I just finished reading Chris Mullin’s 1982 political thriller, A Very British Coup, for the first time on this past Saturday August 4th. I already knew about the book and had a good sense of what it encompassed, given its considerable success, from virtually its initial publication onward, but I had not yet taken the time to read it. Although much of the particular context explaining what Prime Minister Harry Perkins’ socialist Labour government aimed to do, as well as why this was so vehemently opposed, reflect contingencies of the time in which Mullin wrote the novel (it is, still, after all, a Cold War novel, for example), I did find A Very British Coup not only compelling, as a thriller, and plausible, as speculation, but also prescient, as a warning. In Mullin’s novel, the British ‘establishment’, aided and indeed pressured by the American ‘establishment’, simply could not tolerate a democratically elected, genuinely socialist Labour government in the UK, and they worked assiduously, as well as ultimately sadly all too successfully, to bring it down, within a year’s time. In a preface to the latest edition Mullin himself remarks his novel seems all the more relevant once again, with Jeremy Corbyn having re-secured his position as a socialist left leader of the Labour Party following the 2017 UK General Election. I myself think it would be fair to say Corbyn has faced relentlessly persistent hostility not only from much of the ‘conservative’ British ‘establishment’ but also from so-called ‘moderate’ sections of the British Labour party ever since first winning election as Labour Party leader. Internal opposition from so-called ‘moderates’ proves crucial to bringing down Perkins’ government in A Very British Coup, as they not only promise, to ‘the establishment’, ‘a safe alternative’, but actively conspire with representatives of this establishment to do all they possibly can to undermine Perkins. Corbyn and those now ascendant within the Labour Party propose to pursue an ambitious democratic socialist agenda if elected to power, and many of the specific elements of this agenda are indeed highly popular among substantial segments of the British population. But this agenda certainly does threaten exceedingly powerful, entrenched interests–and, yes, these are British and American ‘establishment’ interests. So, even if and when Corbyn becomes prime minister, leading a parliamentary majority government, he and his Cabinet, as well as his principal supporters across the Labour Party, will face tremendous opposition that will almost certainly readily make use of whatever means it can to undermine this government, and to promote its rapid collapse. Some might say, as The Daily Telegraph famously declared, in a contemporary review of A Very British Coup, such claims are “preposterous,” but I suggest that kind of response from the likes of The Daily Telegraph is only to be expected, as a coup most often works best when it does not seem like a coup at all–and the same with similar efforts to undermine and overturn the popular election to government of a party advancing a platform seriously threatening the interests of those used to always ending up–and staying up–on top of a systemically exploitative social pyramid.
In this light I am deeply concerned about the ongoing debacle currently playing out within the Labour Party over the issue of anti-Semitism. What concerns me, to put it as simply and directly as possible, is I strongly believe by far the vast majority of Jewish Britons, as well as the vast majority of non-Jewish Britons, would greatly benefit from a Labour government empowered to enact a genuinely democratic socialist program–and this would be far more beneficial to this vast majority than a continuation of a post-liberal austerity program enacted by a Conservative government, whether led by Theresa May or any other likely Tory successor as prime minister. However, the longer the Labour Party appears bogged down in an impasse over what to do about anti-Semitism ‘within the Labour Party’ the less able the Labour Party is to focus intensive efforts elsewhere and otherwise, developing and campaigning for a persuasive program of democratic socialist transformation. Certainly much of the British media, as well as, of course, the Conservative Party, are happy to use this internal division as an opportunity once again to depict the Labour Party as hopelessly dysfunctional, and Corbyn’s leadership, at the same time, as hopelessly incompetent.
As the division within the Labour Party suggests, it is not as easy as it might well seem should be the case to agree on precisely how to define anti-Semitism or on precisely what anti-Semitism encompasses. Yes, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, and list of examples, is quite widely influential and well-respected. And, certainly, whatever codes the British Labour Party develops, concerning anti-Semitic speech, writing, action, and practice should take the IHRA’s model carefully into consideration–which, in fact, they already do. However, it does seem to me, after reading a vast array of contributions to the ongoing debate within and concerning the challenge currently besetting the Labour Party, the crux of the issue under contention at the moment comes down to the following:
one, to what extent do a disturbing number of leftists within the Labour Party fail precisely to distinguish between, on the one hand, legitimate criticism of specific actions and practices of the Israeli state, in relation to the people of Palestine living in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as in Israel itself and as part of a global Palestinian diaspora, and, on the other hand, illegitimate conflation of ‘Jewishness’ with support for everything the Israeli state has done, is doing, and might do; and,
two, to what extent are Zionists willing to accept it is possible to be a non-Zionist, or critical of Zionism, or even an anti-Zionist, without necessarily simultaneously being anti-Semitic.
Leftists have long maintained positions of deeply impassioned, principled solidarity with the Palestinian people, as a consequence of the often quite horrific conditions under which Palestinians have so long struggled to live, in Palestine, and forced into exile from Palestine, and this has, of course, meant leftists have often been highly critical of the Israeli state–of how it has treated and is treating Palestinian people. Any ‘anti-Semitism’ code adopted by the British Labour Party will need to respect this position–that leftist Labour Party members are, have been, and will be critical of the Israeli state, in relation to the situation of the Palestinian people, until a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is reached fully satisfying the interests, needs, and aspirations of both. Labour is currently committed to a two-state solution, while others on the left support a one-state solution–a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-cultural single nation in what is now Israel/Palestine. Many leftists quite reasonably find the destruction of life, livelihood, community, culture, ecology, and environment, for Palestinians resident within Gaza and the West Bank, to be horrific. Many likewise question if the specific way in which Israel was established, without adequately providing for the interests, needs, and aspirations of Palestinian people living in the area, has created serious, and indeed seriously intractable, problems. That does not necessarily mean leftists propose Jewish people maintain no right to national self-determination, including in the area that has, for over 70 years now, been the geographic location of the nation of Israel (and which, understandably, constitutes a sacred ‘homeland’ for many Jewish people, Zionist and non-Zionist)–and it certainly does not necessarily mean leftists propose what Jewish people have suffered, for centuries upon centuries, and most catastrophically through the Holocaust, does not richly deserve ample compensation and redress–as well as persistent remembrance, continuing accountability, and, even, yes indeed, eternal vigilance. Yet, not all leftists are going to be able, in good conscience, to support the Israeli state, and how it operates, in relation to Palestinians (and in relation to others for that matter too, given, for example, the recent passage into law, by the Knesset, the specification that only Jews maintain the right of self-determination within Israel). Not all leftists are going to be able, in good conscience, to accept that Israel maintains the justified right to act, as it has, in relation to Palestinians living in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and elsewhere, as well as in relation to neighboring peoples and countries in the Middle East, in order for Israel simply to be able to continue to survive–that is, in order for Israel simply to be able to continue to exist. Many leftists will, understandably, accuse the Israeli state of pursuing racist and even genocidal policies, and will find the pursuit of these policies highly disturbing, especially given the inordinately lengthy, exceptionally virulent history of racism and genocide Jewish people, and Jewish communities and cultures, have so frequently and recurrently suffered, throughout the world. And many leftists will plausibly suggest current conflicts in Israel/Palestine, and the Greater Middle East, are rooted in how the state of Israel was founded, and, especially, in what was not also done, and not done rightly, at the same time.
