Oral evidence: The Rise of Antisemitism, HC 136

Oral evidence, 14 June 2016.

Witness

Jonathan Arkush.

Chair

I call the Committee to order and refer everyone present to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests where the interests of members of this Committee are noted. I welcome Jonathan Arkush, the President of the Board of Deputies. Thank you for coming. You are our first major witness, if I can put it like that, in our inquiry into antisemitism. I would like to start with a general question. Do you think that antisemitism and antisemitic attacks are on the increase in Britain today?

Jonathan Arkush

On the basis of the figures compiled by the Metropolitan police, in 2015 there were about 500 antisemitic incidents. On the basis of figures compiled by the Community Security Trust, from whom I think you are going to hear—

Chair

We are.

Jonathan Arkush

They are the experts. They have produced detailed figures, using a methodology they have used for about 25 years, that there were something like 1,000 incidents, and that was the third or the second highest on record. The figures have not come down very much since 2014, when there was a spike at the time of the Gaza campaign. I think the figures have shown a slight and welcome fall since 2014, but they are still stubbornly high.

Chair

Why do you think they are on the increase? You sit as the head of one of the most respected bodies representing individuals of any religion. You must have conducted your own research on this, and obviously you have an enormous network in the community. Why do you think this is happening and where is the failure of the state in particular to deal with this problem?

Jonathan Arkush

Traditionally antisemitism has come from the far right, and we are not seeing very much far right activity at the moment. Traditionally there has always been prejudice against Jews coming from the far left as well, and I think that with the advent of a more leftward tilt in the leadership of the Labour party, some people feel that a space has opened up for them, or they feel emboldened to say things that previously they felt they could not say in polite society. I think that partly explains some of the statements made by people in the Labour party, although I do emphasise it is not by any means restricted to the Labour party.

Chair

I’ll come to the Labour party in a second, if I may, because that is one of the areas we want to look at.

Jonathan Arkush

May I add something? A significant part of the incidents come from people who are or who appear to be from areas in Muslim communities. I want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims—and I spend quite a lot of time meeting them in mosques and Islamic centres because it has been a priority of mine—are moderate and law abiding, and they are not prejudiced in the main; but there are some quarters who are very prejudiced, and I think they may get information or prejudice passed down through mosques, schools, literature or Muslim subscription TV channels of an extreme nature coming from abroad.

Chair

We will cover more of that in a second, but first help me to define what antisemitism is. The definition of antisemitism adopted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2015 includes the denial of the right of Jewish people to self-determination. Do you believe that it is antisemitic to question the morality of the establishment of the State of Israel? That is, in a sense, part of the defence of those who say they are not antisemitic: they say that they just don’t like what the State of Israel is doing. Do you accept that definition, or do you have a better definition that could frame our inquiry?

Jonathan Arkush

At its simplest level, antisemitism is racial prejudice directed against Jewish people, but that of course needs to be expanded a certain amount because there are lots of different behaviours within it. What the European Union Monitoring Centre did—they called it a working definition as opposed to something cast in stone—was to group together various behaviours that they regarded as exhibiting antisemitism. The Fundamental Rights Agency is now the agency concerned, and more recently the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, on which this country is represented, has adopted the EUMC definition with a tiny change in wording that does not really change anything. So yes, we do regard the EUMC working definition as helpful, comprehensive and fit for purpose.

Chair

So if somebody says, “I don’t believe the State of Israel has a right to exist,” they would be antisemitic?

Jonathan Arkush

If they said, “We don’t believe in nationalism, as translated by the right to self-determination, of any people,” I would not regard that as antisemitic, and I suppose it could be a coherent point of view. But based on the right of self-determination being a fundamental human right recognised in the charter of the United Nations, if they withhold the right of determination solely from Jewish people, but not from anyone else, I would question why they are singling out Jewish people for that exceptional treatment.

Chair

That is very helpful. So if it is specifically about the State of Israel, they would be antisemitic and obviously anti-Zionist, too?

Jonathan Arkush

Yes. Zionism is the right of Jewish people to self-determination.

Chair

So if they say, “I don’t want anyone to have self-determination”—the people of Pakistan call themselves the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, for example, and there is the Republic of Iran—and it is for the whole world, that is fine, but if it is specifically about Israel, they would be antisemitic.

Jonathan Arkush

We would say so, yes. We question anywhere where you single out Jews for one particular treatment that you do not accord to other peoples.

Chair

Sure. Just one more on the foreign policy aspect. Are people free to criticise Benjamin Netanyahu and other Prime Ministers and former Prime Ministers of Israel for what Israel does or does not do in Gaza without fear of being called antisemitic or anti-Zionist?

Jonathan Arkush

Yes indeed. No one criticises the Government of Israel more than Israelis themselves. Just as you can criticise a policy of the Government of this country, or any country, we have never had any problem with criticism of one policy or another of the Government of the State of Israel, which is a very, very vibrant democracy. One only has to watch the way that political discussion is conducted in Israel, including in the Knesset, to realise that criticism is alive and well in the State of Israel.

Chair

Indeed—alive and well, and exciting.

Jonathan Arkush

Probably too exciting for some politicians.

Chair

You took us to the Labour party, so let us concentrate on some of the things you have said about them, and indeed the far right and the far left—let’s be fair in this. For example, in respect of Donald Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom on 22 June, you stated that “Mr Trump’s recent comments have been divisive and troubling.” And that he “has not moved decisively enough to distance himself from extremist supporters.” Is that what you describe as “the right”?

Jonathan Arkush

I am not sufficiently expert in United States politics. When I was talking about the right, I was talking about domestic politics in this country. It is certainly not unknown to find racism directed against Jews from parts of the political world on the right in this country. In relation to the United States, I guess that Donald Trump is on the right, and yes, we are very troubled by some of the things that he has said recently.

Chair

And you think that they might be antisemitic, or are antisemitic?

Jonathan Arkush

No. We were referring to his getting embroiled in racial stereotyping about Mexicans, for example, most recently about the Mexican judge.

Chair

Let us now move to the left and the comments made by Ken Livingstone, who is going to be one of our witnesses later on this afternoon. What troubles you about what he has said? He has made quite a strong defence of his views, and he has tabled a paper to this Committee today talking about all the work he did with the Jewish community while he was Mayor of London. What troubles you about him? Is it because he used the word “Hitler”? Is it because you think he is antisemitic himself? What is it that troubles you about what he said, for example? Obviously he is not the only person who may have made such comments, but let’s use him since he is coming to give evidence to us today and we can put it back to him.

Jonathan Arkush

In the old days people from the far right would try to smear Jews by accusing them of being communists. Now we are seeing some times when people on the far left try to smear Jews by saying that they behave like Nazis. What troubles me about Ken Livingstone is that his history was completely wrong and false. We will be sending your Committee, if you wish—I also have some copies here to leave—some pieces by respected historians who have shown that Lenni Brenner, whose book I think is what Mr Livingstone relies on, is portraying a totally false and distorted version of history. I have articles from The Guardian and the BBC, saying exactly the same thing, by other very well-known, respected and genuine academics. Lenni Brenner is not a genuine academic. He is a Marxist academic with a political axe to grind. I don’t know whether Mr Livingstone knew or did not know the falsity of his source textbook, but what I am absolutely sure about is that in saying that Zionists, which we regard as a codeword for Jewish people—at any rate, most Jews are Zionists and they believe in the right to self-determination—were like Nazis, he was being deliberately offensive and purposely provocative, and not for the first time in his career.

Chair

No indeed, but let us stay on this particular point, because we cannot in this short space of 45 minutes deal with Mr Livingstone’s entire career, I’m afraid. In respect of what he said on this issue, you are quite certain that those are antisemitic remarks.

Jonathan Arkush

I am absolutely certain that they were intended to offend. They were antisemitic because—whether or not he intended it, about which there may be speculation—in trying to say that Jews were like Nazis he said something that is plainly antisemitic. I find it astonishing that he could have made those remarks and that he still stands by them. I think that anyone who exhibits that sort of bigotry is clearly antisemitic. His views are utterly repellent to our community. If he was to say anything like that about any other people I think he would be labelled a political pariah, and that is what I think he is.

Chair

But you went on further to say that the recent changes in the leadership of the Labour party meant that these voices can now come out, as if to suggest that they already exist in the political mainstream. When you are talking about the Labour party you are talking about the political mainstream, not a fringe party. They are the Opposition in the current Parliament. Do you believe that the political parties in total have a problem with antisemitism, or do you think that it is just the Labour party? We will be hearing from the leader of the Labour party, who has agreed to give evidence to us in two weeks’ time, so we will put that to him. We are hearing from the leader of the Scottish National party after you, and we are awaiting the Prime Minister’s reply. Do you think that there are these voices in all the political parties, or in your view is it exclusively the Labour party?

Jonathan Arkush

Lately it is mainly in the Labour party. Witness the fact that there have been some 50 suspensions pending disciplinary proceedings. The identity and party political affiliation of those who have been making statements that have reached the public eye recently is that they are members of the Labour party.

Chair

I don’t know whether you saw the comments of the president of the NUS, who described Birmingham University as “a Zionist outpost in higher education” and attacked “Zionist-led media outlets”. That would be way off your scale in terms of describing it as antisemitic, I assume.

Jonathan Arkush

Yes, absolutely. The myth—the trope of Zionist or Jewish control of the media is a trope that goes back 1,000 years. We are well used to it; we recognise it when we see it. Anything that attributes to Jews some sort of sinister control or motive, or responsibility for the ills of the world—now the accusation is that Israel is responsible for all the troubles of the world. Things that people used to say about the Jewish people they now say about the world’s only Jewish state.

Chair

Finally, tell me where this all ends. Political leaders, present or former or whatever, making these kinds of statements—what do you fear about the statements being made by those who come from the political mainstream? Where does it end for the Jewish community in Britain?

Jonathan Arkush

It doesn’t end with the Jewish community. History has shown us that people who start with the Jews—it never ends with the Jews. It is normally a sign of some greater ill in society that people feel they can pick on a numerically rather small people who have long been the objects of prejudice. I am actually confident that this and the fact that people in this country are rightly concerned about it, including this Committee—and I thank you for looking at it and for inviting me—will expose some unpleasantness in our society that all political leaders, if they are acting responsibly, as I am confident that they will, will do everything they can to put a stop to. So, part of it is that I would expect parties to have clear codes of conduct so that everyone knows where they stand, and that if someone breaks that code of conduct there will be sanctions within the party. I am confident that we will end up in a better place.

