Anti-Semitism in UK Labour megathread

[cp]

Forgive me for wading into this ...

to the biggest scandal in the UK right now.

Not even close to being true. The Syria/Russia/Trump standoff has dominated the front pages and the TV headlines for the last four or five days. Brexit, specifically the still-unresolved(read: unresolvable) problem of the Irish border, has simmered in the background consistently. Budgetary debates over defense and NHS spending have captured more than a few days of attention, and more locally, in London at least, the supposed rise in knife crime has taken up most of the bandwidth. Like it or not, Corbyn and internal Labour party politics were the flavour of the week for about 10 days and have now largely subsided.

expelling people from a party for condemning the leader's anti-semitism.

Thanks for bolding that for me already

Don't read too much into these sorts of proclamations. Expelling people from the party is the bog standard significant-seeming demand that everyone makes when someone or some group within a British political party does something another person/group disagrees with. Brexiteer Tories wanted to kick out Remainer Tories after last year's Commons vote defeat. New Labour sorts used to call for the now-ascendant lefties to be kicked out. It's a rhetorical gesture. Like calling for a scalp.

people playing at being a human RSS feed then I don't know if even this thread is a great idea...

Well "Audrey" has already turned the UK gen thread into one, so...

I think that's so unfair, anti semitism upsets me a lot, my nanna was a Holocaust survivor, my boyfriend is a reform Jew,

I was sitting the other day with my boyfriends family, and we talked politics, most of them said they voted labour all their life,
my boyfriend mother said she voted labour even in last election with a heavy heart, she added most of the people she knew that attended her synagogue used to vote labour, but none of them even consider voting Labour again.
Labour has become a very toxic brand to large segment of the Jewish community.

It's why I feel passionate about this particular issue,

That's perfectly reasonable, obviously. The problem in question is that every other post in the U.K. thread is you posting three or so Hodge tweets in bold for some reason (after all, what's the purposing of bolding selected text if it doesn't serve to contrast with non-bolder text?) with an image attatched to each one that results in your insubstantial posting taking up way too much thread space.  

Normally, i only set the text bold in titles and sometimes tweets, but note taken,

It's reassuring to know your passion for this issue is heartfelt and genuine rather than partisan and opportunistic, which, regrettably, has been the inspiration for many of Corbyn's critics in this antisemitism row. However, you do your cause no good when your posts are unreadable montages, inexplicably bolded tweets-in-a-vacuum, and guido clickbait.

There's a serious discussion to be had about antisemitism, as well as racism, bigotry, and xenophobia more generally, in Britain. To name a few:

- Farage, Boris, and a hefty set of the Tory/UKIP folk praising Orban and Duda's governments as they employ antisemitic rhetoric and dogwhistling to install authoritarian regimes.

- Labour and the Tories actively enabling anti-immigrant sentiment for years because it was 'good politics', then quietly ignoring the rise in attacks on minority groups - including Jewish people.

- The right wing press (especially the DM and the Express) all but photocopying 1930s-era anti-Jewish propaganda when designing their anti-migrant agitprop.

- And, yes, Momentum and other organized lefty groups purposely eliding justified criticism of the Israeli government's handling of Palestinians with overt appeals to antisemitism.

It's a big problem. It goes well beyond Labour or Corbyn. And it's as ingrained into British politics as the not-unrelated nostalgia for the empire or Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' diatribe. I wish more people in the Labour Party would take it seriously - almost as much as I wish (most of) those attacking Corbyn for antisemitism would as well.

[cp]

While I personally want to listen and partially subscribe to views of British people on this issue- just like it gets tiresome when trolls flood the Israeli discussion thread and attack Israel without having any knowledge on the issue, it can't be fun when the opposite happens in British threads- I do believe that, while some of your points about the British right are true, you kind of underestimate the problems with the British left. Supporting terror organizations is not "justified criticism", and the antisemitic dog-whistles in the rhetoric of Labour's radical left-wing parts is painfully obvious. However, we shouldn't attack everyone and make this a derailed discussion- Andrew, for example, is (like always) being clearly reasonable and balanced, he's not trying to shut down everyone.

I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I don't think I underestimate those problems. But, then, of course I wouldn't

As I see it, there's two separate but parallel aspects to this debate. One has to do with the institutional and ideological characteristics of the Labour Party, the other with a broader set of political issues relating, but not limited, to Israel, terrorism, and imperialism.

