I wasted an inordinate amount of time transcribing bits from yesterday�s Home Affairs Committee hearing, starring Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti; stupid really because I knew that if I just hung on for a day or so there would be an official transcript.
Of course, when you�re looking at print you can examine every syllable at your leisure, but in black and white you don�t get the nuances of the actual panto performance.
The visuals and the audio add that extra something. You don�t get to hear Keith Vaz�s peculiar delivery in a transcript. He sounds as though he�s doing a half-hearted impression of Brian Sewell. I suppose it gives him an air of authority; part disdain, part superciliousness, part pomposity, and all the more oleaginous when used to pay a compliment, and in this instance to express profuse gratitude to Jeremy Corbyn for attending.
(So he didn�t have to attend if he didn�t want to?)
The Spectator�s Katy Balls noticed that Chuka Umunna �Has started to make a habit of using the Home Affairs Select Committee to grandstand about his party�s woes.�
�It�s believed to be the first time an opposition leader has been questioned by a commons committee. But-- they certainly weren�t deferential.�
She played a handful of sound clips from the hearing. I think both Sarah Montague (who had introduced the item) and the presenter, Ms Hulme, found the whole thing rather amusing. More amusing than absolutely necessary. Somehow I don�t mind anyone else finding it amusing, but I strongly object to the BBC doing so.
Many regard this inquiry as a whitewash because it does not contain any facts and figures, and it did not take evidence from some of the principal people accused of antisemitism. Why did you think this inquiry was relevant when it really doesn�t come to any conclusions?
I watched this rather nasty hearing on the subject of antisemitism by the Home Affairs Committee, chaired as usual by Keith Vaz, who opened proceedings with a few warm remarks about his long-standing friendship with the chief witness.
Towards the end of the hearing Jeremy Corbyn was asked if Shami Chakrabarti�s report clarified what antisemitism is. He duly obliged with the following definition:
�Antisemitism is where you use epithets to criticise people for being Jewish, you attack Jewish people for what they are, it is completely unacceptable, and I would have thought it�s very obvious what antisemitism is, just as much as would be very obvious what Islamophobia is - if you criticise Moslem people for what they are, what they are alleged to believe, even if they believe in it or not, and I think in the report Ms Chakrabarti makes it very clear that we have to condemn both of those with great vigour equally.�
Shami Chakrabarti was sitting behind Jeremy Corbyn, and she appeared to be acting as his �minder�. She nodded and shook her head, scribbled away on a pad and occasionally slipped a post-it note onto the table in front of her client.
Next to Ms Chakrabarti in the front row, directly behind Jeremy Corbyn, sat a stern-faced man in a dark suit who Keith Vaz referred to as �Mr. Rotherham.� He and Ms. Chakkrabarti gave each other meaningful looks, and he too passed a post-it note to Mr. Corbyn. Keith Vaz spotted this and scolded them.
t�te-�-t�te
Keith Vaz queried Ms Chakrabarti�s independence in the light of her last-minute decision to join the Labour Party. He suggested that people might regard her report as a whitewash.
�No no�, protested Mr. Corbyn. �Shami is completely independent�.
There was a great deal of waffling about what Mr. Corbyn meant in his accidental comparison between Israel and �Islamic states�. He insisted that he meant it �lower case� i.e., Islamic states in general, not �the� Islamic State.
�Ms Chakrabarti, there is no need to nod at the back� said Mr. Vaz.
This did not go down very well with Ms Chakrabarti and the stern-faced man. Both glared thunderously thenceforth.
Victoria Atkins, James Berry, David Burrowes, Nusrat Ghani, Tim Loughton, Stuart C McDonald, Chuka Umunna, and David Winnick were the MPs who questioned Jeremy Corbyn.
He said he �totally and profoundly disagreed� with the views of Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.
Mr Corbyn reflected on his meeting with Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush earlier this year, which, he said had �lasted quite a long time. We got on quite well. Look if we want a strong cohesive society, we oppose antisemitism because it divides us�.
The Labour leader said he had attended events about the Israel-Palestinian conflict where Holocaust deniers had been removed for making antisemitic comments regarding the Shoah.
He had travelled to Ealing in west London for tea with Raed Salah because the sheikh was under house arrest, he added.
Questioned on why he had accused Guardian journalist and JC columnist Jonathan Freedland of "subliminal nastiness", Mr Corbyn said Mr Freedland had "made comments detrimental to my character".
