This story certainly isn't going away.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ial-threat
The three major Jewish newspapers in the UK have joined forces to condemn the Labour leadership as antisemitic and they, plus numerous other people, seem to take the view that anything less than a complete acceptance of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is itself antisemitic. No room for argument on that, they seem to think. It all seems very curious because, as far as I can see, the objection is just to some of the examples of antisemitism given by the IHRA. One example is:
"Claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
The Labour Party said it was concerned about creating a code that could be “used to deny Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel and their supporters, their rights and freedoms to describe the discrimination and injustices they face in the language they deem appropriate”.
As somebody with no axe to grind here (I'm not Jewish, I have no strong opinions one way or the other about Israel or Judaism and I'm not a supporter of the Corbyn-led Labour Party) the Labour leadership's objection to this example of supposed antisemitism seems quite reasonable. If somebody looks at the history of the modern state of Israel and decides that various injustices were perpetrated against Palestinians in setting it up, that point could be debated, but it's not antisemitic. It's a point of view.
Mass hysteria is a strange and disturbing thing.