On the former matter, I wholeheartedly agree that there are antisemitic attitudes among some Labour Party members, as well as some left leaning commentators/outlets, and that, for political expediency's sake, the toleration of these attitudes is often treated as if it's a dirty little secret rather than a serious problem. That said, the problems with racism and, yes, antisemitism in the Conservative Party (and UKIP, obvs) and its ideological brethren are just as deep. Put another way, Labour and British leftwing politics are a symptom, not a cause, of antisemitism/racism/bigotry in British politics and society.

In fairness to you, I will admit I lose patience with the argument that there is something specifically wrong with the Labour Party or 'the left' on antisemitism. Not because there aren't valid criticisms to be made about institutional racism, but because I think it's mostly a tactic to score political points that leaves the deeper, wider, more serious societal problem conveniently unexamined.

On the latter issue, at the best of times it's difficult to express 'justifiable' criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or for that matter 'justifiable' support for Palestinians, without tacitly aligning oneself with utterly reprehensible actors and attitudes. Even calling for peace talks can be seen as implicit endorsement of people or groups who have committed acts of political violence (non-state sponsored or otherwise).

To the extent this issue is relevant in the UK and to the Labour Party, it is that Corbyn's the first leader of either major party to take a more ambivalent stance regarding Israeli and Palestinian complicity in perpetuating political violence in the region.* This has, in turn, emboldened radical anti-imperialist lefties in the Labour Party (of which there are many), and outright antisemites (of which there are few) to speak out more vehemently than they have previously. Regrettably, it can be difficult to tell which is which, not least because opponents of the Labour Party and/or fanatical supporters of right-wing Israeli policies find it useful to conflate the two.

Ultimately, I think Corbyn and the Labour leadership are much more moderate about Israel than they are portrayed, even among their supporters. Their rhetoric and policies fit comfortably into the mold of social democratic anti-militarists (Mohandas Gandhi, Helmut Schmidt, Willi Brandt, Pierre Trudeau). Their management of antisemitic rhetoric in the Labour Party has been middling at best, but I think that's more a comment on their managerial deficiencies than their ideological leanings.


*There is a parallel to be drawn between his approach to Israel/Palestine and his approach in the 80s and 90s to the nationalists/unionists in Northern Ireland, but that would take a whole new thread to explore!

[cp]

While I personally want to listen and partially subscribe to views of British people on this issue- just like it gets tiresome when trolls flood the Israeli discussion thread and attack Israel without having any knowledge on the issue, it can't be fun when the opposite happens in British threads- I do believe that, while some of your points about the British right are true, you kind of underestimate the problems with the British left. Supporting terror organizations is not "justified criticism", and the antisemitic dog-whistles in the rhetoric of Labour's radical left-wing parts is painfully obvious. However, we shouldn't attack everyone and make this a derailed discussion- Andrew, for example, is (like always) being clearly reasonable and balanced, he's not trying to shut down everyone.

For the record, you have my eternal sympathy for that. There's no worse thread on Atlas for that kind of drive-by opinionating.

[cp]

Yeah, that was one of the ones that caught my attention, too. I think I see what the motivation is behind including that as part of a definition of anti-semitism. Seeing Jewish people as fifth columnists or delegitimizing their claim to citizenship and the rights thereof are both rhetorical harbingers of anti-semitic pogroms and have been for centuries. But it's worded in an ambiguous enough way that it could be used to stifle someone who disagrees that their own country's national interests and Israeli national interests are always in perfect alignment.

The IHRA baseline definition of anti-semitism is wholly unobjectionable, and most of the examples/illustrations they use to elaborate it are as well, but a few of them seem more concerned with Israeli geopolitics than anti-semitism per se.

[cp]

A casual observer might see with amazement that British Labour seems to be caught in an endless and Byzantine dispute on the definition of antisemitism. Leaving aside casual rhetoric lapses made by someone, all this has a flavour of artificially inflated controversy. Poor Jeremy...

See, that's where this gets really sticky. There is absolutely no doubt that people who are opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and/or his policies have used the debates over anti-Semitism to try to discredit Corbyn; for those of a conservative bent they extend the calumny to left-wing politics, socialism, or the Labour Party as a whole.

