jews in general – in certain sections of the left for many years (as
I argued last year). This grievance has festered, as grievances do when
they go unheeded. I detect the effects of this unheeded grievance under the
surface of some (though by no means all) of the cynicism about Labour and the
NEC Code. Which is why I cannot simply dismiss it.
By the same token, cynicism,
even when it is well-founded, can become a habit. It is liable to impair our
ability to make rational, measured judgments and to recognise when the very
thing we want comes about. How ironic if, just at the moment when Labour wakes
up to the need to deal with antisemitism in its midst, it is shouted down
because of its failure to deal with it in the past! This is, I believe, part of
the explanation for the hostility to the NEC Code. A legitimate grievance has sunk
in so deep that it is impossible to accept that possibly – just possibly – this
grievance has at last been taken on board by the party and that it is being
dealt with responsibly. For those readers of this article for whom the cap
fits, I urge you to try to keep an open mind about this possibility – which I
believe is the reality – as you read on.
‘People of goodwill’
I shall come to specific objections
to the NEC Code in due course. I think these objections are largely (if not
wholly) misplaced. In a short piece, however, it is not possible to take up
each and every criticism and to give a point-by-point refutation. My concern in
this article is not primarily with the validity of particular criticisms but
with the general stance taken by critics who, on the one hand, reject outright the
NEC Code and, on the other hand, embrace unconditionally the IHRA document – as
if the one were anathema and the other sacred. I shall seek to show that this
stance is an impediment to what people of goodwill want to achieve. By ‘people
of goodwill’ I mean people who are sincere in wanting to solve the conundrum I
mentioned at the outset: how to deal with antisemitism while at the same time
protecting free speech in the political debate over Israel and Palestine. These
people are my intended audience. I have nothing to say to those who pretend to
be concerned about both desiderata but actually are interested only in grinding
a political axe.
Since the current argument
revolves around the relationship between the NEC Code and the IHRA document, the
first hurdle that critics have to clear is knowing what each text says. I am
not convinced that everyone who takes the stance that I am critiquing – treating
the IHRA text as sacred and the NEC Code as anathema – has cleared that hurdle.
The analysis that I am about to give is based on comparing the texts in
relevant respects. My comparison will not be exhaustive. I urge readers to go
back to the two primary sources so as to check my analysis and to judge for
themselves whether the NEC Code is an advance on the IHRA document in solving the
conundrum or not.
A word about the structure of
the two documents. There are three parts to the IHRA text: a preamble, a
“working definition of antisemitism”, and a discursive explanation that
includes, inter alia, a bullet list of eleven “examples”. The NEC Code comprises
sixteen numbered paragraphs divided into three sections: Introduction (pars. 1
to 4), principles (par. 5 to 8), and guidelines (par. 9 to 16). Par. 9 contains
a list of seven “examples”, (a) to (g).
Perhaps the most insistent
criticism of the NEC Code is that Labour has rejected the IHRA definition, replacing it with something new. So,
for example: “The IHRA definition of anti-semitism is the only globally
accepted one, and it truly beggars belief that the Labour Party thinks it can
or should try to cook up its own. What the
hell is going on?” Sometimes the words “in full” are added after
“definition”, which, as we shall see, is a clue to the confusion underlying
this criticism.
The “working definition”
Has Labour tried to “cook up
its own” definition? Here is an extract from par. 5 of the NEC Code: “To assist
in understanding what constitutes antisemitism, the NEC has endorsed the
definition produced by the [IHRA] in 2016”. There follows the definition,
reproduced from the IHRA document: “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.” In the IHRA document, this form of words, described
as a “non-legally binding working
definition”, is set off from the rest of the text by appearing in bold and
being placed in a box – thus leaving no doubt that this – these two sentences – constitutes the “working definition”.
Likewise, in the NEC Code the (identical) definition is set apart by appearing
in bold, though indented rather than boxed. No cooking of the books here. The
NEC takes the IHRA “working definition”, in its entirety and without altering
it one iota, using it as the foundation on which the Code is built: that is
“what the hell is going on”.
