"Len McCluskey hits out as he joins fellow union bosses in urging party to adopt full IHRA definition"

Well said! elected General Secretary of UNITE, Len McCluskey who gave support in advance of the Labour Party NEC meeting on Tuesday, where the issue regarding the IHRA definition will be discussed and hopefully begin to be resolved.

I also agree with Len that some of the anti-labour responses by some Jewish leaders have been seemingly ridiculous and over the top but if  my neighbours had been murdering my Grandparents and turning their skin into lampshades and soap then perhaps I would also react in a similar manner.

I watched this morning a clearly distressed, John McDonnell MP, on the  Andrew Marr show give a sensitive but powerful response to the interview comments by the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. 

I agree with John's response that there are profound misunderstandings afoot but also his implicit assurance that this mess will be dealt with and that Labour will (and should in my view) adopt the full IHRA definition and all the examples, as does UNISON, GMB and UNITE.

As a grassroots trade union steward for over 30 years, while I understand the genuine concern about adopting all the "examples" I simply do not accept that this will restrict me or anyone else from calling out the Israeli state for murdering unarmed civilians, building illegal settlements, carrying out collective punishments while being clearly racist towards Palestinians.

Unless we lance this boil and return to our natural moral high ground on all forms of racism we will destroy the Labour movement and also destroy our chances of getting rid of this completely vile Tory Government and electing Jeremy as our Prime minister. 

“Why Labour must adopt the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism”

I agree with UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis, in this article published yesterday in the NewStatesman where he calls for the Labour Party to adopt the "full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism including all the examples" 

As an experienced trade union rep who has been defending members accused of breaching discipline procedures and codes of conduct for many years I cannot see a problem with the “examples”. As an elected lay member of the UNISON National Labour Link committee, I voted with colleagues to support the definition and include the examples. 

I understand that many members do not have confidence in the internal Labour Party discipline process but that is a very different (but still important) issue.  This lack of confidence is being tackled by the NEC and the new General Secretary, Jennie Formby. 

Time for us to move on and unite around attacking the Tories and not giving our enemies sticks to beat us with.

"The language of priorities is the religion of socialism”. Seventy years on from the establishment of our NHS, those words resonate just as loudly today as when the great Nye Bevan first said them.

Public services are in crisis. Our NHS faces year-round crises, not just a winter crisis. Local government has been cut to the bone and beyond, with the mismanaged mess of Northamptonshire Council emblematic of austerity’s logical end point.

Police staff, care workers and teaching assistants are under incredible pressure – continually forced to do more with less. Global challenges abound such as climate change, conflict, the refugee crisis and the rise of far-right populism.

Meanwhile, our departure from the EU looms on the horizon, just over six-months away. Yet this bungling government still can’t guarantee your rights at work or the security of your pension. Whether medicines will still be available in our hospitals, or whether food will be available in supermarkets.

Truly, 2018 feels like a year for strict prioritisation of the national to-do list. And yet what is it that fixates the Labour Party? It is – somewhat remarkably – an attempt to rewrite a widely-used, internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.

Two years ago I was warning that “a small but significant minority engage in misogyny and anti-Semitism” in the pages of a national newspaper. It’s hard to argue that subsequent events, regardless of their intention, have lessened those concerns. Either in the Jewish community or the country at large.

This issue is already costing Labour votes, as I saw for myself when campaigning in Barnet this year. But worse than that, it's harming Labour's historically close relationship with the Jewish community. And it's costing us the moral high ground from which to oppose all forms of racial hatred and oppression.

Racism is a deep scar on our nation’s soul. Many would like to pretend that it’s in decline, but that’s not the case. Whether whipped up online by often anonymous trolls or marching through our streets, buoyed by the success of Trump and the alt-right, the racists are on the march. Those of us on the left need to meet them head on wherever they appear, but we also need to be beyond reproach when it comes to tackling race hate in all forms.

Instead, when Boris Johnson shed his court jester act this week to engage in flagrant Islamophobic bigotry, too many of his supporters were able to wave away criticism of the former foreign secretary by saying “what about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party?”.

For Labour supporters – the overwhelming majority of whom are lifelong anti-racist campaigners – that response, even when used as a deflection tactic, should be a cause for genuine sorrow. As John McDonnell has said: “how have we got ourselves in this situation?”