Now, to address the other side of this same dispute, it is, most certainly, deeply offensive and indeed a serious outrage for any leftists, ever, to indulge in insulting, denigrative, absurd, and outlandish stereotypes about Jewish people, or about some supposed essential phenomenon of ‘Jewishness’. Jewish people are members of all socio-economic classes, multiple genders and sexualities, and a full panoply of ages/generations and health/(dis)ability statuses. Jewish people maintain an immense diversity of attitudes and beliefs, outlooks and viewpoints, and cultural as well as political interests and engagements. Jewish people long have been and most definitely extensively continue to be major contributors to the British Labour Party and to socialist politics along with labor union activity of all kinds throughout Britain. Any so-called leftist who imagines the existence of some kind of ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ or that all Jewish people are wealthy or that all Jewish people always ultimately agree with each other on everything and always align themselves in support of the state of Israel, first and last, don’t belong in the Labour Party–they belong with the far right. For those who engage in such imaginings thoughtlessly, and in stark contradiction with their lived principles and practices elsewhere and otherwise, the Labour Party needs to provide substantive opportunities for urgently needed education: about Jewish history and culture, especially Jewish historical and cultural diversity, and especially as well about the history and culture of Jewish people, and Jewish communities, in Britain. It really is appalling that any self-identified leftist would simplistically conflate matters of religion, ethnicity, and nationality in an anti-Semitic direction. It should be obvious that a great many people are ethnically Jewish, but by no means all of these people are religiously Jewish, and that even among the religiously Jewish not all Jews maintain the same beliefs and practices, while being of Jewish ethnic descent or of Jewish religious faith does not necessarily in and of itself imply any specific position in relation to the nation of Israel, and especially in relation to any specific actions and practices pursued by the Israeli state.
My most pressing concern, however, that prompts me writing this entry, is rooted in suspicion that wild charges of anti-Semitism run rampant among the Labour Party socialist left are being used, and will be used, to attempt to defeat Jeremy Corbyn, and end his leadership of the Labour Party–as well as his chance of ever becoming Prime Minister. Claiming a Corbyn-led UK government would represent ‘an existential threat’ to Jewish people in Britain strikes me as outlandish, if not absurd. Corbyn and the socialist Labour left maintain a long, substantial record of active commitment toward fiercely opposing and seeking to dismantle all forms of racism. The Conservative program of steadily further privatizing and otherwise eviscerating the effectiveness of the erstwhile welfare state, of likewise steadily undermining any materially real commitment to a substantial collective responsibility for a broadly inclusive public good, of fostering outrageous levels of socio-economic disparity as well as of socio-economic desperation, along with adopting myriad divide and conquer tactics effectively functioning to secure a largely resigned if embittered and cynical consent to this agenda, from those who are among its chief victims–all of that is intrinsically interconnected with promoting and sustaining systemic, structural, institutional racism, including anti-Semitism.
Certainly, any and all complaints about anti-Semitism need to be taken seriously, and seriously investigated. But that is what the Corbyn-led Labour Party is and already has been doing, and is in fact committed to continuing to do, including on an expanded scale. It strikes me, and many commentators on the left, that the demands upon Corbyn and the current Labour Party leadership keep growing ever more elastic, and in effect are now pressing leftists to abandon and apologize for their criticisms of the Israeli state and their solidarity with the people of Palestine in the face of what these people have suffered due to actions and practices pursued by the Israeli state. I am sure many of those pressing in this direction know Corbyn and the left of the Labour Party cannot in good conscience accede to those demands, and therefore to keep pushing for them suggests to me, and to a great many others, this amounts to yet another attempt from within ‘the right’ of the Labour Party to undo the democratic will of the vast majority of the Labour Party, and insure Corbyn will never lead a Labour Party government. From my vantage point, Corbyn’s recent 3 August 2018 Guardian opinion piece, “I will root antisemites out of Labour–they do not speak for me,” hits all the right notes, and it is commendable he continues to amplify this message in video messages and planned speeches to continue yet further to tackle the issue of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party–and throughout the UK, at that: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-party
I’d like to follow up, next, by commenting on this same opinion piece, section by section. First, Corbyn begins with his own background and history of commitment in relation to the issue he is addressing, but also frankly declares maintaining this kind of background, this kind of personal historical record, is far from sufficient, in and of itself alone:
I have spent my life campaigning for recognition of the strength of a multicultural society. Britain would not be Britain without our Jewish communities. Our country would be unimaginable without the immense contribution made by Jewish men and women to every part of our national life, from art to science, industry to politics, in peace and in war.
Jewish people have also been at the heart of the labour movement throughout our history. So no one can, or should, try to dismiss or belittle the concerns expressed by so many Jewish people and organisations about what has been happening in the party I am proud to lead.
