When two emotive issues collide, the seas of language are liable to run high. This is what happened when Labour announced its new code of conduct on antisemitism. At the heart of the debate lies the conundrum: how to deal with antisemitism while at the same time protecting free speech in debate over Israel and Palestine? It is a question that troubles people of goodwill on every side.

In this debate, people seem not to be listening to each other or weighing the evidence. Which is why we all need to calm down, stand back and take stock of what the new code actually says.

Labour has been criticised for not reproducing the exact wording adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. The truth is, there is a huge amount of common ground between the two texts. So, why are critics so hostile to Labour’s code?

Partly, this is because of a justified grievance. Many of us (myself included) have pointed out that the language about Israel and Zionism in some parts of the left has long been problematic. This includes a degree of antisemitism. The grievance has festered, as unheeded grievances do, and has led to a breakdown in trust. But well-founded cynicism can become a habit that impairs our ability to make reasonable judgments and recognise when the very thing we want comes about. It’s paradoxical if, at the moment Labour wakes up to the necessity of combating antisemitism in its ranks, it is shouted down because of its failure to deal with it in the past.

Has Labour tried to create its own definition, as some critics claim? No. The new code adopts, unaltered, the IHRA definition. But the definition is vague. So, IHRA provides 11 “examples” that “may serve as illustrations” to guide its work. Similarly, Labour’s code includes “guidelines” to assist the party in its work, and these guidelines include a list of examples.

Here is where there is a measure of difference. Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. This shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.

Labour antisemitism code could breach Equality Act Read more

By the same token, it means that any examples that are seen to be problematic in terms of protecting free speech must be dealt with separately, which is what the new code does. The four remaining IHRA examples are discussed in subsequent guidelines along with other tricky issues, and guidance is provided to help people apply the IHRA definition, for example within party disciplinary tribunals. Whether the code has “got it right” or not is open to debate. But Labour is right to discuss the complexities that arise with these four examples, and critics are wrong to say that the code simply omits them. In contrast, critics have not acknowledged these complexities since the code was released.

Labour’s code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”. These additions will assist Labour in practice.

Moreover, the code stipulates that it is wrong to require “more vociferous condemnation of [Israel’s] actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others”, which speaks to the lived experience of some Jewish people on the left. It highlights the antisemitism expressed by an unjustified reference to being Jewish (as in “Jewish banker”, comparable to “black mugger”) and prohibits the use of “Zionist” or “zio” as a codeword for “Jew”.

In all these respects, Labour’s code is an advance on the IHRA text. But these improvements have been passed over in silence by critics.

The bottom line is this: critics maintain that Labour (or anyone else) has to adopt the IHRA document “in full”. But the text is not written in stone. It is a working definition with working examples. It is a living document, subject to revision and constantly needing to be adapted to the different contexts in which people apply its definition. This is the spirit in which the drafters of Labour’s code have approached their task. Not all of the changes they have made are necessarily for the better. But people of goodwill who genuinely want to solve the conundrum – combating antisemitism while protecting free political speech – should welcome the code as a constructive initiative, and criticise it constructively.

The door for doing this has been opened by Labour, which has decided to look again at the code, in consultation with Jewish organisations and other groups. If we put our heads together, there is a good chance that a consensus can be reached. For this to happen, the seas of language are going to have to subside and critics must stop treating the IHRA document as immutable. In the Judaism in which I was nurtured and educated, there is only one text whose status is sacred; and it was not written by a committee of the IHRA.

• Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford, and honorary fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/Non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton