The Question Time Leaders Special on the 22nd November in Sheffield may seem like ancient history, but the charge  of anti-semitism made against Jeremy Corbyn in the debate has fuelled a widely accepted narrative that fed into Corbyn’s damaging interview with Andrew Neil, the attack on his character by the Chief Rabbi and a daily media festival on his unsuitability to enter Downing Street and to be our next Prime Minister. 

Corbyn was the first leader to face the Question Time audience, and an early question opened promisingly from Corbyn’s perspective, referring to the Labour leader’s defence of “free speech and standing up for human rights.” [5mins42secs]  However, the questioner then went  on to refer to female MPs being “driven out of the party.”  There followed a momentary change of tack:  “I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt”  he said to Corbyn, but  then went on to describe a You Tube video in stark terms,  as showing Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth being “heckled” out of a press conference and “at the end of the meeting, there you are, chatting happily to that same heckler”.  

The questioner reiterates that there is a video of these events on YouTube. He says he is “terrified” for his two young daughters. 

The questioner becomes visibly angry . His willingness to give Corbyn “the benefit of the doubt” seems to have evaporated and with some feeling he concludes: “I don’t buy that nice old grandpa”.  The audience responds with applause. 

Corbyn does not attempt to engage with the detail of the accusation, but makes a short statement acknowledging that Ruth Smeeth and other women MPs have been the object  of unacceptable misogyny and abuse, and concludes by saying that “misogyny, bad behaviour and racism in any form are not acceptable in the Labour Party”. This statement also receives some applause. 

I have searched out the video to which the questioner referred. Its source is ITV news and I have watched it several times, but find it difficult to draw the same conclusions.  

The “heckler” is Marc Wadsworth.  Heckling does not really describe what I see happening, but he  does indeed direct a very blunt accusation against Ruth Smeeth. “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who’s working hand in hand”   On hearing this, Ruth Smeeth looks distinctly unhappy and rises to exit the meeting.  Perhaps there was additional “heckling” but this wasn’t apparent. The ITV news reporter comments  that “she is a Jewish MP who didn’t like being linked to a conspiracy.”   

The video goes on to report that Marc Wadsworth has been expelled from the party and we can hear him saying, in an interview, that some members of the Parliamentary Party cannot accept Corbyn’s leadership; he implies that his expulsion is in reality a consequence of this. 

The  Independent Newspaper [27Apri1l8]  reports on the matter, describing Mr Wadsworths attack on Ms Smeeth as a “tirade at the launch of the Chakrabati report in 2016”.   “Tirade?”  You must judge for yourself if this is a correct representation of Marc Wadsworth’s tone.   

The Independent goes on to report Marc Wadsworth as he prepares to face the ensuing disciplinary tribunal:  “I’m confident as I’m not guilty. If it’s fair I will be exonerated.  I’m totally opposed to anti-semitism, to all forms of bigotry, to anti-black racism and Islamaphobia.”  It is probably worth noting that Marc Wadsworth is a person of colour and will doubtless have some experience to give credibility to his statement.  We now know, however, that he was expelled from the party.

The party tribunal has judged Marc Wadsworth to be guilty of anti-semitism.  On the basis of the evidence provided by the video, bullying might seem a more sustainable charge, but again, the evidence is slight.  I am sure Ruth Smeeth is tough and and able to defend herself, so the fact that she exits the meeting could suggest that there was more happening in the background.  But then I have to wonder, what was the charge that Marc Wadsworth was making with regard to the Telegraph, a paper which we all know to be hostile to the interests of the Labour Party?  

The  ITV reporter places a particular emphasis on the word “conspiracy.” Was he suggesting that the charge of “conspiracy”  is a coded form of anti-semitism? In the context of the video, the word was used only by the reporter. But let us suppose Marc Wadsworth believes there is a conspiracy to unseat Jeremy Corbyn.  Are we to believe that it is only Jewish MPs who are part of this “conspiracy”, when it is quite clear that the larger part of the Parliamentary Party have been unhappy with the Corbyn leadership.

My conclusion is that Marc Wadsworth sincerely believes he is not an anti-semite and Ruth Smeeth sincerely believes he is. The questioner clearly sides with Ruth Smeeth, though his framing of the question does suggest uncertainty.  As for Jeremy Corbyn: well, I will leave judgement on one side for the moment, whilst I look at comparable accusations made against Boris Johnson.

Mr Johnson as we know has been accused of racism on the basis of articles he has written.  I will focus in particular on the article which he represents as a defence of the rights of women to wear what they choose and in which he refers to the burqa as making women look like “letterboxes.”   This is clearly not a respectful way to refer to women who adopt this particular form of dress as an expression of religious belief: but, Mr Johnson protests: he defends their right to dress in this fashion.  

Naturally those who are opposed to Boris Johnson have seized upon this to accuse him of racism.  I do not agree with this accusation. His remarks are a clear reference to a form of dress adopted by some Muslim women.  Islam is a religion open to all races and therefore the disrespect of the comment is not racist in character. 

Where I think Boris Johnson is most at fault in this case, is in his failure to understand the vulnerability of the women, often young women,  who he has so casually disrespected. These are women who will be targeted in the street by humiliating and threatening comments and who are ill-equipped to defend themselves.  Boris Johnson’s contribution to this threat has been to legitimise such abuse. This may not be his intention, but it will certainly be a consequence of it. For someone who now aspires to unite the nation, this seems an egregious failure.   

As we know, this is not the only questionable phrase of Boris Johnson’s, but I do not propose to analyse his every word: suffice to say: he has people of colour in his Cabinet;  he has women in his Cabinet; I do not believe he is a racist.  

Perhaps I have not convinced you, and even in my own household, my wife charges me with being too ready to excuse Boris Johnson for his loose talk.  My point is that we all must struggle to be objective in our judgements. So Boris, in my view, is not a racist: but neither do I think that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite. 

There is however a wider question concerning  the Labour Party, anti-semitism and Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership in this vexed context. Part of the problem for Corbyn is that,  anti-semitism is widely regarded as a straight-forward offence, easily identified, and therefore easily dealt with by anyone with a serious desire to eradicate it. And yet all of the high profile cases that I have knowledge of, involve people who, like Marc Wadsworth, actually believe themselves to be campaigners against racism. The determination of truth in such cases is obscured by their complications and the inevitability of our own prejudices.

At the heart of all these cases are differences of opinion regarding the state of Israel, the conduct of its Government and the plight of the Palestinian people.  Such differences of opinion have co-existed in the Labour Party for many years. Under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn however, the membership of the Party has dramatically increased, and I think it a fair assumption that this newer membership is more outspoken in its criticism of the Israeli Government, more militant in its defence of the Palestinian people and more liable to raise questions concerning the origins of the Israeli state.   

The increased membership has resulted in a change in the balance of power in Labour Party debate regarding these issues. My surmise is that some Jewish MPs and other Jewish Labour activists  who legitimately see it as their duty to promote the interests of Israel, have increasingly found themselves outnumbered by those who are sharply critical of Israel and who wish to highlight the injustices done to the Palestinian people of the region.   In such circumstances it is not hard to imagine tempers becoming frayed and, so far as such beleaguered Friends of Israel are concerned, the Labour party becoming an increasingly uncomfortable place.   

Whatever may be the underlying dynamic, there is a strikingly under-reported aspect to this issue: the existence of Jewish Voice for Labour, the voting membership of which are people who identify themselves as Jewish and who strongly defend Jeremy Corbyn.  The following paragraph from their Statement of Principles is revealing:

We stand for rights and justice for Jewish people everywhere, and against wrongs and injustice to Palestinians and other oppressed people anywhere. We uphold the right of supporters of justice for Palestinians to engage in solidarity activities, such as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. We oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews. 

The conduct of debate around these issues is highly charged. With the changing dynamics in the Labour Party, It is clear why some Jewish MPs who have a less critical approach to the history of the Jewish state and are more inclined to find defences for the current Israeli  Government, as a consequence, have come under pressure.   

Critics of the Israeli Government can quite reasonably make the case, that the just and peaceful solution they seek for Palestinians, is also in the interests of the long term security of Israelis.  Where their expression of this case crosses a line into bullying and abuse – and perhaps this does happen, we enter a zone where the fundamental nature of the dispute is at issue.

Disorderly, disrespectful, and abusive debate in this context is not necessarily anti-semitic though may easily be experienced or represented as such. Whether debate is  simply bullying in character or crosses a line into anti-semitism, it should be unnacceptable in the Labour Party. But equally, the charge of anti semitism should not be mis-used to suppress a perspective which, though uncongenial to some – perhaps even a majority of Jewish people, does not represent “hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews”

It is well known that the arrival of Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the more radical policy direction taken by the Shadow Cabinet, was not greeted enthusiastically by most of the parliamentary Labour Party. It is also clear that Corbyn’s critics came from a  largely Blairite section of the Parliamentary party. These MPs rallied around Jewish MPs, such as Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger and and Margaret Hodge who have read anti-semitism into the expression of views such as those consistent with the principles of Jewish Voice for Labour. 

These accusations of anti-semitism  have flowed readily into the wider Jewish community, a considerable proportion of which is Zionist in their orientation, and protective of the interests of the Israel. Whilst I am confident that both sides of this debate are represented amongst British Jews, the numbers who may align with the Jewish Voice for Labour perspective are smaller, and less effectively represented.

The general unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn, particularly in papers such as the Daily Mail, The Express, The Times, the Sun, and the Telegraph, has amplified these charges of anti-semitism uncritically. There has been a complete failure in the broadcast and print media to represent the other side to this story of Jewish opinion, both in and beyond the Labour Party.

The Labour Party must be a safe place for Jewish members who wish to speak up for the interests of Israel. It must also be a place  where the policies of the Israeli Government are a valid object of criticism and the origins of the Jewish state may be discussed objectively in relation to its ongoing impact on other residents of the region in which it was established. Jeremy Corbyn has shown some fortitude in trying to square this circle, but let us not pretend that the judgements to be made in bringing about a reconciliation are simple and straightforward.