Chair

Mr Jayawardena—you have to leave.

Mr Jayawardena

Thank you, for calling me early, Chair. Apologies; I have to leave to go to a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I shall be returning soon. Mr Arkush, is anti-Zionism rapidly becoming the Trojan horse for antisemitism?

Jonathan Arkush

Yes, I think that is one way of putting it. Former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said that today you can be as antisemitic as you like and never use the word “Jew”.

Mr Jayawardena

Although I am sure that it does not reflect the position of the Member for Moray, who will be giving us his thoughts later, although there are so many conflicts across the world, within the Scottish Parliament the spotlight seems always to be on Israel. I searched through the records of the Scottish Parliament’s most recent Session, from May 2011 to March 2016, and found that during that period there were 39 motions lodged by MSPs about the State of Israel compared with 26 about Syria, 16 about Iraq, just six about Iran and only four about North Korea. The majority of the motions related to Israel were undoubtedly critical. While no one—you included—would argue that Israel should be immune from criticism, I think we have to ask this question: why this disproportionate focus on Israel? Is it because it is the world’s only Jewish state?

Jonathan Arkush

That is exactly the question that we ask as well.

Mr Jayawardena

Turning to Labour, many of us would argue that Labour’s problem starts at the very top of the party. Many in Labour’s leadership today have spent their entire political lives cosying up to antisemites and terrorist groups that express genocidal intent against the Jewish people, and they have worked closely with holocaust deniers, praised antisemitic extremists and described Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. Do you believe that the inquiry that they are conducting will be enough to re-establish Labour’s credibility on this issue? If not, what further action would you deem necessary to rebuild trust?

Jonathan Arkush

I want to say first of all that the Board of Deputies of British Jews is not a party political organisation and has no party political affiliations. We are solely interested in the wellbeing of the country’s Jewish community. We are concerned that leadership comes from the top. We are concerned that the leader of the Labour party has met Hamas and Hezbollah right here in the House of Commons, not in the guise of peacemaking but at a reception that was about celebrating the resistance, and he has called them “friends”. Despite my many requests to him, both face to face when I had a very good meeting with him—he is a very engaging man—I wasn’t able to get him to accept that those meetings were inappropriate, or to say that they would not be repeated. I really am waiting for him to say that.

Mr Jayawardena

That is helpful. Last question, Chairman. Shami Chakrabarti, who has been tasked with chairing Labour’s inquiry, has said that she will not seek evidence from Ken Livingstone, the former Labour London Mayor, whose suspension from the party triggered this—what can only be called “crisis”—within the Labour Party. What is your assessment of that?

Jonathan Arkush

We met Shami Chakrabarti this morning as it happened. The main Jewish communal bodies organised a round table for her, where she could ask whatever questions she wanted and have the discussion. I was present for most of that meeting, and we had a very good discussion. I would like to place as much confidence as I possibly can in Shami Chakrabarti and her team. It is right that Labour should be given credit for setting up the inquiry, and the Jewish community hopes with anticipation that the inquiry will fulfil its remit and draw clear lines between what is acceptable political behaviour and what is not. Where the behaviour has crossed a line, we hope that there will be a clear, rigorous and fair system for responding to it.

Mr Jayawardena

On the point I asked, is it acceptable—is it right—that the comments that triggered this crisis in the Labour Party will not be looked at by interviewing the person who said them?

Jonathan Arkush

That is probably a question for her. I am not aware that she wasn’t going to ask him.

Mr Jayawardena

What is your assessment though? Do you think it is right that the person who made these comments, who triggered this crisis in the Labour Party, will not be interviewed by the Labour Party’s own inquiry?

Jonathan Arkush

His comments were so abhorrent and offensive, and he has repeatedly sought to justify them, that I can well understand that someone might conclude that having him along to have another opportunity to grandstand would not be conducive.

Mr Winnick

Mr Arkush, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave evidence last week on the migration crisis. He was asked about feelings against Muslims and Jews. Are you aware that, when he referred to the Jewish people, he said—and I am quoting from the distinguished Archbishop of Canterbury—“We have to recognise that antisemitism has been the root and origin of most racist behaviour for the past 1,000 years in this country”? That is a view that, obviously, you fully endorse.

Jonathan Arkush

Well, Jews have been part of the fabric of this country since Roman times, so probably going back 2,000 years. As a matter of history, in 1290—

Mr Winnick

Yes, he missed that out.

Jonathan Arkush

In 1290, Jews were expelled, so between 1290 and approximately 1665 there weren’t any Jews in this country, at least officially. Having said that, there was undoubtedly some Jewish prejudice: you can see it come out in some of the works of Shakespeare. Since the 1660s, Jews have been perhaps a readily identifiable minority in this country, but I would not say they were the only source of prejudice. At times, there has been prejudice no doubt against the Irish, Asian people and various others.

Mr Winnick

No doubt, and it is deplorable in all instances. Of course, he not only inadvertently missed out 1290, but also what happened in Lincoln and York in 1190, which will be familiar to you. But he went on to say: “We have a shameful record, as regarding the church, until very recently in historical terms.” Is that not a welcome recognition by the leading Church of England clergyman of the unfortunate involvement of the Church, and other Christian Churches, in antisemitism and general prejudice against Jews, accusing them of being responsible for the death of the saviour of the Christians?

Jonathan Arkush

I think it is. Historically, sadly, one of the greatest sources of persecution of Jews has come from the Church. That is not the case today, let me hasten to say.

Mr Winnick

When it comes to the difficulties of security, would it be right to say that there can hardly now be a synagogue, or Jewish school, that doesn’t take the necessary precautions, and with every possible justification?

Jonathan Arkush

I’m afraid that is right. My synagogue, typically, if they have a brownie pack meeting—any activity at all in a Jewish place of worship or communal centre has to have security guards outside. With Jewish schools, there is another level of security altogether, and sadly some of them are beginning to look like fortresses. If we don’t get a grip on this problem, we might end up—heaven forbid—like you see in France where every Jewish communal institution looks like a fortress guarded by the army carrying heavy weaponry, which is very, very intimidating.

Mr Winnick

You have been, understandably, critical of certain remarks made by the Labour party. The Chair has referred to the inquiry which is taking place. Would you not agree that the Labour party, of which I have had the honour of being a member now for 60 years, has had a long tradition—almost from the beginning, indeed the word almost is not necessary—of full equality for minorities and certainly for Jews. Jews have had every opportunity within the Labour party to stand for public office, and that is certainly not true—would you not agree?—of the Conservative party until shall we say the last 25 or 30 years.

Jonathan Arkush

I do not have enough historical knowledge, and as I say the Board is not a party political organisation. But I would certainly agree with you that the Jewish community’s ties with the Labour party run very deep indeed. Catching my eye is a picture of Harold Wilson, who was very friendly towards the Jewish community and the State of Israel, and that is why the Jewish community feels such anguish now. So many prominent members of the community have been long-standing members of the Labour party for decades, and they now find themselves torn into such a difficult position.

Mr Winnick

I don’t know whether 50 years is too long a period to look at, but following the 1966 election the Jewish Chronicle had a splash on 8 April 1966 in which it referred to the number of Jewish MPs, which antisemites were certainly going to exaggerate and did, and then said that as far as Tories were concerned there were just two. It has been said—perhaps I could have your comments—that huge senior Tories such as Lord Howard have a tremendous amount of difficulty in being selected for a safe Tory seat not because of his politics or his lack of ability, but simply because of his racial origin. Would you agree that, compared with the Conservative party, the Labour party over a long period of time has had a policy, as it has had towards blacks and Asians, of full equality and encouragement to join and be active in public life?

Jonathan Arkush

I don’t know. All I can tell you is that I am 61 years old, and I grew up in Finchley. From as long ago as I can remember, certainly when I was a teenager, the Member of Parliament was Margaret Thatcher. She was a very deep friend of the community, and many local distinguished members of the Jewish community supported the party and had a home there. I don’t know how far you need to go back. I do recall—I think it was Macmillan’s remark, or someone made the remark—about there being more Estonians than Etonians in the party, so yes, there were prejudicial remarks then. For as long as I can remember, and perhaps I am not as old as some, I think that there has been a very strong tradition of tolerance in the Conservative party. I think it is also fair to say that, until relatively recent decades, Jews were so overwhelmingly supportive of the Labour party that they wouldn’t naturally have stood for office or for election in the Conservative party. I think that might be part of the explanation.

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.

Jonathan Arkush

Absolutely. If people criticise a policy of the State of Israel it is not, per se, antisemitic. If someone only criticised the policies of the State of Israel and diverted their eyes from genuinely gross abuses of human rights in, say, Syria or North Korea or the Palestinian Authority for that matter, or anywhere, then I would question what their motivation was.

Mr Winnick

If people justify antisemitism or try and justify prejudice against Jews, if not antisemitism, by referring to Israel, that is no more logical—am I not right?—than those who criticise aspects of Islam, not only the terror group but what goes on in Saudi Arabia and other countries including Iran. In doing so, they are not being anti-Muslim. That would be your position, wouldn’t it? You can criticise Israel without being antisemitic, in the same way that you can criticise Muslim countries without being accused of being anti-Muslim.

Jonathan Arkush

Yes. Again, if you only criticise one, sometimes it is instructive. Instead of using the word “Jew”, you use the word “black” and see if you would reach the same conclusion. If you are only focused on one place to the exclusion of all the others, I do wonder. But in principle, yes, I agree with you.

Victoria Atkins

You have explained to us that you found Ken Livingstone’s comments abhorrent—I think you used that word. Please speak now not as the President of the Board of Deputies, but as a husband, a father and a grandfather. How did those comments make you feel?

Jonathan Arkush

I was horrified when I heard them. In fact, when I heard about them I felt complete disbelief. Especially as the row was raging, with suspensions in the Labour party, people saying some really ridiculous things about Jews having big noses or that Jews were this or that. Most recently someone said that Jews were apparently the financiers of the slave trade and other historical calumny. Simply as a British citizen who lives and works in this country, as I have done all my life, I could not believe that I was hearing someone in political life say that Hitler was a Zionist. To me it was not just the most absurd and ridiculous thing, but it was a hateful thing to say.