What Corbyn recounts here, to begin, is easy to document, and few of even his fiercest critics would disagree: he has long actively campaigned on behalf of a multiculturally inclusive British society, and fought to insist this is a strength, not a weakness, and certainly not cause for fear. Corbyn’s own widely-known and long-standing positions on issues of immigration, free movement of peoples, open borders, and more along similar lines are exemplary of exactly this kind of commitment. Secondly, Corbyn rightly calls attention to the fact a great many Jewish people and communities have made and are making immense contributions to Britain, including as part of the Labour Party, and this must be fully respected and appreciated. If Jewish people, and communities, express concerns over anti-Semitism this must be taken seriously, and anti-Semitism must be recognized as highly destructive as well as entirely antithetical to what Labour strives to foster not only as its own internal party ethos but also as a broader 21st century British collective cultural ethos.
And yet, as Corbyn continues, he rejects the extreme claims made by some of what a government he might lead would represent, while striving conscientiously to show how and why this will not be so:
I do not for one moment accept that a Labour government would represent any kind of threat, let alone an “existential threat”, to Jewish life in Britain, as three Jewish newspapers recently claimed. That is the kind of overheated rhetoric that can surface during emotional political debates. But I do acknowledge there is a real problem that Labour is working to overcome. And I accept that, if any part of our national community feels threatened, anxious or vulnerable, not only must that be taken at face value but we must all ensure those fears are put to rest.
That is why I want to make it absolutely clear that any government I lead will take whatever measures are necessary to guarantee the security of Jewish communities, Jewish schools, Jewish places of worship, Jewish social care, Jewish culture and Jewish life as a whole in this country.
I want to go further. I want Jewish people to feel at home in the Labour party and be able to play their full part in our work to take our country forward. And I appreciate that this cannot happen while antisemitic attitudes still surface within Labour, and while trust between our party and the community is at such a low ebb.
So, in sum, Corbyn argues he will not lead a government that will pose a threat to Jewish people, and communities, in Britain, and certainly not ‘an existential threat’, as this runs directly contrary to the vision of the kind of greater multiculturally inclusive, and indeed egalitarian, society and culture he, and a prospective government led by him, would be overtly committed toward actively seek to create. Yet, he recognizes the distrust that has developed needs to be acknowledged and addressed; it needs to be taken and dealt with seriously–it needs real, hard, long-term work to overcome. It certainly cannot simply be dismissed or ignored. Corbyn recognizes he needs to work to win (back) this trust and he makes clear he will strive to do so.
The next section of Corbyn’s opinion piece might seem all too obvious, but it is important to underscore emphatically, given concern some on the Labour left have not taken the (continuing) legacy of the Holocaust sufficiently seriously:
Driving antisemitism out of the party for good, and rebuilding that trust, are our priorities. One part of that is working to ensure that all Labour party members show a higher degree of empathy with the perspective of the Jewish community, a community which endured a campaign of extermination across Europe just 75 years ago.
The Holocaust was the greatest crime of the 20th century. Jewish people who are feeling concerned must be listened to. And we would not be socialists if we were not prepared to go the extra mile and beyond to address Jewish concerns.
The last statement is especially apt: socialists should ‘go the extra mile’ to always be prepared to listen–to genuinely, carefully, respectfully, and openly listen–to the expressed concerns of vulnerable people, and vulnerable communities, who have experienced a long and vast history of horrific oppression, even if and when it might seem (and, what’s more, especially if and when it might seem), from an ‘outsider’s vantage point’, difficult readily to recognize why these people, and why these communities, are so deeply distressed.
Corbyn admits mistakes have been made, including in not adequately crediting the concerns of Jewish individuals and communities about anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, and that, as a result, it is incumbent on him as Labour Party leader to take charge of insuring the Party does all it possibly can to make up for these mistakes:
We were too slow in processing disciplinary cases of antisemitic abuse, mostly online, by party members. And we haven’t done enough to foster deeper understanding of antisemitism among members. So we are developing an education and training programme throughout the party.
Cases are now being dealt with much faster. High-profile cases have almost all been resolved.
Denying the continuing problem doesn’t help. Labour staff have seen examples of Holocaust denial, crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers, conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Israel, and even one individual who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.
