So it’s not all over, thanks Margaret Hodge for letting the cat out of the bag. Because this was never about anti-Semitism it was always about Jeremy Corbyn. If it had been about anti-Semitism it would have been the Tory party and right-wingers in the frame, consistently scoring higher when surveyed on the question . It is about Jeremy Corbyn not because he is anti-Semitic; for anyone who knows his history the idea is absurd; it is because he is pro-justice and anti racism.
It is tragic to say the least when senior members of the Labour Party are more concerned with keeping Mr Corbyn out of number 10 than in getting rid of a Conservative government that consistently fails the weakest and the poorest in our society. And the reason seems to be that they are more concerned for the apparent safety of the modern state of Israel than they are for the future of our country.
The problem? Mr Corbyn has said that one of his first actions on becoming Prime Minister would be to recognise the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders. So, why is this a problem? As far as international law is concerned it isn’t. As far as morality is concerned a problem still exists because the state of Israel exists on 78% of what was historic Palestine. The problem of the refugees may be manageable. But for Israel this is an ‘existential threat’.
In this battle for the heart of the Labour Party in the UK it is not only we who live here who suffer, it is the Palestinians. For them the threat is not existential, it is not even a threat, it is a present and evil reality. In practice Israel controls the whole land. Even the ‘exception’ of Gaza is not clear-cut. Nothing goes into or out of Gaza without Israel’s security knowing and probably approving – think it through…
Hopefully, now that it is evident that anti-Semitism is not the problem; although it remains a problem that must be dealt with in society as a whole; Labour Party members will have the courage to challenge the national executive and those who purport to be leaders in the party to face up to the Zionist threat and do the right thing: reject the IHRA (non)-definition. That piece of ‘literature’ is designed to shut down criticism of Israel. Why do we need it when we already have adequate definitions, and we already have legislation. If there is anti-Semitism, make the charge, inform the police and let the proper institutions carry out their duties. In the meantime we should be challenging racism wherever we find it especially in those so-called democratic countries with whom we are so friendly, (Israel, USA, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, oops!).