Yet it isn’t too late for the party to chart a different course and begin repairing that damage as Jeremy Corbyn is clearly attempting to do. Anti-Semitism in Labour didn’t start under Jeremy, but I am confident that under his leadership it can be dealt with once and for all.

UNISON’s position on this is clear. Our National Executive Council earlier this year spoke with one voice against all forms of racism and, explicitly, anti-Semitism. We have committed ourselves to oppose it in all its forms - all of the smears and tropes that come with it – within our union, our movement, our party and in wider society. Our Labour Link committee, made up of Labour members and activists from across our union, has adopted the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, with examples, and supported calls for Labour to do the same.

Of course, in this debate, there is always an elephant in the room – the oft-repeated assertion that you can’t criticise Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism. I hear it a lot, but I’m not buying it.

I’m not buying it as a regular critic of the Israeli government, settlements, expansionism and the blockade of Gaza. I’m not buying it as general secretary of a union that has always been committed to the rights of the Palestinian people, proudly supports the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and supports Palestinian trade unionists as they face daily oppression.

I’m not buying it as someone who has repeatedly called out the murder of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army – including the shooting of unarmed civilians earlier this year. I’m not buying it, because it’s not true. If you’re not capable of criticising Israel without being anti-Semitic, then you’re an anti-Semite – and we should make no special exceptions for you.

The truth is, this should never have become such a divisive issue, an unnecessary schism in a party that on so many issues is genuinely united.

A Labour Party that has so much to prioritise must always make winning the next election our number one goal. It’s the only party which can be trusted to stand up for the many yearning for change against the few who profit from poverty and decline.

Right now, adopting the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism including all the examples, removing those guilty of racism from our party and putting the issue of Labour and anti-Semitism to bed as quickly as possible is critical to doing so".

Dave Prentis is the general secretary of UNISON

"Don’t cat-call, comrades. Support common sense". As controversy continues over defining Jew-hate, read a Marxist view

On Friday the Jewish Chronicle published this article by my libel blogging mate David Osler (aka other names).

By coincidence that day I met with Dave and his partner Stroppy in a Hackney restaurant for a prearranged "put the world to rights" meal, gossip and drink.

This is what was published in the JC:-

"Appealing for an outbreak of sweet reason between Zionists and anti-Zionists is never easy, especially when undertaken by a veteran Marxist with political views a long way from those of the average JC reader.

But, at the risk of displeasing both sides, I want to urge the hard-left to back the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Then let me double down, and urge Jewish organisations to commit to using this reasonable instrument in a reasonable way.

The issue hit the headlines after Haringey last week became the latest local authority to adopt the document, despite opposition from sections of the left.

I say “sections of the left” deliberately. Both Jeremy Corbyn himself and Labour left umbrella group Momentum have explicitly made clear they see no problem here.

Lining up against are primarily those socialists who maintain the IHRA definition somehow outlaws legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, to the detriment of work for Palestinian rights.

And legitimate criticisms aplenty can be levelled at the actions of Israel’s government. But illegitimate criticisms inspired by traditional Protocols-style antisemitism are sadly in circulation, too, and those are the ones on which the IHRA concentrates.

Its two-sentence formal definition of antisemitism is worded so broadly that no anti-racist could object. The same goes for much of the rest of the document.

Disagreement centres on just one or two lines, in particular the stipulation against “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”.

Much hinges on the interpretation of this passage.

Here, Zionists and anti-Zionists alike are going to have to display common sense.

Fairly read, the clause does not preclude advocacy of any standard radical formula.

The status quo, the two state solution, a bi-national democratic secular state, a democratic socialist federation of the Middle East, or even the anarchist “no state” stance are all proper propositions for discussion.

After all, any settlement actually agreed by those that live in the region exemplifies, on any reasonable construal, self-determination in action.

Anything less is resolutely contrary to that principle. That is the politics of the fascist right and revanchist nationalism, not the politics of the left.

And it goes without saying that accurate reportage is always valid, even where it shows the Israel Defence Forces or Jewish politicians anywhere in a poor light.

Meanwhile, if the unnecessarily parlous state of relations between the left and the Jewish community — which likely cost Labour seats in June — is to be overcome, the first step should be to rebuild bridges.

So don’t cat-call from the public gallery next time IHRA comes up for debate, comrade. Urge your Labour councillor to support it".

David Osler is a journalist and long-standing left wing Labour activist