Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. The scandal over the alleged anti-Semitism within the Labour party provides a perfect example. The Labour Party is accused of being "an existential threat to British Jews" (no more no less) because the NEC, its ruling body, defined antisemitism for the Labour party, without clearly including in its definition criticism of Israel.
Although such an accusation may well be accurate, it runs afoul of the omitted examples in the IHRA definition exactly because the definition is designed to suppress criticism of Israel and its politics. Last week, the Guardian published a wide range of Jewish writers and their views of the IHRA definition in the context of the current Labour 'anti-Semitism' crisis. Some of the views expressed are insightful and deserve close attention.
Here Bindman opens Pandora's box. If anti-Semitism is irrational hostility toward Jews simply for being Jews, then the IHRA definition together with its clauses treats even rational and reasonable opposition to Israeli politics as 'irrational hatred.' This presents a dangerous precedent and an Orwellian turn for British society. It suggests that Britain is a free country no more. In Britain in 2018, those who oppose a certain type of evil, racist politics are labelled 'irrational haters' (anti-Semites). Clearly Labour's NEC attempted to fix this problem by requiring a finding of hateful intent at the core of certain so-called anti-Semitic behaviour. This reasonable requirement led to an irrational reaction by Jewish institutions and an aggressive response.
It is difficult to judge whether the Guardian's choices to defend the IHRA were made as a genuine attempt to represent the Zionist side. Perhaps the Guardian was making a desperate attempt to provide its readers with some comic relief: like the British Chief Rabbi and 68 additional British rabbis who were upset by Labour's slight deviation from the IHRA definition, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner also expressed her dissatisfaction with the party of the workers.
"If the Labour party wanted to prioritise anti-Semitism by choosing a bespoke definition then it could have listened to the full diversity of the Jewish community," Janner-Klausner wrote. But why does anyone need to follow the Rabbis or self-appointed Jewish 'representative bodies' for that matter? If anti-Semitism is racism, then we all ought to oppose anti-Semitism as we do any form of racism: universally. And if anti-Semitism is a piece of our universal concern with racism, then we all should be equally involved in opposing it. This is similar to the line of thought that was, I believe, at the core of the American Civil Rights Movement. It was a universal call that had a universal appeal. It aimed to protect the many not just the few. This is pretty much the opposite of the IHRA definition that is concerned with one people only.
In that regard, it is of note that Labour's NEC was not attempting to define what anti-Semitsm means to Jews. NEC defined what anti-Semitsm means for the Labour party and in accordance with Labour values.
The alternative to "Anti-Semitism" is to allow "Semites" to do anything they want, to whomever they want, which, according to their current behaviour is exactly what they want to do. The Neo-Cons, Zionists, and 'Netanyahu's' of this World have shown the world what their full intentions are, and it's ugly, and it is up to the rest of us to call them out.
It's not about 'hating Jews'… it's about expecting them to behave in a fair, reasonable, and humane manner(don't laugh), but so far, there has been little sign of it.