Deborah Maccoby 2

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (Unpublished)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is session two continuing from yesterday with Deborah Maccoby.  We’re going to be focusing on orientations and definitions of anti-Semitism as an addendum that if we both mutually think is important to clarify on things. Let’s start with a boilerplate statement. Anti-Semitism, any reasonable person will acknowledge that this has been a negative influence throughout recorded human history and to the present is a form of racial or ethnic hatred that is deplorable and should be condemned. In a boilerplate definition, what is anti-Semitism?

Deborah Maccoby: Do you want me to provide a definition of anti-Semitism?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Maccoby: Well, I’m not even sure it can be defined really. I think that has been part of the problem with the whole anti-Semitism smear campaign trying to define anti-Semitism. I mean I think we know it when we see it but actually finding a definition, I’m not sure you can find a definition. Certainly, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, it doesn’t not define anti-Semitism and it’s obviously intended for political reasons it. Its inspiring the idea of the new anti-Semitism which is an idea that started in about the 1970s which said that Israel was the Jew among the nations, that Israel had inherited the historical anti-Semitism that Jews have suffered throughout the centuries have been inherited by Israel and that idea which has really dominated the Jewish establishment for decades, that is really at the basis of the IHRA definition. So, it’s a politically motivated definition. I think the only way that one could actually define anti-Semitism is just to say it’s hatred or prejudice against Jews; that’s what it says in the Oxford dictionary, hatred or prejudice against Jews. That’s what I’d say, I think it’s that simple. I wouldn’t get any further than that. 

Jacobsen: What about some of these different definitions that are proposed with political consequence or political intent? For instance, the ones where an individual or the implication of an individual criticizing a part of Israeli policy and then the individual who made the critique about Israeli policy being charged with anti-Semitism.

Maccoby: Well, the defenders of the IHRA definition and apologists for Israel, they said that they are not against criticism of Israeli policies. They are against what they call demonization of Israel or against the idea that the state of Israel shouldn’t exist. It says in the IHRA definition that it’s anti-Semitic to say ‘a’ state of Israel not ‘the’ state of Israel but ‘a’ state of Israel is a racist endeavor. I mean there are some anti-Zionists, I know some anti-Zionists who are against any form of Jewish state. In fact, many of these people are Jewish, the people that I know. I mean there are a small minority among Jews but the people I know, many people who think this are actually Jewish. I don’t agree with them but what they argue is that a Jewish state would always discriminate in favor of Jews because according to our modern idea of the liberal State that belongs to all its citizens, you couldn’t have that in the Jewish State because it would only belong to its Jewish citizens because people can’t be Jewish unless they convert to Judaism. I think there’s a case for that. 

I would disagree with it because I think it’s possible to have a Jewish state that is a liberal democratic state because if you look at the UK, we are nominally a church of England State. We have a state Church, the queen Is the head of the church but in fact it is an anomaly and no… has pointed this out. It’s not strictly democratic but the effects of it are so mild that in practice it doesn’t really have any effect and as someone who’s Jewish, I don’t feel discriminated against because I’m not the member of the Church of England and Muslims don’t feel discriminated against Catholics, the Catholics have had a lot of prejudice against them in the UK but nowadays they don’t feel discriminated against. It would be possible to have a Jewish State on those lines. The main state holidays would be Jewish holidays, in the UK the state holidays are Christian holidays; Easter and Christmas. So, you could have a Jewish State on those lines. I would disagree but what I wouldn’t do was I would have a debate with someone who I disagreed with, who was arguing that a Jewish state is racist but I wouldn’t say to that person you are anti-Semitic because it’s just a political viewpoint. The idea that anyone who thinks that could be expelled from the labor party is just insane but this has been adopted by the labor party because of pressure from the Jewish establishments. I’m just saying it’s a matter for debate. 

