Porter’s Pensées

Written in my diary for 19 May are the words: ‘Royal Wedding. Be out of country.’ ‘Out of country’, of course, meant Stockholm. But now I find I won’t be able to avoid it even there: https://www.facebook.com/events/813022998888560/. So I’ll probably stay in England and bury myself under the duvet all day.

It was the British ambassador himself who alerted us to this, at a meeting of ‘Brits in Sweden’ called last week at his Residency, to discuss Brexit-related problems. (See pic below: I’m hovering in the corner at the back; Kajsa just in front of me, talking earnestly to the Political Attaché; the ambassador with crossed hands back right.) The ambassador was of course diplomatic on the issue of Brexit – when I said something mildly uncomplimentary about Boris, he said ‘Steady on, that’s my boss you’re talking about!’ – but gave the impression of wanting to help us poor expatriates. Kajsa says the coffee was the best she has ever tasted.

About 20 of us attended, out of a total 30,000 Brits living in Sweden – though I’m not quite sure what ‘living’ means. (Short-term? Long-term? Accredited residents?) A show of hands revealed that 70% of us were applying for Swedish nationality.

What jarred with me a little – apart from the Stockholm street party – was the image the Political Attaché had on the back of his visiting card:

Cringeworthy, I thought. And in any case ‘great’ in this context doesn’t mean that. See https://bernardjporter.com/2018/02/06/make-britain-great-again/.

I must buy Robert Harris’s new novel, Munich. A review of it on Swedish Radio this morning suggests it goes along with the view I’ve had for many years, that Chamberlain and ‘appeasement’ have had a bum deal at the hands of nearly everyone since 1938. In fact Chamberlain wasn’t fooled by Hitler, but knew that Britain couldn’t fight a war against Germany then, and needed to rearm; which he then set about doing in the breathing-space provided by Munich. By the autumn of 1939 Britain was capable of resisting the Nazis, if only just. What I didn’t know – and must check for myself – is that Hitler, wanting to go to war straight away, regarded Munich as a great setback. In other words, Chamberlain won.

So he doesn’t deserve the scorn and vitriol that have been almost universally poured on him for the last eighty years. That’s sad for his historical reputation, but in my eyes makes him more heroic. (It’s a shame he looked so little like a hero – more like Groucho Marx.) More damaging than this, however, is the effect the popular view has had on the policy of ‘appeasement’ generally. Every bellicose statesman brings up ‘Munich’ when diplomatic solutions to foreign policy crises are suggested. But appeasement isn’t a good or a bad policy per se. There are many instances in Britain’s history apart from this one – especially her imperial history – when appeasement has been, or would have been, the right course of action. Unless you think the anti-colonialists should have been resisted all the way.

‘You know what some people call us? The nasty party’. That was Theresa May at the Conservative Party Conference of 2002. It didn’t seem at the time as if she were taking it as a compliment. The impression given was that she would like her party to better itself, become more inclusive, even come to deserve a reputation for niceness. 

But it has hardly worked out like that. As Home Secretary she pursued a policy of redoubled nastiness towards immigrants – those great billboards telling them to ‘Go Home’ under fear of arrest, for example; her revision of Britain’s immigration laws to make it more difficult even for legal immigrants to prove their rights to stay; draconian expulsions by ‘quota’; her stated ambition to make Britain a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants; and her obsessive crusade against European ‘Human Rights’ courts that tried to rein her in. All, of course, designed to win over the popular nationalist (or racist) vote from Ukip. These are the measures that are coming back to haunt her today, as Prime Minister, after the ‘Windrush’ scandal, which was totally her responsibility, although it’s her own Home Secretary Amber Rudd who is paying the price. Now that she doesn’t have Amber to deflect the flack, some are saying that she – Theresa – can’t last long. (I’m not so sure. There’s still the fear of Corbyn to factor in: see https://bernardjporter.com/2018/04/25/corbyns-to-blame/.)