As definitions go, this one
is, to say the least, somewhat vague. Accordingly, the drafters of the IHRA
text provide “examples” which, they say, “may serve as illustrations” to
“guide” IHRA in its work. Similarly, the NEC Code includes “guidelines” to
assist Labour in its work, including
a set of seven “examples”. Here is where there is a degree of variation from the
IHRA text; and this is where the confusion arises. For, when critics say that
the NEC has not adopted the IHRA definition (“in full”), they allude to these
variations.
They thus confuse the definition and the examples that are meant as illustrations only. The examples are
precisely not intended to be definitive.
The definition itself might be vague, but nothing could be clearer than this distinction
– between the definition proper and ancillary examples – in the body of the IHRA text.
This confusion is compounded
by the fact that (as I mentioned earlier) the IHRA document as a whole is often referred as ‘The
Working Definition of Antisemitism’. It is not unusual for the title of an
article or a position paper (which effectively this is) to be taken from a part
of the text that it names. In this case, however, the title helps sow confusion.
Nonetheless, no title has the magical power to obliterate an analytical distinction.
To repeat: the definition is one thing, the examples another.
To sum up so far: it is not
true to say that the NEC rejects the IHRA “working definition”. On the
contrary, it endorses it and incorporates it – prominently – in its Code. It does,
however, depart from the IHRA document in certain other respects, including the
“examples” it gives. In order to evaluate the Code, we need to take stock of
these differences.
Two sets of examples
Let us begin with the two
sets of examples. Five of the eleven IHRA examples are taken over bodily – word
for word – into the NEC code where they reappear as examples (a), (b), (c), (e)
and (g). Example (d) in the NEC Code is identical to the corresponding IHRA
example except for substituting ‘Nazi’ for ‘National Socialist’ (a difference
without a distinction). One of the IHRA examples is “Using the symbols and
images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus
or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis”. The NEC Code incorporates
this as example (f) and expands on it: “Classic antisemitism also includes the
use of derogatory terms for Jewish people (such as ‘kike’ or ’yid’);
stereotypical and negative physical depictions/ descriptions or character
traits, such as references to wealth or avarice and – in the political arena –
equating Jews with capitalists or the ruling class”. Not only is this a valid
addition, not only does it plug a hole in the examples given by IHRA, but it
picks out discourse that, in the British context, Labour needs to be cognizant
of for the purpose of conducting its educational and disciplinary work.
This is not the only respect
in which, in terms of dealing with antisemitism, the NEC Code improves upon the
IHRA document. Thus, par. 10 says: “To those examples [in par. 9] the Party
would add the making of unjustified reference to the protected characteristics
of being Jewish”; in other words, the equivalent of referring to a ‘black
mugger’ when the racial or ethnic identity of the mugger is irrelevant or would
not be mentioned if the mugger were white. (An example that springs to mind: ‘Jewish
banker’.) There is a further addition in par. 14, which says “it is wrong to
apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such
actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others …”. This speaks to
the actual experience of some Jewish people on the left, as I know from the
testimonies of people close to me.
All these points
significantly enhance the IHRA text. But I have not yet come across a critic of
the NEC Code – I mean a critic who places a premium on combating antisemitism –
who acknowledges them, let alone welcomes them as the enhancements that they
are. They are passed over in silence, as if the IHRA document were a sacred
text whose words may not be tampered with – not even if the text can be
improved. (This implies a fundamental failure to understand the status of the IHRA document, a point to
which I shall return at the end.)
Strengthened guidelines
Four examples from the IHRA
list do not figure in the NEC list in par. 9. They are as follows: “Accusing
Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of
Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” “Denying the
Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” “Applying double
standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of
any other democratic nation.” “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli
policy to that of the Nazis.” Critics point to the fact that these examples are
absent from the list in the NEC Code.