But it's equally undeniable that there are anti-Semitic voices in British society and that the Labour Party's handling of those voices within its own administration has been sub par. (I hasten to add that the Tories have been just as bad with regards to Islamophobia within their party, but that is a separate matter).

All told, this is a real issue that is also being artificially inflated for partisan/ideological gain.

[cp]

We've got a little of this on the left in America with the bourgeoisie intellectual stereotype, but this stuff is so bad.

Corbyn would literally be the worst leader in the western world by far(he would make Trump and Trudeau look great).

Corbyn is terrible but I'm not sure he's Trump-bad since at least he's "high functioning". I don't like Trudeau either but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as either of them.

People should not be allowed to question if (individual) British Jews have loyalty to Israel above Britain? LOL

If you've got evidence that an individual Jew is secretly working for Mossad or something, go for it. But claiming Jews are part of a cabal  and not really loyal to whatever country they're in has been a staple of antisemitism going all the way back to the Romans. In general I'm not one to apply different rules to talking about different ethnic groups, but there are still situations where even I think the context clearly matters, like casually calling a black man a "boy" and other things like that.

What about someone like Sheldon Adelson saying he wishes he served in the Israeli military instead of the US, and he's one of the top donors to one of our major political parties? He even admits Israel is his number one concern.

So? This is not an excuse for saying Jews aren't loyal to their country. I'd also turn against my country if it suddenly nuked Greece, does it mean I'm not loyal? No, it's just a matter of priorities. It's not an excuse to use this antisemitic rhetoric. Jesus, this is why we need a country. We'd never be safe as a people without it.

So accusing an individual Jew of being more loyal to Israel than their country, even if there is clear evidence of this, is always Antisemitism?

I think the problem here is the wording, not the sentiment. Cynical portrayals of Jewish people as disloyal to their country/community has been, as HisGrace pointed out, a depressingly familiar tool for antisemitic rhetoric over the centuries; any definition of antisemitism ought to address that.

The problem is the phrasing used by the IHRA. It's so broad that someone could be labelled an antisemite simply for criticizing an individual Jewish person for being ideologically blinkered in their support for the Israeli government.

(Sorry about the double post, but I wanted to address these separately. Also, the quotes are super long.)

[cp]

I don't think anyone tried to compare anti-Semitism in Tories to anti-Semitism in Labour. I've averred that both parties contain their (relatively small) share of bigots, and that the Tories' racist prejudices are more focused on Muslim people than Jewish people.

Everyone should take accusations of anti-Semitism seriously. Sadly, I think a lot of the people accusing Corbyn of being anti-Semitic are not among them.

[cp]

It really is depressing; the conflation between Israel/Palestine and antisemitism means that for vast swathes of Labour this issue has now become about trying to 'shut down free speech'. The drip drip nature of the stories, and the fact that that they generally require a bit of explaining meaning that there hasn't really been much of a big cut through- this has been going on for nearly two years now!

It gets rather repetitive to hear MP's keep saying 'this is awful, I stand in solidarity with the Jewish Community'. If MP's think that Corbyn is antisemitic, or that he is happy with antisemitism, that there really is no alternative other than to challenge him for the Leadership, or resign the Whip.

That's kind of the crux of the whole issue about Corbyn's personal beliefs (as opposed to the wider issue of Labour's internal policies for dealing with hate speech): his words and actions have skirted the line between legitimate, albeit sometimes non-mainstream, criticism of Israeli policies and potential dog whistles for antisemitism. If you're inclined to suspect Corbyn holds antisemitic beliefs then what's been reported on is all the evidence of his guilt you need. If you're inclined to believe Corbyn's not antisemitic, or at least that his heart's in the right place, then what's been reported leaves well more than enough room to defend him.

Tangentially, I've noticed the rhetoric denouncing Corbyn over this incident has been decidedly more shrill than before. There's less engagement with the circumstances of what he said and a quicker leap to outright condemnation of (read: conflation with) antisemitism. It's reminiscent of the pearl clutching many in the LibDems/Labour do whenever Boris Johnson makes one of his many loaded 'gaffs'.

[cp]

Ignorance is rife on the intertwined link between Judaism and Zionism, Corbyn has failed to recognize that. While I stand by the comment that Corbyn is no at all anti-semitic, his attitude towards Israel-Palestine shows that he has a black-and-white view of Zionism vs Palestinian Rights that is unhelpful in the unity of the two groups and wholly ignorant.

