Uncategorized

The Reason Labour Can’t Pass IHRA in Full

It’s pretty simple really. If the Labour Party adopted the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, including the guiding examples they’d have to boot out thousands of activists.

The parts Labour of IHRA omitted by Labour were laid out in the Jewish Chronicle thus:

“it omits describing the “dual loyalties” trope as antisemitic. Accusing Jews of having dual loyalties was a tactic of both Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. The IHRA defines this clearly as an example of contemporary antisemitism.

Labour’s definition relegates it to further down the document, where it is merely described as “wrong”.

Labour also decided to omit two examples of how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic:Claiming the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

In fact, Labour’s definition directly contradicts the second example, saying: “Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent.””

With that in mind here is Corbs comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis:

Labour can’t adopt the IHRA and all the examples offered within or they’d have to expel their most loyal Corbynite members. As a loyal Corbynite and member of Jewish Voice for Labour (which could be more accurately named as Voice for Labour) has said:

Legally and morally bankrupt, the formal adoption of these examples would serve to shut down any serious debate on the nature of Zionism within our Party, and would lead to the expulsion of a swathe of committed activists for Palestinian rights.

Quite.