If I was a cynic I would probably come to the conclusion that the Israeli government, through the Jewish community and its media in the UK, is trying to scupper any chance of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party to victory at the next general election, as they know he will be sympathetic to the claims of Palestinian Arabs living in the Occupied Territories and it does not wish to lose the huge amount of influence it has enjoyed over the British government for many years. That all three of the major Jewish newspapers in the UK have attacked Corbyn and stated that "a Jeremy Corbyn-led government would pose an existential threat to Jewish life," in the same words on the same day would be regarded as a conspiracy if all the Muslim newspapers in the UK had led a similar joint attack on Theresa May, for example.
Let's get things straight. The definition of antisemitism that is being adopted by the Labour Party is not "the" definition," it is "a" definition" drawn up by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which is not a national or international legislature, independent or the Oxford English Dictionary. However, the Labour Party has volunteered to adopt their definition into its constitution. What it is, so far, refusing to do is accept all the examples of antisemitism that the IHRA has made an integral part of the definition.
If the Labour Party was to back down and include all the definitions it would mean, for example, that if a British citizen with a Palestinian ancestry was to become a member of the Labour Party and state that Israel has no right to exist because they stole the land from her ancestors (you can imagine a native American or other conquered indigenous person saying the same) then she would be labelled antisemitic and thrown out of the Labour Party. It could well be argued that a Labour government in Britain, stating that the Israeli government's recent passing of a law that makes the eighteen per cent of the population of Israel, which is not Jewish, second-class citizens with no right to self-determination, is nothing less than apartheid, would be guilty of antisemitism according to this controversial definition. If I was a cynic I would probably be tempted to think that this is exactly the control that an Israeli government would like to have over UK political discourse concerning the Middle East.
What worries me most is the number of intellectuals in Britain, including, of all people, Melvyn Bragg, who are not only joining in the attack on Jeremy Corbyn but are completely ignoring the ramifications of what they are demanding. The idea that a politician of any party and any nation should be banned from accusing her own or another nation's government of wrongdoing because of a pseudo-law drawn-up by supporters of the government doing the wrongdoing, should be an anathema. That so many British journalists, political commentators, lawmakers and potential lawmakers are championing such a restriction of our freedom of speech, is very scary indeed. If I was a cynic I might be tempted to conclude that they are saying what they have been told to say rather than thinking for themselves.