Blog

As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, I like to think I can see some progress in getting things done. Our inquiry into antisemitism raised the profile of the fight against this ancient hatred. Our work in Parliament and outside with stakeholder groups like the Community Security Trust (CST) has led to tangible results. The police now detail antisemitic hate crimes in a way they did not before, the Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed its procedures and is better at understanding and prosecuting hate crime than ever before, and Jewish schools in the state sector now have adequate funding from Government for their security needs.

Recent weeks have served as a stark reminder of the remaining challenges.

When John Galliano embarked upon his racist rant, condemnation was widespread and rightly so. When Charlie Sheen and allegedly Julian Assange exposed their views on Jews, they too were castigated. It should follow that when Paul Flynn MP questioned the propriety of a British Jew serving as ambassador to Israel he should have faced unequivocal condemnation – but it was not so, perhaps because in his words, he is a ‘supporter of Israel’.

Inappropriate language and behaviour is not restricted to the Labour party of course– soon after, Zac Goldsmith MP used a reference to Auschwitz to criticise the media and Aidan Burley MP partied with friends dressing and buffooning as Nazis.

The All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was important not only for its recommendations and outcomes but because it engendered a generation of Parliamentary spokespeople eloquent in their opposition to antisemitsm. It secured a culture in Parliament whereby intra-party conversations were had and action taken in the event that an MP stepped out of line. Perhaps now is the time to re-establish that informal protocol and to widen its reach.

For me there are two issues.

First is inappropriate language or discourse. The All-Party Inquiry raised this matter some five years ago and it has been the most difficult to get traction on. Be it online, on campus or in political debate, the line between legitimate and antisemitic discourse is crossed too often. It tends to be that classic antisemitic conspiracy theories are given modern ‘Zionist’ clothing by naïve or careless anti-Israel campaigners. These narratives are adopted by a section of the Left, seep into media discourse and end up repeated as fact in Parliament. This tends to cast the successful Jew as the conspirator, benefiting from secret cabals; the powerful Jew as the aggressor, working as part of a Zionist plot for war and world domination; and the proud and confident Jew as dislikeable and defensive, seeing antisemitism in all that others say and do.

People will have read on this very blog about Paul Flynn’s commentsabout British ambassador Matthew Gould who is according to Flynn “unique in some ways in the role he is performing” and should be replaced by “someone with roots in the UK”. The idea that people should be judged fit for office by their race or religion is disgusting and racist. That Flynn tried to laugh his comments off by referring to his Jewish friends and love for Israel missed the point entirely. This is not the first time this idea has been aired though. In 2009 when Sir Oliver Miles, Her Majesty’s former Ambassador to Libya, questioned the propriety of having Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert sit on the Iraq war inquiry panel because of their Jewish heritage and ‘Zionism’, he questioned the loyalty of British Jews and their suitability for public service. This accusation of dual loyalty sits well amongst antisemitic conspiracy theories, but of course is more complicated to explain than a base curse.

The reaction we must start at home is with the British intellectuals who get nervous when I label them, accurately, not as the anti-Zionists they wish to be known as, but as the racists that they have become; the scholars, who answer every argument with a but, when there are no ifs, no buts in the fight against antisemitism. In Parliament, we must set the standard for measured and appropriate discourse. To change the direction of traffic we will need to explain to people why their language is inappropriate and where it finds its roots.

The second issue is about behaviour and reaction. Aidan Burley turned upto a stag-do in France where a friend was wearing an SS uniform with a swastika on the arm. That his reaction was not to turn around and go home is shameful. So too was the behaviour of the Oxford Conservative Students Assocation in singing Nazi-themed songs. In both cases inquiries have been launched, but with no timetable, means of publicising the findings or immediate sanctions imposed. In my view a transparent disciplinary system needs to be in place for the political parties – particularly at election time for candidates. This would have encompassed, in my view, the immediate dismissal of Aidan Burley from his government post and that announcement by Paul Flynn that he is to stand down.

On both these matters, our All-Party Group will be acting. We are soon to embark on a series of seminars for MPs with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London. The focus will be understanding antisemitic discourse. We will also be working too with the CST so that MPs can get a better feel for the kind of language seeping into societal discourse in the UK. Of course, for those wanting to fine tune their understanding of these matters, the CST blog and excellent discourse report are a good place to start. As for the All-Party Group, we will be announcing a major plan to address behaviour of candidates at elections and appropriate training for candidates. This I hope will cultivate more appropriate behaviour by future parliamentarians faced with a situation such as that in which Aidan Burley found himself.

In addition, we will continue to press the Government to do more on combating internet hate and to work with Universities UK towards the implementation of good practice in dealing with hate speech on campuses. We will continue to monitor antisemitism in the Euro2012 football tournament and get a better picture of what level of antisemitism exists in the British game

Briefings on the details of our attempts and successes are available on our website and via our twitter username: @APPGAA; I would encourage Harry’s Place readers to take a look. You will be heartened by the many Parliamentarians involved in our work– those who like me refuse to stay silent, who are not interested in being someone but in doing something.

John Mann is the Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

The following is a cross-post from the CST Blog by Mark Gardner about comments by Paul Flynn MP, for which he has now apologised. The CST have just released their antisemitic discourse report available on our publications page.

The suggestion by Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West), that Britain ought not to have a Jew as Ambassador to Israel, fuels the growing sense that it is becoming increasingly acceptable to say things about Jews that we had hoped were consigned to history. It also infers that Jews in public life must undergo systematic loyalty tests throughout their careers. Such logic is plainly racist, even if Flynn did not mean it to be.