Opposing Zionism is racist if we are going by the most encompassing definition, that the Jewish people have the right to live in Palestine. Noam Chomsky identifies as a Zionist under this definition.

Then you can get into Zionism definition #2, that the Jewish people have the right to statehood in Palestine. I feel that yes they do, but from a left-wing perspective, it is understandable why many/some oppose a Jewish state, as they oppose states based on a race/religion. The problems with this hower show a non-understanding to the need for a Jewish state to protect from persecution and provide a safe haven for refuge for the Jewish people.

Now if you support settlements (especially) and disproportionate bombings in Gaza and other discriminatory practices you are as racist as those opposing Zionism #1.

Excellent points. From my reading of Corbyn's statements and speeches, he fits quite comfortably into the postcolonialist tradition common among social democrats around the world (Jack Layton, Ralph Nader, Segolene Royal, etc.; his views would be unremarkable in most of Scandanaivia). You're right that Corbyn seems rather Manichean on the issue, but it's worth noting his rhetoric has always headlined reconciliation and peace over any all-or-nothing propositions or solutions.

It's not surprising these sorts of views provoke such a vehement response among ardent supporters of Israel. At its core, postcolonialist/antiracist critiques of international relations undermine the legitimacy of any state that has its roots in the nationalism and imperialism of the 16th-19th centuries. Like Canada, the US, Australia, as well as the colonizing powers of Europe, Israel is imbricated in a system that originally justified its existence in explicitly racial terms.

Tangentially, I've noticed the rhetoric denouncing Corbyn over this incident has been decidedly more shrill than before.

NO ONE IS CONFLATING.

Case in point.

[cp]

At its core, postcolonialist/antiracist critiques of international relations undermine the legitimacy of any state that has its roots in the nationalism and imperialism of the 16th-19th centuries. Like Canada, the US, Australia, as well as the colonizing powers of Europe, Israel is imbricated in a system that originally justified its existence in explicitly racial terms.

That kind of applies to near every country on the planet. Including Venezuela, a particular favourite of the far left. Or Zimbabwe.

Exactly. The point is that the entire international system is embedded with beliefs about racial hierarchies and will to power nonsense that derives from the experience of colonialism. There's no more reason to say Israel is a 'racist' country than there is to say Venezuela or Canada or Belarus is.

However, that's not to say that some governments, like the Israeli one of late, will tacitly or explicitly invoke race to legitimize themselves or specific policies they enact. In that respect, the Zionism #2 is a chief target of postcolonial critiques in a way that Zionism #1 isn't.

[cp]

Maybe what Labour should do is confirm that there is nothing wrong with Zionism, but that we oppose Revisionary Zionism? Could that solve the problem?

That and Corbyn could take a trip to Yad Vashem.

At this point that would probably backfire. Corbyn would be accused of making a showy stunt, which would be a reasonable accusation. It would be like Prince Harry's visit to Auschwitz after he was caught wearing a Nazi armband at a costume party.

[cp]

Tangentially, I've noticed the rhetoric denouncing Corbyn over this incident has been decidedly more shrill than before.

NO ONE IS CONFLATING.

Case in point.

Love the tone policing towards a literal Israeli when this debate is ultimately about whether it's cool for people to say Israel doesn't have a right to exist (hint: it isn't).

So hypocritical for Europeans to argue that Israel wouldn't have a right to exist in the first place, when they live comfortably in nation-states with quite a history themselves. And for Brits to argue that Israel is bad because it would be rooted in colonialism takes a special amount of historical illiteracy and arrogance, on quite a few levels. I would love to know Corbyn's opinion of the Irgun.

Love how you assumed I'm British based on an Atlas avatar.

[cp]

Love how you assumed I'm British based on an Atlas avatar.

Is this the Atlas version of "did you just assume my gender"? Yes, if you're having a UK avatar and flag I'm going to assume you're British. If you aren't, my point still stands for, I don't know, much of the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn himself - which, with all due respect, seems quite a bit more pertinent to the topic at hand than your position.

You didn't seem to think so two posts ago. And, with all due respect, Parrot seems more than capable of arguing his points without you hopping in to make baseless ad hominem attacks against his interlocutors.

Anyhoo, as Intell rightly pointed out, there's a spectrum of opinions about what constitutes Zionism/"Israel's right to exist". One can call into question aspects of the current state of Israel without implicating the entire project - something that Corbyn has been quite adamant about over the years, for the record.

