Skip to main content

Deconstructing Labour’s 'anti-semitism problem'

With Labour and anti-semitism now an issue in the leadership contest, Jewish Labour activist and writer PAUL HALAS is interviewed by Richard House

Richard House (RH): As someone of Jewish heritage, can you share with readers your background and any personal experiences you’ve had of anti-semitism?

Paul Halas (PH): My background might be a little different from many people with similar heritage, as my family has been secular and non-practising for as far back as I can reliably trace.

The Halases are a Hungarian family, although my father was fortunate enough to settle in England just before World War II.

Those who remained on mainland Europe didn’t fare so well. I still have a few relatives dispersed across Europe, but many of my family and extended family suffered the fate of millions.

My parents were careful not to start a family until they were reassured that nazism was no longer a threat.

Because my parents were both non-religious and “bohemian,” many of my Jewish schoolfriends in 1950s north London were discouraged from playing with me because we were the “wrong kind of Jews” — a sentiment that’s being bandied about quite a bit now.

In spite of not adhering to any Jewish group, I’m fiercely proud of my heritage and naturally sensitive to any hint of anti-semitism.

Have I suffered any anti-semitism personally? No, and certainly not in the Labour Party, but then apart from my looks I’m not easily identifiable as Jewish.

Have I seen anti-semitism? Plenty, from viciously anti-semitic National Front thugs in 1970s London, to those who repeat mindless anti-semitic cliches in present-day leafy Stroud.

RH: I know you had many conversations, and some confrontations, around anti-semitism on Stroud High Street during the election campaign. Can you say something about what you learnt from these exchanges regarding: (a) the reasons people gave to justify their concerns about alleged anti-semitism in Labour; (b) the feelings around the issue; and (c) what you deduced from the whole experience about the Establishment assault on Labour around this question.

PH: To say we faced some confrontations around anti-semitism is putting it mildly. For some people we talked with — almost certainly not Jews — the issue was obviously just a convenient stick with which to beat the Labour left, among all the other anti-Corbyn fabrications that were flung at us.

Others, most of them Jewish no doubt, were not just angry but patently furious. They were “well informed,” they’d read the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish News (aka Times of Israel), they’d read the Guardian and the “Indie,” watched the BBC, seen numerous clips of Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge, Jess Phillips, Rabbi Mirvis … They were armed with a battery of information about Labour’s — and Corbyn’s — massive infestation of anti-semitism.

These individuals believed pretty much everything that had been fed to them; they were convinced that the Labour Party was an unsafe place for Jews.

Mostly, the angriest people refused to engage with us, hurried past leaving a few choice words in their wake. A few, however, did want to talk; but facts, figures and personal experience usually proved no match for their entrenched viewpoints.

One or two, however, dubiously agreed to have a look at the literature we handed them. Whether that made any difference I have no idea.

There’s no doubt at all that the unremitting torrent of anti-semitism accusations via the press, the broadcast media and social media was a highly effective weapon against the Labour Party.

And what’s so sad is that so much of it of it came from within the Labour Party itself.

RH: In the face of what carefully orchestrated Establishment assaults on Labour, do you think the leadership could have done anything to limit the mal-effects of this assault?

PH: I believe so. Even without the benefit of hindsight, I think the Labour leadership made a few mistakes.

Although I accept disciplinary proceedings under Jennie Formby improved a great deal regarding cases of anti-semitism, the process could have been still faster and more visible.

That said, any reasonable measures the party could have taken wouldn’t have been sufficient for some.

I also think the Labour Party could have been more transparent in admitting when it made mistakes, but more robust in calling out spurious accusations and accusers too.

The party has suspended or expelled some members for making statements that have been construed as anti-semitic — not always fairly, in my view — yet others have made the most outrageous and mendacious accusations of anti-semitism without arousing an official murmur.

The right dishonourable member for Barking springs immediately to mind, but of course she’s just one of many.

Jeremy Corbyn has turned the other cheek so often he must have a crick in his neck.

Anti-semitism is just one area where Labour has been subjected to a massive onslaught of exaggerations and fakery; we have to expose it and fight back.

RH: It appears as if the “Israel, right or wrong” tendency were going to stop at nothing to smear and destroy Jeremy Corbyn. Is this an accurate perception?

PH: In my view, yes — but it’s only part of the picture. First off, I’d say that not all Jews are zionists, and not all zionists approve of the succession of illegal land grabs and the persecution of Palestinians — on either side of the wall.

But the prevailing power in Israel is Likud, and the policy is to carry on expanding.  

I’ve mentioned before about growing up believing that Israel was the gallant little David resisting annihilation by its Goliath-like Arabic neighbours.

For some of us that mask started to slip following the six day war of June 1967; but for many, Jews and non-Jews, that perception remains — that even if Israel’s actions are sometimes excessive, it’s quite understandable under the circumstances.

So unfortunately there’s a loud voice for Israel “right or wrong” among some of the UK’s Jewish communities, but by no means all.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left drew attention to Israel’s illegal actions and mistreatment of the Palestinian people, therefore they were viewed as threats to Israel’s interests.

And there was an alliance with others — non-Jews who ordinarily cared not a fig about Jewish people (some of whom were no doubt anti-semitic themselves), and who shared a common bond in wanting to destroy the Labour left, by fair means or foul. Some very odd bedfellows!

RH: What’s your take on the current Labour leadership contenders’ seeming acceptance of the 10-point pledge by the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews “to tackle the anti-semitism crisis”? Are they just running scared?

PH: Firstly, it’s pretty transparent that most of the furore has been a mugging exercise, pure and simple.

Many Jewish people believe the anti-semitism accusations against Corbyn and the Labour left, but I’m absolutely sure that the accusers-in-chief don’t. With the possible exception of the reality-challenged MP for Barking, that is.

I’m deeply saddened by the five contenders’ acceptance of the BoD’s 10 demands and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism.

It’s already been pointed out that accepting some of these terms runs contrary to Labour Party rules, and is not within any prospective leader’s remit to agree to anyway.

Giving outside organisations — and, let’s face it, hostile ones — an effective veto over future party policy is simply barmy.

Were the candidates railroaded into accepting these pledges? Well, yes, but I’m pretty sure that at least some of them calculated that to do so would isolate any left standing — thus they all went down like dominoes.

Had one of the five made a principled stand and refused to acquiesce, the consequences would’ve been a hurricane of accusations and abuse.

Have we consigned the Labour Party to being a lapdog for those who are clearly opposed to democratic socialism?

That’s clearly the objective of the exercise, but all may not yet be lost.

It’s now in the hands of Labour Party members. We have to raise our voices, and at the next party conference we must make it known these terms aren’t acceptable.

We must insist on the right of all Jewish groups to be heard, rather than just those sanctioned by the BoD; and equally the party must insist on absolute autonomy in future decision-making — and the right to speak up about any people’s suffering and persecution.

I think it remains up to the membership to save Labour’s soul, and for that reason I hope a poor choice of new leader won’t spark too many resignations. Jeremy Corbyn may be stepping down, but Corbynism must continue.

Paul Halas is a retired comic-strip writer, Labour activist and Corbynite from Stroud, Gloucestershire. Richard House is a left-green activist and a proud Corbynista, also in Stroud.

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today