If this phenomenon were restricted to ‘the usual suspects’ of the far right, then it would be easier to comprehend. The depressing reality, however, is that far too many such accusations come from within mainstream liberal-left sources in Parliament, media and campaigning circles. Indeed, Flynn’s outburst occurred in a Select Committee hearing with Britain’s most senior civil servant, Sir Gus O’Donnell.

When the accusations are openly about Jewish conspiracy (eg Tam Dalyell MP in 2003, “a cabal of Jewish advisers”), it is relatively straightforward to call them for what they reveal. (Although Paul Foot in the Guardian famously argued otherwise.) When the accusations come against pro-Israel lobbies, or Zionists, it can be more challenging. The instinct is to accuse certain MPs, media outlets and journalists of hiding their antisemitism behind a cover of anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism, but the reality is surely far more complex: as keenly shown by this example, with Rob Halfon MP writing in the Jewish Chronicle that he does “not believe for one moment that Mr Flynn is antisemitic”.

It was Rob Halfon himself who interjected against Flynn’s outburst, and the former head of Conservative Friends of Israel is an unforgiving opponent of antisemitism and extremism. So, his saying that Flynn is not an antisemite is important here. Indeed, the remainder of Halfon’s article (aptly titled “A Shocking Outburst of Prejudice“) is sternly critical of Flynn and the phenomenon his words reside within. As Halfon puts it

…when I tried to interject, Mr Flynn then accused me of being a neo-conservative and part of a clique that wanted to bomb Iran.

Mr Flynn’s actions betray an extraordinary mindset on the left, that allows normally highly intelligent and engaging individuals to lose all sense of proportion when the word ‘Israel’ is mentioned.

…[this mindset ignores Syria and Iran], preferring to focus on Israel as part of some vast international conspiracy – usually involving American and British Conservative politicians.

This strikes to the heart of the matter. The framework for the attack is one of right wing conspiracy, and adjectives such as “Zionist” or “pro-Israel” or “neo-Con” provide a nasty dog whistle spin that is heard only by those who either oppose antisemitism, or are turned on by it.

The fact that the left also uses this hate lexicon to denote miscreants within their own ranks (as seen with the excoriation of Tony Blair and the excommunications of David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen) makes matters only worse: reinforcing the notion that once you are labelled with Zionism or Israel, you are understood to be an insidious alien threat to the body politic.

Nevertheless, those blowing this dog whistle are blissfully self-assured of their progressive anti-racist credentials; and perceive themselves as having the courage and insight with which to explain Western embroilment in Afghanistan, Iraq and (rapidly) Iran. Worse still, the whistlers’ instinct is to interpret objections and concerns as further proof of just how embedded the pro-Israel conspiracy has become.

All of this constantly reinforces the vicious cycle of accusation and counter-accusation.

Any regular reader of the London Review of Books, New Statesman, Guardian and Independent cannot fail but be struck by their urgent warnings of Israel’s singular wickedness; and of the powerful, perfidious reach of the lobby that sustains it (sometimes “pro-Israel”, sometimes “Zionist”, sometimes “Jewish”, even “kosher” – sometimes any combination of the above, even in the same article). The temptation is to blame such media for creating an environment from which suggestions such as Flynn’s emerge. Again, the reality is more complex and more depressing: because these outlets display the intellectual and political milieu of their leading influences, whilst also reflecting (and reinforcing) the attitudes of their readers.

Whilst Paul Flynn MP should be publicly disciplined by his party for this outburst, we should note that his initial intervention towards Sir Gus O’Donnell was on the basis of his representing two constituents who had written to him concerning their having been detained by Israel, and their belief that the Ambassador had been more concerned with Israel’s interests, rather than their own.

In representing his constituents’ concern, Flynn always risked being seen as agreeing with it, and there may be those who consider his age (he is 76) as mitigating his lack of politically correct language. Nevertheless, his “neo-con…bomb Iran” reported attack on his fellow Committee member, Rob Halfon MP, was surely absent from his constituents’ letter (even if it did most likely reflect their opinions); and shows a thoroughly modernist approach to the subject area.

This “neo-con…bomb Iran” aspect reveals a very worrying overlap between the opinions of serious anti-Israel activists and those of an MP who has previously holidayed in Israel with his family. It strongly suggests Paul Flynn is symptomatic of a far deeper attitudinal malaise, whereby things that ought to be restricted to openly racist circles may now be voiced within progressive ones. In fact, the malaise is now so utterly axiomatic in proper far left media and activist circles that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s attempts to disown the worst of the antisemitism around it, now risk seriously splitting the anti-Israel movement.

Where anti-Zionist attitudes prevail, they inexorably present an essentialised image of anybody whom you might (rightly or wrongly) associate with Israel. The essential trait is the same as that underpinning the Jewish conspiracy myth: Jews cannot truly assimilate into the surrounding body politic, they are forever alien and therefore always at risk of working for their mutual interest against the rest of society.

Put this mindset into practise and there is only one logical outcome. Namely, loyalty tests for Jews in public and political life, wherever and whenever they might come into contact with areas of interest to the pro-Israel / Zionist / Jewish lobby: and that is why Paul Flynn MP should be publicly disciplined by his party, regardless of what he meant, or which of his constituents he was representing when he began descending this slipperiest of slopes.