1. I've met people who think that there are no Jews left in the Labour Party. 2. I've met people who think that the Chief Rabbi is in some way or another in charge of, or a representative of all Jews in Britain.
Neither of these statements is true or anything like true.
There are several Jewish candidates for the Labour Party. There are thousands of Labour Party members who are Jewish. Several times in the media people have said how it's impossible or 'not safe' for Jews to stay in the Labour Party. It's not impossible. If the media had wanted to, they could have asked Jewish MPs, Jewish candidates in this election 'Is it impossible or unsafe for you to be in the Labour Party?' It has been dishonest of them to have not done that.
There are also Rabbis who have either said that they will vote Labour and/or have expressed great concern over the way Jewish religious leaders (Rabbi Romain and the Chief Rabbi) have intervened in this election. You can read about these Rabbis in the Jewish Chronicle online: Rabbi Danny Rich and Rabbi Howard Cooper.
The chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, refers to “the Jewish community” as if British Jews were a single bloc and he speaks as our representative. British Jews are diverse: socially, religiously, politically. There are close to 300,000 Jews living in the UK, of whom no more than 25% belong to Rabbi Mirvis’s denomination; and I doubt whether he speaks for them all. Many Jews do not belong to any synagogue. In short, there is no single Jewish community, and he is not our spokesperson.
There is, however, a set of ethical values that Jews in general share. If, instead of attacking Jeremy Corbyn, he had issued a statement critical of both main parties, of antisemitism and Islamophobia, from left and right; had he proclaimed the dire need for policies resolving the shocking state of poverty and deprivation in our society; then I would have recognised him as speaking for me. As it is, I do not. Dr Brian Klug London
• We are both active Jewish members of Labour – one in the constituency with the largest Labour party membership in the country and the other in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency. Neither of us have seen or heard any antisemitism in our local parties. What we have seen are progressive policies designed to raise the living standards and rights of so many people without any discrimination or racism, and that is why we have been campaigning for Labour in this general election and will continue to do so.
While Labour has a progressive manifesto designed to protect and enhance the rights of us all, the Conservative party’s implicitly states that human rights in the UK will be restricted beyond their current state. Nigel Leskin and Sonia Routledge London
• In the welter of depressing coverage about antisemitism and Labour, I was heartened by a couple of paragraphs in your article (‘It reflects the despair’: Chief rabbi’s criticism of Corbyn strikes a chord, 27 November). At long last a reporter has started to balance the coverage of antisemitism accusations with quotes from Jewish Voice for Labour, which has consistently repudiated the claims made against Corbyn and the party. On Tuesday JVL published a detailed report on what it describes as the myths of Corbyn’s and his party’s antisemitism. It should be read by anyone who wishes to provide a balanced and informed account of this ongoing issue. Phillip Cooper Surbiton, London
• It is devastating to witness a party, offering the most comprehensive programme of social justice in generations, being undermined by the antisemitic views of a tiny minority of its members. We must recognise that thousands of British Jews are genuinely afraid of a Corbyn government, but let us be in no doubt that millions of disadvantaged people of all faiths and none have every reason to be petrified at the prospect of a Johnson one. Ian Richardson Beverley, East Yorkshire
Readers respond to a piece by Jonathan Freedland in which he asked how Jews can vote for the Labour leader
Letters
Shares
25
‘Jeremy Corbyn does not deserve to be a focus of fear. I cannot understand why he gets the blame for every misdeed in the party,’ says Ruth Tod. Photograph: PA
Jonathan Freedland is incorrect to depict our parliamentary elections as a presidential contest (Many Jews oppose Brexit, but how can we vote for Corbyn?, 9 November). Neither is he justified in assuming that Jews should be treated as a single homogeneous entity in considering which way to vote, despite his acknowledgement that views are not uniform.
The accusations against Jeremy Corbyn are well known. His long history as a defender of Palestinian rights has undoubtedly involved association with people with unacceptable views about Jews. But that does not make him antisemitic and, as he has stated, a line must be drawn when opposition to Israel’s government is based on antisemitic ideas or involves comparison with the Nazis.
