Stop the War coalition rally on the Gaza conflict in Trafalgar Square, 2009. Johnny Green / Press Association. All rights reserved.Last week the Labour Party came under ferocious political
and media attack for allegedly harbouring antisemites in its midst. In the course
of this, the accusers often blurred the distinction between anti-Zionism and
antisemitism, between legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and hatred
of Jews in general.

What do you think about the Labour 'antisemitism' story? Tell us in the comments below

Two individuals were involved in the escalation of this row
to new and explosive heights. Naz Shah, in 2014, before she became Labour MP
for Bradford, tweeted that Israel should be transported to the United States as
a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shah issued a dignified
apology, explaining that feelings were running high during the Israeli assault
on Gaza. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London and close ally of Jeremy
Corbyn, rushed to Shah’s defence but compounded the crisis with his bizarre
claim that Hitler supported Zionism in 1932 “before he went mad and killed six
million Jews”. Jeremy Corbyn was pilloried in much of the press for not dealing
quickly enough with the antisemitism that was said to be endemic in the left of
the party. One result of this furore has been to shift the focus of debate from
any criticism of Israel to condemnation of the critics of Israel and to bypass
discussion of Palestine altogether.

Attitudes towards Israel are increasingly used as evidence
of antisemitism.

Attitudes towards Israel are increasingly used as evidence
of antisemitism. The argument takes three main forms. First, while criticism of
Israel’s policies is not antisemitic, attempts to 'delegitimize' the state of
Israel are; second, sharing platforms with Islamic 'terrorists'; third, singling
out Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, for condemnation betrays antisemitic
prejudice.

For those of us engaged in the politics of the region this is
a familiar trope of Israeli Hasbara,
a polite name for propaganda. The key question, given that antisemitism along
with other forms of racism has had a continuing presence on the right as well
as the left of British political life, is why now? And why has this storm broken around a man deeply committed to
ant-racism and social justice, elected to the party leadership with an
overwhelming majority, and about whom no-one, despite assiduous efforts, has uncovered
any evidence of antisemitism?

Before returning to the specific question of Jeremy Corbyn
and the Labour Party, we need to place the three issues – 'delegitimisation',
talking to 'terrorists', and exceptionalism – in a historical perspective.

'Delegitimisation', talking to 'terrorists' and exceptionalism

For many years the hot question was whether the best
solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict was two states or one binational
state. This debate intensified after the 1993 Oslo Accord which pointed to, but
failed to deliver, two states. Since Oslo, Israel has expanded its colonies and
their infrastructure on the West Bank to a point where a viable Palestinian
state is no longer feasible. By signing the Oslo Accord the PLO gave up its
claim to 78% of mandate Palestine in the expectation of eventually getting an
independent state on the remaining 22% comprising the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank. But it was not to be. Israel under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu,
following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, reneged on its side of the deal. By pursuing the aggressive and illegal Zionist colonial
project on the West Bank, Israel has all but eliminated the two-state solution.

By pursuing the aggressive and illegal Zionist colonial
project on the West Bank, Israel has all but eliminated the two-state solution.
Once this falls by the wayside, the one-state solution comes to the fore. This re-opens
the question that has been present since the inception of the state: how is an
ethnocracy with one ethnic group dominating the polity compatible with equal
rights for all its citizens?

It is stating the blindly obvious that in a one state
scenario with no Jewish majority, Israel would face an even starker choice
between being an ethnocentric state or a democratic one. Israel’s leaders know
this all too well. This is why they have so far avoided formal annexation of
the West Bank, preferring to secure their control through creeping annexation. If
a one state is the only serious alternative to the status quo, it is surely not
antisemitic to interrogate its nature and substance or to argue for a secular
state with equal rights for all its citizens.

Palestinians have lived under an increasingly brutal Israeli
occupation for nearly fifty years. All people under colonial occupation will
wish their oppressors to vanish from their land but this expression of desire is
not the same as practical politics. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, is
still committed by its Charter to a unitary, Islamic state over the whole of
Palestine with no national rights for the Jews. Israel regards Hamas as a
terrorist organisation and refuses to deal with it. But like many radical
movements, Hamas moderated its political programme after entering the political
process. In January 2006, it won a fair and free election, proceeded to form a
government, and offered Israel a long-term ceasefire. Israel refused to
negotiate. Repeated statements by Hamas leaders make it clear that it would
settle for a two-state solution along the June 1967 lines if such a deal were
to be endorsed by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Yet Israel remains intransigent
and continues to denounce anyone willing to talk with Hamas as complicit in
terrorism.