Victoria Atkins

How do you feel when Hitler, or indeed the Holocaust, is prayed in aid to defend that person’s view on Israel?

Jonathan Arkush

I feel very sad and very shocked and very insecure when it happens, because when it comes to criticism of Israel and sometimes Jewish people, all too often, Hitler and Nazis are prayed in aid, when you would never do that about anyone else. It seems to me a shocking correlation between the regime that murdered one third of the world’s total Jewish population in six years and to correlate that with the victims of their industrial murder. I think it’s truly shocking and truly unpleasant beyond words, but historically, utterly false.

Victoria Atkins

When remarks are thrown away casually, for example, saying to a Jewish reporter words to the effect of “you are acting just like a concentration camp guard,” how do you feel about that sort of casual, throwaway remark?

Jonathan Arkush

I was not then an office holder in the Board of Deputies. I was just a Jew in the pew, as it were. I remember that very clearly. I thought then and I still think now: does he have any idea of what happened in concentration camps? He was directing his remark at a Jewish reporter who he thought was asking him too many questions.

Victoria Atkins

I will move now to the Labour review. Shami Chakrabarti, the former director of Liberty, is conducting the Labour party review into antisemitism. She joined the Labour party on the day she was commissioned to carry out this piece of work and I think she has said something along the lines of considering herself to be working for and in the best interests of the Labour party. Will you and the Board of Deputies have faith in that review?

Jonathan Arkush

We do have faith in it at the moment. We feel some conflicting emotions about her decision to join the party. She explained to us this morning that she felt that if she had not done that, people might have accused her of having different party political affiliations and therefore some axe to grind. That was her justification. In the end, whether we have faith in her review will depend on its outcome. We have done our best to set out our side of the arguments and, as I say, we wait with anticipation and we place our confidence in the results. We hope that that confidence will not be misplaced.

Victoria Atkins

Would it not be better to have someone who is independent of any political party and not a member of any political party whatsoever?

Jonathan Arkush

I think that is a very strong argument, but this is a Labour party problem and it is for the Labour party to resolve. We hope they get it right. If we think that it is not being got right, of course we will be free to say so.

Tim Loughton

Mr Arkush, perhaps I could first say that this inquiry is about the rise of antisemitism now, despite Mr Winnick’s highly partial and selective misinterpretation of history, where of course the Conservative party were the first party to have a Jewish Prime Minister, well before the Labour party was ever being thought about. Because this is about all parties—it is not necessarily just about the Labour party—do the other mainstream parties at the moment have any particular problems with antisemitism that are of concern to you?

Jonathan Arkush

No. There was a Conservative councillor in Bradford recently who was alleged to have made a racist comment, who was promptly suspended. We certainly have seen some occasions in the past with the Liberal Democrats where they had some personalities—I think no longer elected Members—who said some quite dreadful things and we were very concerned about the culture within the Liberal Democrats. That was not long ago. Lately, the focus has been on statements made by people who are clearly members of Labour.

Tim Loughton

So there is no particular, and certainly no strategic, antisemitism present in other parties that has manifested itself, or individual instances that have not been dealt with fairly swiftly.

Jonathan Arkush

I think that is right.

Tim Loughton

So why do you think there is such a problem in the Labour party at the moment?

Jonathan Arkush

Well, I guess that the party has grown with an enormous influx of new members who took advantage of a scheme to join the party for a very insignificant amount of money and perhaps some people were tempted to join the party who may or may not be genuinely reflective of party policy. But I think it is mainly, as I said, the election of a leader who is associated with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War, with a very, very hostile position on Israel that is very well known and well publicised, and someone who has thought it appropriate to meet here, in the democratic mother of Parliaments, with terrorist organisations whose stated mission in life is to kill as many Christians and Jews as possible, which has clearly sent the wrong sort of message to some people.

Tim Loughton

But do you think it goes beyond just a recent infiltration? Do you think there was a problem with systemic antisemitism among those people who were involved—members elected by the Labour party—before the current leadership?

Jonathan Arkush

Only in the far left, and that was not a dominant strain in the party.

Tim Loughton

But it was there.

Jonathan Arkush

Yes.

Tim Loughton

What do you think is the impact in society as a whole when people hear quotes from those in positions of office, of power or of affiliation to a mainstream political party that give a very, very prejudiced impression of members of the Jewish community and that may or may not, in its extreme, manifest itself in violence, graffiti or intimidation? Do you think that, deep down, there is a more insidious poison affecting our community when impressionable people hear such things coming out of the mouths of those sorts of people?

Jonathan Arkush

Let me give you the example of Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman. They are Labour Members of Parliament—in Louise Ellman’s case, of long, distinguished standing—for Liverpool, and they have been trolled on social media. The trolling and abuse of Luciana Berger has been, as she describes, absolutely horrendous. I recently heard Louise Ellman recount what happened to her at a meeting of her constituency Labour party. She felt that the comments were so clearly hostile and personally directed against her that she felt it was antisemitic. They are Members of Parliament.

Tim Loughton

Those are horrendous accounts, and there have been other accounts of Members of Parliament being attacked, including physically in some cases. In terms of the impression it gives to young people and impressionable people—that it gives some acceptability to the idea that it is almost okay to be a bit anti-Jewish because they saw somebody saying it in the press, on the television or in a report—do you share my concern that that is almost making what is clearly racism a little more respectable?

Jonathan Arkush

Any racist comment, whether directed against Jews or a member of any other minority, that is said in public and allowed to pass unchallenged must have a corrosive effect on society and will encourage others with similar prejudices to think that it is acceptable.

Nusrat Ghani

Mr Arkush, you said two very important things in your evidence to the Chairman earlier. First, you said that prejudice and antisemitism are passed down in communities. You mentioned mosques as a particular example. You also mentioned that people are becoming emboldened to say things that they wouldn’t say in polite society. I refer you to the submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews: “The Board of Deputies has…been concerned about the reaction of some Labour members who…have reflected a culture of denial, disbelief, mockery and even censorship against Jews—including Jewish members of the Labour Party”. If I take you back to the point about prejudice being passed down in communities, would you argue that if those community leaders are Labour representatives at local or national levels, and if they also hold the view you mentioned earlier, they also hold some responsibility for passing that prejudice down to those communities?

Jonathan Arkush

First, I hope that no one took me as saying that those sorts of prejudices are the norm in those communities. I was simply saying that in some parts of those communities prejudice can be passed down through family or religious affiliation.

Nusrat Ghani

Not at all. I completely understood it as some parts.

Jonathan Arkush

I do not think for one moment that in many of those cases the people exhibiting those prejudices had any party political affiliation at all.

Nusrat Ghani

You doubt that they did?

Jonathan Arkush

In many cases, I would have thought that they had no party political affiliation. During the Gaza campaign huge marches took place in British cities, including in London. People were holding up placards at those marches that included “Hitler was right.” This was ostensibly a protest against Israeli actions in Gaza, and the hashtag #HitlerWasRight trended on social media. Later analysis showed that a lot of that trending came from south Asia, so there are some cultures where prejudice against Jews is all too common. You have probably seen some of the recent research reports which also point to a higher level of prejudice in some areas of society that needs addressing.

Nusrat Ghani

But community leaders and political representatives bear sole responsibility for the attitudes they have and for the impact that those attitudes have on communities, especially if there are elements of antisemitism.

Jonathan Arkush

Yes. All of us community leaders bear responsibility for leading our communities in a positive way. I should say that I have been to many mosques and Islamic centres, and I have only encountered generosity, humility, reasonableness and decency. But sometimes, a question gets asked by a member of the audience that really throws you. I had one recently in an Islamic centre in east London about the Jewish media. I said, “Can I just check where you’re coming from? Are you talking about the Jewish Chronicle or are you talking about the wider media?” A bit to my shock, he said, “Of course I’m talking about the wider media, because everyone knows it’s controlled by the Jews.” That is prejudice.

Nusrat Ghani

When you have candidates or councillors who say things such as, “What do we know about Jews? They’ve got big noses and support Spurs,” and, “Who is the Zionist god? I am starting to think it might be Hitler”—if a Labour candidate says that, that is an issue for the role they have within that community.

Jonathan Arkush

The only thing she got right was that some Jews, like me, support Spurs.

Nusrat Ghani

When you have a Blackburn Labour councillor saying, “Apartheid at its best. Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity,” it is an issue, isn’t it?

Jonathan Arkush

It is a very serious issue.

Nusrat Ghani

You also said that antisemitics may be emboldened to say things that they did not say before. There seems to be some confusion in the evidence that Mr Ken Livingstone has submitted, which assumes that antisemitism has only come about since the election of Mr Corbyn as leader of the party. Your evidence suggests that it was there before, and those people have just become emboldened to come out now.

Jonathan Arkush

Quite a lot of the social media postings that have resulted in suspensions predate Jeremy Corbyn’s election.

Nusrat Ghani

So that is an accurate assumption. I have two very quick questions. You talked about Shami Chakrabarti’s inquiry and report. You said you have confidence in that report, but if the leader of the Labour party and Mr Ken Livingstone believe that there is no antisemitism, how is that report going to be balanced?

Jonathan Arkush

We have stated on the record that we are concerned that an impression has been given by the leader of the Labour party of a certain reluctance to accept these issues. Apparently—I have not seen it—the fly-on-the-wall documentary was quite dramatically illustrative of that in his put-down of a long-standing Labour supporter who had written an article in The Guardian. We are concerned. I give credit to him and the Labour party for setting up the inquiry, but the impression we have got is that every step taken has had to be, as it were, wrung out of him by public pressure. We are worried about that. Also, as I said, I have so many times now said to him, “Please say, ‘Be part of the solution.’ With your anti-racist credentials, which you are very keen to tell people about and which we accept, please now say that meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah is an exercise that won’t be repeated”—

Chair

Sorry to interrupt, but you have said this before. We need to move on from Mr Corbyn.

Nusrat Ghani

Your most crushing piece of evidence is that some of the comments by Mr Ken Livingstone have made you feel very insecure. Can you think of any reason why a person of Jewish heritage, or even someone who is Muslim or Christian or of any political background, might want to join the Labour party today, considering it seems to be harbouring antisemitic attitudes?