That’s not the only bit of nastiness around. The Tory-supporting propaganda machine has gone into overdrive against Corbyn, with yesterday’s Sunday Times (Murdoch owned) suggesting that Russian interference during the last election lay behind his success. He’s already been accused of being an ex-Soviet spy. Then of course there are all those ‘Labour anti-semitic’ smears – and they are smears, with hardly a grain of truth in them – seeking to associate him with the vilest sort of racism in history. I don’t know whether, or to what extent, the government or secret services of Israel may lie behind this last. Rumours are floating around of a million-pound donation from somewhere to stop Corbyn winning. Maybe the question to ask here is ‘Cui bono?’ Israel of course objects to his pro-Palestinian stance, which Right-wing Jews openly, albeit mistakenly, equate with anti-semitism. It’s difficult not to credit that this might be a factor, among Israeli lobbyists, and for those British Jews – who are the loudest, but who may not be a majority – who have taken so strongly against him.

But, finally: all this is so obvious, isn’t it? If it’s to succeed, propaganda surely shouldn’t be so blatant as this. Some people will be fooled by it; but a larger number – I hope – will see it merely as a sign of desperation by the Right. The mild-mannered and transparently honest Corbyn could even be strengthened in the public eye by his brave and dignified resistance in the face of it. British Jewry could become a casualty of its own ‘anti-anti-semitic’ campaign, if people come to associate it with smearing and libelling: which is why pro-Corbyn Jews should speak up more – or, perhaps, seek to get a fairer coverage in the press. I would hate to see a genuine anti-semitism growing out of this. Lastly, the ‘nastiness’ of May’s government in many directions is becoming more striking by the day: towards the NHS, for example, the disabled, teachers, and almost every sector of society it should be any ‘nice’ government’s duty to protect. It was she who spotted the trend, in 2002; now she seems only intent on aggravating it.

The 2018 ‘World Press Freedom Index’, compiled by an organisation called ‘Reporters without Borders’, has just been published (https://rsf.org/en/ranking), with Britain once again coming far down the list – at number 40, to be precise. That’s out of 180, with North Korea at the bottom. I commented on last year’s report here: https://bernardjporter.com/2017/04/30/press-freedom/. Again, the Scandinavian countries (together with the Netherlands) come top of the rankings, which is no doubt why my Dagens Nyheter makes such a splash about it today. I don’t suppose the Murdoch press or any of our right-wing propaganda sheets have highlighted it so much, although to be honest I haven’t checked.

They would probably dispute Reporters without Borders’ methodology, which Wikipedia describes thus:

The report is partly based on a questionnaire which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. It also includes violations of the free flow of information on the Internet. Violence against journalists, netizens, and media assistants, including abuses attributable to the state, armed militias, clandestine organisations or pressure groups, are monitored by RSF staff during the year and are also part of the final score. A smaller score on the report corresponds to greater freedom of the press as reported by the organisation. The questionnaire is sent to Reporters Without Borders’s partner organisations: 18 freedom of expression non-governmental organisations located in five continents, its 150 correspondents around the world and journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists.

Looking through that list, it will not be difficult to pick several categories in which the British mainstream media are likely to have picked up their low scores, among them pluralism, self-censorship and independence. But Britain’s poor showing must surprise many of those who pride themselves on our having a distinctively ‘free press’, compared for example with Costa Rica, Samoa and Ghana – all several places above her; which is our Press’s rationale for opposing (and in the end killing off) ‘Leveson Part 2’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry). I imagine that for Murdoch and Co.  ‘freedom’ means what it does for most ideological capitalists: market freedom of the rich to buy up and control – in this case – the media. Against which, of course, some of us hope that the social media, now rapidly ousting ‘print’ journalism, might prove a corrective. I have to say, I hae me doots.

