We publish here a letter from a Colchester Labour councillor to the Labour Group, just prior to a discussion on having the council adopt the IHRA working definition on anti-Semitism. Despite this letter, the council adopted the definition with 48 in favour only one abstention.
Dear Comrades,
I would like to explain my views on the IHRA Working Definition motion.
One group that is consistently forgotten about in these debates is the Palestinians. Yet this isn’t just an abstract debate about what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to say. The issue has serious practical consequences for the Palestinian people, especially in relation to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
For context: the BDS movement was launched in July 2005, on the one year anniversary of the ruling by the International Court of Justice ruling that the Israeli separation barrier was illegal, that Israel must dismantle it immediately and pay reparations to those it had harmed, and that every signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention was under an obligation to ensure that Israel complied with international humanitarian law. The ruling was ignored by both Israel and the international community so the BDS call was launched in response, receiving the backing of over 170 Palestinian civil society organisations.
The BDS call centres on three demands: freedom for residents in the occupied territories; equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and justice for Palestinian refugees in the diaspora – including their right of return to their homeland. This latter right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and has been recognised in UN General Assembly Resolutions 194 and 3236.
IHRA attempts to define BDS movement as anti-Semitic
The most pressing practical significance of the IHRA Working Definition is that it has been used in attempts to define the BDS movement and its supporters as inherently antisemitic. This argument has been mobilised around two of the illustrative examples in particular:
i. Example 7, which reads: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”
ii. Example 8, which reads: “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
Example 7 is used to deny the Palestinian right of return on the grounds that it would deny the Jewish right to self-determination by preventing the establishing of a Jewish-majority state on the land of historic Palestine. Indeed, this is precisely the argument made by Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan, in her recent letter to Jeremy Corbyn. Example 8 is used to argue that the BDS movement is inherently antisemitic, on the grounds that it unjustly singles out Israel. Indeed, next month an Israeli Government-backed conference will be hosted where European parties will be urged call on EU member states to adopt the definition, ban parties and politicians who breach it from government, and call on “all political parties to pass a binding resolution rejecting BDS activities as fundamentally antisemitic.”
It is important to remember that the BDS call was launched as a measure of last resort by groups spanning the full spectrum of Palestinian civil society who saw no other means to defend themselves. After over half a century of occupation the expansion of illegal settlements and repression of Palestinian rights continues with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the UN says Gaza will be unable to support human life by 2020, and that it’s only water source will be irreversibly depleted. The success of actions like BDS – a time-honoured tactic of non-violent resistance – may be the last chance the 1.8m people living in Gaza – half of whom are children – have for survival.
Given the above observations, if Colchester Borough Council adopt the definition with examples and I speak in favour of the BDS movement or of the Palestinian right of return how can I know that I won’t be subject to sanction? What if the Council wishes to follow the example of the Irish Senate and adopt a BDS policy, for example by banning its pension scheme from investing in companies that profit from the internationally recognised illegally occupied territories – would it fall foul of its own definition?
IHRA definition “unclear and confusing”
At the last Group meeting, the response was that we hope it would not be used in this way (as it has been in the London borough of Barnet), but surely simply hoping is not enough? As it stands, there would be no safeguards whatsoever. This despite the fact Hugh Tomlinson QC has called the definition “unclear and confusing”, while Sir Stephen Sedley has warned that “for local authorities … the policy is capable of having a real impact.” Even the Vice President of Board of Deputies has been accused of breaching example 8 of the definition by her fellow deputies for criticising Israel’s recent Nation State law.
Given all this, I believe if the Council is to adopt the IHRA Working Definition it should do so alongside a clause which clarifies that it is not inherently antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel or Zionism as a political ideology; to describe Israel as an apartheid state or any of its practices as racist; or to advocate for the Palestinian right of return or the BDS movement.
I know some in the Group are concerned about how any clarification might look. But I think that we ought to be more concerned with the impact of our actions on the Palestinian people than with how we might look. In any case, without such a clarification I do not feel able to support the motion because I believe it will have serious negative consequences for people already facing an utterly dire situation.
Finally, I want to clarify that I take no pleasure in placing myself in disagreement with my Labour colleagues. If it were up to me, I would not have chosen to bring forward such a highly contentious and politicised issue which has created such turmoil in our party. However, the issue is now before us, and like all of you I have to make a decision about where I stand. I hope that my Labour colleagues will understand my views on this, even if they do not agree with them.
In comradeship,
Lorcan Whitehead
Councillor, New Town and Christ Church ward, Colchester