Jonathan Arkush

I don’t know if that is a question for me. I suppose people have to make up their mind whether they align with the policies of the political party. I can see that some people may decide to join the Labour party in order to fight racism.

Mr Umunna

Mr Arkush, thank you very much for giving us evidence today. I have been a member of and activist for the Labour party for almost 20 years, and I want to assure you that the picture that has been painted of the Labour party and its members, in the evidence you have just heard, does not reflect what my party is about or the beliefs of the members who do the work, turn up to the meetings and campaign for what we believe in. There is one question I want to ask you in relation to our new membership. The membership of our party has grown. Over 1,000 of our members were polled earlier this month on this issue and were asked what they made of recent events. In answer, 49% of those polled—of course, this encompasses all the members, not just the members who in the main are often the ones who do the hard work in our party, campaigning for our values—said that they did not believe that the Labour party had a problem of antisemitism. They believed that what we are talking about today had been cooked up by the media and cooked up by those who are hostile, for want of a better word, to the current leader of the Labour party. What would you say to them?

Jonathan Arkush

I would say that they were a part of a culture of denial. Look, if 50 people have been suspended from the Labour party and there have been a number of very well-publicised statements that they had made, then get real. What is happening here that someone feels that they can say these very racist things? Look again at what Mr Livingstone said, and get real. Look at what he said. I can well imagine that for the overwhelming majority of people out there in the country, members of any party, this is not an issue that detains them for very long. They are more concerned with their lives out in the countryside or wherever it happens to be. They are very far from this sort of discussion, but to the Jewish community it is very real indeed. The amount of media comment from across—including media that traditionally supports the Labour party, and very senior Labour figures—

Chair

Yes, thank you, Mr Arkush, you have made that clear.

James Berry

I have two questions, if I may. To build on what Mr Umunna said, there is a hard-left narrative out there at the moment that Labour’s current issues are in fact being hijacked by pro-Israel or Zionist lobbies to rebrand any criticism of Israel as antisemitism. What do you say about that?

Jonathan Arkush

It is just not true. We simply have never said and never would say that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. I noted that Piers Corbyn and people said that sort of thing, and we asked Jeremy Corbyn to say that that wasn’t the case. It is just a way of deflecting. I also want to say, in answer to something that Chuka Umunna said, that I am really glad to hear that the party doesn’t stand for these things. However, just this morning at the communal roundtable with Shami Chakrabarti, two frankly rather harrowing tales were told of different constituency Labour parties in the Camden area of north-west London where in the last two or three weeks votes about this matter had been put off. There was an air in the room such that even hardened Jewish communal leaders—and there are such people who are members of Labour—felt deeply intimidated and wanted to leave.

Chair

Mr Arkush, we will be hearing from the leader of the Labour party eventually, so we will put this to him. Final question, because we have other witnesses.

James Berry

Many people in Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Unite Against Fascism and other organisations of that kind would consider themselves very strongly to be anti-racists. What advice would you give members of those organisations if they truly want to wear the mantle of being someone who is an anti-racist?

Jonathan Arkush

Look at themselves hard in the mirror, perhaps with some assistance and training, and see whether they are treating Israel as the Jewish state and Jews as Jews in the same way that they would treat any other country or any other minority.

Chair

Thank you. Finally, Stuart McDonald.

Stuart C. McDonald

Mr Arkush, your evidence has been extremely helpful indeed. I want to challenge the idea that you appear to go along with in response to Mr Jayawardena’s question, that a focus on a particular country can be equated with applying double standards. If, for example, I were to count up the number of MPs who have tabled motions and questions on the EU, that is not indicative of xenophobia. If one of my colleagues has tabled lots of motions on Saudi Arabia, that is not some sort of discrimination against the people of Saudi Arabia, it is just indicative of an interest in that particular subject matter. Is that fair?

Jonathan Arkush

I think you absolutely can have a particular interest in the middle east as a region, but if you just have a focus on Israel that becomes obsessive and you ignore what is going on in the neighbouring countries, which on any basis are the most egregious human rights abusers you can imagine, compared to what is in the end a law-based society and a democracy in Israel, then I do wonder.

Stuart C. McDonald

Sure, but people who table motions—for example, on actions by the State of Israel—will often be doing that because they are trying to defend human rights. One reason why Israel might attract more attention than other countries is that it is a liberal democratic state, and it is one that we have strong ties and indeed influence with, so a motion here or in any of the devolved legislatures may have more effect than, for example, one on South Korea. Is that not fair?

Jonathan Arkush

Human rights are human rights. You may be justifiably concerned with human rights but I don’t think it is very credible if you are only concerned about human rights in one country and you seem to avert your eyes or take no action at all on far greater breaches of human rights in a neighbouring country.

Stuart C. McDonald

I have a final question for your, Mr Arkush. You talked about the statistics on hate crime. How accurate do you think they are? Is there a risk of under-reporting and do they properly capture the current feeling of insecurity within the community?

Jonathan Arkush

Hate crimes are traditionally under-reported because people do not want to report them. I have faith in the police figures, because they are based on crime reports. I have faith in the Community Security Trust figures because it is a highly experienced, professional organisation that collects the data on a consistent, methodological basis. I have no reason to think that those figures are inaccurate.

Chair

Thank you very much for coming, Mr Arkush. We are most grateful. If there is anything you wish to say to the Committee that you have not been able to say during this evidence session, or anything that comes out during the later sessions, please do not hesitate to write to us. We have evidence from other organisations, especially on the security angle. It is our intention to meet with the Labour Friends of Israel, the Conservative Friends of Israel and the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel—possibly in one room, if we are brave enough to do that—to hear from them. We cannot take evidence from every single group but we will now be hearing evidence from Mr Robertson, the leader of the SNP. You are welcome to stay for that. We will also be hearing evidence from Mr Corbyn, and we have asked the Prime Minister to represent his party.

Jonathan Arkush

I thank the Committee for its interest in the subject.

Chair

Thank you. Could I call the leader of the Scottish nationalist party? Examination of witness

Witness

Rt Hon. Angus Robertson MP.

Chair

Mr Robertson, thank you very much for coming here today. Obviously, we are fellow parliamentary colleagues so we all declare our interest: we see you every day in various parts of the Palace of Westminster. The evidence so far has focused a great deal on the Labour party but, of course, there has also been evidence about Scotland. You have been very clear about the fight against antisemitism and racism throughout your career, and we know your back story and life history, with parents of different nationalities who came to the United Kingdom as refugees. That is your definition of antisemitism?

Angus Robertson

Given the previous evidence session, I do not think it is necessary to revisit that. I share the view that the definition that has been outlined by the European Union’s monitoring body is an appropriate one. I see no reason to take issue with that as a common starting point for us all.

Chair

You in Scotland have your own difficulties, as has the Labour party has in England, or some people would claim you have the same difficulties. One of your MSPs, Sandra White, was responsible for making some unfortunate remarks. Presumably, you will tell us that that was an exception, but what actually happened?

Angus Robertson

First, let us not be under any illusions. We all have problems with antisemitism, sadly. There is antisemitism everywhere. There have been examples and they can be shown in all political parties, to a degree. We all have responsibility as political leaders and democratic politicians to be absolutely unequivocal in our condemnation of antisemitism and, for that matter, Islamophobia or homophobia, and any kind of extremist language or action. The case that you bring up relates to a tweet by an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament. When it became apparent what it was—an image was tweeted—she deleted it, apologised for it and described it as an “error”. She wrote to the Scottish Council of Jewish organisations to apologise unreservedly for it. She said that she retweeted this image in error and found the views it represents offensive. I can go on about the correspondence that then took place between the First Minister and the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, but we should be under absolutely no illusions about this: it was totally unacceptable. So there was no prevarication about what it was. It was unacceptable and an apology was issued. I think a large part of your investigation is going to revolve around what language is acceptable and not acceptable and the use of certain terms. In this case, the image that was tweeted was totally unacceptable, it was deleted and that was that. Understanding that this was likely to be a question in the evidence session, I thought it would be opportune to speak to my colleagues in the SNP’s headquarters. You have also been dealing with examples that have been numbered in other political parties, so I wanted to understand what was the experience from within the SNP, because in all democratic political parties we have disciplinary procedures, we have committees that deal with these kinds of things and we have people who monitor and ensure that what we do is in accordance with our policy and reflects our values. Yesterday, I spoke to the party’s chief clerk, who is responsible for dealing with these matters, and he is not aware of a single issue, past or present, relating to antisemitism that has been the subject of a complaint to the SNP formally from within—from SNP Jewish members—or from members of the public who are concerned about something. Now, having said that, I do not want to give the Committee the impression that because of that and because there has been a single example—perhaps there are other examples of tweets that people might take exception to, but it is definitely an exception and not the rule—that that in any way leads us to conclude that there is not a problem, that we should not be vigilant and that we should not by our actions and deeds, by what we say and how we say it, make absolutely clear what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

Chair

Yes. Let us look at some other examples. The Community Security Trust has said that the Jewish population in Scotland is about 10,000 and that the number of antisemitic attacks was 31, up from 14 the previous year. They said they attribute this almost exclusively to the coverage of Gaza. We heard in the evidence given by the President of the Board of Deputies about the conflation between being antisemitic and the discussions going on and the criticisms of Israel in Gaza, and he specifically said that the number of motions—if only people looked at our motions in the British Parliament as carefully—criticising Israel in the Scottish Parliament was so great that he thought that was very unfair and that you all should be concentrating on other issues. You are the leader of the party. I do not expect you to approve every motion that is put down, but do you get his point that this constant chipping away and criticism of Israel may well be a problem?