They are not, however, absent
from the Code altogether. Clearly, the drafters of the Code saw these four
examples as potentially problematic, partly with an eye to the second part of
the conundrum: how to protect free speech in the political debate over Israel
and Palestine. Accordingly, in subsequent paragraphs they discuss these
examples, along with other tricky issues, and recommend what they see as
appropriate guidelines to assist people who have to apply the IHRA working
definition. Whether they have ‘got it right’ or not is a question on which
people of goodwill might disagree. But the drafters of the Code are surely right
to see the need to discuss the complexities with these four examples; and I
have yet to see a single critic acknowledge this or wrestle with these
complexities themselves.
Furthermore, the NEC Code
actually strengthens the role the
examples play. This point has been overlooked in the public debate, but it makes
a significant logical difference. Consider, first, the IHRA document. When the text
introduces the list of examples that “may serve as illustrations”, it says: “Manifestations
might include the targeting of the
state of Israel …” (emphasis added). In a similar vein, we are told:
“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the
workplace, and in the religious sphere could,
taking into account the overall context, include …” (emphasis added). Thus,
the IHRA examples are not intended to be examples of actual antisemitism but only of possible
antisemitism. Mere possibility has
limited value as a guide to making judgments. In contrast, the NEC Code says (in
par. 9) that its examples “are likely
to be regarded as antisemitic” (emphasis added). This renders them more serviceable
as guidelines. By the same token, the criterion of likelihood raises the bar for determining which examples qualify
for inclusion in the list and which call for discussion separately.
The four IHRA examples that
do not make it into the list in par. 9 of the NEC Code are not simply waved
away. Take the ‘loyalty’ example (the first of the four). This reappears in par.
14 of the NEC Code in the following form:
“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.” This goes beyond mere possibility (IHRA list of examples) and even
probability (NEC list of examples). This is a categorical assertion. No ifs and buts; not even the stipulation
that such accusations are inadmissible if and only if they are deemed to be
antisemitic. This affords a greater degree of protection than any of the
examples in the IHRA document. With equal finality, par. 15 says: “it is not
permissible to use ‘Zionist’ (and still less any pejorative abbreviation such
as ‘zio’ which the Chakrabarti
report said should have no place in Labour party discourse) as a code word
for ‘Jew’.” Not permissible, full-stop. Once again this provision gives important
guidance that is missing in the IHRA text.
The IHRA Working Definition
Which brings me to the
question of the status of that text.
Even as they refer to the IHRA document as a ‘Working Definition’, critics seem
to forget the adjective ‘working’, as if it did not qualify the noun. But it
does. A working definition is, by
definition, a work in progress; it is not the last word. And if this applies to
the definition proper it applies all the more to the “examples” that are meant
to serve as illustrations of that
definition. In short, the IHRA text is a ‘living document’, a document that is
subject to revision, continually in the process of being developed. This is the
spirit in which the drafters of the NEC Code have approached the document. They
keep it alive precisely by altering it and adding to it where they see a need
to do so. Their critics, in contrast, treat the text as frozen in time and
immune from all change. Ironically, it
is the drafters of the NEC Code, not their critics, who have grasped the
meaning of ‘working definition’.
This is not to say that all
the changes they have made are necessarily for the better. But, as I have
demonstrated, some of them certainly are significant improvements. The way
forward for people of goodwill who genuinely want to solve the conundrum with
which this article opens – combating antisemitism while protecting free
political speech – is to welcome the NEC Code as the latest incarnation of a
living document that constantly requires work. As making this case has been my
primary aim, I shall refrain from taking up other criticisms of the Code,
though they deserve to be addressed and, in my view, can, for the most part, be
answered.
Sacred text
But, even in making the case,
a part of me feels the hopelessness of appealing to reason, a sense of swimming
against a mighty and unmindful current of opinion. Just now I have had sight of
a letter in the
Guardian signed by sixty-eight British rabbis, including individuals for whom
I have the highest regard (not to say affection), rallying around the IHRA text,
“full and unamended … including its examples”, as if it were the eternal word
of God. But in the Judaism in which I was nurtured and educated, there is only
one text whose status is sacred; and it was not written by a committee of the
IHRA.