Here's why Keith can't be trusted.

"In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East."

It was a post that she shared but which was not "one of her statements." In fact, the poster with Israel shown plonked in the middle of the US was concocted by Norman Finkelstein. The comments on the poster are his, including the one that Keith is ascribing to Naz Shah. . By the way, Finkelstein is a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, both victims of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps. So she condoned it but did not suggest it and it did not originate with her.   Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to. As I've said many times, Israel, though it likes to refer to itself as "the Jewish state," is actually under three-quarters Jewish. "Israeli Jews transported away from the Middle East" is a direct lift by Keith from Guido Fawkes' reinterpretation of the statement on his blog, with Keith's addition of the word "Jews," and is a pretty poor and tendentious mischaracterisation of the original. I assume that any relocation of "Israel" unqualified would include all its citizens - unless otherwise stated, which it wasn't.   

It is absolutely typical of Keith, a major element of his modus operandi in fact, to make these sly little changes in quotes and passages. The changes are always, without fail, attempts to shift the agenda in his favour. You may think that the above tinkerings I've highlighted are pretty insignificant - except that they are not, are they? They represent an underhand kind of spin and they tend to accumulate unless they are constantly questioned. Well I don't want to spend half my time here being on the lookout for this kind of devious and dishonest behaviour. It sours the whole forum and wasting time on it is very polarising. You can rattle on all you like about insults, sweariness, name-calling, etc., but this despicable and disreputable behaviour is at the root of much, if not all, of that.

As for Naz reposting the poster, which clearly meant that she agreed with it, does that make her antisemitic? No it does not. It makes her very foolish and insensitive and I don't like the poster and I wish she hadn't done what she did. But she wasn't antisemitic in doing so for the following reasons. First, the poster was drawn up by a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors and whose extensive scholarship on Middle East politics can't be denied, whatever you think of him. I fully expect someone or other to pop up and claim that he's a self-hating Jew, though I'd point out that he's a fierce defender of tbe state of Israel. Second, the poster is clearly a reaction to the policies of the Israeli regime, not an attack on the characteristics of Jewish people. I regard it as ill-conceived and put out there with no regard for outcomes. But it falls at the first hurdle when it comes to antisemitism. Woolly definitions that are intended to prevent criticism of Israel are worse than useless and will do nothing to further the fight against antisemitism.

Finally, remarks emanating from Naz Shah and the Labour NEC after the event were attempts to close the issue and move on. Arguing that she said she was antisemitic so it must be true are perfectly ridiculous if you also accept that she was an utterly stupid bugger to endorse the poster in the first place. It's quite clear that the retraction and apologies were efforts to save her own arse and move on. Typical politician. So stop pretending that she suddenly had a saintly moment once confronted with her idiocy, eh?

I have yet to see a single quote from any Labour Party member that is antisemitic. If you have any, bring them on. But make it chapter and verse or just don't bother. Don't behave like Keith because we'll chuck it straight back at you.