If we are to take Jeremy Corbyn at his word, the statement he made in 2013 referred to a group of people who he (Jeremy Corbyn) considered as being linked to the political movement of Zionism, and was not intended to refer specifically either to people of Israeli nationality, or Jewish ethnicity – or indeed people who practise Judaism.  Taking this on face value, it would seem possible that the statement per se can legitimately be defended against the accusations of both racism and religious hatred – since it relates to Zionists, who according to the Collins Dictionary are people who support the “political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine…”. 

Nevertheless, even where his comments are considered neither racist nor anti-semitic, it seems very fair to say that his comments represent an insulting generalisation against the people of a specific political movement; and by extension that his comments were both ill-judged and ill-founded.

This however is not the view which has been taken by the ex-chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom Jonathan Sacks – who yesterday in an interview with the New Statesman claimed that the comments of Jeremy Corbyn were the “most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech” – which considering the recent debate concerning the comments of Boris Johnson which espoused the belief concerning the muslim burka that it was “absolutely ridiculous that women go around looking like letter boxes” is a serious criticism. 

What is even more surprising, is the refusal of Jonathan Sacks to condemn the recent policy passed in the Knesset – the Nation-State Law.  Although a controversial passage concerning the right of citizens to defend the cultural integrity of their community was removed, there remain several passages which clearly bias the state of Israel towards the protection and rights of Jews:

• 1.A – The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.Jerusalem united is the capital
• 1.B – The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfils its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination
• 1.C – The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people
• 4.A – The state’s language is Hebrew
• 6.A – The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship
• 7.A – The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

Most of the above points apply a basic law to those people who are ‘Jewish’ – an adjective which perhaps leave room for interpretation; does it refer to the religion? the ethnicity? a particular nation?  According to the British definition, the term Jew can refer to either the ethnic group or to a person who follows the religion of Judaism.  However what it most notably does not refer to is a citizen of Israel.  In essence then, what we have in the Nation-State Law passed by the Knesset is the enshrinement in law of the rights of Jews – and of no-one else: and that (I would argue) is fascism.  At the very least, it is the political support (by omission) of a consideration that one group of people are superior to another.

Which point leads me to a very interesting hypothesis; is the Nation-State Law itself anti-semitic?

Much has been made of the ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism‘  put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).  That definition includes the following examples of anti-semitic activity:

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour

The Nation-State Law clearly gives ‘Jews’ the right to self-determination in Israel – which is the same as saying that ‘Jews’ are responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.  This may appear at first glance to be pedantry, however the Nation-State Law specifically refers to all Jews – no mention is made of whether or not those Jews are Israeli citizens. 

Furthermore, it is anti-semitic (apparently) to claim that the State of Israel has racist policies – yet clearly it does; there is no mention of the Israeli nationality in the Nation-State Law – the only term used is that of ‘Jew’.  It is also (again apparently) anti-semitic to draw “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” – yet I cannot think of anything more greatly linked with the Nazis than the state-approved discrimination against a particular ethnic group!

The Nation-State Law – whether it be anti-semitic or not – can I think, only be seen as an unimplementable piece of legislation, but which remains nevertheless dangerous idealogical propaganda.  In years to come perhaps the bounds of this law will be tested, but I for one do not relish the first legal case to be brought concerning whether or not someone qualifies as a ‘Jew’.  Just how much of a ‘Jew’ does one need to be?  Does second-generation count? Third? Fourth?  Maybe a fourth-generation Jew isn’t enough – maybe they would need to convert to Judaism?!

Perhaps before we decide what anti-semitism is, we should define exactly what is meant by the term ‘Jew’.  Generalisations are by definition imprecise, but even as far as being a generalisation goes, this one is too broad to be of any use: it is not clear whether or not this refers to a religious group or an ethnic group, and it cannot be both.  

I would argue that all generalisations are harmful – both our criticisms and praise should be specific.  To this end, Jeremy Corbyn should not speak to the education and culture of Zionists, and neither should Jonathan Sacks speak to the culture and Education of ‘British Jews’.