I finally got around to watching these - they are available on Youtube (1, 2, 3, 4) and I felt that there was something needed saying.
For those who don't know, this is a series of 4 programmes from Al Jazeera revealing details of papers leaked form the labour party. In particular, they relate to the antisemitism claims around Jeremy Corbyn and many others.
It is worth bearing in mind that Al Jazeera is a Quatari owned and driven news organisation, that will have its own biases and reasons for promoting specific ideas and issues. It should not be considererd truly independent, although it has proven itself over the last few years to be a reliable news source.And the material presented here does reflect what others have said about the party.
At the same time, I am trying to be as generous as possible towards the leadership and senior members of the party - give them the benefit of the doubt, if I can.
After watching the first two episodes, I had learned a lot. Which is always good! In particular, there is a very complex issue around what "anti-semitism" means. In practice, there are two definitions that are used by different groups:
1. Any criticism of or negative action towards Jews or the Jewish state, for any reason.
2. Criticism or negative action toward Jews simply for their Jewishness.
In the gap between these, there is Zionism. This is the belief that Israel has a right to their historical national boundaries, and should be permitted to enforce these at any cost.
It is in this Zionist stance that becomes really challenging, not least because there are many Christian groups who would argue for this position. And a Zionist position will tend to make people use the first definition of anti-semitism above.
I, of course, do note agree with this position. I lean towards the latter. And - just for clarification - these are not intended as formal definitions, just expressions of the dividing issue. If you want more details, then there is a lot of material online about the IHRA definition and examples, which are at the heart of the Labour party disputes. The basic working definition is fine for me, but the examples include any criticism of Israels Zionist desires, and that is where I would disagree.
Still with me? Well done. Now the problems with Corbyn (and many others) was that he was definitively NOT anti-semitic according to version 2, the one I agree with. However, he was opposed to the Zionism of the Israeli state, and this brought the allegations on his head. Because there were parts of the party - driven, eventually, by Keir Starmer, who wanted to adopt the IHRA definition in total.
If I am generous, it may be that they saw a definition by a well respected international group, and believed that this is what should be adopted. That such a declaration would be the clearest and most uncontraversial definition ("uncontraversial" and "anti-semitism" in one concept is not something that is ever going to work). The generous answer is that this was simple naivety by Starmer and his supporters.
Except that I do not believe that Starmer is that stupid. I would totally believe it of the leadership of the Conservative party, that they would naively accept something like this without any real idea what it was about, but I don't think Starmer is made of the same stuff at all.
Which means he is an explicit supporter of Zionism, and was seeking to root out any opponents from the party. Which meant rooting out the left-wing from the party.
This takes a different turn in the last two episodes. What we see here is explicit and systematic bullying from the leadership of the party, desperate to win votes, power and influence. And to win this at any cost, it would seem. By eliminating the political left from the party, they were hoping to win the votes from the centre right - and, if some comments are to be believed, keep most of the left because they have nowhere else to go. Which is the arrogance of the party.
And yet, this is where I try to be generous and broaden my horizons. And consider that the station may have more problems where it has evidence of issues with anti-islamic behaviour (whereas the Tory party loves Muslims, of course, as long as they are not seeking access to this county and they have oil).
But this is not necessarily positive, because what I see is that both of the major parties have the same problem - they are desperate for votes at any cost, and seek power for their own purposes. There is a core problem in our political systems, that the voting system does not hold the parties to account. In the end, they both seek to get votes to put them in power. But they do not want to use their power for the good of the people, but for their own benefit.
Yes, this has been presented explicitly in the Labour party, but this is not a Labour party problem. This is a problem with the system, the entire political infrastructure in this country. Until we change this more fundamentally and radically, nothing will really change.
The Labour Files have revealed something very dark in the party, but the party is actually reflecting a wider problem in the political state that we are in