In Britain at present the print and broadcast media are two of the the main obstacles to a rational and informed democracy. It may be the same in the USA; which appears no-where in the top 40, and so presumably is even worse than ours. Trump’s new French friends, by the way, are at No. 33.

We’d probably have a Labour government now if it wasn’t for Corbyn. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Corbyn is holding the party back – quite the reverse. He’s been immensely influential in reinvigorating Labour, and returning it to its social-democratic (or, if you like, socialist) roots. I’m fairly confident (if only fairly) that Labour would win a general election right now, if it came. 

But that’s the crux of it. His enemies know this, or at least suspect it’s a possibility; and so can’t let him have the general election the country surely merits in present circumstances. This must be the most incompetent, corrupt and in many ways sheerly ‘nasty’ government (to use Theresa’s word) Britain has ever had. It’s also a minority one. If there had been a neoliberal alternative to it – like Blair’s regime – it would have collapsed by now. But those who could do the collapsing – left-wing Tories like Kenneth Clarke, Irish loyalists, even some of Corbyn’s own MPs – are too terrified of the genuinely socialist alternative he offers, to risk rocking the boat. So the bastards survive. 

I’m also pretty convinced that it’s this that has triggered, or if not at least sustained, the incredible smears he has been subjected to over the last year – traitor, anti-British, Russian spy, royal-baby-hater, bad dresser, and – the latest and most ludicrous one – tolerant of ‘anti-semitism’ in the party; smears put out and flogged to death by people and their newspapers who are simply, when it comes down to it, terrified of his socialism. It’s the old ‘capitalists versus the people’ thing again. Whoever said the class war was over?

Windrush ought to have sunk May. It’s entirely her responsibility, a direct result of the ungenerosity of spirit that is a key feature of this government, and in particular of her time as Home Secretary in the Coalition, and whose disastrous repercussions she was loudly warned of: by Corbyn, among others. By rights and by parliamentary convention, she should have resigned weeks ago. But no: Corbyn, painted as weak and pathetic a year ago, is now seen as too strong a threat. 

I’ve just had my British passport returned to me by Migrationsverket, which means, I hope, that I’m being seriously considered for the dual Swedish-British nationality I applied for after the Brexit vote. One of the advantages of that will be that I can distance myself, to an extent, from all these dreadful goings-on in my country of birth: Brexit, the Windrush fallout, terrible Theresa, bonkers Boris, braying Tory warmongers, a collapsing NHS, rising knife-crime, homeless dying in the streets, marketised universities, our appalling tabloid press, of course… and so much more. 

Here in Sweden more civilised goings-on are grabbing the headlines just now; and in particular the current ‘scandal’ at the Swedish Academy (Svenska Akadamien), the highly prestigious body that awards the Nobel Prize for Literature, and which is – quite literally – falling apart. The Swedish Academy was founded in 1786 by King Gustav III, the weak but highly cultured monarch who is assassinated in Verdi’s Un ballo in maschera. It was modelled on the Academie Francaise, and was originally supposed to have twenty members (half the French complement), but with the number later reduced to eighteen because Gustav thought that ‘eighteen’ in Swedish (arton) resonated better than ‘twenty’ (tjugo). (Or so they say.) The Swedish king is its patron, and it has the motto Snille och Smak (‘Talent and Taste’). The eighteen are appointed by secret internal ballot for life, and not allowed to resign; which caused problems in 1989 when three members tried to, in protest against the Academy’s reluctance to support Salman Rushdie over the Satanic Verses affair. As a result they simply didn’t turn up to meetings. Others have followed their example since, on other grounds; making it difficult – and now impossible – for meetings to reach their designated quorum of 12.

