The Labour party’s adoption of the full IHRA definition of antisemitism (Report, 5 September) should not be the end but the start of renewed efforts to engage with British Jews and tackle antisemitism. It should also be a moment for every organisation in Britain to address antisemitism, and to link that work to tackling all forms of racism. While forms of racism differ, the two principles of directly engaging the communities affected, and of focusing on a definition that leads to action, are universal ones.

We advocate this approach as a new group of Black, Asian, Muslim and Jewish people (some of whom have roots in more than one of these communities). We are determined to remain united in the face of currently divisive debates over Islamophobia, antisemitism and racism of any kind. In the light of a growing threat from nationalist and xenophobic forces in many parts of the world, which threaten to undermine our relationships here, we are convinced that ignoring or pandering to racism in any form is a threat to us all. While we are alive to forces within wider society and our own communities who sometimes sow discord and division, we believe it imperative that we confront our differences through dialogue, empathy and solidarity with each other at all times.

Rachel Shabi Journalist, Professor Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Columnist and author, Professor Francesca Klug Human rights academic and activist, Dr Omar Khan Director, Runnymede Trust, Clive Lewis MP, Simon Woolley Director, Operation Black Vote, Radhika Bynon Director of Programmes, The Young Foundation, Michael Segalov Journalist, Dr Edie Friedman Director, Jewish Council for Racial Equality

Members of the Black, Asian, Jewish Alliance (BAJA)

• Nothing could be more conducive to the fostering of antisemitism than the unabashed bullying of Jeremy Corbyn for resisting adoption of the full IHRA definition of antisemitism because he has a few reservations. I declare never to have voted Labour in my life, and therefore consider myself a bystander to that party’s woes, yet witnessing a principled leader refusing to bow to political expediency is heartwarming for its scarcity. Why would Margaret Hodge, or anyone with experience in public life, believe that emotional vitriol is an acceptable form of communication, or that it is likely to garner support from the wider public?

Serena Wylde

London

• One of the IHRA examples clarifying its definition of antisemitism is this: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” But the state of Israel’s conception of what it is to be Jewish rests not on the religious belief that is Judaism but on Jewishness as ethnicity, which is to say race. It therefore follows that Israel’s existence as a state is indeed a racist endeavour, since membership and/or “level of membership” of that state rests on so-called race. Labour’s acceptance of the contrary view is a disastrous capitulation to racism.

Professor Bob Brecher

Brighton, East Sussex

• Ash Sarkar (The IHRA definition of antisemitism is a threat to free expression, 3 September) fails to acknowledge a simple fact: denying Jews the universal human right to self-determination is discriminatory and invidious to the rights and welfare of Jewish people. It is an act of bigotry which marginalises and renders vulnerable Jewish people individually and as a collective.

Acknowledging this right does not negate the rights of Palestinians, nor does it indicate any opinion or limit it – positive or negative – regarding the policies of Israeli governments, current or past. The notion that the Jewish right to self-determination must be denied for the Palestinian right to self-determination to be secured is utterly at odds with international law and international human rights law, specifically the UN charter and the international covenants on civil and political rights and social, economic and cultural rights. Both peoples have equal rights to self-determination.

Suggesting that these human rights are mutually exclusive is legally indefensible, amplifies current conflict, undermines the prospects for peace, and distances both peoples from a genuine and sustainable achievement of freedom, equality and justice to which both are entitled.

Noam Schimmel

Associate fellow, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, McGill University Faculty of Law

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition