A short thread on the “dual loyalties” aspect of Labour’s rejection of the full IHRA antisemitism definition. Of all the political parties to come lumbering in on this issue, you’d think Labour might know better. They have history. /1
Here, shortly after the 1967 Six Day War, is Christopher Mayhew, founder of the Labour Middle East Council, explaining why he understands British Jews and their loyalties better than the Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits. /2 
Here, a couple of years later, is Margaret McKay (who once appeared on a Jordanian postage stamp in honour of her pro-Palestinian activism), on the campaign trail in New York. /3
Here, perhaps most notoriously, is Andrew Faulds, going all in at the time of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and chucking in a Nazi analogy for good measure. He was dismissed from the Shadow Cabinet by Harold Wilson as a result of this speech. /4
Here, rather more recently, is Paul Flynn back in 2011 making the argument that Jews can’t be trusted to serve as British diplomats in Israel. Flynn subsequently issued an apology. /5
So you’d think the Corbyn leadership might recognise that this is an issue where the Labour Party has a deeply problematic history and that they might want to tread a bit more carefully as a result, wouldn’t you. Not really their style though, is it? /ends
One final thing. That NEC guy, Pete Willsman who defended he Corbyn leadership’s approach to IHRA by saying “In 50 years I have never seen any antisemitism in the Labour Party” - all I’ll say in response is: you haven’t been looking very hard, mate.