People holding those views have no place in the Labour party. They may be few: the number of cases over the past three years represents less than 0.1 per cent of Labour’s membership of more than half a million. But one is too many.
Our party must never be a home for such people, and never will be. People who dish out antisemitic poison need to understand: you do not do it in my name. You are not my supporters and have no place in our movement.
In and of itself, this statement takes redress one step further–it is performative as well as constative: by making precisely clear those engaging in the kind of hateful stereotypes I discussed earlier in this blog entry, and which Corbyn himself here summarily describes, have no place in the Labour Party he leads and are not welcome as his supporters. As I myself earlier recommended, Labour Party education and training programs are being ramped up to combat anti-Semitism in a more direct and effective fashion. Processing of complaints and taking appropriate corresponding action against those found guilty are also being ramped up, so they move more quickly and all such complaints always gain a fair hearing. At the same time, though, Corbyn is right to indicate this is a problem caused by only a tiny minority of Labour Party members yet, even so, what these people are doing and have done is still too much, and is still entirely unacceptable.
Next, Corbyn gets to the crux of the issue over the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism:
I know that there are strong concerns about Labour’s new code on antisemitism. We embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition in 2016. Many Jewish organisations and others believe the Labour party should also reproduce in our code all 11 examples appended to it.
Our code is a good faith attempt to contextualise those examples and make them legally watertight for use as part of our disciplinary procedures, as well as to draw on additional instances of antisemitism.
Seven of the IHRA examples were incorporated word-for-word. And I believe the essence of the other four have also been captured.
But I acknowledge that most of the Jewish community, including many Labour supporters, take a different view. The community should have been consulted more extensively at an earlier stage – which is why our executive decided last month to reopen the development of the code in consultation with Jewish community organisations and others to address their concerns.
Our actual differences are in fact very small – they really amount to half of one example out of 11, touching on free speech in relation to Israel. It is unfortunately the case that this particular example, dealing with Israel and racism, has sometimes been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic. The Commons home affairs committee acknowledged this risk when it looked at the IHRA examples.
But I feel confident that this outstanding issue can be resolved through dialogue with community organisations, including the Jewish Labour Movement, during this month’s consultation.
All of us committed to peace and justice in the Middle East accept that the perspective of the Palestinian people, and their experience as victims of racism and discrimination, should not be censored or penalised any more than the right of Jewish self-determination should be denied.
As I have earlier suggested, in this same blog entry, what Corbyn here addresses remains the crucial area of profound disagreement. Corbyn is generous in what he writes here, in suggesting that representatives of those who maintain sharply opposing positions from him, and his closest supporters and confidants, should have been much more thoroughly consulted and adequately involved throughout the process of discussing and debating the Labour Party’s own code concerning what constitutes anti-Semitism, and that he is now taking action to, in effect, start over and do exactly that. He is also generous in suggesting a sizeable majority of Jewish people and Jewish communities in Britain support an opposing position, strictly in line with the exact wording of the entirety of the IHRA definition (including all of its illustrative examples). That this is the case is far from entirely clear. A significant number of leftist Jewish people, including a significant number of leftist Israeli Jewish people, have been and continue to be sharply critical of how the Israeli state has engaged with Palestinian people, in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel itself, and beyond. Still, it seems like an aptly generous move on Corbyn’s part while insisting the perspectives of the Palestinian people must be honored as well as those of Jewish, and especially of Israeli Jewish, people. In fact, I myself would propose it is most respectful of Jewish people to recognize Jewish people do maintain, can maintain, and will maintain a diversity of views on the positions and practices of the Israeli state, in particular in relation to Palestinian people. It would be wrong–highly suspect, in fact–to suggest all Jewish people everywhere automatically align their own interests and outlooks with the positions and practices of the Israeli state. That is problematic essentializing, running the risk of becoming the flip side of what anti-Semitic discourse already tends to suggest about ‘all Jews’ and about some supposed ‘essential Jewishness’.