Angus Robertson

There are a number of issues packed into your question. Firstly, I am dealing with numbers. The Jewish community in Scotland officially numbers between 5,000 and 6,000. It is believed that it is under-reported in the census, so it may be 10,000 or a little bit more than that but in a population of 5 million it is a very small but very important part of our national life. We heard in the previous evidence session that it is believed that in the last year there were between 500 and 1,000 examples of Jewish hate crime. To update you, the latest statistics in Scotland were published four days ago and they show that hate crime comprised 18 incidents—that is 3% of religious hate crimes in Scotland. I suspect that there are a range of other incidents that are not captured by the hate crime statistics—I would say “lower level” narrow-mindedness and hatefulness—and I do not doubt that that is the case. The context of 18 incidents out of between 500 and 1,000 in the United Kingdom as a whole shows that relatively speaking it is a small issue, but for all of the 18 people involved in those hate crimes and those perhaps not captured by the statistics it is problematic. We will come to how the Scottish Government, education and prosecuting authorities deal with these issues. But on what can contribute—to come to the second part of your question, Mr Chairman, relating to parliamentary motions—I will first clarify for the benefit of Westminster colleagues that we are talking about the equivalent of early-day motions. We are not talking about the policy of the Scottish Government, or the Government business of First Minister Sturgeon and her Ministers; we are talking about the issues that people care passionately about. As we know, we all have colleagues who are extremely passionate about some subjects. Within the SNP, as is the case in other political parties too, the treatment of the Palestinians and their right to self-determination is absolutely a hot button issue. I do not resile from that, and my party does not resile from it. We are a party that, in step with all other mainstream political parties in the UK Parliament, favours a two-state solution that is recognised in the self-determination of Israel and the self-determination of Palestine.

Chair

But do you think that is the trap that Mr Livingstone fell into? He was actually talking about Gaza and the Middle East, and therefore he fell into the trap in which people like him and others are accused of being antisemitic and anti-Zionist, whereas they actually want to talk about what is happening in Gaza. Do you think that that is a valid argument?

Angus Robertson

I think there are all kinds of ways of bringing up issues such as Gaza and the policy of the Israeli Government, the military incursions that have occurred and the way that Palestinians or Israeli Arabs are treated. We know that there are a panoply of issues that people feel passionately about and have big concerns about, but I think all of us in elected office have a responsibility to be very careful about the words that we use. We know from all the academic research that words like “Zionist” or “Zionism” are used by some—a minority—as a code for Jews. We should be very, very careful about how that kind of language is used. Am I right in saying that bringing up the Nazis is known as Godwin’s law—you’re beginning to lose the argument, so you bring up the Nazis? I’m sorry, but while there are areas where people can be jokey about all kinds of things, as you have pointed out, Chairman—forgive me. As someone who is half-German, given the history of my family and the way they were treated in 1933, the idea that you can bring up what happened in Germany and in the countries it occupied between 1933 and 1945 in any way to justify anything in relation to Zionism—I cannot understand how any mainstream politician or any mainstream political party could think that that is acceptable.

Chair

So you condemn the comments made by Ken Livingstone?

Angus Robertson

Yes.

Chair

And you think that he was wrong to make them, and you share the concerns of the President of the Board of Deputies about them?

Angus Robertson

Yes, unequivocally.

Chair

And you think there is no excuse for doing so in the context of any discussion about—

Angus Robertson

No, there is no excuse for it.

Chair

And he should have apologised and—well, he couldn’t resign, because he is not elected to anything in particular. We will hear from him shortly.

Angus Robertson

Indeed.

Chair

If he were a politician in your party, what would you have done to him?

Angus Robertson

I would have sought for him to be dismissed from the party for acting in a way that the SNP rule book calls “conduct inimical”. It is against the values, policies and approach of the SNP.

Chair

You don’t think that Sandra White did the same thing?

Angus Robertson

No. Reflecting on what she posted, she acknowledged that it was a total mistake. As far as I am aware, Mr Livingstone has not apologised or sought to explain that what he said was a mistake. It was said over a protracted period, as I remember, having been able to listen to it in the media and watch it on television.

Chair

Two final points. One concerns comments made by Lord Michael Grade, the former chairman of the BBC. He said a few weeks ago that antisemitism was rampant in golf; in particular, he felt he was barred from Muirfield because he is Jewish. Have you come across any statements similar to that? Were you surprised to hear about what Lord Grade said? Obviously, golf is a pretty important tourism—

Angus Robertson

It is. This is the same golf club that doesn’t find it acceptable for women to play there.

Chair

Exactly.

Angus Robertson

Looking at it in fairness, it should be pointed out that this is in relation to what were believed to be the circumstances in the 1980s—that is point one. Point two, the golf club denies that it was as Lord Grade reported it. Notwithstanding that, I would be totally horrified. It goes back to blacks not being able to sit on the bus or in Parliament and suchlike. It is just something that, I hope we would all agree, is from a dim and distant past that none of us in mainstream politics would accept.

Chair

And none of you in mainstream politics, particularly party leaders, would want to use language that could be misconstrued in any way. We have to be very careful with the language used.

Angus Robertson

Yes, about everything, but in particular we have a responsibility to lead in this area by choosing the words that are appropriate and putting things in context. That is why, for example, last year, when the SNP became the third political party in the British Parliament, I asked my office to review my appointments. Since last year, the faith group I have met most is the Jewish community, whether that is the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, the Jewish Leadership Council or Jewish Care—the list goes on, and the meetings will continue to go on, because it really matters. I would be careful in correcting you, Mr Chairman, but the name of my party is the Scottish National party, rather than the Scottish nationalist party.

Chair

It is, indeed.

Angus Robertson

That is an important point, because we aspire to be the political party that is there for everybody in Scotland, and that includes our Jewish community.

Chair

I was automatically corrected by Mr McDonald. Donald Trump is regarded by some people as extreme and having extremist views. He is the presumptive Republican candidate, he operates a number of golf courses in Scotland, and on 22 June he is coming to open a new hotel. Given what he has said, is he a welcome visitor to Scotland?

Angus Robertson

We need to differentiate two things. How do I view anybody’s views, but especially somebody who is aspiring to high office in such an important country? To say what he said about Muslims falls in the category of being totally unacceptable. What was then tweeted following the recent tragedy in Orlando is totally unacceptable. It falls into the category we were discussing before: when it comes to political leadership, you have to choose your words wisely and carefully. I would hope that that doesn’t give the impression that I think it is okay to hold those views in private. It would worry me if Mr Trump held those views in private, but he seems to hold them in public. Is he entitled to visit places where he has business interests? Of course he is. But the fact that not a single one of Scotland’s mainstream political leaders will be there tells its own tale.

Chair

So he is not welcome, but he’s coming.

Angus Robertson

Mr Trump is perfectly entitled to visit whichever business he has an interest in, but I have no interest in a political dialogue ahead of an American presidential election with somebody who thinks it is okay to bar a religious community from visiting those shores. Those kind of views were prevalent in some parts of Europe in the previous century; they were unacceptable then and they are unacceptable now.

Mr Winnick

As far as golf clubs are concerned, I think it was all summed up by Groucho Marx, who said he wouldn’t wish to belong to any club that would have him as a member. Whether that is appropriate for Lord Grade, I don’t know. If I may so say, Mr Robinson, you have as a party a good and distinguished record of combating antisemitism and racism—as much as my own party, which has always been anti-racist from the beginning, despite the more recent difficulties over the past year or so. It wasn’t always the case with your party, was it? Going back many, many years, I admit, the chair of the SNP was Andrew Dewar Gibb, was he not?

Angus Robertson

Indeed, yes.

Mr Winnick

He had very strong views. As I understand it, he expressed admiration for Hitler and Mussolini. He praised Hitler’s Jewish policy and condemned communism as, in his words, “too largely Jewish in origin”. That is a past that the SNP obviously distance themselves from in every possible way and condemn.

Angus Robertson

Yes, utterly. I should just point out, though, that in fairness we could all look into the history books of political representatives from the Labour party, the Conservative party and others in the 1930s and find that people had all kinds of views that now, and with the benefit of hindsight, we utterly abhor. Don’t get me wrong, you are absolutely right to bring up the fact that in different days there were voices in all political parties with views that we would have nothing in common with now, but if you have looked though the annals of the history of the SNP—no doubt you were going to bring this up next, Mr Winnick—you may have looked back at the past president of the SNP, Winne Ewing and read what she and her family did in Glasgow at the time of the Kindertransport, or you may be planning to bring up the role of Willie MacRae, a past vice-president of the SNP, a good friend of Israel, who co-authored the maritime law of the State of Israel. We need to look at things in the round. Where there are cases historically and we need to be absolutely clear that those views were and are unacceptable, I agree with you, but in fairness there is no point in having a party political fight between mainstream political parties. I hope we all agree that we are on the same page now. That that was not always the case in all of our parties. We need to be vigilant and ensure that none of that ever happens again.

Mr Winnick

I prefaced my remarks very clearly, I hope, Mr Robertson, by saying that nothing could be more different than the policy pursued by your party for many years. However, I must say, without taking a holier-than-thou attitude, I would be horrified if the chair of the Labour party at any stage of the 1930s expressed such views. I would be of the opinion that they would have been the very opposite in the various debates on Nazi Germany.

Angus Robertson

We remember where Sir Oswald Mosley came from politically, don’t we?

Mr Winnick

Yes and we know where he went. He denounced the Labour party at every opportunity.

Chair

Order. Can we move on with our questions?

Mr Winnick

The only other question I want to put to you is the one the Chair asked you about to a large extent, though not entirely, and that is the position of Israel. Some—not all—of the people who are accused of being antisemites say, “Far from being antisemites, we simply believe that what Israel is doing is without justification, that the Palestinians have been deprived of their land, suffer humiliation day in, day out, and their case is not being properly put.” How do you distinguish that viewpoint from antisemitism?

Angus Robertson

First off, it is a position that in many regards I would share. I am a strong critic of the Government of Israel. I am very concerned, as are many members of your party, about the treatment of the Palestinians.

Mr Winnick

Including myself.

Angus Robertson

Including yourself. I would wish there to be a two-state solution, although I think we all acknowledge that, given the history and circumstances, it is a very difficult change to bring about. Nevertheless, that is what we should be pursuing. On the issue of where that morphs into antisemitism, it is when those, in pursuing their support of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, start using language and imagery that we know from history has been used before to cast that back to all Jews in Israel. So one stops talking about the Government of Israel; one then starts talking about Israel; one then starts talking about Zionists; then some people start talking about Jews. It is correct that at some point along that line it morphs into antisemitism, to my mind. One starts using the tropes—and they have been outlined by the Board of Deputies, so I don’t need to go into them again—and the repeated accusations from the 20th and 19th centuries about Jewish ownership of the press or the financial system and so on, to influence public opinion. That is definitely antisemitism.

