Jeremy Corbyn took too long to apologise for antisemitism within the Labour Party

Given some of the coverage of antisemitism in the Labour Party, it’s probably necessary, extraordinarily, to acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition is not an antisemite. He appears sincere when he says that he has dedicated his life to fighting racism in all its forms, and that his own mother fought alongside the Jewish community to block the fascist Blackshirts in the infamous Cable Street Riot of 1936.

There is no evidence that Mr Corbyn himself discriminates against Jewish people who work for or with him in the Labour Party. Indeed the letter sent by Mr Corbyn to Jewish leaders, though it took too long to materialise, contains some recognition on his part that he has some understanding of what is at stake. In reference to his past support for a blatantly antisemitic mural, Mr Corbyn has at last, after a stubborn period of silence, come out and said “sorry” for “not having studied the content of the mural more closely before wrongly questioning its removal in 2012”.

Still, that leaves some questions as yet unanswered; and a sorrowful letter, though welcome, is no substitute for full accountability via the media and to Labour MPs. It is still not clear why he saw fit to comment on the mural and its supposed historical antecedents without looking at it more closely. Was that his habit? Assuming he looked at it at all, why could he not recognise immediately the obvious stereotypes it contained, which were hardly subtle: hook noses and dollar bills are hardly novel imagery among such elements. Indeed he now, belatedly, recognises them to be symbolic of an old conspiracy theory.

Mr Corbyn has been in politics a long time and has seen plenty of hate material in his career. He should have appeared before his MPs to show leadership and taken to the airwaves to demonstrate how seriously he takes these things. He has not, and that has left him vulnerable, his apology notwithstanding.

It is only necessary to imagine a mural displaying any other racial persecution to understand the scale of Mr Corbyn’s failure – and the incredulity of those who believe him to be genuine in what he now says. He would never defend other varieties of racism on the grounds of freedom of speech.

While Mr Corbyn promises again in his letter to take “early action” against antisemitic acts and to implement the full recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report, that is not wholly reassuring. For early action is no substitute for tough action – and that remains wanting.

Mr Corbyn and his party have rarely found it convenient properly to discipline members and senior figures who transgress in this way. Ken Livingstone has not been thrown out of the party, for example.

Similarly, to take one more example, with Naz Shah, who remains the Labour Member of Parliament for Bradford West, albeit a contrite one. When she suggested, before she was an MP, that an answer to the conflicts in the Middle East would be to transport all the Israeli Jewish people there to the United States she got a suspension from the Labour Party – of about 10 weeks, somewhat shorter than some parliamentary holidays.

There is the suspicion, well-attested by the Jewish voices rising up against this new “soft” persecution of them on social media especially, that too many people in the Labour Party do not understand the distinctions between antisemitism, anti-Zionism and opposition to the policies of the Israeli government in the Middle East. Overlaying that is a lazy and dangerous belief that all Jewish people everywhere offer unconditional or clandestine financial, political and diplomatic support to the state of Israel, either directly or through the United States, which appears to be exactly the beliefs portrayed in the east London mural.

And motivating much of their suspicions about Jewish people is a response to the plight of the Palestinian people. Some Labour members question the state of Israel’s right to exist in its current form and within its present borders. They can adopt that point of view as a matter of politics if they wish; but not use it to generate hostility towards individual Jews and Jewish groups, in Israel or outside it.

Against such confusion, antisemitism is almost bound to be incubated. Manifestly, the climate in the Labour Party is still too accommodating towards it. The report by Shami Chakrabarti two years ago has made vanishingly little difference to Labour’s culture. That is no surprise, given that her report recommended a “statute of limitations” of just two years, opposed any lifetime bans and refused to focus on the antisemitism issue alone. It was, for those reasons, much too complacent. She too might think again about her report.

It is the job of leaders such as Baroness Chakrabarti and Mr Corbyn now to concentrate on antisemitism, and lead by word and by example. Mr Corbyn’s latest statement shows evidence of a willingness to make a start – but why did it take so long? He should do this urgently as a matter of principle. After his recent self-inflicted damage from his stance on Russia and the poisoning of Sergei Skripal – not to mention his Friday night sacking of Owen Smith – he may be well advised to address such matters on grounds of his political ambition, too.