The news that Labour’s National Executive Committee has – after what appears to have been a stormy meeting – adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in full is not, in itself, going to stop the antisemitism controversy.

Certainly, the cynical political argument for adopting the definition –including all its illustrative examples, and apparently abandoning its previous attempts at a bespoke adaption of IHRA – was clear. And those demonstrating today that the definition will silence pro-Palestinian voices will ultimately still see the tide of the Labour party’s history as being with them. To not have adopted IHRA would have perpetuated the alienation of the majority of the Jewish community from the party, including the Jewish Labour Movement, and caused yet more turmoil. The pragmatic case for IHRA was unassailable.

But my guess is that a suspicion that this was a decision reached pragmatically rather than through authentic concern will mean that the impact of the adoption will be limited. Those Jews who have felt hurt and damaged by antisemitism within Labour will point to the accompanying statement released by the NEC – a statement that affirms the right to free speech on Israel – as evidence of a lingering desire to accommodate those who have subjected them to hate. And it is inevitable also that there will be accusations the Jews/Zionists/Israel have “bullied” Labour into abandoning the Palestinians.

In any case, one thing the last three years has taught us is that statements and definitions on their own do not stop the controversy over antisemitism. I myself made a submission to the NEC as part of its consultation. While acknowledging that the IHRA has its flaws, I pointed out that the NEC’s proposed alternative was deeply problematic; and, for better or worse, failing to adopt the IHRA definition would be experienced as a hateful act by many Jews. I also stated that the IHRA, if interpreted carefully, should not inhibit pro-Palestinian activism.

But I also argued that definitions are, on their own, only a starting point for a disciplinary process within the party. Without a process trusted by all wings of the party, no progress will be made. I suggested the appointment of a figure to head the process who would be both independent and trusted. While acknowledging the difficulty in finding such a figure, I stated that this needs to be a priority.

Then again, even if the Labour party could develop a robust disciplinary process whose judgments would be widely accepted, there are broader issues. Many of those who hate-tweet at Jews are not party members, and, even if they are, they may not be easily identifiable. It is clear that no one yet has a clue what to do about drawing on the energy of the Labour grassroots while avoiding its tendency for abusiveness.

Then there is the problem of wider splits in the party. That the Jewish Labour Movement and other Jewish party members who have complained of antisemitism are often – but not exclusively – from its centrist wing is part of the problem. Unless the party can find some way of living with its own diversity on all manner of issues – Brexit being one – then it seems unlikely it will resolve its differences over antisemitism.

Whatever happens now, it is still important that mainstream Jews maintain some channels of communication with Labour under Corbyn. After all, under a Corbyn government it will still be necessary to talk to government over issues of concern such as schools, kosher food and circumcision. That some Jewish communal leaders, such as the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks, have essentially said that the only way to respond to their concerns on antisemitism is for Corbyn to resign endangers any possibility of future cooperation.

Perhaps the pragmatism shown by the NEC should not be greeted with suspicion in the Jewish community. Perhaps it shows a path out of this crisis – one in which a mutual decision to maintain a kind of self-interested “cold peace”, rather than a hot war, calms the situation down. While untamed online discourse threatens this possibility, it is possible that a frostily civil relationship between the Jewish community and the Labour party might also allow time and space for pro-Corbyn activists to really grapple with the very problem of antisemitism in their ranks. Perhaps also, Jeremy Corbyn himself might be encouraged to reflect on his past alliances and words that have caused such hurt to so many Jews.

Then again, perhaps not.