The argument about exceptionalism towards Israel cuts both
ways. Israel's defenders charge their critics with double-standards; of
expecting the Jewish state to meet uniquely exacting conditions that are not
applied to other countries. But, thanks to America’s unconditional support, it
is Israel which can act with exceptional impunity. It abuses Palestinian human
rights, violates international law, defies countless UN resolutions, practises
state terrorism, and commits war crimes. Relying on the US veto in the Security
Council, it gets away literally with murder. The failure by the UN to sanction
Israel for the war crimes it committed during “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza in 2008-9
– war crimes that were thoroughly documented in the Goldstone report − is only
one example of this immunity. A massive disconnect has
developed between the views of UK citizens with their sense of justice and fair
play and those of their governing classes.

It is against this background that a massive disconnect has
developed between the views of UK citizens with their sense of justice and fair
play and those of their governing classes. Until Jeremy Corbyn’s election no
leader of a major political party has ever stood up for Palestinian rights. The
progress of the campaign for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) should
also be understood in this context: actions by civil society to compensate for
the failure of western governments to hold Israel to account.

Most Palestinians see BDS as their only hope. It is a
nonviolent movement led by citizens rather than governments with two principal aims
– an end to occupation and equal rights for Palestinians living within the
state of Israel. BDS is influenced by the history of sanctions against the apartheid
regime in South Africa. Israel's apartheid is considered by many to be much
worse. Israel for its part is devoting a massive effort to combatting BDS especially
as it has already had some major successes. Government ministers have
threatened “targeted civil eliminations” of
Palestinian BDS leaders. In the UK the government is trying to make it illegal
for local authorities to divest. BDS itself is frequently said to be antisemitic,
with two US states voting to ban it.

So why the furore over antisemitism in the Labour Party now?
Could it be part of a broader campaign both against Jeremy Corbyn’s
pro-Palestinian stance and against the emergent success of the BDS movement? Many
people express the view privately that the charges of Jew-hatred are being
deliberately manipulated to serve a pro-Zionist agenda but not one leading
politician has dared to say so openly. Why? Because anyone who says so risks
being tainted by further antisemitic tropes, for example, the suggestion of “undue
Jewish influence” or “control of the media”. It only takes one crass (and, yes,
antisemitic) utterance by the likes of Livingstone to silence those who would
speak truth to power in a way that is ethical, historically informed, and
resolute.

Let us be clear about what is at stake here. As anyone who
has recently visited Palestine will know, conditions are going from bad to worse.
Settler violence, soldier brutality and casual killings, child arrests and imprisonment,
land appropriation, and house demolitions are all increasing at an alarming
rate. Racism is rife. The worse Israel behaves, the more strenuous are efforts to disqualify and discredit anyone who holds the country to account. The
Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, was predictably quick to seize the
opportunity to pronounce that criticism of Israel is nothing to do with its
actions but results from a visceral hatred of the Jewish state itself. The debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party is a
microcosm of what is happening in this wider sphere.

The debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party is a
microcosm of what is happening in this wider sphere. Use of language which accurately
describes what is going on – settler-colonialism, racism, apartheid, ethnic
cleansing − is turned back on those who use it, seizing upon the odd remark by
otherwise thoroughly decent people like Naz Shah in order to silence anyone who
dares raise their voice to protest against Israel’s oppression of the
Palestinians. Rather than being about a few inveterate antisemites on the “hard
left” or a sudden extremist Momentum horde invading the Labour Party, it is the
expression of public outrage that the UK government supports and indeed lauds a
country that commits such abuses.

To deal with the immediate crisis, Jeremy Corbyn has suspended
Shah and Livingstone and instituted an independent inquiry into antisemitism within
the Labour Party.  The inquiry is
intended to produce robust rules for drumming anti-Semites out of the party. But
we have to hope that the Labour leadership will not be bullied into including
in a “new definition” of antisemitism any of the following: supporting a one
state solution, naming Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories as
apartheid and ethnic cleansing, talking to Hamas, or advocating BDS. And once the
manufactured crisis over antisemitism subsides, the embattled Labour leader
should muster the courage to resume his principled stand in support of justice
for the Palestinian people.