Corbyn takes up these especially sensitive issues, and extends his discussion of them yet further, in the next section of his opinion piece, where rightly, as a prospective future leader of a British government, he looks toward what stance Britain might take in seeking to help bring about a just, fair, and peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel, the Palestinian people living within and adjacent to Israel, and other nations in the Middle East:
In the 1970s some on the left mistakenly argued that “Zionism is racism”. That was wrong, but to assert that “anti-Zionism is racism” now is wrong too.
Hostility to the Israeli state or its policies can be expressed in racist terms and that needs to be called out. But there are also many non- or anti-Zionist Jews who should not be branded as antisemites simply because they are not part of the Zionist tradition. Both traditions have always had honourable proponents in our movement.
Our common responsibility is to ensure that tensions in the Middle East never spill over into community relations here. I fully understand and respect the strong affection and affinity most Jews in Britain feel for Israel, whatever their view of the current Israeli government.
Labour supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. That means an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the creation of a Palestinian state, alongside the state of Israel, with both states living in peace and security. Our campaign for that should be conducted in a democratic, respectful and of course entirely peaceful manner.
This has been a difficult year in the Middle East, with the killing of many unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, and Israel’s new nation-state law relegating Palestinian citizens of Israel to second-class status. I know that many within the Jewish community, including the Board of Deputies, share our concerns. It should not be a source of dispute.
This strikes me as exactly right. In my own life-experience I have known and worked with a great many Jewish people, including a number of Israeli Jewish people, who are proud of their Jewishness, in ethnic, cultural and religious terms, yet who are not Zionist, and who are even, in fact, anti-Zionist. That likely is indeed a highly disturbing proposition for many Zionists to have to face, but it is a reality nonetheless. And too many people on the socialist left, in the UK, the US, and across the world, have engaged for a great many years in active solidarity with the Palestinian people, and are too committed toward taking seriously these Palestinian people’s legitimate grievances against the Israeli state, to now switch abruptly to take a position that effectively abandons such a history of solidarity and commitment. Corbyn is here attempting to sketch out the parameters of a possible meeting point among adherents of sharply contesting positions, at which a broad consensus can be realized, but what I myself would suggest is it might well prove more viable for the Labour Party to mark out areas of continuing disagreement where it is not at present possible to reach a consensus and recognize these as areas, at least at present, of principled difference. A political party can and should be able to encompass a range of disparate and even contesting positions, especially concerning complex and challenging issues such as those besetting what to make of, and what to do, concerning Israel/Palestine.
Finally, though, Corbyn ends his opinion piece with a most compelling closing effort at contextualization:
The far right is on the rise across Europe and North America. Antisemitism is being given free rein by nationalists in Hungary and Poland. And Tommy Robinson supporters are giving Nazi salutes on the streets of London, threatening black, Muslim and Jewish communities alike. That is a clear and present danger.
It is Labour’s responsibility to root out antisemitism in our party. It is our joint task to sustain a close dialogue worthy of a democratic political culture, a great political party and a vital, vibrant community at the heart of 21st-century Britain. Labour exists to challenge and defeat poverty, inequality and injustice in our society. It is my job to make sure we deliver that.
The recent rapid rise and growing wide success of forces on the far right is a matter of grave concern for socialists, and, quite entirely understandably, for all Britons of Jewish ethnicity or of Jewish religious faith. Fighting back against the far right, and winning a fundamentally different kind of future–rekindling and renewing what Ken Loach so effectively documents in his film The Spirit of ‘45, while addressing the precise contours of what most urgently needs to be done in a greatly changed Britain 70+ years later–should inspire unity across widely different constituents of the Labour Party, and, as I suggested earlier in this blog, uplift Jewish and non-Jewish Britons.
Now why is this matter of particular interest to me, an American citizen? Certainly as one who has spent a great deal of time, often, in Britain these past sixteen years, and who does an extensive amount of work–teaching, scholarship, and otherwise–concerned with a wide variety of ‘British Studies’ it makes sense, as a result, for me to be attuned and invested. Yet, also, a successful, genuinely socialist Labour Party government could greatly inspire similar efforts and prospects here in the United States, while one or another variety of an effectively ‘very British coup’ bringing down such a socialist Labour movement, and preventing it from succeeding, while discrediting and demoralizing socialists for generations to come, would be devastating in the US as well as in the UK.