[cp]

The first paragraph of that post was dedicated to you. The second one wasn't. Parrotguy is absolutely capable of arguing for his points, and I am absolutely capable of calling you out on your stupid tone policing from your comfortable chair in God knows which safe and prosperous country that's not Israel.

Clearly you're not, as you keep basing your assessment of my arguments around my personal circumstances instead of their merit.

This means nothing. Yes, one can call into question aspects of Israeli policy, just as one can call into question aspects of British policy, such as Brexit, which is a disaster. One cannot call into question Israel's right to exist, just like one cannot call into question Britain's right to exist. To do the latter would be considered ludicrous; the fact that the former is even a thing shows people's antisemitic double standards. And if Corbyn would say exactly this, I think all problems would be gone.

Corbyn's never called into question Israel's right to exist. The accusations against him have exclusively consisted of:

- Associating too closely with those who do (while in the pursuit of reconciliation),
- Responding ambiguously or clumsily to antisemitic statements by others in the Labour Party, and
- Being insufficiently deferential to the adamantly pro-Israeli consensus that predominates among most Western governments.

None of these point to Corbyn holding the kind of antisemitic beliefs his detractors impute to him, but instead, as I've argued, that he's articulating a non-mainstream but legitimate intellectual argument about Israel and Palestine.

[cp]

You know what, I'm not even gonna argue here anymore. This thread is absolutely infested with antisemites of the worst kind. Even actual Nazis are less annoying and intellectually dishonest than some of the people who pop in here on the regular. Absolutely disgusting.

[Edit: removed snarky-seeming comment]

I'm sorry if I crossed a line, but I do not think I've been intellectually dishonest (I can't speak for everyone else, obviously). This is a serious issue and I try to argue my perspective respectfully and factually. If I've not succeeded in doing so then that is on me.

[cp]

Years ago I might have agreed about shrillness not being necessarily bad, or rather, ineffective, counterproductive, and distracting. But a decade of escalating shrillness by progressives in the US and the UK did sweet  all to move those countries in their direction, and were worse than useless in stopping Brexit and Trump. I don't deny that volume and agitation can be useful, but I am increasingly dubious about their effectiveness.

As to the softening on antisemitism leading to slaughter point, I think that mischaracterizes the nature and the extent of what's been going on in the Labour Party (and the UK more generally). Much of what has been attributed to Corbyn/Labour as antisemitism is legitimate criticism of Israel. That which isn't has been roundly denounced by most of the party, and the leadership has acted - slowly, ham fistedly, arrogantly, and insufficiently, to be sure, but they have acted.

[cp]

He really shouldn't have made a comment like that, and probably should stop using the word zionist, but he was only talking about those who had protested a Palestinian speaker.

Coincidentally, that's exactly what he said in his 'defense':

"In a statement issued on Friday night, Corbyn said he had used the term Zionist “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”.

He added: “I am now more careful with how I might use the term ‘Zionist’ because a once self-identifying political term has been increasingly hijacked by antisemites as code for Jews.”

Corbyn insisted he had “defended the Palestinian ambassador in the face of what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations by people for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”.

Link

[cp]

So, the Zionist position is support Israel or we'll smear you into oblivion? I suppose Noam Chomsky is also an anti-Semite?

It is remarkably easy to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to reach that bar.

Really sure you want to go to bat for the guy insisting Jews aren't proper citizens if they don't renounce Israel, who is currently being cheered by actual Nazis for speaking "Truth to Jewish power"?

If anyone said this about Islamists there would be no controversy whatsoever. Many people in the conservative right-wing do that on a daily basis. Yes, Corbyn's comments were wrong but it was used in reference to those that tried to shut down on the freedom of speech of a Palestinian Ambassador criticising Isreal.

Till, Noam Chomsky is a raving anti-Semite as he has the exact same opinions.

And this would be seen as a reasonable defense if it wasn't for the hundreds of other incidents detailed in this thread.

The Noam Chomsky/assorted Jewish antizionists argument doesn't quite wash either, because Jewish antizionists can be safely assumed to not have nefarious plans for diaspora Jews. The latter cannot be safely assumed for the unaffiliated, as history has proven.