I think it’s important to point out that the Labor Party rule book; The Code of Conduct, up to 2017 it said… it was changed in 2017 under pressure from Zionist, under pressure from the Jewish establishment but before 2017 this rule book said no member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC, The National Executive Committee, is prejudicial or in any acts within the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the party. So, that’s talking about conduct and actions and then it ends up by saying the NCC, The National Constitutional Committee which decides on expulsions in serious cases, it said it shall not have regard for the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions. Very simple; it’s about prejudicial conduct or actions that are grossly detrimental to the party but it was saying that that people can hold and express whatever beliefs and opinions they like and that was the labor rule book until 2017. 

Then in 2017 it got changed under pressure from a group called The Jewish Labor Movement which is a Zionist group that has been used since 2015 as a vehicle to attack Corbyn. It was taken over by someone called Jeremy Newmark and he used it as a vehicle to attack Corbyn and they under pressure from the Jewish Labor Movement, the rule book was changed at the 2017 labor party conference and it includes a whole mass of verbiage about anti-Semitism, islamophobia, gender reassignment, sexual discrimination; all this sort of politically correct stuff. That’s all that’s all been included now and at the end originally it had said the NCC, the National Constitutional Committee shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions and then this was added in 2017 except in any inconsistent with the party’s aims and values agreed codes of conduct or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic. The protected characteristics have previously been defined as all this islamophobia, anti-Semitism, gender reassignment, sexual discrimination and so on and so forth. It was changed in favor of a massive verbiage that was all about political correctness and I think that was very detrimental. People should be allowed to hold opinions and debate them. That change was an attack on freedom of speech.

So, I think it’s quite serious what has happened to the labor party and there has been this crazy rich hunt. I mean I read something about some person was expelled. Yes, I think she was expelled because she said that Israel behaves like a an abused child which has turned into an abuser. I mean what is anti-Semitic about that? I cannot see anything anti-Semitic about that. I think it’s true and it’s become completely insane.

Jacobsen: In your own personal experience, have you had any experiences of anti-Semitism within labor party?

Maccoby: No, I haven’t. I’ve been a member since 2015 and I’ve never encountered it. I spent weeks in the 2017 election, the summer 2017 election. I spent weeks going around with groups of labor party members knocking on doors and I never ever encountered the slightest anti-Semitism from any of them. It’s just laughable to imagine that they would have said anything anti-Semitic.  

Jacobsen: What does it say about the media in the United Kingdom in regards to political issues?

Maccoby: The media, they were very much against Corbyn and I think this was seized upon as a weapon to use against him and it became a kind of hysteria, I mean a bit like McCarthyism in the United States. It became a mass hysteria and it’s still going on. I don’t know if you heard that the Board of Deputies has imposed the most ludicrous and outrageous demands upon all the labor leadership candidates. There’s a labor leadership contest going on at present to replace Corbyn and the Board of Deputies… issued 10 demands, I call them the Ten Commandments and all the labor leadership candidates accepted them. I don’t know if you heard about this. They’re absolutely crazy. They say that there has to be an independent body to deal with all disciplinary cases, not just anti-Semitism, all disciplinary cases and no other organization in the whole country outsources its disciplinary process. Every organization has a right to decide on its own rules, its own code of conduct and to conduct its own disciplinary process against those that considers to have violated these rules. No one exposes it, they call it an independent body but the question arises who will appoint the members of this independent panel. Obviously, they will be approved of by the Board of Deputies. So, that’s not going to be dependent, is it? 

They also say that all the details of all the cases judged by this independent panel should be sent confidentially to Jewish representative bodies by which they obviously mean the Board of Deputies. So, they will be supervising it, they will have all the details of the cases. I think there’s of two of The Commandments, then there’s another Commandment that the prominent offenders like Ken Livingstone, Chris Williams, and Jackie Walker; they can never be allowed back. There’s an even worse commandment which is that anyone who expresses support for these prominent sinners will themselves be suspended. [Laughs] It’s absolutely crazy! This is being accepted by all the labor leadership candidates and they also attack Jewish Voice for Labor, the Corbyn group that I belong to. One of the demands is that they shall liaise with the Jewish Community only via the main representative groups and not via fringe organization and the Jewish Chronicle when reporting on this said an example of a fringe organization is Jewish Voice for Labor. We don’t quite know what this means. Are we meant to be ostracized within the labor party? In fact, this is my first experience of anti-Semitism within the labor party that all the labor leadership candidates have agreed to ostracize me. I’m experiencing this discrimination thanks to the demands issued by the Board of Deputies. So, it’s a completely insane situation. I think it’s going to lead to increased anti-Semitism because it’s completely unwarranted control of the labor party by the Board of Deputies and this is bound to lead to increased anti-Semitism.

