I have been following with mounting concern the stories in the Guardian over accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. They felt to me as an unjustified renewed campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. My distaste for the Guardian has recently increased considerably. I wondered whether it was the result of a change of direction introduced by the new editor, Katharine Viner, but wasn’t sure as much of what I objected to was already present under Rusbridger. The way the paper has been treating the Venezuelan crisis has been little short of criminal as it mirrors the Western support for Guaidó which may end up justifying a military intervention by Trump. It contrasts greatly with a more measured assessment of the situation in the recent London Review of Books.
I have been gratified to find that my misgivings have been shared by kindred spirits on the Left. Tariq Ali Twitted a short while ago that there is “very little left to read in this MI5 tabloid” and I have some sympathy with his assessment.
However, what has led me to write this is that I have recently been involved in discussing the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party with a friend who is a member of the party. I have been reluctant to form an opinion as I believe to get a proper perspective on this you should be a member, which I am not, to get some experiential knowledge. However, I was prompted by my discussion with this friend to try to arrive at a conclusion not so much as to whether antisemitism exists in the Labour Party but more on my hunch that the issue was being used as stick with which to beat Corbyn. (I am sure that some antisemitism exists in the Labour Party but I would be surprised if this were more of a problem than in other parties- a recent survey came to the unsurprising conclusion that antisemitism was highest in UKIP, followed by the Tories, then by Labour and finally by the Liberal Democrats). So I did some investigating and close reading of texts. I have chosen a recent article by John Harris as the text around which I will structure my thoughts because it contains all the elements that seem to me to constitute the current Guardian editorial line. This appeared in the Guardian on March 4.
I was amazed by the vitriol against Corbyn and his supporters which this piece contains and the smear tactics being used. The position that Harris shares with the Guardian in general is utter hatred for any kind of populism and incomprehension of the reasons for its rise, despite the fact that he has been a chronicler of the feelings of the Northern working class. The line Harris takes is that populism is inherently antisemitic. The reason for this is that populism makes dichotomy between the “elites” and “the people”. Harris says:
At the heart of the various strands of populism that have taken root in many countries over the past five years, you will find not just a supposed divide between “the people” and an elite, but a deep conviction that the latter is mired in corruption and globe-spanning skulduggery that is never made public.
The use of the word “supposed” in the above sentence implies that Harris sees no justification for this view and he ascribes it to some sort of collective hysteria. Thus it appears that popular disaffection has no rational basis and is unjustified. The sentence amounts to a defence of the elite or a denial of its existence and a denial that it is corrupt. I have argued in previous discussions precisely the opposite, that there are good reasons why people feel this and that electoral politics has indeed become corrupted by money. But the most insidious slight of hand is the reference to ” globe-spanning skulduggery that is never made public” . This is what is then used to justify the alleged inherent antisemitism in populism and in “Corbynism as populism” in the Labour Party. The ” globe-spanning skulduggery that is never made public”, it is suggested, is a reference to the existence of a world-wide plot of Jewish financiers. Whilst this applies undoubtedly to most of the right wing populist parties that have arisen, most obviously to Victor Orban in Hungary, it is a smear to try to taint with it also the parties and movements that have arisen on the Left trying to respond to justifiable popular feeling of alienation from politics as “business as usual”. The next sentence reads:
Since the embrace of its own form of populism in the wake of the 2016 referendum, the Labour party has imbibed some of the same stuff. It now tends to present the very real failings of modern capitalism not as a matter of anything systemic, but the work of a small group of people who are ruining things for the rest: what Corbyn calls a “self-serving elite”, who “monopolise the wealth that should be shared by each and every one of us”. Threaded through all this is the idea of the party leader as a humble, completely virtuous man, battling those cabals even as they dispense endless lies and “smears” and encourage his adversaries.
This amounts to a smear on Corbyn and his supporters in the Labour Party in the most despicable terms. I am unaware of Harris writing much about the nature of capitalism as a system. Any class discussion of capitalism will refer to the existence of a ruling class. Harris is leading the reader towards the argument that this amounts to antisemitism by equating the elite with a “small group of people” which he previously associated with global skulduggery, the stuff of antisemitic myths. Nobody but Harris has suggested that the elite constitute a “small group of people” who conspire. It isn’t unreasonable to equate an elite with the ruling class – Bernie Sanders does this explicitly :
-nor does this amount to an obfuscation of the operation of capitalism as a system. It is also good politics to try to use the justifiable mood of the people to advance your agenda in those aspects that fit. The online version of Harris’s article has a hyperlink to a Corbyn 2017 election speech which is meant to illustrate the correctness of Harris’s argument. Here is what Corbyn says:
“The dividing lines in this election could not be clearer from the outset. It is the Conservatives, the party of privilege and the richest, versus the Labour Party, the party that is standing up for working people to improve the lives of all. It is the establishment versus the people and it is our historic duty to make sure that the people prevail.”