Mr Jayawardena

What steps has the SNP taken and what further steps will it take to promote inter-faith relations and tackle the antisemitism, however small or great it may be, within your party and in Scotland?

Angus Robertson

The first thing is that we have a job to do. I am here as the Westminster leader of the SNP, so my responsibility is to ensure that we are doing everything that we can here. My colleagues and I have been great supporters of the likes of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, as no doubt are all members of the Committee, and we show solidarity where we can in relation to the Jewish community and in our opposition to antisemitism. Of particular relevance for the SNP is, of course, that we are in government in Scotland. There are many ways in which we can influence Government policy to try to deal with the root causes of antisemitism, where necessary. There are two ends of that. First, in educational terms, we must make sure we are doing everything we can to learn the lessons of history, so that people do not repeat it, or indeed use the language of the past. You raised specifically the issue of inter-faith relations. The Scottish Government invested over £3 million in 2015-16 in organisations tackling racism and religious intolerance. The grant includes nearly £50,000 to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. There are other ways in which funds are disbursed. Interestingly—I’m not sure if you are aware of it; I think it is the only example of its kind, and I know it is of great excitement to the Jewish community—we are seeing the building of a new joint campus school in the part of west-central Scotland with the largest concentration of the Jewish community. The school is being built in Newton Mearns. It is a joint Jewish-Roman Catholic primary school, and I think it is the only example of its kind in Europe. So on the educational side, there is plenty to be said about what the Scottish Government has done in supporting the Holocaust Educational Trust, the moneys that have been put into countering intolerance and the support of schooling for the Jewish community. At the other end, where it is necessary to prosecute, the Crown Office—the prosecuting service through the procurator fiscal in Scotland—will be supported. As I said before, 18 cases of hate crimes in Scotland is a small number, but it is 18 too many.

Mr Jayawardena

Do you not feel that those initiatives and the progress you are making are somewhat undermined by the point I raised earlier—the unrelenting focus of MSPs on issues relating to Israel? I accept that they are your equivalent of EDMs here, but none the less, 39 motions on Israel were raised in the Scottish Parliament against 26 on Syria—which undoubtedly has huge issues—16 on Iraq, six on Iran and only four on North Korea. The numbers tell a story. Going by the figures, we would be forgiven for thinking that the State of Israel is the biggest perpetrator of human rights abuses in the world. Do you really believe that the Israeli Government is comparable to, or indeed worse than, the regimes of Assad, Iran and North Korea? That is what those figures seem to imply.

Angus Robertson

First, I think it would be helpful for the Committee to be able to draw a comparison and know how many EDMs have been tabled during the last parliamentary Session in relation to Israel. Do I think there is a direct connection between the number of motions that have been tabled in the Scottish Parliament and the climate that the Scottish Jewish community feels, which makes them feel vulnerable and concerned? I think we need to take at face value the fact that they believe it is so. That is why the First Minister and Kirsten Oswald, our colleague representing East Renfrewshire—the constituency with the largest concentration of the Jewish community—have been assiduously working with the different community representatives. It is why colleagues and I have been meeting with different Jewish organisations, both Scottish and UK-wide. It is why I am planning to go to Israel before the end of this year. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not believe there is a direct connection between the equivalent of early-day motions being tabled in the Scottish Parliament and the fear that people may have in the Scottish Jewish community that they are living in an unsettling climate, so long as people have that feeling, that is what matters, and we need to take it at face value. We need to have a dialogue to explain that although colleagues may have very strongly held views about the treatment of the Palestinian people, it is within the context of supporting a two-state solution, and inherent in that is an acknowledgement of the right of self-determination for the Jewish people and the right of the State of Israel to exist. So long as there is a better understanding of both those things, hopefully that will lead to a better climate, but it is for the Jewish community in Scotland to say whether they are satisfied with that or not.

Mr Jayawardena

So you will work with the leadership in the Scottish Parliament to make sure that MSPs better understand the feeling of the Jewish community.

Angus Robertson

I do not need to do that because, to be frank, the Scottish Jewish community is assiduous in working with not only the SNP group in Westminster but colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. They are communicating very effectively how they feel to both parliamentarians and the Government.

Mr Jayawardena

Is the SNP group in the Scottish Parliament listening?

Angus Robertson

Absolutely.

Mr Jayawardena

Because at the moment they haven’t actually acted on it.

Angus Robertson

I gently suggest to you that I think there is a false choice. I hope you are not suggesting that Members of the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, this Parliament should take their eye off the situation in Israel and Palestine and be uncritical of the Israeli Government. I think I am right in reading into your question that you would hope that all parliamentarians would at the same time make clear that they are not being critical of those of the Jewish faith per se—

Mr Jayawardena

Well, perhaps I can clarify. I suggest that it is important that all parliamentarians, whether in Westminster or the Holyrood Parliament, recognise the strength of feeling that there is and the way that their words and actions will be interpreted. At the moment, their words and actions are being interpreted badly.

Angus Robertson

I agree with you unequivocally that, if there is a fear in the Jewish community, we have to make sure the dialogue is there. I believe that it is and that it is getting better and better.

Chair

Thank you. You must be reassured that Mr Jayawardena takes such an interest in early-day motions in the Scottish Parliament.

James Berry

Mr Robertson, your party now occupies the left in Scotland—[Interruption.] Well, it’s true.

Mr Winnick

According to your interpretation.

James Berry

According to the results.

Chair

Order.

James Berry

I don’t think that is a disputed fact. Why do you think, Mr Robertson, that antisemitism is more of a problem in England on the left than it is in Scotland on the left?

Angus Robertson

Goodness. First, the SNP doesn’t occupy anywhere. We are pleased to be able to represent almost every single parliamentary constituency. I’m not sure I feel qualified to answer that question. I can speak for my own party. I am sure that you would rather that this didn’t become a party political slanging match, but I would draw attention to a number of things. There are certain aspects of history, in relation to Scotland and the Jewish community, that are less known. For example, I think that Scotland is the only country, or one of the only countries, where there has never been a pogrom against the Jewish community. When the president of the board of deputies, in the form of the evidence you heard just before me, talked about this country and the expulsion of the Jews, he was talking about England. The Jews were not expelled from Scotland. It is a small community—as I have said already, it is 5,000 or 10,000 strong—so there is a different reality. We are fortunate that we have a great many for a small population group of Scottish Jews who are very prominent in public life and have made a very positive contribution. I have to say that that is also the case in England. I draw the comparison with the statistics. If there are between 500 and 1,000 cases of hate crimes across the UK as a whole, but only 89 in Scotland, there is a significant difference. I think, to be fair, that the Jewish community is a significantly larger proportion of the population in the rest of the UK than it is in Scotland. How the Labour party has got itself into this state is frankly beyond me. As was pointed out, it is not something that has, in all of its guises, emerged solely since the party’s change in leadership, but all political leaderships have a responsibility to deal with what they say and how they say it.

James Berry

That was going to be my follow-up question. Do you think it actually has something to do with leadership and the fact that, in your leadership of the SNP here in Westminster, in every opportunity I have heard you take—at PMQs, etc.—you stand up resolutely against intolerance of all forms and for minorities at all times? So it is about leadership.

Angus Robertson

Yes. There can be no ambiguity about these things. As we know, in politics sometimes you have to say things rather a lot for them to be heard or noticed. That is why we shouldn’t tire of saying that we are opposed to antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia or any form of political extremism. We just have to keep on repeating it, because unfortunately it tends to emerge in societies everywhere. There is narrowmindedness everywhere. There is narrowmindedness in Scotland, too, and we have a responsibility in our public life to stand up to it. There is a particular strand of identity in Scotland which is quite important, which is a recognition that we kind of come from everywhere. If you haven’t heard that, something that some of us take pride in is a song by the Proclaimers called “Scotland’s Story” which reflects how the Scotland of today is the history—over centuries and centuries—of people who have come from elsewhere and who have made a contribution to our national life. The idea that our identity is based on some sort of blood and soil ideology is absolutely foreign.

Chair

Thank you very much for giving evidence today. We talked about the necessity for leaders, in particular, to speak with great care. If they don’t and they are reckless with their language, where does it end? Does it end in scenarios like Orlando? Do communities feel that they are under such pressure that they are fearful that they would be attacked? Where does it end if this is not monitored and checked?

Angus Robertson

Moderate mainstream political voices have a responsibility both for what we say, but also for making sure that when there is an emerging trend, particularly within the mainstream democratic firmament, we point out how totally unacceptable that is. You asked me about that in relation to the United States, but there are examples in many—if not most—European countries of that kind of populist, extremist politics emerging, sadly. I think that those of us in the moderate mainstream have a responsibility to call it out for what it is, both here and abroad. I would wish colleagues across all political parties well in trying to make sure that that happens, because otherwise you have the normalisation of language or of imagery which is unacceptable, and we know from history where that leads. I would be very cautious to suggest that, because of injudicious language that I would condemn emerging from certain people in the Labour party, we are one step away from Orlando or the holocaust. That is not where it is at, and we need to be careful that we are not over-egging the concerns that we have. But we must not forget the lessons of history. It started by demonising people of a religious group or a minority and we know where that ended. It is not a happy place, and we should make sure that that never happens again. Sadly, there is an ideology that is afoot and that has international reach now, that is seeking to target people of different faiths, including Jews, and now, as we know, LGBTI people in the United States. I fear that it is going to get worse before it gets better, but we have a responsibility to stand up against this—the language and the intolerance—and we need to do that at home and abroad.

Chair

Mr Robertson, you are extremely busy and the Committee as a whole is very grateful to you for coming here today and for being our first party leader to give us evidence. If there is anything else you want to write to us about before the inquiry is completed, we would be very happy to accept any written evidence. Thank you very much for coming in.

Angus Robertson

Thanks for having me. Examination of witness

Witness

Ken Livingstone.