Mr. Corbyn spoke of his agreeable conversations with �Mr. Akrush�, mispronouncing his name repeatedly. Nusrat Ghani�s approach was rigorous and rather fierce. When Mr. Corbyn kept including �all forms of racism� in his replies she insisted on talking specifically about antisemitism.
Mr. Corbyn responded to her adversarial tone by becoming increasingly insouciant.
She asked if he intended to accept the invitation to visit the leader of the Israeli Labour Party. His evasive answer implied that he would not be accepting it, and it�s widely believed that he hasn�t actually replied at all.
Victoria Atkins was also fittingly adversarial. She raised the subjects of Stephen Sizer and that �cup of tea with Raed Salah�
�Paul Eisen founded a group called Deir Yassin Rembered. Deir Yassin was a village that was destroyed during the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.�
An anti-Israel version of an event, plucked from its proper historical context, unchallenged by the committee. When controversial matters appertaining to Israeli/Arab history are being distorted I do not believe members of the Home Affairs committee are capable of identifying propaganda.
As I�ve said so many times before, Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk have always embraced the Palestinian version of events as if they were definitive, absolute and conclusive.
Corbyn�s total lack of interest in historic events from the pro-Israeli perspective belies all his disingenuous claims about bringing people together, engaging with both sides or talking with �people you disagree with� to secure �peace�. He claimed to have visited Israel many times, and to have spoken to Israelis, but he did not go into detail.
David Winnick is too doddery for his shirt I�m afraid, and his supposed support for Israel is half-hearted bordering on full-scale elusive. He appeared to be saying that Israel is guilty as charged, but blaming Jews for it is racist.
�Bombardment of Gaza� intoned Corbyn.
David Burrowes livened things up a bit by mentioning the Hamas Charter, and Keith Vaz obligingly read out the well-known passage, as follows:
�The prophet, peace and prayer be upon him said: the time will not come until Muslims will fight Jews and kill them until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees which will cry �O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him� �
�It�s unacceptable but you have to talk to extremes on both sides.� said the witness.
Chuka Umunna wondered why Corbyn didn�t �call out� Mark Wadsworth, the individual from Momentum who had offended the Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at the infamous launch of the Chakrabarti report. He said he�d seen the video. In fact we�ve all seen the videos of what happened. From every conceivable angle. He also brought up Jackie Walker�s offensive comment about Jews financing the slave trade.
Tim Laughton enquired about the role of Seumas Milne, Corbyn�s right-hand man and director of communications.
�Is he a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah?�
�You�d better ask him. He�s a man of immense intellect and a scholar. He�s written many books (so has Ernie Wise) and he works extremely hard...�
There is a video, said Mr Laughton, showing Milne praising Hamas for their spirit of resistance and declaring that they would not �be broken�
He was not allowed to show the video to the committee, but Mr. Vaz promised to write to Mr. Corbyn about it at a later date.
Stuart C McDonald wasn�t sure if the report defined what antisemitism is. Corbyn duly obliged:(forgive the repetition.)
�Antisemitism is where you use epithets to criticise people for being Jewish, you attack Jewish people for what they are. It is completely unacceptable and I would have thought it�s very obvious what antisemitism is, just as much as would be very obvious what Islamophobia is. If you cri�icise Moslem people for what they are - what they are alleged to believe - even if they believe in it or not, and I think in the report Ms Chakrabarti makes it very clear that we have to condemn both of those with great vigour equally.�
Is everyone expected to swallow that? Yes, he really did use a glottal stop, and yes, I think he really does believe the above. It seems he doesn�t actually think Muslims believe what they profess to believe, namely Islam. He evidently doesn�t believe that the more devout they are the more antisemitic and homophobic they�re likely to be. He equates antisemitism (hatred of Jews) with Islamophobia, (criticism of Islam) both of which he regards as racist.
James Berry:
�Mr Corbyn, do you agree that Israel has the right to exist? "
�Sorry?�
�Do you agree that Israel has the right to exist?�
�The State of Israel exists of course�
�Then you agree that it has the right to exist?�
�Yes, and all proposals that are put forward are actually -- that our party�s policy is for a two state solution.�
�Do you understand why Jewish people find it at best offensive and at worst downright antisemitic to have to continually justify Israel�s right to exist?�
�I�m sure they do. There are issues about Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people and occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza, and all proposals for a peace process are based around the removal of the settlements and of course an end of the siege of Gaza. Listen! I�be been there many times, and what�s happening is wrong. The killing is wrong..�
�On both sides, presumably�
�Absolutely, but there isn�t a way forward that doesn�t involve dialogue, that doesn�t involve acceptance of the rights of Palestinian people and recognition of a Palestinian state, that surely has to be the right way forward.�
The siege of Gaza!
