THE LABOUR PARTY AND ANTI-SEMITISM - PARTY'S LEADER SHOULD SAY WHAT HE MEANS AND MEAN WHAT HE SAYS

Labour and British Jewish citizens; still at all at sea, but in different ships?

Britain's Labour Party has been accused of harbouring people who have been described as 'anti-semites', a term which is used to describe people who hate Jews for being Jews.  The Labour Party, in response, has denied the accusation, but has also, prudently, set up an independent enquiry to look into whether or not there is really any substance to the allegations.

Now, with the Labour Party and all British political parties, being to a lesser or greater extent, representative of British society, it would be extremely surprising if there are no 'anti-semites' in it.  That would be like expecting to find nobody in Britain who hates Jewish people for being who they are, or who they are stereotyped into being seen as. A sort of classical prejudicial perspective, in which you accept the stereotypical perception of a race, ethnic group, gender group, or religious group, and then think of and behave towards them in line with the stereotypical imagery you have of them.  

Jewish people, of course, will also have their stereotypical imagery of non-Jewish people, because, the bottom line is that racism - which comprises anti-semitism - is something which affects all humans and their societies, although the degrees might be different, due to the operating local factors.

Anyway, getting back to the British Labour Party, which has acted prudently in setting up this enquiry, the report of which was being shared with the public, today, at a news conference which was attended by Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, what I find almost unbelievable, is the fact that Jeremy Corbyn could have been so accident prone that, he should have said something at this press conference, which leads to him being accused of 'anti-semitism'. How can this possible be? And, looking at some of what Jeremy Corbyn is reported as having said at the news conference, I can begin to better surmise what might be happening.

Jeremy Corbyn is reported as saying:

"Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled islamic states or organisations."

This has led to him being accused of being 'anti-semitism', for equating Israel with the Islamic State. For me, the concern is not so much about that kind of comparison. For me, the concern is that Mr Corbyn should not be talking about "Our Jewish friends" and "our Muslim friends." This is the language of patronisation, with its inherent prejudice.  

The Jewish and Muslim people of whom he speaks are British citizens, and Mr Corbyn should be using the correct language, by referring to 'British citizens of Jewish and Muslim heritage..' He should never have brought the politics of the Middle East and war against Islamic State/Daesh, into this news conference. That was a fatal error, as this was an opportunity for Mr Corbyn 'to set the record straight' in explaining his Party's commitment to joining the struggle to defeat racism, including anti-semitism, and to reassure Britain's Jewish communities.

So, why did it happen? Could it, I enquire of myself, could it be that Jeremy Corbyn is - at least, based on my earlier premis that all of us, to different degrees and with different levels of internal controls over over our 'tendencies' to give offence - was displaying some of his 'anti-semitism?  Or, could it be that he lacks savior faire - the ability to do the right thing in any situation - and is too arrogant to consult and listen to the more competent of his advisors?

Or, even that he only listens to those advisors who tell him what he wants to hear, and not the prudent and competent ones who are objectively and professionally trying to advise him?

It is one thing for a politician not to be well suited for and be competent in performing aspects of their work, but, to overcome this deficiency, he/she should at least surround themselves with competent advisors, and be a good listener and willing to act on good advise, even when that advise might not be what they want to hear or do.  

After nearly a year in the position of being leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn is still repeatedly shooting himself in the foot big style. This should not be happening, as you have to be a good and quick learner in politics. It suggests that Jeremy Corbyn might not be a good learner and that he might not have adaptability to make the changes which he does need to make, in himself, in order to make those he would like to make in the country at large.

This debacle' has added to Labour's woes, because, instead of demonstrating that progress has been made in addressing the concerns of British Jewish communities about the impact of racism on them, Mr Corbyn's lack of savoir faire has meant that he has lost more of that community's trust, and that more time, which could have been spent of other pressing demands, will now have to be spent repairing the past damage, and that which he has now done.

There are times when you have to leave the deafening back drop of conflict aside and get on with living in peace as one people.