Chair

Thank you very much for coming to give evidence today. Can I start by saying that I wrote you a letter asking you to come and you very readily wrote back and said that you would be kind enough to come here today, and we are most grateful? I should declare an interest, having known you for 32 years, and your having come to speak at my first election campaign in Richmond, which I subsequently lost by 13,000 votes. But we were very grateful for your support at that time. You are a former parliamentarian. When we put questions to you it does not necessarily mean that we are speaking on behalf of ourselves. We are asking you questions which we deem important to our inquiry into antisemitism as a whole. This is not an inquiry into you or into the Labour party, but it is an inquiry that was suggested by my colleague David Winnick into antisemitism. So some of the things that you say are obviously going to be relevant, but we would like you to be aware of that. We have had some strong criticism of you personally from the president of the board of deputies, and indeed the leader of the Scottish National party has just said that your comments were wrong and that you should have apologised. Do you want to take this opportunity to apologise for anything that you said in respect of any of the remarks that you have made? You very kindly supplied us with a very detailed account of your role in anti-racism over the last 40 years. Is there anything you want to say to this Committee at the beginning?

Ken Livingstone

If I had said that Hitler was a Zionist, I would apologise for that, because it is rubbish. What I said was—and you can still access this on the BBC website—that when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy was that the Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. He wanted all the half a million German Jews out. At that stage, his view was to move them out. By autumn 1933, he had negotiated a deal with a German Zionist organisation that led to 66,000 German Jews being moved to what is now Israel. Had the Zionists not negotiated that deal, those 66,000 Jews would have died in the gas chambers.

Chair

Indeed, we will come on to that historical perspective. But to have the president of the board of deputies—and you have said in your very full statement to this Committee how, as Mayor of London, you worked with Jewish communities—say your comments were “abhorrent and offensive” must cause you concern. You are a politician. I know you do not hold elected office at the moment, but that the president of a group you have represented as Mayor and as a Member of Parliament for Brent—where there is a large Jewish community—is saying what you have said is “abhorrent and offensive” must cause you concern.

Ken Livingstone

Absolutely, and if I had said it, I would agree it was abhorrent. But I didn’t say it. I stated a simple historical fact. I had gone on to do that interview because I was defending the Labour party against the accusations that we had a big problem with antisemitism. Vanessa Feltz asked me whether what Hitler did was illegal and I pointed out there were two phases in his policy: one to move Jews to what is now Israel and then, the liquidation, the genocide. A simple statement of historical fact.

Chair

Again, we will come on to history shortly. People have said, Mr Livingstone, that you are antisemitic. Are you antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

I have had this accusation thrown at me many times over the 35 years since I became leader of the GLC. The simple fact is, it has only ever been thrown at me when I am being critical of the policies of the Israeli Government. If I denounce the South African Government as riddled with corruption, no one is going to say I am saying that because I am a racist. One thing that worries me very much is that by denouncing anyone who criticises the Israeli Government as antisemitic, it blurs the issue. Antisemitism is a crucial problem; as we heard earlier, there has been a big surge in antisemitic incidents. We need to be tackling that.

Chair

And in respect of anti-Zionism, are you anti-Zionist? Do you believe that the people of Israel have a right to occupy their own land and, therefore, have the right to self-determination? Are you anti-Zionist?

Ken Livingstone

Zionism has changed dramatically. In the 1930s—

Chair

What is your definition of Zionism?

Ken Livingstone

I do not think you can do one. In the 1930s, it was seen by 90% of the world’s Jews as an eccentric or extreme body—[Interruption.]

Chair

Can I stop you for a minute? To the people sitting at the back of the gallery, when you are sitting there, it is to hear the proceedings. If you are going to have conversations and laugh to each other, we would prefer you to do it outside. Thank you.

Ken Livingstone

Now, I would assume the vast majority of Jewish people around the world perceive themselves as Zionists. It has become synonymous with Judaism and with the State of Israel. I have never been terribly interested in theory. I broadly like to focus on what is practical, so I am not terribly interested in how you got Zionism. I am interested in what we could do while I was Mayor to reduce antisemitic incidents.

Chair

But do you believe in the right of Israel to occupy its own territory on the basis of self-determination? I understand you think the definition has changed, but what are your beliefs? It is a foreign policy issue, isn’t it?

Ken Livingstone

If anyone wanted my advice in the Israeli Government, I would say I support the two-state solution, but you need one economy. There is no really safe, secure future for Israel until you totally integrate—that is, the Palestinians and the Israelis. That, I think, could become a much wider economic bloc. When Israel was created, the idea was to create a safe haven for the world’s Jews. Is it safe? How far are we away from a terrorist group getting chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons?

Chair

We will come on to that, I am sure. In your interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC London, you described it as over the top to think of antisemitism and racism as exactly the same thing. Do you not think that antisemitism and racism are the same thing—do you not believe that they are in the same category?

Ken Livingstone

If I said that it must have been a misquote, because they are exactly the same thing. Antisemitism is a form of racism where somebody loathes someone because they are Jewish, just as some other people loathe people because they are black or Asian.

Chair

And you are telling this Committee very clearly that you believe they are the same thing and that you believe very strongly that the criticisms of you as an antisemitic person are wrong—you are not antisemitic.

Ken Livingstone

Absolutely. If you actually look at the record I have put in the document I circulated, I have had 35 years in public office working with many Jewish organisations but often being criticised. The last time the board of deputies came to see me when I was Mayor, they came to say, “Could you please tone down your criticism of Israel?”. I said, “Well, I do tone it down, actually.” We had a very intense debate. That did not stop us then working together on a whole series of events.

Chair

And you made it very clear in your statement—you have given us a very full account. Of course, you quoted Judge Collins and what he said about you in the judgment; but do you not think that political leaders such as yourself should take great care in the way in which they use language, and that the wrong thing said at the wrong time could well be misinterpreted and that therefore, as you have said, you misspoke on the Vanessa Feltz programme?

Ken Livingstone

If I could go back in time and avoid referring to Hitler and Zionism in the Vanessa Feltz interview, I would.

Chair

Sorry—you would or you wouldn’t?

Ken Livingstone

I would go back and remove it. It allowed all the anti-Jeremy people in the Labour Party to start whipping this up as an even bigger issue.

Chair

So you would accept that the use of the example of Adolf Hitler in respect of what you have said was regrettable, and you wish that you had not brought that into the discussion.

Ken Livingstone

It is a simple statement of fact. I regret using it because it became this hysterical issue. In the midst of our campaign to do well in the local elections, the next day virtually every front page was about antisemitism and me. You had this ridiculous stuff on TV, seen by millions of people, of John Mann screaming that I am a Hitler apologist and a Nazi apologist. I don’t think that it helped our campaign.

Chair

This Committee doesn’t have a campaign—you mean the Labour party campaign.

Ken Livingstone

Yes. It is the only one I am involved in.

Chair

We will be hearing from Mr Mann. He is a witness before this Committee later on. Finally from me, do you think that the Labour Party does have a problem with antisemitism? You said in interviews you have given that in your 45 years as a member, you have never come across anyone who has behaved in an antisemitic way. Is that right?

Ken Livingstone

It is 47 years. I have never heard anyone saying “antisemitic”. I recall, back in 1970, someone complaining in Norwood Labour party that if blacks wanted to be part of Britain they shouldn’t be doing songs such as “Young, Gifted and Black”. That is the last time I heard a racist comment in the Labour party. Let’s be honest: if you are a bigot, the Labour party is not likely to be your natural place to sign up and be involved in politics.

Chair

Do you think antisemitism is on the increase? In your 47 years in politics, has it got worse?

Ken Livingstone

Clearly, in the big influx of members Labour has had since last summer, we have had a few dozen who have said things that are antisemitic or can be interpreted as that. They have been suspended very rapidly.

Chair

So you accept that people in the Labour party have made antisemitic remarks, but not you?

Ken Livingstone

Yes, but we are talking about handfuls. I do not recall, in my 47 years, any Labour MP ever raising the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party, until three months ago when we had that very nasty campaign for the election of the youth delegate to Labour’s national executive.

James Berry

When I was growing up, you made the new London mayoralty about bringing London’s diverse communities together, for which you are to be commended. But why is it that the only minority group that you have repetitively caused offence to is the Jewish community?

Ken Livingstone

Because I have always been a critic of the way the Israeli Government has treated Palestinians. I think it is one of the most appalling abuses of my lifetime. Not since the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin have we had an Israeli Prime Minister with the courage and strength of character and vision to start to think, “What can we do to pull the Israelis and the Palestinians together in one happy future?”

James Berry

Well, let me take you to an incident in 2005 that had nothing to do with the State of Israel, when an Evening Standard reporter was described by you as a “German war criminal”, and when you found out—because he told you—that he was Jewish, you said, “All right…you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard,” for which you refused to apologise. In your submission, you referred us to Mr Justice Collins’s comments when your suspension was revoked. What you didn’t refer us to was where he also said in his judgment, “When he knew”—that “he” is you—“that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible…The appellant could have put the criticism to rest by apologising. He chose not to do so…He could and in my view should have apologised for any particular hurt occasioned, not only to him but to others, including, but not limited, to Jews...” And you did not apologise after that either. So, can I just ask you, Mr Livingstone, why it is that you have no compunction about using words and phrases that you know very well will offend Jewish people, and not apologising?

Ken Livingstone

I have often been offensive to reporters, and I think they have usually deserved it. The particular situation there was that we had many events at City Hall—receptions—and that night we had our first ever lesbian and gay reception, to commemorate Chris Smith becoming the first MP to come out. That was the first time the Evening Standard ever asked to be admitted to one of our receptions. I said no because, clearly, they were going to come along and be unpleasant. Then there was the guy outside at about 9 o’clock. I made it clear I wasn’t going to talk to him. As I walked away, he pursued me, shouting the same question, and I was rude to him, yes. I’d have been rude to any journalist. There is no way I can tell a journalist is Jewish.

James Berry

Right, let us move to the more recent. I know you still don’t apologise for that, but we will move to the more recent incident with Naz Shah. Now, Naz Shah did apologise, and apologise profusely, for what were disgraceful antisemitic comments on social media, but instead of acknowledging her apology, or even just remaining silent, you said her comments were not antisemitic and went on to say that Hitler had, in the initial stages, been supporting Zionism. Would you acknowledge that those comments merely poured petrol on the fire and caused very grave offence to Jewish people?

