As a secular Jew who has lived in these islands for nearly 60 years, I have seen and experienced some antisemitism. This has been minor and non-threatening, usually perpetrated by conservative institutions (educational and social) and individuals or small groups on the political extremes. It is many orders of magnitude less than the antisemitism experienced by my grandfathers who fled the pogroms in the Baltic states, which led to the Holocaust that obliterated those of their family who remained. Yet in this benign atmosphere, extensive action by the Labour party to root out antisemitism is still being criticised (Anger as Labour’s NEC refuses to back down on antisemitism code, 18 July). Why?

The answer lies in the specific clauses that many members of the Jewish community want included in the Labour party document on antisemitism. These clauses involve not just Judaism but the state of Israel. Including these clauses is an attempt to stifle appropriate and necessary criticism of Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinian people. From its founding this has been deplorable and has deteriorated significantly in recent decades. What these members of the Jewish community want is to conflate antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel, a longstanding tactic of Israeli apologists.

The greatest current threat to diaspora Jews is an upsurge of antisemitism by extremists using Israeli policy as an excuse. The way to prevent this is for all Jews to call on Israel to treat the Palestinian people with fairness, dignity and respect and use pressure to ensure this happens. It is also the right thing to do.

Maurice Buchalter

Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan

• While it is entirely understandable for opponents of political Zionism to be exercised to find ways of expressing their political views without being unduly accused of antisemitism, there are some giveaways in Brian Klug’s article (theguardian.com, 20 July) which betray another agenda. Mr Klug notes with pride how “it is wrong to require more vociferous condemnation of [Israel’s] actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others”. Surely this is an Orwellian shift. Klug’s assumption is of an environment of a general condemnation of Israel.

What of the many people – Jewish or not – who support Israel – and how can Labour countenance withholding protection for Jews becoming an “easy target for their solidarity with Israel”, bearing in mind so many consider this a major element of their identity?

Jonathan Burg

London

• Margaret Hodge (Why I was right to speak out about Labour’s antisemitism, 19 July) accuses Labour’s NEC of agreeing “its own definition of antisemitism”. This is incorrect: the NEC has adopted the IHRA definition in full, with some additional caveats to the “illustrative examples” suggested by the IHRA.

These caveats are, almost word for word, taken from the recommendations of the home affairs committee’s 2016 report into antisemitism in the UK chaired by Chuka Umunna, another vocal critic of the NEC’s code of conduct. I do not recall Ms Hodge accusing the authors of that report of racism and antisemitism, or complaining that they were writing their own definition.

Pete Winstanley

Durham

• We note with dismay and outrage the Jewish Chronicle’s front page headline (20 July), which uncritically quotes Margaret Hodge’s description of Jeremy Corbyn as “Antisemitic and a racist”. This is deeply offensive and likely libellous. Contrary to much reporting, the Labour party is engaging carefully and sensitively with the issue of antisemitism, on which it has accepted the core IHRA definition. This inflammatory rhetoric, seemingly supported by many leading Anglo-Jewish institutions and voices, risks bringing our community into disrepute, and consequently fuelling antisemitism. We strongly urge all Jews in Britain, whatever their political allegiances and views, to join us in repudiating the misuse of this very serious allegation.

Professor Jacqueline Rose, Professor Donald Sassoon, Dr Anthony Isaacs, Dr Vivienne Jackson

Independent Jewish Voices steering committee

• It is sad to see Labour tearing itself apart over its antisemitism policy. Much of this needlessly heated internecine dispute seems to revolve around the NEC’s exclusion from its draft code of conduct on antisemitism of just four out of 11 “contemporary examples of antisemitism” given in the IHRA’s “working definition of antisemitism”. They are offered in that working definition only as examples “to guide the IHRA in its work”, and the IHRA itself acknowledges there may be others; there is nothing unique about these 11 that requires all of them to be cited by third-party organisations. All four of the examples excluded from the NEC draft refer to the state of Israel or to Israelis, and could compromise a political party seeking to maintain a proper international neutrality in the context of Middle East politics. Three are in any case dealt with sensitively elsewhere in the draft code (notably para 14).

As a Labour member, I support the NEC draft code of conduct and regret the inflammatory language it has occasioned among Westminster politicians who ought to know better. People need to cool down and recognise that such tribal passions just put uncommitted voters off. Labour members of all persuasions urgently need to restore the “civility of discourse” called for by the draft code.

Robin Gill

Oxford

• It doesn’t seem to have occurred to John Holroyd (Letters, 23 July) that the latest row about antisemitism in the Labour party, the existence of which is acknowledged by Jeremy Corbyn, stems from the maladroit handling of the NEC (of which I am a former chair) in defining the term. Instead of following the practice of a wide range of bodies, including apparently the party itself, and accepting the international definition, it chose to amend it after minimal contact with the Jewish community and labour movement and now belatedly offers some form of consultation prior to party conference. Now in my 59th year of Labour membership, I am appalled.

Jeremy Beecham

Labour, House of Lords

• If Labour’s NEC says that the examples it has not adopted from the IHRA definition of antisemitism are covered by other parts of its own code, then what is stopping it from adopting the IHRA definition in full?

Fay Marshall

Brighton

• Would you like to submit a photograph to be printed in the Guardian’s letters spread? If so, you can do so here

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

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