It might have been better if Corbyn had linked the popular perception of elite explicitly to the concept of ruling class as Bernie Sanders has done, but there is nothing wrong with his statement per se and I have no doubt that it will have contributed to Corbyn’s and the Labour Party relative and totally unexpected success. The use of the expression of “working people” rather than just “the people” is hinting at class.
After this comes the real agenda, the question of Israel but turned on its head. It is a well established and incontrovertible fact that all Israeli governments have systematically tried to link any criticism of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians to antisemitism. This has been supported by the organisations in Western countries who present themselves as the legitimate representatives of Jews. I looked up the Board of Deputies of British Jews definition of antisemitism and this is what they say:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong’.”
The highlighted sentence is what establishes the link.
Now here is how John Harris sees it:
Corbyn’s lifelong interest in Israel-Palestine, and his associations with – and I’m being polite here – some of that conflict’s more controversial elements, have played a part in pushing this narrative somewhere grim. He himself has talked in the past about “the hand of Israel” subtly and secretly acting from a distance. And from there it is only a short hop to two ideas which seem to have spread from a small hard core rooted in the anti-imperialist far left out into the wider party. First, that Israel – and by extension Jewish people – must have something do with many of the “smears”. And second, that accusations of antisemitism usually have a concealed agenda.
There may be a problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party of which I am not aware because I am not a member. But the smear Harris is trying to achieve here is to link Corbyn’s lifelong support for the cause of the Palestinians to the perceived growth of antisemitism in the Labour Party, thereby making Corbyn responsible for it. He is also effectively denying that Israel might have an interest in stirring up the issue in the Labour Party or in smearing Corbyn with the antisemitism label and implies that to suggest that this might be the case is in itself an expression of antisemitism. The statement “Israel – and by extension Jewish people” is an expression of precisely what the Israeli government systematically tries to achieve, that is to imply that any criticism of Israel is by extension an attack on Jews as a whole. Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of this passage is its demonisation of anti-imperialism. I don’t think I have ever seen this done before by anyone purporting to be on the Left.
The rest of the article gives credence to anyone who claims that there is a serious problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party, always implying that to doubt the validity of that opinion is itself an expression of antisemitism. The ultimate culprits for the alleged growth of antisemitism, or at least for having failed to prevent its spread, are identified as Corbyn and his supporters. This is the line that has been followed in the Guardian throughout this purported crisis. I have no doubt now that it is part of the renewed campaign of the old Labour Party establishment to undermine Corbyn. This campaign had been muted somewhat after Corbyn’s unexpected relative success in the 2017 elections, but Corbyn has never been forgiven for proving wrong those who made their peace with Blairism because they believed that winning elections could only be done by winning the middle ground. That is the position the Guardian continues to occupy as exemplified by its current promotion of the Independent Group of MPs. Of course what constitutes the middle ground is a moving feast, as the position of the Overton window shifts. Nigel Farage used to be presented by the Guardian as an extremist; now he is a moderate as UKIP has shifted further to the right. Corbyn, however, continues to be presented as an extremist.
The extent of the hatred of socialists that exists among Labour Party MPs was brought home to me by an interview given by MP Siobhain McDonagh to Radio 4’s Today programme in which she equated anti-capitalism with antisemitism .
Having said all this, I can’t deny that the accusation of antisemitism being used against Corbyn is a powerful weapon. Faced with the question “why don’t you stem the rampant antisemitism that exists in the Labour Party?” Corbyn is placed in a double-bind. If he answers: “There is no rampant antisemitism in the Labour Party” he will appear to be in denial as the issue has been presented as an incontrovertible fact. If he gives any other answer, he is implicitly accepting that there is a problem, thereby assuming responsibility as leader for its existence and eventual eradication. It is a version of the classic double bind posed by the question “when did you stop beating your wife?” This is at the root at the serious problems that Corbyn and his supporters have had in dealing with this issue. If you wish to see how they are trying to counter the accusations you can find it here.
I have little doubt that the campaign will continue to be kept alive by Corbyn’s enemies. He is in danger also that many Guardian readers who have turned against Corbyn because they are committed Remainers and think that the Labour Party should have supported the People’s Vote campaign will join the campaign to oust him. I think that this is a mistake that could have serious negative political consequences, but the explanation of why I think this will have to wait until another day.
