The UK Labor party’s national executive recently adopted a code of conduct on anti-Semitism intended to discourage its members from publicly denouncing Jews—or at least to salvage its reputation in light of their tendency to do so. But rather than base its new code on the definition of anti-Semitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which is highly respected in Europe—as they were urged to do by the Anglo-Jewish community and many others—the party leaders decided to employ a far narrower definition. Dave Rich comments:

The IHRA definition . . . recognizes that nowadays anti-Semitism often appears in discourse relating to Israel, either by targeting Israel itself as a proxy for Jews or by repeating old anti-Semitic slanders with “Israel” or “Zionist” swapped in for the word “Jew.” This is where Labor’s alternative code of conduct on anti-Semitism . . . falls down. . . . For example, in the Labor code it is not [deemed anti-Semitic] “to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” The code simply says this is “wrong.” . . . Yet this charge, that Jews cannot be trusted or must always be suspected of having a hidden agenda, is central to the old-fashioned, right-wing anti-Semitism that the party claims to oppose.

Similarly, the IHRA definition says it is anti-Semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but Labor’s code says this is only the case if there is “evidence of anti-Semitic intent,” a caveat it attaches to all “contentious views” relating to Israel. Nor does Labor’s code agree with IHRA that it is anti-Semitic to argue that the very idea of a state for the Jewish people is a “racist endeavor.”

Thus in today’s Labor party, it is possible to argue that Israel is a Nazi-like state that should be wiped from the map, and that any Jews who say otherwise are probably paid by Israel to do so, and should not be hauled up for anti-Semitism. You may be told that your language is insensitive or impolite and asked to go on an education course, but your anti-racist reputation will remain intact.

All along, the Labor leadership has failed to explain why it feels it can’t use the IHRA definition. . . . It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Labor leadership does not want to use [it] precisely because it addresses anti-Semitic attitudes that, for years, have circulated and become normalized in the parts of the left where Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have spent their political lives.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.