I’m not quite clear of the details of the latest scandal, except that involves charges of – yes, you’ve guessed it – sexual harassment against the French husband of one of the Academicians, who also works for the Academy. As a result three more members decided to ‘resign’ last week, including the Permanent Secretary. She was replaced by a new ‘Temporary Permanent Secretary’ (!), whose title must reflect the mess the Academy is in. It now has only eleven active members, and so simply can’t operate. There was a big demonstration over it in Gamla Stan yesterday afternoon. Women wore blousy ties or cravats in solidarity with – I’m not quite sure whom. Perhaps my Swedish friends will enlighten me.*

The latest development is that Sweden’s current King, Carl XVI Gustaf (they have a funny way of numbering their monarchs here) – a nice man I think, better than our British lot – has been brought in to try to sort it out. As far as I know, that’s the state of play so far. – My solution would be to ask the Norwegian Nobel Committee to fix it. Oslo awards the Peace Prize, so they should know about peacemaking. But I don’t know where they stand on sexual harassment.

It’s complicated. Perhaps when I’m a Swedish citizen I’ll understand it better. In the meantime, in the face of the currently appalling state of affairs I’m hoping to escape from in Britain, it doesn’t seem such a big deal. More amusing than otherwise. Lucky old Swedes.

* Marie Clausen tells me it’s Sara Danius, former Permanent Secretary, who was one of the resigners.

Gladstone was probably Britain’s last manifestly honest Prime Minister, though he had to wriggle a bit in order to maintain that reputation. (It was I who discovered that he deliberately absented himself from one of his own cabinet meetings, called to discuss the formation of a secret political police branch, so that he could disclaim knowledge of it afterwards. There’s also that business of him and the dirty books…) Since then there have been very few completely trustworthy senior Ministers. Blair tried to make himself out to be a good, Christian statesman, until he was rumbled over the Iraq War. Robin Cook was unusually honest, but then died. Harold Wilson had a reputation for trickery, but in fact was one of the least inclined to tell porkies, unless he really was the Russian spy that MI5 suspected him to be. (He was also, in my minority view, one of our great Prime Ministers.) Thatcher of course was a dyed-in-the-wool conspirator. Major looked honest, which was often read as naiveté. – Indeed, that’s probably the fate that awaits any ‘good’ politician in the modern more cynical age, in which honesty is either taken for weakness, or else simply not credited. Corbyn will get plenty of that, if – when? – he becomes Prime Minister.

There have always been dishonest politicians, of course, but the present age may be the most disgraceful of all in this regard. Ministers seem quite blasé about telling dreadful untruths, often for just momentary effect. An example was Theresa May’s attempt only yesterday to pin the responsibility for the destruction of Windrush arrivals’ disembarkation cards (necessary to claim residence) on the last Labour government, which got her a great cheer from the benches behind her, but was shown ten minutes later to have been a lie. She and her Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, can hardly help themselves. It’s said that Johnson really can’t tell the difference between ‘genuine’ and ‘fake’. That figures, if the only use he has of words and ‘facts’ is as counters in a game. (See https://bernardjporter.com/2018/04/08/the-playing-fields-of-eton/.) It also of course fits in with the phenomenon of ‘fake news’ in the US – they’ve got it as badly as us; and with the generally amoral spirit of the times. 

It’s also bewildering: as I suspect it’s partly intended to be. Who can be trusted, if anyone? I’m trying to sort out at present what really happened in Salisbury last month, and in Douma last week, with reports coming in from all sides flatly disputing the official versions of who was responsible for those two atrocities. Of course it’s possible to make some sort of judgment by looking carefully at the credentials of the reporters, the reliability of the media channeling their reports, and – above all – the evidence they present. But most of us don’t have time for all that. Which means that the debate is mostly conducted in what the American spook James Jesus Angleton once called a ‘wilderness of mirrors’. We decide on the basis of instinct, which generally means prejudice.

