The sweltering heat hasn’t been the only thing making Labour members and Jewish people feel uncomfortable this summer. The media’s “silly season” has been anything but, as Labour’s antisemitism debate has dragged on. And many of those who have engaged in it will still not be feeling happy this morning. The party’s national executive committee has now passed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its examples, with clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech around Israel/Palestine, and the rights of Palestinian people to define their own experiences, are preserved.

The real losers are those in the Jewish and Palestinian communities who’ve been let down by a lack of nuance and honesty

To some, it’s capitulation to those looking to weaken Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party. To others, it’s an attempt to water down what antisemitism looks like in Britain today. In reality, it might well be the prevailing of common sense. Anyone declaring the “free speech clause” to be “unnecessary” or “undermining the entire IHRA definition” is placing their own integrity at risk. Free speech on Israel/Palestine cannot and must not be restricted – that’s the case that each camp has long made.

In fact, the real losers are those in the Jewish and Palestinian communities who’ve been let down by a lack of nuance, research and honesty displayed by those from all corners. Both antisemitism and the conflict in Israel/Palestine have long and complex histories. The tensions exposed by the debate around the IHRA definition are in no way of Labour’s design: they’re neither dreamed up by the “Blairite right” nor created by Jeremy Corbyn. That’s why dialogue between Jewish and Palestinian groups in Britain is so sorely needed, as many progressive Jews and others have been arguing for years.

When Labour attempted to draw up a code of conduct on antisemitism earlier this year, it was derided by swathes of the Jewish community. The code was far-reaching in its scope, and protected Jewish people from discrimination, while ensuring Palestinian experiences were not erased.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A rally outside Labour headquarters in support of Jeremy Corbyn’s previous refusal to adopt the IHRA definition. Photograph: Steve Parkins/Rex/Shutterstock

The code of conduct ultimately failed not because of its content, but because – quite understandably after Labour failed to handle the limited, but incredibly serious, number of cases of antisemitism expediently – there was no buy-in from the Jewish community more broadly. This is despite the fact that the code was delivered in good faith; Jewish members of Labour’s NEC have spoken of their desire to protect the rights of both Jews and Palestinians, which are regularly placed at odds. There was a lack of transparent consultation between the Labour party and Jews across the country, and with trust so low already, many Jewish people felt the prejudice they face was being redefined, their real-life experiences taken out of their hands.

So the NEC’s decision in many ways replicates the intentions of the code of conduct, but in pledging to engage in further consultation the party has heeded the lessons of deeply felt concerns from Jews about the way the previous process was conducted.

That’s not to say this is the end of the matter; it can’t be. On Wednesday, members of the parliamentary Labour party are set to have their own vote on the IHRA definition. The vote, tabled as an emergency motion before the summer recess, now can’t be amended. If the PLP truly desires to play its part in helping both the Jewish community and Labour party move forward, they should show their support for the NEC’s thought-through decision. Let there be no incendiary comments leaked to the papers; no claims the clarifications adopted legitimise “Jew-hatred”. The NEC has already adopted the IHRA definition and examples on behalf of Labour, the PLP included. Its motion has no status within the party, and no impact at all. It can, however, make a symbolic gesture displaying unity here.

At the same time, the small minority of Corbyn supporters who refer to the Jewish community as “they”, as if we’re monolithic; or imply Labour must just face up to an indefinite climate of warfare with the Jewish community, should stop. Decrying that Jews are now privileged over other marginalised groups implies we are pitted against each other, which contradicts the most basic of anti-racist principles. Out of necessity – due to a series of poorly handled complaints and a lack of clear guidance – Jewish people are now protected within Labour in a way distinct from other minority groups. If others feel they could benefit to codify their experiences of discrimination then let’s embrace the opportunity – it’s not a race to the bottom.

It would be convenient for Tuesday’s vote to be a line in the sand. God knows I’d love to talk, write and think about quite literally anything else at this point. The party’s membership and those within Labour are determined to refocus efforts on holding our shambolic government to account. And we must do. But to ensure the newly implemented definition continues to serve all Labour’s members, it must continually be re-examined alongside further consultation. If fears of an impact of free expression, for example, are realised, they must be acknowledged and acted upon.

Hodge urges Corbyn to rebuild trust after Labour antisemitism row Read more

Take, for instance, the most contested example: labelling the state of Israel a racist endeavour. Examining how far legitimate criticism is protected will be key. Where we now stand should hopefully mean that Palestinian experiences at the hands of the Israeli government, the state historically, and even the process of Israel’s formation, can be legitimately described as racist. At the same time, denying Jews the right to self-determination in principle (when not achieved at the expense of an oppressed minority group) should fall foul of this newly drawn line. It’s an incredibly important distinction, given the violence and persecution Jews have for so long faced.

If Labour pulls this off successfully, it could mark a new phase in the party’s history – creating a space for progressive people to navigate the Israel/Palestine conflict with respect, protection and understanding. If not, we must go back to the drawing board once again.

• Michael Segalov is contributing editor at Huck magazine and an author