Jacobsen: So, in this case then, it would be real anti-Semitism and then when people make a claim against that real anti-Semitism, individuals may simply dismiss it in the similar case of the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

Maccoby: Yes, I mean that is another problem you see because no one denies that there is real anti-Semitism. There is some real anti-Semitism even in the Labor Party in the UK but it’s becoming increasingly hard to recognize it because of all this. So, the Board of Deputies is really playing this fire in this. Something that has recently emerged is a speech that the Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis gave to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he went to New York think it was, and he gave a speech and you can find it on YouTube, if you just Google AIPAC Mirvis on YouTube. It’s only about 8 minutes long and it’s just full of anti-Semitic tropes. It’s quite incredible, I wrote down some of it. He wrote in The Times just before the election, about a week before the election, he wrote an ode in The Times attacking Corbyn, saying that Corbyn was unfit to be Prime Minister and was anti-Semitic. Coming from the chief Rabbi, I think it did have some effect although I still think that the main reason that labor lost disastrously was Brexit but certainly Mirvis’ intervention did not help. 

Anyway, he gave this utterly triumphant speech to AIPAC, the real triumphalist loathing speech and when he published his… in The Times, he said he acted not in a unilateral manner. I’m quoting here, he says “Not in a unilateral manner but in concert with key Jewish figures and key Jewish organizations” He admitted that it was a concerted action by the Jewish establishment against Corbyn and he also talked about “sensitive and important issues surrounding Israel and Zionism” That’s in the course of his speech. I mean if anyone else said this, it would have been called weakly anti-Semitic. He said to his audience, “You are in the position of leadership and you have influence. Please use it with all you’ve got for the sake of Jews and Judaism and Medinat Israel,” which is Hebrew for the State of Israel and “please use your influence fearlessly and with courage, that is what the Jews of the United Kingdom have done. Together with our many friends and the results are there to be seen.” Now, anyone else had said Jews joined together in concert, the Jewish establishment joined together in concert to use its considerable power and influence to bring down Corbyn; that would have been called anti-Semitic but he clearly admitted it. I don’t actually think he’s right, he was bloating over what they had achieved. I still think it was Brexit but it’s quite extraordinary that he said that. What do you make of that?

Jacobsen: Well, I guess it leads to an orientation of how is this going to impact discourse; political and social discourse moving forward into the coming months into 2021 because these forms of actions and statements will have ripple effects in terms of how discussions around anti-Semitism are had and the tone in politics and potentially even in the process in which parties deal with claims of anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom.

Maccoby: At the moment of course, it’s all Corona virus and everything has been put on hold but if we manage to get through all this and then the labor party elects a new leader, it’s likely to be Keir Starmer. Have you heard of Keir Starmer?

Jacobsen: No.

Maccoby: He’s likely to be the next labor leader. He was the Brexit secretary under Corbyn and in my view he was the main architect of Labor’s defeat because he promoted the second referendum policy which was a total disaster. I don’t know if this should be recorded but according to the pro Corbyn blog, they have said quite openly that they think Starmer actually knew this would lose labor their election and he promoted it deliberately so that Corbyn would lose and he could replace Corbyn. I mean I don’t know if he is that Machiavellian but this is a view that is being expressed in the UK among Corbyn supporters and it looks as though he will be the next labor leader. He has very much jumped on the anti-Semitism bandwagon too, so if as seems likely he becomes the next leader, I suppose he will set up this independent body but I think a lot of pro Corbyn people have been talking about leaving the labor party. 

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.