Freedland might also have mentioned Corbyn’s long-term support for Jewish causes such as the commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day, condemnation of the persecution of Jews in Iran and Yemen, and terrorist attacks against Jewish schools and synagogues, as well as support for Jewish communal institutions in the UK.
Nevertheless, more must be done to reassure many in the Jewish community that their fears are taken seriously. Corbyn needs to take a clear lead in showing progress in the Labour party’s internal procedures, including no tolerance for antisemitic views among prospective candidates and providing regular aggregate reports on the outcome of disciplinary processes.
However, nothing justifies Freedland in invoking the spectre of the Holocaust as a deterrent to those who wish to oppose what he calls “a hard Brexit enforced by an Islamophobe”, not to mention more than nine years of austerity. It is to be hoped that he will reconsider embracing this dangerous form of identity politics. Dr Anthony Isaacs London
• Whenever I read Jonathan Freedland writing about his fear of antisemitism, part of me wants to weep. My mother was a Jewish refugee who became a Quaker, so I became familiar with the Jewish practices of friends and family, as well as the open listening and acceptance of Quakers. The narratives we tell ourselves about the world, and our place in it, have a deep impact on our beliefs and actions. I have just re-read William Blake’s The Angel, in which the writer loses touch with her angel because she is afraid and so she arms herself with shields and spears to protect herself. She has lost the capacity to approach the world with love. When we teach ourselves to see hatred and suspicion in every corner, we will indeed see it everywhere. When we reach out in order to understand one another, we see each other’s hopes and fears, what guides and motivates us, what brings us grief and joy. However hard it may be, we all need to do this.
I hear antisemitic comments with horror and I am concerned that the policies of the far right will divide people even more. I long for a government whose policies will heal those divides. I think Jeremy Corbyn is aware of that need, and I am deeply sorry that many Jews do not believe him. He does not deserve to be a focus of fear. I cannot understand why he gets the blame for every misdeed in the party. He is not perfect, any more than the rest of us, yet he stands for the fairer, greener society that we are crying out for. Please, Jonathan, believe that a kinder world is possible and help to make it happen. Ruth Tod Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
• This article by Jonathan Freedland, a man whose journalism I generally admire, has disappointed me. He wheels out the old tropes in a most un-Guardian like way. To give one example: that Jeremy Corbyn consorts with terrorists. To truly seek peace in any situation, you have to talk to both sides in any conflict. Tony Blair succeeded by talking to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Not to have done so would have been remiss.
I am a secular Jew, all of whose Polish maternal family of origin perished in Auschwitz, and whose French paternal grandfather was picked up in Paris and died in Drancy holding camp. I too am perhaps oversensitive. To quote Freedland’s words: “I am afraid that Jewish history has made us that way, prone to imagining the worst.” Despite that, I categorically refute that either Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour party are antisemitic. They are, like me, against the government and spirit of Netanyahu, and its imperialist (and internationally unlawful) actions in Palestine. A world of difference intentionally ignored by the smear press, and seemingly by Freedland as well. Andy Stelman Bishops Castle, Shropshire
Steve Britt (SFP, 7 Nov 2019) yet again summarises his utopia of free trade, minimal state intervention and low taxes. But he is describing a system that has already failed and which is completely inappropriate with dealing with the crises facing society, from the prevalence of gross inequality to the challenges of global heating.
Every day we witness stagnating real wages, indifferent public services, companies adrift, rampaging private equity, grotesque monopoly, a growth in food banks and rough sleeping and the degradation of the environment. Addressing these issues requires real change not the continuation of out-dated forms of capitalism.
The role of government is to encourage enterprise through the provision of appropriate infrastructures so that businesses can thrive. But governments also need to set up vigorous regulatory frameworks that attack monopoly, promote competition and outlaw noxious practices. They also need to empower countervailing forces, such as trade unions and public agencies which support high-risk new technologies, and engage in a revived social contract where healthcare, pensions and education are given the priority they deserve.
