Jon Lansman's article in last week's JC, My doubts about Oxford Labour antisemitism claim , showed that, whether or not the left "has some kind of problem with Jews" (as has been alleged), it certainly has a problem in talking about and dealing with antisemitism.
Lansman is a key Jeremy Corbyn ally. He told JC readers that he knows the Oxford Labour students and that they are not antisemitic. Perhaps this is why he did not mention details, such as what the students said and how they behaved.
I know the allegations but will not repeat them. Besides, I was distinctly unshocked by them, having myself faced similar abuse on campus in the 1980s, as did all of us who opposed Jewish student societies being banned by the forebears of today's Oxford students.
Neither am I belittling the allegations, by noting that they are not much worse than the hysterical denunciations of Israel and Zionists that are routinely expressed in Stop the War circles. This is why, for want of a better phrase, I call this the anti-war left, because Stop the War was its political centre and was chaired by Corbyn from 2011-15.
Lansman told the JC he wants "a proper impartial enquiry" into the Oxford allegations and says antisemitism "right or left… should be condemned". It would be refreshing if the anti-war left's definitions of "antisemitism" and "proper impartial enquiry" chimed with our own interpretations, but this controversy may yet further polarise relations between mainstream Jews and the anti-war left.
Of course criticise, but don't disguise the hateful nature of it
It is commonly depressing in leftist settings for those complaining about antisemitism to themselves end up becoming the accused. That scenario is made even more likely here, because the outcome of this controversy involves internal Labour power plays. This is what Lansman is hinting at when writing, "some people have [Labour] factional reasons for stoking the flames of the bandwagon".
Lansman's JC piece opened with his own strong opposition to antisemitism, stressing how it and the Holocaust shaped his values. The article ended by attacking Benjamin Netanyahu. I believe Lansman is sincere, but closing with a Netanyahu attack leaves the impression the Israel bash is equally, perhaps more, important to him. How many times have we heard this record: "We condemn antisemitism and care deeply about the Holocaust, but don't leave without hearing our condemnation of Israel"?
Lansman says "context" is key to judging antisemitism. He acknowledges some leftists use "'Zionist', 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing". This fusion is crucial to contemporary antisemitism, including the feelings of many Jews. Society has many centuries of knowing how to hate Jewish things, so the levels of hatred singled out at Israel invite antisemitic thinking, exclusions and actions.
Lansman seems less concerned. He calls the language "sloppy'', but says this "can only be judged in context".
I agree that context is a crucial indicator of racism but do not recall other forms of racist language being afforded such benefit of the doubt in these circles. Indeed, Lansman goes further, stating: "If the context fails to demonstrate that the intent is antisemitic, then to levy the charge of antisemitism is, at best, to diminish and, at worse, to trivialise a serious matter. If admonishment is still due, it should be for a significantly lesser offence". This amounts to a free pass for anyone in the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist left who self-defines as opposing antisemitism. It is lecturing Jews on antisemitism, telling us that the intent of the perpetrators (and their supporters) matter more than Jewish fears and experiences. Next, Lansman lectures us on freedom to criticise Israel and Zionism. Again, we've been here before. How often must we repeat that criticism is fine, but calling this mere "criticism" denies its obsessive and hateful nature.
Lansman ignores what, for me, is the most important context of all: the condition of European Jewish communities after a decade of high antisemitic crime levels, punctuated by brutal terrorist murders. On this, the silence from these opponents of antisemitism is deafening. It is profoundly contrasted by concerns expressed across the political spectrum. Yet Lansman has the chutzpah to say that some of those currently "castigating Jeremy Corbyn… have little interest in combating antisemitism".
Even more chutzpahdik is Lansman's attempt to thank Ken Livingstone for "efforts to eradicate" racism and antisemitism in Labour, whereas, one week earlier, Livingstone told LBC Radio that, in 45 years of Labour Party activism, he had seen no antisemitism! And that encapsulates the anti-war left's problem with antisemitism.
