"Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing.
Making criticism of Israeli policy is exactly that
"Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!"
No it didn't and no-one in Labour has qualified those
The ambiguous meaning you have put on their response neither accepts or identifies actual antisemitism - just the need to deal with the accusations, which they have done and found nothing.
Until someone actually identifies the antisemitism that is supposed to be a problem in the Labour Party - it does not exist, and the fact that nobody ever has is proof positive that it doesn't
Our circular arguments finish here unless you are prepared to put a face to your claims
This gets more and more stupid the longer you persist
I ask again, can you provide one example in democratic history where people can be accused of something without that something being identified
Franz Kafka wrote a brilliant novel besed on just this bizarre piece of injustice and the longer you contine, the more your claims resemble that classic.
I assume we are now agreed that the definition has been torn up by the Israelis
Jim Carroll