One of the reasons for my admiration of Jeremy Corbyn – apart from the fact that he’s my generation, with the same sartorial taste, and similar principles – is that he has promised to put politics back on to a more polite and straightforward path. His disavowal of ‘personal’ attacks is part of that; hopefully a revival of political honesty will be another. He has already shown how reliable his judgment is, having been right about most things over the years. The most recent example is his vote – one of only eighteen – against Theresa May’s immigration Act of 2014: the one that has caused all the trouble with the Windrush folks. He has also shown amazing personal endurance, simply by still standing after all the unprecedented and often vile attacks that have been launched at him. Maybe my support for him is naive. From the point of view of his ‘leadership’ image in the Press it might have been better if he had once been a soldier, or a comedy game-show contestant, or at least not made his own jam. But it could mark a real moral revolution in our widely discredited national politics, if he were to win.

Oh please don’t let it be a Jewish conspiracy! It would undermine my whole historical world view, built up over the last 70-odd years, if it were. As a historian I’m fully aware of the conspiracies attributed to the Jews over time – the blood libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and so on, which were obviously cruelly false; and – in more general terms – am unwilling to ascribe any major historical event to the plotting of a minority, as against the open decisions of rulers and the broader impersonal imperatives of history. The very idea of world events being significantly affected by secret cabals offends me. 

I accept that people do plot – I’ve written about secret service conspiracies – and it may be that I’m only reluctant to accept the effectiveness of their plots because I’m a rational historian who wants events to happen for reasons that I can rationally understand. (It’s sometimes called the ‘intellectualist assumption’, or ‘delusion’.) I’m also temperamentally very Judeophile (is that the word?), and anti-antisemitic. So I should prefer to believe that the current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds of his, or its, anti-semitism is not part of a Jewish plot to destroy them. As I wrote a couple of days ago: it would be a tragedy not only for Labour if that were so, but also for British Jewry, giving Corbyn’s supporters at last a genuine reason to mistrust them, and so possibly provoking a degree of antisemitism in the party that was not there before.

But in truth the anti-Corbyn onslaught is beginning to look more and more like a Jewish – or, far more likely, an Israeli government – conspiracy. Why has it suddenly broken out now? Before Corbyn became leader, I was aware of no such public complaints against the party. So why today, suddenly? Why are the many Jewish voices in support of Corbyn, and disputing the charges made against him, being suppressed by – apparently – even the Guardian? (See: http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/media/guardian-denies-space-to-650-labour-party-members-challenging-hostile-media-coverage/.) Surely the Guardian isn’t part of the plot? Who was behind those huge billboards wheeled past Parliament and Labour’s HQ yesterday proclaiming Labour’s endemic antisemitism? (See http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/17/three-anti-semitism-billboards-criticising-jeremy-corbyn-driven-past-labour-hq-7475128/.) ‘Crowd-funded’, apparently; but by and led by whom?

Lastly, and perhaps most telling: which foreign country is most likely to gain from the defeat of a pro-Palestinian and quasi-pacifist Labour leader at the next election? Some British Jews are clearly of the opinion that criticising any aspect of Israeli government policy in Gaza or the West Bank – settlements, shootings and so on – is tantamount to denying the Jews their right to a national home in Palestine, and consequently indistinguishable from antisemitism. It’s quite possible that they alone are responsible for the anti-Corbyn campaign – egged on, of course, by rich Tories for their own purposes – so we don’t need to believe that the Israeli government or secret services are directly implicated. If they are, however, it must raise questions about the coming election – whenever that is – similar to those raised about Russian involvement in the Brexit and American Presidential votes. 

Again, and for the sake of my Jewish friends: please God – or Jehovah, or Allah, or the fairies at the bottom of the garden – let that not be so. Surely any intelligent Jew – and the Jews are known, stereotypically, for their intelligence – would not risk what seems such a blatant conspiracy. I’m clinging on to that, in order to hold on to my old world view.

PS. Here’s the best defence of Corbyn and Labour on the ‘anti-semitism’ charge that I’ve read so far: from a website called ‘off-guardian’ – perhaps in protest against the Guardian‘s curiously anti-Corbyn bias: https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/18/corbyn-the-anti-semitism-question/. And another, on the letters page of the Guardian itself: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/stop-jeremy-corbyns-trial-by-media-over-antisemitism. I’m not alone!

I don’t want to defend the British Empire – though I might want to excuse it in some small ways – but one of its more admirable traits at its peak was its inclusion of all its subjects as British citizens, irrespective of birth or ‘race’, with the rights to travel, live and work in the ‘mother country’ as freely as the indigenous Brits did (without the colonial people’s permission) in their countries.

In reality, the Empire was always an awkward mix of colonial oppression and genuine internationalism, which is why it gathered the support of some progressives and liberals at the time; with this notion of an ‘imperial nationality’ an expression of its ‘international’ side. Hence the situation that the ‘Windrush generation’ now finds itself in, of not having needed to secure a specific British nationality when they came in 50+ years ago, at Britain’s request – to help her repair her economy after the Second World War – but are now – or were until yesterday – suddenly uprooted from their lifetime homes in Britain, incarcerated in holding camps, and threatened with summary deportation to countries they hardly remember. (‘Windrush’ is a reference to the name of the boat the first 400-odd of them embarked on from Jamaica to Britain in 1948.)

Between 1962 and 1971, mainly as a result of public protest about the scale of foreign and especially ‘coloured’ immigration into Britain, this generous imperial-era policy was severely curtailed, so that – in effect, though this was never explicitly stated – only white colonials had this right. The new laws clearly operated retrospectively, otherwise the Windrush generation could have stayed. That’s the legal root of the position these good people find themselves in. Some may have been deported already. Others are in ‘detention centres’. All of them now feel under threat of removal from the only country they have known as home, and which they have served for – in some cases – half a century.

Fortunately a widespread public protest on their behalf, led by the Guardian newspaper and David Lammy, MP, has resulted in a last-minute re-think by Theresa May, and a stay of execution at the very least. Here is a clip of Lammy’s powerful speech in the House of Commons yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2q2dQlsywY (just the first part).

OK, so it may all be put right now. But that won’t entirely erase the stain that will attach to Theresa May for having tolerated this situation for all the years that she was Home Secretary, desperate to appease the xenophobes on her side of the house, and intent on making Britain a ‘hostile environment’ (her exact words) for migrants. For a historian of Britain’s proud record of openness and inclusion, that indicates that she has very little idea of the best qualities that used to attach to her country’s self-identity, and of how close she is guiding the country to what could be regarded as the proto-fascist racial nationalism that we used to pride ourselves on being immune from. For someone brought up as a Christian, it also makes me wonder where her self-professed Christianity comes from. Maybe someone should look into her vicar father’s career and beliefs.

If you intend to vote Conservative in the next General Election because of Corbyn’s critical attitude towards the present government of Israel, and if that is the most important issue in the world for you, then go ahead. It’s a reasonable line to take. But please don’t argue that it’s on account of the Labour Party’s endemic ‘anti-semitism’, or even its failure to acknowledge and expel the pockets of anti-semitism that may – probably do – exist within the party. As non-racist critics of Israel, including very many Jewish ones, have been screaming at you for years, the two positions are not identical, and to elide them is irresponsible, to say the least. 

I’ve written before here about Labour and the Jews. (See https://bernardjporter.com/2016/04/28/anti-semitism-and-labour/; https://bernardjporter.com/2016/05/04/antisemitism-again/; https://bernardjporter.com/2017/12/19/more-anti-semitism/; and most recently, https://bernardjporter.com/2018/03/28/israel-jezza-and-imperialism/.) I don’t want to repeat myself; but the salient facts are these. (1) Labour has been the most pro-Jewish party in Britain from its earliest days, anti-semitism usually being associated with the Right. (2) Historically Britain was the least anti-semitic nation in Europe during the periods when most others were falling under its evil sway: we even had a Jewish-origin prime minister, for pity’s sake. And (3), hardly any of the ‘evidence’ being dredged up now for Labour anti-semitism bears much scrutiny, including Ken Livingstone’s notorious statement that Hitler was once in favour of a national home for the Jews, which happens to be historically true. (It was, of course, in order to get rid of them without needing to gas them.) Livingstone’s statement was intended to make the point that you could be anti-semitic without being an enemy of Israel, and vice-versa. It was certainly insensitive, but only to particularly sensitive people, which, of course, on this issue many Jews are. It will have been the combination of ‘Hitler’ and ‘Israel’ in the same sentence that did it.

