Singing the song, forgetting the dance

There are moments in politics when a person says something so astonishingly stupid that one is forced to stop and admire the dedication required to arrive there.

This week’s example comes courtesy of Labour councillor Ryan Tanti, who, confronted with Israel’s furious reaction to criticism of Israel, apparently decided that the appropriate response was to reach for Hitler.

Let us be clear about one thing from the outset. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is behaving like a thug. Its conduct in Gaza has rightly attracted condemnation across much of the democratic world. The destruction, the civilian casualties, the indifference to international opinion and the increasingly cavalier attitude towards humanitarian concerns deserve criticism and scrutiny.

The boorish reaction of Israel’s representative at the United Nations towards Vanessa Frazier, a Maltese diplomat who has served as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict since October 2025, was unconscionable, contemptible and deserving of condemnation.

Criticising Netanyahu is not antisemitic. Questioning the actions of his government is not antisemitic. Being appalled by what is happening in Gaza is not antisemitic. Indeed, if one cannot criticise a government engaged in warfare, democracy itself becomes impossible.  Even (or especially) if that government supports or is supported by US President Donald Trump.

The difficulty is that holding two thoughts simultaneously appears beyond the intellectual reach of Tanti, though, to be fair to him, he is hardly alone. For many, if one belief is of turquoise shade, every other belief must be painted the same shade.

Tanti’s comment was not merely offensive. In a few short words, he demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the State of Israel and Jewish people generally.

The behaviour of Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, Danny Danon, reflecting that of the government he represents, somehow justified, at least in Tanti’s mind, suggesting that Hitler should have been allowed to finish the job.

My objection is not only that the analogy was crude. It transformed a political disagreement into an attack framed through one of history’s greatest atrocities. On Labour’s more excitable fringes, historical catastrophes have become props in a travelling political theatre, wheeled out whenever nuance threatens to make an appearance.

It is reasoning that would embarrass a goldfish.

More revealing than the argument itself, however, is the instinct behind it. It is the same instinct that may explain why Labour’s own Muslim candidate recently discovered that diversity is celebrated enthusiastically right up to the moment it becomes politically inconvenient.

There, perhaps, lies the wider lesson. Labour has become extraordinarily good at singing the right songs.

It sings of inclusion, tolerance, environmental stewardship, transparency and good governance with the confidence of a choir that knows every lyric by heart. The problem comes when the music stops, and the dancing begins.

When corruption scandals emerge, the rhetoric of accountability suddenly acquires a bewildering number of caveats. The party that swept to power promising a new politics spent years explaining away Panama companies, defending disgraced officials, attacking journalists who exposed wrongdoing and treating scrutiny as a form of political aggression.

When environmental concerns collide with development interests, the green banners are quietly folded away. Heritage is sacrificed, skylines disfigured, open spaces buried beneath concrete, and each outrage is presented as the regrettable but unavoidable price of progress.

When minorities require protection rather than carefully curated photographs, solidarity often proves conditional upon electoral convenience. Championing diversity, it turns out, is much easier when it costs nothing.

The result is a politics that increasingly mistakes performance for principle.

The slogans remain impeccable. The speeches are carefully crafted. The social media graphics are professionally designed. The declarations of virtue are delivered with practised conviction.

The Israeli government’s actions deserve criticism. Vanessa Frazier deserves support. Neither proposition requires casual references to genocide or the blurring of distinctions between a state and an ethnic or religious community.

Tanti’s comments revealed something larger than his own shortcomings. They exposed a movement increasingly comfortable with performance over principle.

Labour knows all the right songs. It can sing every verse flawlessly.  The problem is that whenever the music starts, it keeps tripping over its own feet.