The settlements!!
The �treatment� of the Palestinian people!!!
The occupation!!!!
No-one challenged him on any of that, so I think Jeremy Corbyn could safely say �I was antisemitic a couple of times, but I think I got away with it.�
Sorry for the tardiness and belatedness of this post. Others have tackled it before me but let�s go ahead anyway. The other parliamentary event that took place this week was the Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry about the rise of antisemitism.
This was chaired by Keith Vaz, who pronounces antisemitism with an ��e�, as in �antisemetic� .
Watching Keith Vaz being forensic and painstaking in that laboured manner of his is very annoying, and it makes him look a bit thick. He began by making Jonathan Arkush define antisemitism, dragging it out as though he�d never heard of such a thing in his life. It was quite an emetic, in fact. He used attitudes to �the right to self-determination� as a kind of litmus test.
For all the laborious, misdirected unpickings of what is and what isn�t antisemitism, those familiar, lazy, defamatory generalizations were left hanging in the air.
This enquiry left an overriding impression of unchallenged falsehoods and inaccuracies, ranging from the ubiquitous �What Israel is doing to the Palestinians� to Ken Livingstone�s �700,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes illegally at gunpoint� - not to mention the factthat Hitler supported Zionism because he was keen to rid Germany of all its Jews by deporting them to Palestine (before he went mad and killed 6,000,000.)
What was the point of it all? Does it relate to Shami Chakrabarti�s ill-conceived chairmanship of the inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is morphing into an enquiry into all kinds of racism including Islamophobia? It happened; therefore it was.
MPs who were sympathetic to Jonathan Arkush and hostile to Ken Livingstone still appeared to be in agreement that condemnation of Israel was understandable because of �What it is doing to the Palestinians�, but they seemed to think that the elusive affliction known as antisemitism was shameful and a real menace. Nobody seemed to wonder why Israel kept on �doing� stuff to the Palestinians. It was unanimous. Everyone, including forensic examiner Keith Vaz agreed that criticism of Israel was not antisemitic.
Mr Winnick:
The last question I want to ask is arising from what the Chair asked you about Israel. You accept entirely that criticism of Israel is perfectly compatible with non-racism, and that it is not connected automatically in any way with antisemitism. The criticism of Israel, which could be very strong indeed�some, indeed myself would say that it is often very much justified�is not antisemitic.
The most interesting sound-bite and quotable performance arose from Chuka Imunna�s dramatic speech, somewhat marred by his consciousness of the need to preempt the inevitable trolling. That says a lot about the atmosphere in Corbyn�s current Labour Party, and is a tacit admission that antisemitism is the very thing that is motivating the predicted trolls.
�You know what? I will get trolled incessantly after this exchange. I don�t care��
He still let Livingstone get away with his appalling lies, if indeed he recognised them as lies.
The speech, for which the Chairman admonished him - �This is not an opportunity to make statements� - began:
�I just say this to Mr Livingstone. You were born in my constituency and you went to school in it. I and many other Labour colleagues of all backgrounds and faiths campaigned not just once but twice for you to be Mayor, and I think you campaigned for me. You did help reduce poverty, you did help reduce inequality and you did improve the housing situation in our capital city.�
It�s all very well to set out a couple of carefully selected examples of Mayor Livingstone implementing Labour values, thereby excusing his party�s support for Livingstone�s mayoralty. An aspiring Labour rising star could do no other. But it does look hypocritical to have overlooked, as Umunna seems to have done, Livingstone�s record of ( amongst other things) courting such disreputable people as Qaradawi and the disgraced Lee Jasper.
�But you are not a historian. You are a politician. And by needlessly and repeatedly offending Jewish people in this way you have not only betrayed our Labour values but betrayed your legacy as Mayor because all you are now going to be remembered for is becoming a pin-up for the kind of prejudice that our party was built to fight against. That is a huge shame and it is an embarrassment. �
That is if one overlooks the other (aforementioned) memorable contributions to the legacy of this particular pin-up boy.
Ken Livingstone is not alone in his attitude to Israel, Jews and his malignant version of history. Why do they so readily believe (and I�ve heard it from others) that (in 1948) 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes at gunpoint?
