By Shimon Cohen, JNS
Why do Britain’s leaders devote so much of their time and energy to scrutinizing Israel?
Antisemitism in the Labour Party was supposed to be a thing of the past, cleared and resolved by its new leader, now our prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer. He confidently assured British Jewry that he would rid his party, once and for all, of the harmful elements of antisemitism, which, by the party’s own 2016 admission and as exposed by an independent public inquiry three years later, were deeply embedded within it. Starmer claimed that he made tackling antisemitism within Labour’s ranks a key mission from the day he became that party’s leader, promising in his acceptance speech, that he would finally “tear out this poison by its roots.”
On Oct. 10 of last year, just two days after the horrific Hamas pogrom in southern Israel, Starmer attended a Labour Friends of Israel reception and declared that “Labour stands with Israel.” He affirmed how “Labour stands firmly in support of Israel’s right to defend itself, rescue hostages and protect its citizens.” David Lammy, the foreign secretary, also spoke in support of the Jewish state. At the time, Starmer also reflected on feeling a “deep sense of shock” at the rise in antisemitism in the United Kingdom, adding that “we stand by Jewish communities here, and we stand by Israel internationally.” He also criticized the BBC for refusing to call Hamas terrorists.
Many leaders and activists within the Jewish community were won over by his words, his reassurances and his promises. Starmer’s “test for change” seemed to be confirmed when, in February last year, Luciana Berger, rightly appalled and aggrieved by the party’s previous antisemitism, rejoined it.
Yet in truth, the poisonous roots of antisemitism remain deeply embedded within the party, perhaps sprouting and thriving in more insidious ways than ever. Labour has adopted a wholly biased approach towards Israel, revealing a pulsating atmosphere of antisemitism. For example, in a poll shared with Sky News this February, a year after Berger rejoined, more than 40% of the public considered Labour to be rife with antisemitism.
In the run-up to July’s general election, Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, demanded to know whether legal advice indicated a “clear risk that U.K.-licensed items could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law” regarding arms exports to Israel. He was questioning Britain’s support of Israel in its fight against Hamas terror in its Gaza enclave. The party was also vocal about reversing the Conservatives’ suspension of grants to UNRWA, announcing that, should they be elected, they would reinstate it. After their election win, Lammy indeed overturned the suspension, channelling millions of taxpayers’ money back into an organization whose members and resources have been closely linked to Hamas, the heinous crimes of Oct. 7, and the subsequent illegal and brutal captivity of Israeli and other citizens. At the start of September, as the newly appointed foreign secretary, Lammy then enacted a partial suspension on arms exports to Israel. The Labour Party’s stance on antisemitism is riddled with glaring inconsistencies.
Back in 2018, after a somewhat tense struggle, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn eventually adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition included “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” as a contemporary example of antisemitism. Israel, therefore, must, under Labour’s own accepted definition, not be treated differently from any other country. Yet there are glaring contradictions in Labour’s actions.
How does Labour reconcile canceling a proportion of the United Kingdom’s arms exports to Israel while continuing to provide Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey with weapons? Since January 2021, U.K. military exports worth £1.9 billion have been approved for Saudi Arabia and continue to be sold without so much as a single mention in Parliament since Labour’s victory earlier this year. Regarding arms exports, they seem unphased by the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Lucrative arms exports to Turkey—a country brutally repressing its Kurdish minority and engaged in a violent conflict with Kurdistan—remain similarly unscrutinized. Not even a partial suspension, let alone a call for legal advice and opening the codices of international law, has been made.
Why do the foreign secretary and so many Labour Parliament members devote so much of their time and energy to analyzing Israel, suspending some of its arms exports needed for its defensive war against a neighbouring, actively threatening terror state? Israel’s offensive is one that arguably any democratic Western government is entitled to make, especially when compared to the stomach-churning massacres perpetrated by others. The overwhelming negative attention that Israel has received from Labour most certainly contravenes the IHRA definition it adopted six years ago.
The Labour Party can now be said to be a contemporary example of antisemitism. Israel is being treated damningly differently. Even with all of Starmer’s promises, those roots of antisemitism—uncut and unchanged—are now sprawling and growing greater than ever, permeating our government with harmful biases and threatening the Jewish state. So far, Labour’s new leader has failed his own test.