Talk of taxation as theft turns out to be a variation on the egotistical tendency to see one’s success in splendid isolation, ignoring the contribution of past generations, current colleagues, and the supportive welfare agencies provided by governments.
Steve Britt needs to recognise that the state is not just a spender but an investor and risk taker. He ignores the value created by government, such as an educated workforce, human capital, and the technology that ends up in our smart products. He should stop talking about the public sector interfering with the private sector. He should instead be arguing that the two sectors should nourish and reinforce each other in the pursuit of common goals and wealth creation.
Just one more point: Steve Britt declares that his panacea of unilateral free trade will involve “a minimal amount of bureaucracy”. The Financial Times has pointed out that customs paperwork alone, is set to cost business £15bn in a no-deal Brexit. Who is living in cloud cuckoo land?
“Complacency” is the word that shines throughout James Cartlidge’s
article (SFP, ‘Outlay owes debt to austerity’, 17 Oct 2019).
Austerity was always a political choice driven by the Tory ideology of
minimising the support provided by the State in the name of reducing the
allegedly “bloated welfare bill”. What he fails to acknowledge is that
austerity measures fell disproportionally on the poor and vulnerable and,
especially, the disabled.
If the Tories were put in the dock they would be found guilty of the
destruction of the rights, dignity, independence and mental health of too many
of Britain’s 14 million disabled citizens. Last year, 4 million disabled
people were living below the breadline.
Mr Cartlidge boasts of the latest Tory largesse outlined in the recent
budget but fails to say that these paltry measures hardly blunt the deep cuts
that his party have made over the last ten years. For example, since
2010, social security benefits will have been cut by £35bn a year. Meanwhile
Tory tax cuts will cost the Treasury £47bn per year by 2021-2. Lucky rich
people!
The poor and vulnerable are entitled to better lives in a more humane,
compassionate society than that which we currently have under a Tory
government.
Steve Britt takes a well-aimed swipe at the Lib Dems for
their arrogant and cynical policy of revoking Article 50.(SFP, 3 Oct 2019).But, as an extreme Brexiter, his no-deal approach
is far more dangerous.
Right wing austerity measures over the last ten years have
devastated many of our communities and severely damaged the lives of at least 10%
of the population who felt most ‘left behind’ by the cuts on welfare provision
and public services. Putting aside the question of whether their response was
rational or not, these are the people who voted Leave in protest at the cuts at
the time of the 2016 Referendum and probably tipped the balance against staying
in the EU.
Austerity was the result of the approach favoured by Steve
Britt.It had its origins in right wing
thinking which believes that public action is self-defeating, that only
business in free markets can deliver the best results and that we are all
individuals whose sole responsibility is to ourselves. It tends to know the
price of everything and the value of nothing.
Steve Britt places himself in the tradition of ‘classical
liberalism’ but this is a mere diversionary tactic. Nowadays, we are more used
to the description ‘neoliberalism’ which is an insidious doctrine adopted by
the Thatcher government which over the decades has made the rich richer and
the poor poorer.
The freedom espoused by neoliberal Steve Britt is illusory
for most working people.Freedom from
trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress
wages.Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers, to endanger workers, to charge iniquitous rates of
interest and to design more and more exotic financial methods to avoid paying
tax.But freedom from tax means freedom
from the fair distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
The neoliberal project has failed and it is time to provide
a long overdue corrective which can only be supplied by the Labour Party.After the forthcoming General Election, there
will either be a government led by an anti-austerity Labour Party committed to
a referendum with remain on the ballot paper, or a hard-right Tory party
committed to the hardest of Brexits.Labour will let the people decide, not the politicians.
Under a Labour government, the vote would be a choice
between remain and a Brexit deal that doesn’t blow up the economy and destroy
hard-won rights – with ‘no deal’ permanently taken off the table.We would also have a prime minister who isn’t
deliberately polarising the country but someone who is making every effort to
heal divisions and enable the country to move forward.