Ken Livingstone

I had never met Naz until the Labour party asked me to go and campaign for her at the election. I was incredibly impressed: here was a woman who had a very difficult life; she was in a viciously unpleasant campaign up against George Galloway. In my time with her, she said nothing antisemitic. She did some silly things on her website, one of which was using that economic study done in the United States, which showed that it would be cheaper if all Israel’s Jews moved to America because America spends something like $3 billion a year supporting the Israeli state. That’s not antisemitic. I think her stuff was over the top, and particularly the remarks that she made—back in 2010, I think it was—but they were made at a time when there was a very unpleasant conflict going on, and she was obviously angry. I don’t think she is antisemitic.

James Berry

Do you think—much as Mr Justice Collins found a decade ago—that your persistent and absolute refusal to apologise for offence you cause to Jewish people compounds the initial offence that you cause by your comments?

Ken Livingstone

Let us be absolutely clear about this. I couldn’t move—these last few months, I can’t get down the street without people stopping me and saying: “We know what you said is true. Don’t give in.” Of course, a lot of Jewish people in the community are offended because they’ve been told a lie—they’ve been told that I was a Nazi apologist. What appals me is that a handful of Labour MPs used this issue; deliberately lied about what I had said; and smeared me because they wished to undermine the leader of the Labour party. It’s that simple. And I mean, they should be the ones being suspended.

James Berry

You deny that there is any problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, yet the former Labour MP, Tom Harris, said this: “If anyone still doubts that the Labour Party has a ‘problem with Jews’, they should look no further than Ken Livingstone. And you know the most depressing thing? The party membership will still re-elect him to the NEC at the next available opportunity.” Do you think he’s right?

Ken Livingstone

No.

James Berry

Thank you.

Chair

Somebody else has been quite critical. The new Mayor of London, your successor, Sadiq Khan, said that he wore a “badge of shame” over antisemitism in the Labour party, and that he wished that the Labour leadership could have been tougher on this issue. Do you think that Sadiq Khan is right to say that there should be a badge of shame worn because of a failure to take action?

Ken Livingstone

Sadiq ran a very good campaign, reaching out to all London’s communities to try and bring them together, and I think that is exactly what he should do. I can only say, as someone said, until these few dozen recent—

Chair

I want you to answer the question about Sadiq Khan saying he wears a badge of shame over the failure to tackle antisemitism.

Ken Livingstone

I think it is wrong, because I don’t think Labour has failed to tackle it. Under Jeremy Corbyn, the people who have said these antisemitic things have been suspended within days.

Mr Winnick

The core of the controversy, Mr Livingstone, as you know, is the manner in which you stated that the Nazis wanted to move Jews to Israel—leaving aside, as you would recognise, that there was no Israel; you meant Palestine, presumably.

Ken Livingstone

Yes.

Mr Winnick

Could you give any evidence where Hitler or any of the other murderous gangsters said that was their policy?

Ken Livingstone

On 6 July 1920, Hitler made a speech in which he said this—and I quote: “Jews belong to Palestine and it is only there that they can expect their full civil rights”. And as I said, when he came to power, he negotiated a deal to move Germany’s Jews to Palestine. And I have never criticised the Zionist movement for making that deal, because the only other alternative at the time was the worldwide boycott of German goods by Jews all over the world, and as we saw with South Africa, that didn’t work then, and I don’t think it would have done. So they had to deal with who was in power, however repellent, however antisemitic, but it saved the lives of 66,000 Jews.

Mr Winnick

You gave a quote from 1920. From 1920 onwards, and particularly when the Nazis took power—when Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January ’33—can you give any indication of documentary evidence where the Nazis said that the Jews should move to Palestine?

Ken Livingstone

Oh, the source. I know everyone’s going to say, “Well, Lenni Brenner is an old Trot and he is not an academic,” so I brought you, if you wish to see it, the December 1978 article in the University of Chicago Press’s The Journal of Modern History, by Francis R. J. Nicosia, who has a whole range of details about not just the movement of Germany’s Jews but the agreement that was reached with Adolf Eichmann and the Zionists, that shipments of Mauser pistols were sent to arm the Haganah. The simple fact is that you have to deal with—I watched Tony Blair have to deal with some really repellent regimes and embrace some of them. If you can’t stand evil people, you shouldn’t come into politics, because you have to deal with them.

Mr Winnick

When the Nazis took power, how did they treat the Jews?

Ken Livingstone

This is the appalling thing. There was a whole wave of antisemitic legislation. There was Kristallnacht. But if you—

Mr Winnick

No, before Kristallnacht. That was 1938. From the moment the Nazis took power, how did they treat the Jews?

Ken Livingstone

Awfully—

Mr Winnick

Did they deny them citizenship?

Ken Livingstone

Yes. It was all—

Mr Winnick

Mr Livingstone, if you would just answer the question: were they denied citizenship by 1935?

Ken Livingstone

They were completely discriminated against from the moment—

Mr Winnick

In every conceivable way, without mass murder. Is that not the case?

Ken Livingstone

Pardon?

Mr Winnick

The Jews were discriminated against in every possible way, but mass murder certainly didn’t take place until the war years. Is that correct?

Ken Livingstone

Yes—

Mr Winnick

And if I—

Chair

Mr Winnick, can you let the witness answer? He needs to answer the questions.

Ken Livingstone

If you look at the situation, from the moment Hitler came to power, antisemitic legislation, discrimination, absolutely endemic. The only group of Jews he worked with was the Zionists, and his deputy, Heydrich, wrote in 1935 or 1936 in his diary that “There are two kinds of Jews: those that wish to be assimilated and the Zionists, and the Zionists are the ones we should work with”.

Mr Winnick

Jews were allowed to leave Germany. Would it be correct to say they were allowed to leave Germany on the basis that they forfeited all their assets?

Ken Livingstone

Yes. The deal done was that the bulk of their wealth had to stay in Germany, and the Zionist movement had to agree to buy German goods throughout the 1930s; yes.

Chair

Order. I think we need to try and address our questions to the current inquiry, although this is very interesting.

Ken Livingstone

History—I think—

Mr Winnick

What I am saying to you though, Mr Livingstone, is that the offence has been caused by the fact that you have said, in effect, that there was a general agreement between Zionists, as you describe them, and the Nazi Government. In fact, the only agreement, basically, was the one that you rightly referred to, which no one denies—the Haavara or transfer agreement, which allowed some 60,000 Jews to leave with their assets. Is that not so?

Ken Livingstone

That is exactly the one I was referring to. That was Hitler’s support for Zionism, and at that World Zionist Congress, there was a vote of 240 to 48 opposing the worldwide boycott of Nazi goods.

Mr Winnick

Would it not also be the case that that agreement, far from being secretive or unknown, has been well documented? You wouldn’t deny that.

Ken Livingstone

So many stories have been written about it. It is published.

Mr Winnick

Mr Livingstone, can I ask you whether you feel that, by your actions and the manner in which you put your case over the matter which I have just spoken about, you haven’t really advanced the Palestinian case effectively?

Ken Livingstone

Well, I don’t know what I could do to do it. I mean, I don’t think that Netanyahu’s Government is particularly responsive to pressure from Obama, let alone anything I might be saying.

Mr Winnick

What I’m asking you is that, by the manner in which you’ve approached the subject—not for the first time, but particularly since this latest controversy—there has been a tendency, wrongly, in my view, as in yours, to link criticism of Israel with antisemitism? And what I’m saying to you—though I don’t suppose for one moment that you will agree—is that you have helped that. In other words, people who say that criticising Israel is antisemitic point to you, and therefore, to a large extent, you have undermined the reasoned case for Palestinians, which is not, as we both agree, antisemitic at all.

Ken Livingstone

I spent a couple of weeks in Israel in 1986 as a guest of Mapam—the left wing of the Labour party. I found myself—I went everywhere except Gaza. They gave me a very extended tour. I stopped on a kibbutz, which seemed to be all filled with lefties like me. At that stage, there seemed to be a real potential for Israel coming to a deal and reaching out to the Palestinians. I think under Netanyahu we are getting no progress at all. Now, I support the two-state solution, and also one economy to lock it in place—perhaps to extend it eventually to neighbouring states.

Chair

Thank you. That’s very helpful. As a follow-up, were you trying to advance the Palestinian cause in your interview with Vanessa Feltz and your subsequent comment? Is that why you did all this?

Ken Livingstone

No. The only thing we were talking about in all the interviews—not just with Vanessa—was, is there a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party? David here has been in the party a lot longer than I have. I don’t think he would honestly say that we have been a vehicle for antisemitism.

Chair

Well, he is not a witness, so you can’t ask him that question, but we can ask Mr Burrowes to continue with the questioning.

Mr Burrowes

Do you believe anti-Zionism can ever be antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

Do I—?

Mr Burrowes

Do you believe anti-Zionism can ever be antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

A lot of people will say things that are anti-Zionist because they are antisemitic, but criticising Israel does not mean you are a Jew-hater.

Mr Burrowes

You said that the words “Hitler was a Zionist” are rubbish. Do you think that is antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

Hitler was antisemitic, no doubt, from his teenage years.

Mr Burrowes

So to say Hitler was a Zionist, you said earlier that is rubbish. Would you say that to say those words is antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

No; I mean, Hitler was not a Zionist. He—

Mr Burrowes

We know that, and we know that is rubbish; you said it is rubbish earlier. I am asking, if someone posted out the words, “Hitler was a Zionist,” would you characterise that as being antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

I would characterise it as absolutely stupid and untrue. I mean, whether or not it is antisemitic—

Mr Burrowes

Would you agree that it is antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

I mean, if—

Mr Burrowes

Do you not—

Ken Livingstone

If you—

Mr Burrowes

Okay. Okay. Will you answer? Do you think it is antisemitic—that Hitler was a Zionist?

Ken Livingstone

I am not going to disagree that it isn’t antisemitic; I just think it is so wildly untrue—

Mr Burrowes

So do you think it is antisemitic for a newspaper editor to portray the Prime Minister of Israel wearing an SS uniform, doing a straight-arm salute and standing on a pile of skulls? Would you term that as antisemitic?

Ken Livingstone

No it’s not, because the instance you are talking about was back in 1982, when we had the situation that Israel had invaded the Lebanon, and the Sabra and Shatila camps, with only women and children and elderly men in—

Mr Burrowes

I don’t need the history.

Ken Livingstone

They were all slaughtered.

Mr Burrowes

If, as Mayor of London, this was one of the London newspapers that was going out, and if it got into your newspaper—this portrayal—would you have allowed it?