However, in the meantime, Corbyn is going to continue to be buffeted with this and any other weapon that comes to hand and the only way that he might eventually qualm the storm is through another election in which he might again prove that it is he and his supporters rather than his critics who are reading correctly the mood of the electorate. This is far from a foregone conclusion, but not impossible. The popular mood is highly volatile, and not only because of Brexit- support for Brexit is a symptom of the volatility, not the cause- and almost anything can happen.
Epilogue
I wondered to what extent my hypothesis that the Guardian position had worsened somewhat as a result of the appointment of the new editor could be confirmed. I knew nothing about her, so I decided to investigate. At first I was confused because the first thing I found out was something that I previously didn’t know, or had forgotten, was that she had co-authored with Alan Rickman the play My Name is Rachel Corrie, based on the diaries and emails of American pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie who was killed by an Israeli soldier when she was aged 23. It didn’t seem to make any sense that such a person was now facilitating a hatchet job on Corbyn based on a smear which would be very welcome to the Israeli government. Then I came across this article in the pro-Israel website UK Media Watch with the title “The Guardian appoints anti-Israel propagandist Katharine Viner as new editor-in-chief” . In the text you will find:
In December, I was asked by Josh Jackman of the The Jewish Chronicle to share my thoughts on the announcement that Alan Rusbridger was stepping down as the newspaper’s editor-in-chief after more than 20 years at the helm, and how the appointment of a new editor may affect their Middle East coverage. I told Jackman that the Guardian was institutionally biased against Israel and I wasn’t optimistic that a new editor will have a positive effect. Specifically, I noted that Viner, one of the top early contenders for the job, could possibly even push the media group to adopt an even more pronounced pro-Palestinian stance
and it seemed to provide a possible solution to the conundrum. It is highly probable Viner feels under pressure from her past image and is seeking to erase that image by demonstrating her friendliness to Israel. It has also been suggested that the handling of these issues in the Guardian has been handed to Jonathan Friedland. Given Freedland’s well established past hostility to Corbyn ( “No more excuses: Jeremy Corbyn is to blame for this meltdown ” (5 May 2017); “Yes, Jews are angry – because Labour hasn’t listened or shown any empathy “ (27 July 2018); “Jewish concern over Corbyn is not all about Israel. It’s about antisemitism” (5 Sep 2018)), this would be another way to achieve the same aim.
I also learned something that had passed me by at the time, that there had been a previous heated controversy when Viner spiked a Steve Bell cartoon on the grounds that it might be interpreted as antisemitic. This is what led Tariq Ali to make the comment that I referred to at the beginning of this piece.
In recent days the Guardian has given the Palestinian cause an airing (“Gaza’s generation blockade: young lives in the ‘world’s largest prison’ ” (March 13) and “One-state solution gains ground as Palestinians battle for equal rights” (March 14). The Israeli peace movement has also been mentioned (“Israel’s Last peace protestors” (March 15). It could therefore be that Viner has been using the antisemitism attack on Corbyn as a means of covering her back in order to give the Palestinian cause some coverage.
The Guardian has also published in recent days a couple of articles that are meant to counterbalance the anti-Corbyn stance that I have criticised: Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic (7 March) and We exclude the Labour left from British politics at our peril (11 March). These do not undermine my argument that the Guardian is supporting an anti-Corbyn campaign. In the same period the antisemitism charge against Corbyn has been supplemented by ample sympathetic coverage of the The Independent Group of MPs (TIG) split, as well as of Tom Watson’s attempt to bring Blairites and Brownites together under an anti-Corbyn grouping called the Future Britain Group. Watson has called for the TIG not to be ostracised. “Labour MPs applaud colleagues who quit at party meeting – as it happened” (18 February); “Labour: Watson tells Corbyn he must change direction to stop party splitting “ (19 February); “Tom Watson sets up centre-left group within Labour party” (8 March); “Future Group is not just another Labour faction, Tom Watson insists” (11 March); “Is ‘Future Britain’ the lifeline disenchanted Labourites need?” (12 March);
It is interesting to note that antisemitism is also being used in the United States by the Democrat old guard as a stick against the new more radical members of Congress:
Antisemitism debate exposes new fault lines in US politics (7 March)
Alvaro de Miranda
Alvaro de Miranda is retired from the University of East London where he co-founded a Department of Innovation Studies. He came to the UK in 1958 aged 15 to join his parents who were exiles from the Salazar regime in Portugal. Having experienced fascism, he is particularly alarmed with the recent worldwide electoral rise of the far-right and has been following it comparatively in this blog.
16 March 2019