One can understand this sensitivity, in view of the Jews’ appalling suffering throughout history, and particularly in the wake – and we are still in its wake – of the Nazi Holocaust. But it’s no proof of Labour’s ‘anti-semitism’, or even of Ken Livingstone’s. The same applies to most other isolated examples presented of anti-Jewish opinion within the party, which either represent only a tiny minority (some are anonymous tweets), or are extrapolated from views expressed either about Israel, or about finance-capitalism: with which Jews of course are particularly and historically associated. Lastly, it is simply wrong to claim that the Labour leadership has been reluctant to deal with the cases of genuine anti-semitism it has found in its ranks. Since the Chakrabarti Report (2016) it has taken strict measures – within the constraints of natural justice – to eliminate them. Corbyn personally has made no secret of his distaste for all kinds of racism, which most people accept as genuine. Unfortunately when he joined in a Jewish celebration of Passover a month ago which ought to have emphasised this, it turned out, according to his critics, to be the ‘wrong sorts’ of Jews.

The major point I want to make here, however, concerns the harm that this anti-antisemitic movement could do to Labour’s cause in the next Election. Not only Jews are likely to be turned off by it, but also other liberal voters who have been hearing the clamour and are – I would say – misled by it. Anti-semitism, after all, is the vilest charge that could be directed at anyone in this day and age, with the stench of the Holocaust inevitably attaching to it; more serious – and hence much less often expressed – than other kinds of racism. (Quite incidentally, didn’t I read somewhere of a rabbi in Israel referring to black Americans as ‘monkeys? https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-americans-to-monkeys/. You find these sorts of prejudices everywhere. I wouldn’t dream of using them to stigmatise all Israeli Jews.) If a significant number of Jews and anti-racist Gentiles refuse to support Labour on these false grounds it will be a national tragedy, in my view; all my hopes for my country of origin resting as they do on a revival of the moderate socialism of my youth.

It could also blow back damagingly on the Jewish community in Britain, if its shrill cries are blamed for this upshot. One distinguishing characteristic of Britain throughout most of her history has been the low profile the Jews have managed to keep while they’ve been our compatriots. Even when their capitalists have sinned egregiously – like Sir Philip Green a couple of years ago (see https://bernardjporter.com/2016/04/26/bhs-and-a-victorian-villain/) – virtually nothing is made of their Jewishness, if people are even aware of it. This present campaign, exploited of course by the (non-Jewish) billionaire-owned Right-wing press, for whom it is a convenient stick with which to beat a dangerously Left-wing Labour Party, is putting British Judaism in the spotlight again. That could be uncomfortable for them in the longer term, and highly regrettable for us non-Jewish liberals; and all because of what I still maintain is a terrible misunderstanding, at best.

*

I deliberated long with myself before writing and posting this. These are dangerous waters to dip one’s toe into. Feelings are running too high. I may well be accused of subconscious anti-semitism myself, or of ‘denial’ – rather like holocaust deniers – of the ‘true scale of the problem’. I’ll be told that as a non-Jew I can’t appreciate the discrimination and hostility the Jews face, apparently uniquely. It’s hard for Jews, obviously; but it’s also difficult for those of us on the outside who think as I do: that it isn’t much of a general problem really. It’s rather like the old question: ’have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?’ In much the same way Corbyn is repeatedly asked, ‘has the Labour Party stopped discriminating against the Jews?’ The politic answer must be yes; but it’s a misleading one.