The Morning Star has learned something

The antisemitic attack on four ambulances run by the Jewish charity Hatzola in north London, was roundly and unreservedly condemned by the Morning Star. The paper’s editorial immediately following the attack made a point of denouncing “the twisted logic” that holds Jewish people responsible for the actions of Israel.

Surely we should expect nothing less from the paper of “Peace and Socialism”?

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

In June 2018 the paper carried an article headed “Rising anti-semitism cannot be tackled without addressing Israel’s crimes.” The article claimed “mainstream Jewish communities everywhere … appear unwilling to accept the connection between developing international anti-semitism (or anti-Israel sentiment) and Israel’s decades long … acts of barbarism.”

Two leading members of the Communist Party (which controls the paper), Mary Davis and Phil Katz, immediately protested, writing in response: “This is collective guilt whatever way one comes at it. We argue forcefully as a paper, that British Muslims should not be stigmatised for the actions of Saudi rulers, or Isis. But when it comes to Jews, other standards apply…”

A statement subsequently appeared on the Morning Star website stating that the article “crossed a line in attributing anti-semitism to the policies of the Israeli government and made demands on the ‘Jewish diaspora’ and ‘Jewish community’ as is these were responsible for Israeli policy or obliged to account for it.”

It is worth recalling that row because although the paper has continued to publish articles that downplay antisemitism and, during Corbyn’s leadership of Labour, dismissed allegations of antisemitism as the work of “British and Israeli state actors”, the paper has never again tried to argue quite so crudely that Israel and “Zionist” Jews are to blame for antisemitism.

But, sadly, that has been the reaction of a large number of people claiming to be left wing, commenting on social media following the north London arson attack. Other widely shared responses have included the claim that it was a “false flag” operation by the Israelis and even that it was an “insurance job” by Hatzola itself.

An article in Socialist Worker by Tomáš Tengely-Evans (25 March: “Stand against north London antisemitic attack, don’t let the right exploit it”) starts off with a condemnation of the attack as “a horrific reminder that antisemitism is on the rise” before going on to denounce any suggestion that the Iranian state might be involved, to attack the (Jewish) Community Security Trust on the grounds that “its leaders support Israel and slur Palestinians”, and to insist that “anti-Zionism — wanting the destruction of the Israeli settler colony — is not antisemitism.”

The article even suggests that the false flag conspiracy theory being put about in the wake of the attack “takes a kernel of truth” and goes on to back the idea that Netanyahu “was able to draw Trump into the attack on Iran.”

The same article confidently states that antisemitism “is a far right ideology and driven by forces such as the Trump movement in the United States” (it cannot possibly exist on the left, then).

Meanwhile, “Jewish Voice for Liberation” (formerly Jewish Voice for Labour, an organisation that seems to exist mainly to downplay antisemitism on the left and in general) posted a piece by one M J Rosenberg, an American writer whose argument, says the JVL Introduction “applies equally to Britain”.

The article, headed “Israel is responsible for anti-Jewish attacks here” claims that Jewish organisations and rabbis have always claimed that Israel speaks and acts for Jews in general: “You cannot spend decades insisting that Israel represents all Jews and then be surprised when others, including dangerous and hateful people, take that claim at face value.”

An argument that is remarkably similar to that of the 2018 article that they felt obliged to withdraw and apologise for.

For all its weakness on the question of antisemitism, it has at least learned that blaming Jews (or at least “Zionists” — i.e. that majority of Jews who do not seek “the destruction of the Israeli settler colony”) for antisemitism, is inevitably… antisemitic.