IHRA definitions do not exclude criticism of Israeli governments

Submitted by AWL on 14 August, 2018 - 12:26 Author: AWL*
IHRA document

An open letter (printed in full below) is being circulated which calls on Labour’s National Executive to refuse to endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) examples of antisemitism. Workers' Liberty thinks the Open Letter is based on a misunderstanding of the IHRA and thus will not help Labour's leadership deal with the controversy over the Party's new code on antisemitism.

Despite what is said, no IHRA examples, exclude criticism of any racist actions of the Israeli government.

Further, Labour’s code makes explicit that the sort of discussions the authors claim will be outlawed, will, in fact, be regarded as legitimate within Labour. This is the relevant passage: “...discussion of the circumstances of the foundation of the Israeli state (for example, in the context of its impact on the Palestinian people) forms a legitimate part of modern political discourse. So does discussion of — including critical comment on — differential impact of Israeli laws or policies on different people within its population or that of neighbouring territories. It is not racist to assess the conduct of Israel – or indeed of any other particular state or government – against the requirements of international law or the standards of behaviour expected of democratic states (bearing in mind that these requirements and standards may themselves be contentious).”

This means that discussion around the tactic of BDS will be equally protected as long as the discussion is presented in a non-racist way (as indeed, every discussion should be).

Speaking for ourselves, we are highly critical of the current and past Israeli governments.

It is not credible to imagine that, were the IHRA text to be adopted in full, the current Labour Party leadership, would outlaw such discussion.

Workers' Liberty is not opposed to and many of us would positively support the inclusion of the IHRA examples, precisely because it does not rule out criticism of Israeli policies.

There are further problems with the letter.

First, it sets up a false and potentially highly destructive counter-position between opposing antisemitism and being critical of Israeli governmental policies. Being a campaigner against antisemitism in the Party and in agreement with the IHRA text does not make you a compliant tool of the Israeli embassy.

Second its view of history is one-sided. The communal conflict at the formation of Israel was a major historical tragedy driven by right-wing nationalist forces in both communities. Almost the whole of the international left supported Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to and after the Second World War because of the mortal and continuing danger to Jews worldwide. They also opposed the war by Arab armies at the formation of Israel. These positions surely need to be considered by the left as a matter of assessing our historical record.

Secondly, unlike the authors, Workers' Liberty does not support generalised boycotts of Israel. Our alternative is to forge direct links and to make solidarity with people of all ethnicities in Israel, its anti-war and anti-occupation movement, Arab and Jewish Israeli trade unionists and the mass protests aiming to overturn the Nation-State Law. We should be encouraging the movement, both in the Palestinian territories as well as Israel, against the settlements on the West Bank. Our watchwords should be international solidarity not boycotts of peoples or nations.

In addition, the letter is at best unclear on and could even be interpreted as coded opposition to Labour's policy for a “two-state solution” in Israel Palestine — for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. For example it does delegitimise the existence of Israel by way of its analogy between Israel and the South African apartheid state. But this analogy does not hold up. Israel acts as an occupier of the West Bank, an oppressor of national rights and the occupation should indeed be ended. But apartheid was a different system. In apartheid South Africa the white population ruled as a privileged caste over the black population. Inside Israel there is a fully-fledged class structure which includes poor, exploited working-class Jews as well as Arabs. It was meaningless and reactionary to call for a self-determination, that is for a “white” Afrikaner state in apartheid south Africa. It is not the same when talking about self-determination for the Jewish people of Israel.

Finally Israel cannot be said to be “not a democratic state” any more than imperialist Britain could have been said to be “not a democratic state” in the 1930s. The British state was a bourgeois democratic state, with many deficiencies, waging imperialist policies abroad. That did not make it “not a democratic state” and that is not how the left approached it. Rather the left advocated the extension of democracy, and its replacement with socialist democracy, alongside decolonisation.

The authors want to oppose the seemingly endless media and other attacks on the Party and Jeremy Corbyn, and we agree much of these are grossly exaggerated and dishonest and have to be stood up to. But to make the “battle line” on the IHRA examples locks the Party into a battle, at best over ambiguities, at worst against definitions that have been widely accepted, particularly in the Jewish community. It could be interpreted as a hostile act against that Jewish community.

We should instead try to create more democratic and respectful debate in the Labour Party. We should actively seek means of uniting the Party in solidarity with Palestinians and those Israelis who are fighting the current reactionary Israeli government.

*Thanks to PR for a previous version of this text.

-------
Open Letter to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party

Dear members of the NEC

As members of the Labour Party, we, the undersigned, call on the party’s National Executive Committee to resist calls to adopt all eleven examples accompanying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into the party’s code of conduct on antisemitism.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and as such must stand up for justice and equality and speak up against oppression. We are gravely concerned that two of the currently omitted examples in particular will be used to silence free speech on Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights and freedom.

The IHRA states that instances of antisemitism may include “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”. We fear that if adopted into the party’s code of conduct, this example will be used to oppose and ban support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Criticism of BDS often centres upon it “singling out” Israel and treating it differently than other “democratic” states.

However, Israel is not a democratic state. It enforces a system of apartheid in the occupied West Bank, with different roads and different legal systems and courts for Israelis and Palestinians, including the world’s only military court for children, and has recently adopted a law relegating Israeli Arabs to second class citizens in Israel proper. The BDS movement is modelled on the boycott of apartheid South Africa, the latter which had broad support on the European left. We resisted apartheid then and we must resist it now.

The IHRA further includes as an example of antisemitism “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.” We fear that this will be used to silence discussion and raising awareness of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of some 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-48 so that the Israeli state could be established as an ethno-nationalist “Jewish homeland”, as well as criticism of the current apartheid system. We ask the NEC to please note that the two parts of the example are separate issues. Claiming that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour is not the same as denying Jewish people the right to self-determination. It is denying such self-determination at the cost of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. It is denying self-determination in the form of an ethno-nationalist state. All people and nations have an internationally recognised right to self-determination, but it is our view, and we believe it should be the view of the Labour Party, that such self-determination should be in the form of a democratic state that grants equal rights to everyone lawfully residing within its borders. That is not how the state of Israel was created. It was created through the expulsion and killing of members of one ethnic group to make room for another, and this continues to be the basis of the Israeli state today. The Nakba has been well documented by both Palestinian and Israeli scholars, and the Palestinian right of return has been formally recognised by the UN. We must be allowed to speak freely about this. Our Palestinian members must be able to speak freely about the Nakba and about the current system of apartheid and ongoing ethnic cleansing just like our Jewish members must be able to speak freely about the Holocaust. Recognising that right does not equate to denying Jewish people in Israel the right to self-determination in a fully democratic state.

As members of the NEC will be aware, the IHRA definition and examples have been used elsewhere to shut down legitimate and non-racist debate on Israel, such as at the University of Central Lancashire last year, where a panel on “Debunking misconceptions on Palestine and the importance of BDS” was banned by the university citing the IHRA definition, after pressure from pro-Israel groups. If all eleven examples are adopted by the NEC at its next meeting in September, many party members will face an impossible choice – be silent or face possible suspension and/or expulsion. We are deeply concerned and fearful of what will become of our party and our movement if members are not able to freely speak out against apartheid and ethnic cleansing. To endorse the BDS movement or to suggest that the State of Israel in its historic and current form is a racist endeavour are not expressions of antisemitism. Imagine if members had been banned from speaking out in a similar way against apartheid South Africa. It is absolutely crucial – for the future of our party and the country, and for the prospect of an end to the brutal occupation of Palestine – that members of the Labour Party are able to speak freely about Israel’s crimes without fear of punishment.

Letter and signatories can be found here: https://lettertolabournec.wordpress.com/

Comments

Submitted by Ollie M (not verified) on Fri, 17/08/2018 - 01:04

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.