Sorry - two links didn't work in that posting - am reposting (if a forum fairy is available, please delete the above
Jim Carroll

"recommendations"
An interesting contradiction is highlighted in a letter linked to Keith's link - a letter from a member of The House of Lords

"Deplorable though the Netanyahu government’s settlement policy is, the description by the usual pro-BDS suspects of Israel as “an apartheid state” is ludicrous........"
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords

How does that statement fit in with THIS ?
In the link, the writer says it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel
How does THIS
fit in?
The term 'antisemitism' has been re-defined so many times that it is impossible to distinguish between critiscism of Israel and attacks on the Jewish People - Jews have been used as pawns to defend war crimes and atrocities and so have become targets of those appalled at Israeli behaviour - which may work out well for the Netanyahu regime, but the rise in genuine antisemitism it has unleashed puts the Jewish people in an extremely dangerous position, given the swing to the extreme right in Europe and America
The latest definition no longer includes this clause: "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.", which is proof positive that these re-definitions are to protect the Israeli Government - not the Jewish People
The only workable definition is "Unfair critiscism of and attacks on the Jewish People"
The only British politicians ever to have been guilty of that are The Tories, Mosely's British Union of Fascists (BUF) and extremist rightists like the NF and the BNP
The Labour Party have never had a serious problem with antisemitism - attacks of the Jewish People are a manifestation of right-wing politics - not left
Corbyn, as a responsible politician, has been forced to negotiate with Jewish members of the Labour Party thanks to Israeli infiltration which has been proved beyond dounbt by an admission by an Israeli agent (linked above)
Jim Carroll