Thread by @DanFinn95

Unfortunately, this article evades the main issues at stake. It tacitly urges the left to revert to a failed strategy of unwarranted concessions and apologies that just added fuel to the fire, instead of challenging the false narrative around “Labour antisemitism” directly. 1/

Corbyn’s statement was right in every sense: empirically, politically, morally. The idea that basic questions of truth and justice should be subordinated to expediency is unacceptable. That’s part of what allowed this false narrative to take hold in the first place. 2/

A poll in July 2019 showed the vast majority of Labour members agreed with Corbyn’s thoughtful, measured perspective (or went further still). It’s fair to wonder if all those expressing negative views about his statement today even know exactly what he said. 3/

On the one hand we have most of the British media lying extravagantly about what Corbyn said, as they do about every aspect of this controversy; on the other we have prominent Labour-left figures largely failing to defend his correct statement or explain why it was accurate. 4/

In that context, it’s hardly surprising if many Labour members are beaten down and just want the issue to go away. But it won’t go away, and Corbyn’s statement, defending basic empirical and ethical standards, was absolutely necessary. 5/

The people who warned back in 2018 that bowing to pressure over the IHRA definition would just encourage further attacks have been vindicated. A bit of introspection from those who urged a retreat is in order, surely—and Starmer clearly *is* intent on smashing the left. 6/

This sounds good, but in practice it amounts to a call to dodge around this controversy in the name of pragmatism, allowing falsehoods to go unchallenged instead of taking them on directly. It’s the approach that has largely prevailed since 2015, and it’s been ruinous. 7/

Did the Bolivian left try to “untangle discussions of its progressive vision from the evil of electoral fraud” by letting the falsehoods of the OAS stand by default? Or did it recognize the nature of the struggle it was in and fight back accordingly? 8/

The Brazilian PT didn’t respond to Sergio Moro’s crudely politicized campaign against it by apologizing profusely and stressing it would accept anything Moro and his colleagues had to say. 9/

jacobinmag.com/2020/08/lava-j…

Fighting back is no guarantee of winning, of course (Bolsonaro is still in power in Brazil). But if you don’t fight at all, you’re sure to lose. Thank God Corbyn, at least, still appears to have some will to do so. 10/