Chuka Umunna could offer no substantive challenge to this falsehood, thus considerably weakening the whole enquiry.
Ken Livingstone: No, no. It is a catastrophe in the sense that the deal done was for two states and a division. The tragedy is�and it is the legacy that still leads to violence today�that 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes illegally at gun point. The Prime Minister of Israel said, �The old will d
Mr Umunna: Sorry, we only get a small amount of time to ask you questions. Either you thought it was wrong, and it was a great catastrophe, or not. Yes or no?
Ken Livingstone: It was right to say that we will create a haven for those Jews who wish to go there. It was not right for the Israeli Government to expel�Mr Umunna: Ken, was it a catastrophe and was it wrong or not?
Ken Livingstone: It was not wrong to create it. It was a catastrophe to expel at gun point 700,000 Palestinians from their homes.
Mr Umunna: Sorry�that was not the question I asked.
Over the page: Transcript. Umunna and Livingstone.
Mr Umunna:
Our party�s constitution says that the Labour party is a democratic, socialist party and that we seek to create, among other things, a community where we �live together freely in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect�. Those are among the values to which I subscribe. Would you subscribe to them, too?
Ken Livingstone: Absolutely.
Mr Umunna: It also says in our constitution that, in order to achieve those values, we seek to create a society that �delivers people from the tyranny of�prejudice�. Would you agree with that?
Ken Livingstone: Absolutely.
Mr Umunna: As has already been said, well over 6 million Jewish people were killed during the Holocaust at the behest of Hitler. Do you believe that conflating Zionism with Hitler�s views, which you did in the Vanessa Feltz interview, causing obvious and foreseeable offence to Jewish people, runs counter to the spirit of solidarity and respect towards others that our party�s constitution demands of us?
Ken Livingstone: Telling the truth cannot do that. I have had Jewish people stop me on the street�a disproportionate amount; hundreds of people have stopped me on the street�to say, �We know what you said is true.� Disproportionately those people have been Jewish because they know their history.
Mr Umunna: The public will be the judge of that. I want to understand your motivations in making the comments that you have, and I am not totally clear what the answers were when the Chair asked you earlier about your attitude towards the Jewish state. For the sake of clarity, do you believe in the right of Jewish people to self-determination?
Ken Livingstone: Yes.
Mr Umunna: Do you believe in the right of the State of Israel to exist? Then why did you say in an interview with the Arabic TV station, Al Ghad Al Arabi, �The creation of the State of Israel was fundamentally wrong.�? In the same interview you said, �The creation of the State of Israel was a great catastrophe.� If you believe in the right of Jewish people to self-determination and the right of Israel to exist, how can you say those things?
Ken Livingstone: What I am pointing out is that a majority of survivors of the Holocaust did not want to go to Israel. They wanted to be absorbed primarily into America or Britain. I think it was a mistake not to give them that choice. The simple fact is, you will recall, that when the State of Israel was created the first Prime Minister urged all America�s 5.5 million Jews to leave America and come and live in Israel. One fifth of one per cent. did in 15 years. That is the tragedy.
Mr Umunna: So, do you stand by the statement that the creation of the State of Israel was fundamentally wrong and a great catastrophe? Do you stand by what you said, yes or no?
Ken Livingstone: It is a catastrophe in the sense that�
Mr Umunna: So you do.
Ken Livingstone: No, no. It is a catastrophe in the sense that the deal done was for two states and a division. The tragedy is�and it is the legacy that still leads to violence today�that 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes illegally at gun point. The Prime Minister of Israel said, �The old will die and the young will forget.� They have not. There are still 3 million in refugee camps.
Mr Umunna: Sorry, we only get a small amount of time to ask you questions. Either you thought it was wrong, and it was a great catastrophe, or not. Yes or no?
Ken Livingstone: It was right to say that we will create a haven for those Jews who wish to go there. It was not right for the Israeli Government to expel�
Mr Umunna: Ken, was it a catastrophe and was it wrong or not?
Ken Livingstone: It was not wrong to create it. It was a catastrophe to expel at gun point 700,000 Palestinians from their homes.
Mr Umunna: Sorry�that was not the question I asked.
Ken Livingstone: But that is the answer I am giving. That is why we have not got peace in the middle east now.
Mr Umunna: Can I ask you another question?
Chair: Order. Mr Livingstone, would you wait for Mr Umunna?
Mr Umunna: Could I just move on a little bit from this and ask you whether you disagree that those who do not recognise the State of Israel or its right to exist are antisemitic?
Ken Livingstone: You cannot simply say because somebody is opposed to the creation of the State of Israel they are antisemitic.
Mr Umunna: Hang on. If a person thinks that the State of Israel does not have the right to exist, you do not regard that as antisemitic.
Ken Livingstone: Many of them will be antisemitic, some will not. Let�s not forget we promised the Arabs an Arab Government at the same time we promised the Israelis. We lied.
Mr Umunna: I don�t need a history lesson; I just need a straight answer.
Chair: Order. Let Mr Livingstone finish his comments.
Ken Livingstone: The British Government lied. It told the Arabs that if you fight on our side in world war one, you will be given a Hashemite kingdom. Instead, we split it all up between France and ourselves. We created a legacy of conflict that is still there today.
Mr Umunna: James Berry just talked about some of this: the various different things that you have said completely separate to what the State of Israel is accused of doing, or may or may not have done. Look at the catalogue: in 1982, the cartoon depicting the Israeli Prime Minister as a Nazi officer; in 2005, calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi concentration camp guard; in 2014, a �Newsnight� interview where you suggest that Jewish people are unlikely to vote for the Labour party as they get more wealthy; and all your various utterances recently. Would you make the same kinds of comments about black people�yes or no? Please just answer the question.
Ken Livingstone: You can�t have a yes or no answer on this. Look at the result of the election last year�
Mr Umunna: I am not asking you what the result of the election was. I am just asking you whether you would make the same comments in respect of black people.
Ken Livingstone: You asked me for my views about why Jewish people vote as they do. Last year
Mr Umunna: That�
Chair: Order. Mr Umunna, you must let the witness answer.
Mr Umunna: But he is not answering my question.
Ken Livingstone: You don�t like the answer�that is different.
Mr Umunna: You haven�t answered the question.
Chair: Order. I am chairing this meeting. Mr Livingstone will answer and then Mr Umunna will ask again. It is for the witness to decide what they want to say.
Ken Livingstone: We went into the election led by a Jewish leader. Over 60% of British Jews voted for the Conservatives and 22% voted Labour. We can argue about why they did and did not then. I think 50 years ago that would have been a very different figure. Look at the facts�
Mr Umunna: Aren�t you just stereotyping a whole group of people?
Ken Livingstone: I am not stereotyping; I am looking at the data published by the pollsters. Look at the facts of my record as Mayor. In seven of the eight years I was Mayor, antisemitic incidents were reduced. The only year they were not reduced was 2006, when in the aftermath of the invasion of Lebanon the figures did not move down�they did not go up. In the rest of Britain and across Europe, according to the Community Security Trust, they doubled. Whatever you may say, my period as Mayor saw a reduction in antisemitic incidents. In Boris Johnson�s first year, I think they went up 50%. So you might not agree with what I say, but the legacy of what I have done should bear some study.
Chair: Mr Umunna, a final question.
Mr Umunna: I just say this to Mr Livingstone. You were born in my constituency and you went to school in it. I and many other Labour colleagues of all backgrounds and faiths campaigned not just once but twice for you to be Mayor, and I think you campaigned for me. You did help reduce poverty, you did help reduce inequality and you did improve the housing situation in our capital city. But you are not a historian. You are a politician. And by needlessly and repeatedly offending Jewish people in this way you have not only betrayed our Labour values but betrayed your legacy as Mayor because all you are now going to be remembered for is becoming a pin-up for the kind of prejudice that our party was built to fight against. That is a huge shame and it is an embarrassment. You know what? I will get trolled incessantly after this exchange. I don�t care�
Chair: Mr Umunna, please put your question if you are putting one. This is not an opportunity to make statements. What is your question? Is there a question for Mr Livingstone?
Mr Umunna: I am just making a comment since he will not answer any of my questions.
Chair: Mr Livingstone, would you like to reply?
Ken Livingstone: All I would say is, if you look back, many of the things I have said have been controversial. When I defended lesbian and gay rights in 1981, we were denounced. When we said we needed to negotiate with the IRA, we were denounced. The simple fact is, show me what I got wrong in those times. I was just prepared to challenge the bigotry of the day and I am prepared to challenge bigotry today.
Mr Umunna: I will challenge your bigotry, too.
Chair: Order. I am sure Mr Umunna will put those views down and write to you and you can reply to him, but it is not�
Ken Livingstone: I will take him out for a meal�that will be easier.
