I don't think Corbyn is an anti-semite.
However, I do think that his loathing of Israel is so extreme that it makes him unable to take a backward step and admit any fault - and he is at fault because he has enabled anti-semitism to thrive because he hasn't distinguished well enough a distaste for Israel with a hatred of Jews in general.
He was asked to apologise. He should have apologised. He didn't. Because that's who he is - an ideological extremist who won't take a backward step. It's why he incomprehensible challenged the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and it's why Neil decimated him in that interview.
He scores spectacular own goals over and over again, and it's why he's not electable. Five years of Boris Johnson is going to be painful, but at least the end of Corbyn is a decent consolation prize in two weeks.
Or he was providing an answer to the question, which may or may not have contained an apology, but Andrew Neil refused to let him finish?
If we run with this line of argument though, what would you say was extreme about his view on Israel? His view appears to be the need for a 2 state solution, with each side respected the rule of international law. Am I missing something or is there anything extreme in that? Also I am lost to see how you could read the above and believe anti-semitism was acceptable (especially with his prolonged record of voting in supporting multiple causes associated to the wellbeing of Jewish people). If you were an anti-semite, I would say you were a complete idiot for reading into the above that you're welcome.
Secondly what does "allowed anti-semitism to thrive" mean in this context? Less than 0.1% of Labour members have been found to be anti-semitic. By the party structures this has gone down substantially since he took office. It's also been seen that Labour voters are less anti-semitic than all of the other major parties, and a sample of the general public.Can this be described as "thriving"?
As for the IHRA assessment, his mistake was ever accepting that anti-zionism equates to anti-semitism. That was his biggest mistake, accepting that. He naively felt, if he went against his instincts and went along with a completely bizarre definition, people would be sensible and decent enough to drop a truly bizarre attack upon Britains leading anti-racist politician. However he is incredibly naive and doesn't understand the lengths to which people are willing to go to take down his project and what it represents. I do not mean Jewish people here either, this is being led by gentiles in positions of authority.
The assessment itself states criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitic. That's illogical. Just because you criticise a country, doesn't automatically mean you dislike the people who live within it, never mind hold a racist view towards them. I have a structural disagreement with religious states, be they Jewish (Israel), Christian (Northern Ireland), Islamic (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran), Hindu (sections of the Indian right), Buddhist etc etc. Making the automatic assumption this is down to racism is a really stupid position, and any qualified person/journalist ought to do better.
It reminds me very much of the new trans women are women nonsense. Ordinary people don't believe it. There will become a tipping point, where people just get hacked off and ignore the ridiculous labels that they are prejudicial for holding different ideological perspectives.
As for the final bit, lets wait and see. I'll be kind but I've heard all this before. I heard it last time with May allegedly being the greatest PM since Thatcher and indefinite Tory rule. They ended up begging for an election 2 years later. Johnson's government will not last 5 years. I have severe doubts he'll even win a workable majority.
Corbyn is far from faultless on a whole host of questions. However I have never really had any of the above questions answered to me. If someone did I would be happy to revise my view. However I still struggle to see, how concern about how religious states treat other religious groups, women, homosexuals etc automatically means you are racist? I'm open to persuasion though.
