Thread by @AyoCaesar

In 4 days time, it's likely that Labour NEC will adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (text: holocaustremembrance.com/working-defini…) with caveats added to protect freedom of speech re: Israel/Palestine.

I don't think this is a good idea. Thread incoming, mea culpa, me paenitet..

Firstly, I recognise the necessity of tackling antisemitism in the Labour Party head on - not just out of electoral strategy, but because Jews once again are being painted as rootless cosmopolitans and subverters of democracy in Europe (see Nick Timothy's article, etc).

Such tropes, at the centre rather than the fringes of political discourse, are part of a wider project to use ideas of the 'alien enemy within' to break and remake society in the image of increasingly hardline ethnonationalism. This must be fought tooth and nail at every step.

In such a context, and with Jewish trust in the Labour Party at a low ebb, I think that it's necessary to adopt some version of the IHRA code (even though I have serious misgivings about what it has been designed to achieve, particularly within academic settings).

The IHRA's codification of antisemitism is... damn vague ("Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews"). Though the following examples are only meant to "serve as illustrations", they are clearly intended as part of the definition.

7 out of 11 of these examples are about how people talk about the state of Israel. A definition of racism, which ought to help us open up a conversation about protecting marginalised groups, is primarily concerned with closing down what may be said about a geopolitical conflict.

3 of these examples cause me particular concern - (7) the "state of Israel is a racist endeavour", (8) "requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation", and (10) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"

Let me be clear - my concerns about these examples isn’t because I think that the Labour Party should take the opposite position.

It’s because I think the interpretation of these examples in disciplinary proceedings risks stifling legitimate political discussion.

I’m going to work backwards through the examples which concern me, beginning with the most contentious - comparing contemporary Israeli policies to Nazi Germany.

I do not think that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is particularly edifying or constructive. Often it relies on shock value rather than drawing out meaningful similarities. It’s deeply hurtful and alienating to many Jewish people (incl. those who are anti-Zionists).

That being said, I do not think that the Labour Party has the right to discipline Jewish people who themselves invoke this comparison, or Palestinian activists who use this comparison to articulate the nature of the racist oppression, violence and dispossession that they face.

I find it contemptible that a Jewish Holocaust survivor, Hajo Meyer, was painted as a dangerous antisemite for invoking his own experience in his opposition to Israeli bombardment of Gaza. But I understand that this is part of an ongoing debate, in which people I disagree with...

must have the right to articulate political dissent in order to protect meaningful democratic participation. Under IHRA, one side of this discussion - Hajo Meyer’s - could be subject to silencing and censure. They are robbed of this right to democratic participation.

I'm back now! Moving onto example (8): "requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation".

My issue with the example here is that it attempts to impose on the Labour membership, with the potential for disciplinary action for dissent, a position that is very much a live and legitimate political debate - whether Israel is like "any other democratic nation".

We accept "any other democratic nation" is in control of its borders. But for the Israeli state as it currently exists, that means that a Jewish person in North London has the right to make a home in its territory - and a Palestinian in Nablus, or a refugee in Egypt, does not.

The adoption of example (8) requires of the membership a uniformity of thought regarding Israel's credentials as a democracy, and the standard we should hold it to, not expected of any other nation. Once more, my wish isn't for Labour to adopt or impose the opposite opinion...

but for Labour to make sure that it doesn't prematurely cut off discussions which haven't been resolved in either academic or activist settings.

Now for example (7): "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."

This is what I consider the most bad faith and toxic example contained within the entire IHRA code.

Let's begin with the example within the example. Much has been made of the difference between "a" state of Israel (the wording of the code) and "the" state of Israel, whereby the first wording supposedly protects freedom to talk about the Nakba etc.

This is from Kenneth Stern, one of the authors of the text that IHRA is based on, giving examples of how political speech has been formally suppressed by those invoking the definition and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

The adoption of IHRA has never been in isolation - careful study of its application shows that it works alongside external pressure from organisations and individuals aligned with the aims of the Israeli state, who also utilise the press to influence disciplinary proceedings.

Perhaps those in charge of the Labour Party disciplinary processes will be able to withstand that pressure, and choose not to apply censure/suspensions. But complaints explicitly invoking example (7) will be made, proceedings initiated, and as Kenneth Stern himself observed...

such exercises, regardless of outcome, can themselves be "chilling and McCarthy-like". My fear is that this will have the informal effect of restricting legitimate debate and criticism.

"A state of Israel" vs "the state of Israel" has had very little impact on how IHRA has been applied. But even if we are to take this distinction between "a" and "the" to be meaningful....

...it once more has the potential ffect on imposing uniformity of thought with the prospect of censure for a dissenting view.

It is Labour Party policy to support a 2 state solution in Israel and Palestine. But should a member who thinks that it is legitimate to pursue, through democratic means, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Palestine potentially face reprimand, suspension or exclusion?

Under IHRA as it stands, supporters of a Greater Israel (which includes Palestinian territories) would face no such censure. This is an outrageous double-standard to enshrine in Labour Party policy - that only one form of deviation from party policy is subject to discipline.

Furthermore, on "a [hypothetical] state of Israel": is it democratic to demand that all Labour Party members support the existence of a Jewish ethnostate when they would not support the premise of ethnonationalism for any other state?

You may, of course, disagree that the existence of, or belief in, a Jewish ethnostate is inherently racist. You may find it incredibly offensive.

But it is a very different thing to think that people in a democratic organisation should not be allowed to hold that view.

These examples, of course, could be exculpated from being considered a cause for concern with the IHRA guidance that examples "could" be used "taking into account overall context."

Personally I think any disciplinary code which relies on good faith application/interpretation...

isn't fit for purpose. It's highly irresponsible to rely on the political disposition of the people implementing disciplinary proceedings to ensure that their guiding frameworks aren't open to misuse.

Okay, I'm going to end this thread on the technical/disciplinary aspects of IHRA because it's already hella long. And I'll start a new one about why I think it's a poor approach in terms of anti-racist politics.