Jewish NewsVerified account

@2jonkershaw does this help your understanding?

No, not really. It shows the depth of feeling on the issue, which I have never doubted. It doesn't answer my questions about the issues surrounding practical application of the IHRA definition.

I’ve tried to explain. But to get the 3 newspapers to do this together shows how bad the situation actually is.

No, you haven't explained. You've explained how you feel. You haven't explained why it's ok for the Home Affairs select committee to say the IHRA definition needs clarification for practical usage, but Labour should still be expected to use it.

The problem is that it's impossible now to have a dispassionate debate about it because tensions have risen and Labour has lost the trust of the Jewish community. It needs to do much more to win that trust back, and quickly.

Read paras 22-26 of this: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/136.pdf … With this in mind, should Labour accept the IHRA code in full, use the code with clarifications, or rewrite parts of it? That's my question, and I still haven't got a satisfactory answer.

If I knew the right thing to do I would happily lobby the NEC to make it happen. Because I want to rid the Labour Party of the scourge of anti-Semitism. But I honestly don't know what the right thing is.

The biggest irony is that if there really was an “existential threat to Jewish life in this country” then the people you accuse here would be the first ones out on the streets to oppose and fight it. This issue has just #JumpedTheShark

Any comment on the apartheid style laws passed by the Israeli regime at the weekend?

Reacting to concerns about antisemitism by bringing up Israel is a classic antisemitic trope. I’m sure Tom will take the lesson and move on though.

Rubbish. One of the issues here is that what people want Labour to accept is that criticism of Israeli actions is included in the definition of anti-semitism. That's why I linked the issues

You’re the one bringing up Israel, dude.

Because it's mentioned in two of the definitions people want the Labour Party to accept as a definition of anti-semitism. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Not in a way that prevents criticism of Israel per se. What the definition does, is include people whose response to literally anything involving AS is to bring up Israel. People like you.

You are reaching there buddy. Why mention Israel at all in the definitions? There are plenty of examples of anti-semitism without having to drag Israel in. That's my issue.

Because of the people who use the actions of Israel as a stick with which to beat all Jewish people, and because of people whose first response to *any* discussion of Antosemitism is to bring up Israel. Which is precisely what you’ve just done.

Is this unprecedented? I don’t recall seeing such a united media approach before in any issue at all.