Firstly, the number of incidents implicating Corbyn in this thread, or anywhere else, is not in the hundreds. By the most generous estimate, the number of accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party over the past two years is around 50, of which a handful are specifically about Corbyn. To be clear: that is 50 too many and Corbyn has not acted swiftly or vehemently enough to address them, but exaggerating claims in this manner only obfuscates.

Secondly, it is naive to assume that someone who is Jewish will prime face not have 'nefarious plans' while someone who is not Jewish must always be assumed to have the possibility of having such plans. Besides being needlessly tribalistic, it feeds the kind of conspiratorial mindset that already warps so much of the debate about Israel/Palestine and antisemitism in general.  

Finally, to Chairface, the 'Zionist position' is not what you claim it to be. Most people who identify as Zionists, I think, are quite reasonable and defend their arguments without resorting to smears. Some do not, and it is highly regrettable that they do.

[cp]

He's basically been a strong anti-Zionist in the past and one might be suspicious of any support for a two-state solution now.

That may come from a genuine anti-racist perspective, but unfortunately, it's a little ignorant of Jewish history - especially in the Middle East.

I think that's a fair assessment. Corbyn's never expressed much nuance when it comes to Jewish history, despite having a formidable grasp of other historical dimensions of the Israel/Palestine debate. I can't think of any definitive statements he's made about what solution to the Israel/Palestine issue he would prefer, but it might be instructive to look at the Labour Party's official policy. Corbyn's been willing to let his beliefs take a back seat to the Party line more than once (the monarchy, Trident).

[cp]

This should really be part of the UK General Discussion thread. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Field's resignation has little if anything to do with Corbyn's alleged antisemitism.

[cp]

Insisting the antisemitism accusations against Corbyn, or the Labour Party's inadequate response to antisemitic sentiments within its ranks, are nothing more than propaganda manufactured by the 'Israeli lobby' or the reactionary press is as narrow minded and naive as insisting Corbyn is an inveterate antisemite.

*Of course* there are people who are using the situation to opportunistically score partisan/ideological points. That's politics. Labour/Corbyn supporters should not let indignation about being delivered a low blow when they're down blind them to the serious and legitimate concerns of people speaking up about antisemitic rhetoric/acts (which have been on the rise for the past few years, along with Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, and xenophobia writ large).

As to the IHRA definition, I think Labour would be unwise to adopt it wholesale. On a purely political front, it would do little to stem the tide of accusations of antisemitism within the party (it could very well do the opposite!). On a broader point of principle, the IHRA definition does have serious shortcomings that ought not be ignored for the sake of political expediency.

[cp]

They should split. And make clear that they will never sit with a Labour government under Corbyn.

It's not just about keeping him out of power, it's about denying him the prestige of the "Honorable opposition". As long as he has a party that is close in numbers to the Tories under his thrall, he gains international respect. A huge chunk of his MPs leaving would make clear to the world that he's leading nothing more than the BNP in a Che t-shirt.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. Labour's poor handling of antisemitic remarks and actions by its members is shameful, and Corbyn is a part of that, but it doesn't come close to the outright racism of the BNP.

As Silent Hunter alluded to, it's a problem when people can't distinguish between outright antisemitism, borderline statements that could be taken either way, and legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Not only does it unfairly calumniate people who are making arguments critical of Israel in good faith (read: not due to antisemitism), it shamefully provides rhetorical cover to people who are making antisemitic arguments but disingenuously claim they are not.

[cp]

You mean this part?:

"JN: As a potential chancellor, would you give a guarantee that if you become chancellor you will continue the funding levels for Jewish security in this country and also the Lessons from Auschwitz project?

JmD: When we go into government we will review our expenditure. Of course we wouldn’t want to do anything in terms of reduction of HMD, in fact I want to make sure that’s extended and widened as broadly as we can.

JN: And synagogue security?

JmD: Yes, exactly and there’s a whole range of issues now that initially it wasn’t set up to do but we now have to address so it gives us a vehicle to do that and I think that would be very, very effective. In terms of our financial relationships with Israel and all the rest of it, we’ll review when we go in, it would be dependent on situations at that point."


Seems quite clear he responded to the question about levels of Jewish security funding with a bog standard answer about reviewing spending (what incoming government doesn't?) and then, when pressed, agreed that synagogue security would be extended and widened as well as updated to make sure it was more effective. He also explicitly distinguishes that policy from the issue of financial relationships with Israel.

[cp]

Same rules about posting images apply here, too, Audrey.