Jeremy Corbyn has broken his silence over the antisemitism row engulfing Labour, acknowledging that there is a real problem but rejecting the idea that the party poses any threat to the Jewish community in the UK.
Writing in the Guardian following a week of difficult headlines about the issue and amid growing calls for him to give a substantial response, the Labour leader accepted that the party’s incomplete adoption of an internationally recognised definition of antisemitism had caused genuine worries.
Corbyn said he was confident the disagreement over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition can be resolved through dialogue with community organisations, but gave no indication the party was about to switch policy. Addressing one of the key issues raised by Jewish groups, he reiterated his position that one of the examples included in the IHRA definition has sometimes been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic.
Labour had been too slow in processing disciplinary cases over antisemitism and “haven’t done enough to foster deeper understanding of antisemitism among members, Corbyn said, adding that he was aghast at the spread of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Such views were a tiny minority in Labour, but would not be tolerated in the party, he added, saying: People who dish out antisemitic poison need to understand: you do not do it in my name. You are not my supporters and have no place in our movement.
The speech has seemingly been delayed in part due to logistics he had reportedly been hoping to hold the event at the Jewish Museum in London, but was unable to secure agreement on this.
Earlier on Friday, Corbyn faced renewed pressure from Margaret Hodge, the senior backbench MP who faces disciplinary action after allegedly calling Corbyn an antisemite in a heated row over the IHRA issue. Hodge released a series of letters between her lawyers and the party calling for the allegations against her to be substantiated or dropped.
In the Guardian article, Corbyn rejected the charge made last week by three Jewish newspapers in unprecedented joint front-page editorials that a government run by him would pose an existential threat to Jewish life in this country.
The Labour leader said he would not for one moment accept that a Labour government would represent any kind of threat to Jewish life in Britain.
He wrote: That is the kind of over-heated rhetoric that can surface during emotional political debates.
Corbyn continued: But I do acknowledge there is a real problem that Labour is working to overcome. And I accept that if any part of our national community feels threatened, anxious or vulnerable, not only must that be taken at face value but we must all ensure that those fears are put to rest.
In the article, the Labour leader accepts that the party’s version of the IHRA definition, incorporated into its code of conduct by the national executive, is not accepted by most of the Jewish community, including many Labour supporters.
The change was needed, Corbyn wrote, as this one example has sometimes been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic.
He added: But I feel confident that this outstanding issue can be resolved through dialogue with community organisations, including the Jewish Labour Movement, during this month’s consultation.
Corbyn must also find a solution to the situation with Hodge, along with the Dudley North MP Ian Austin, one of two MPs to face disciplinary charges after dissenting over antisemitism policy in ways the party claims were abusive.
Letters released in a series of tweets by Hodge show her lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, repeatedly asking for further details of the alleged offence, and information about any witnesses to the confrontation in the House of Commons on 17 July.
When the Labour chair, Jennie Formby, gives no details, Hodge’s lawyers call the investigation simply untenable and argue it should be dropped immediately.
One letter from Formby, dated 25 July, notifies the lawyers that the investigation could end on condition that your client gives in short order an appropriate apology for her conduct.
In an emailed reply the same day, Mishcon de Reya rejects this, saying: For our client to be forced into an apology, this would mean that you would have pre-determined that she has done something wrong.
A further letter from Formby says this would not be the case: As a matter of law an apology is not generally an admission of guilt or liability. So inviting an apology from your client is neither an accusation of guilt nor evidence of predetermination. This argument is then dismissed by Hodge’s lawyers as simply bizarre.
One potentially worrying element of another letter for Corbyn is a section from Mishcon de Reya in which it indicates that Hodge could seek to defend herself by arguing that the Labour leader is potentially antisemitic under the full IHRA examples, noting his apology for taking part in an event in 2010 where the actions of Israel in Gaza were compared to the Nazis.
It is understood that Austin is also waiting to learn details of what he is accused of, with his lawyers having written to Formby but receiving no reply as yet.