Jim you always see no ships in other peoples comments so whats new
For those interested in the topic :

Differences from the article quoted who is for and who is against?

The code does reproduce the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's "working definition" of anti-Semitism and lists behaviours likely to be regarded as anti-Semitic - but critics point out that it leaves out four examples provided by the IHRA definition:

1 Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country

2 Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour

3 Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations
4 Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis

But Labour has insisted that while the examples are not reproduced word for word, they are covered elsewhere in the new code.
Labour's code says it is "wrong" to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than their own country. And it says that using Nazi comparisons in Israel-Palestine debates "carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party", triggering a disciplinary investigation.
Labour's code says: "The party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people.
"To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of anti-Semitism."
The code also says Israel's conduct should be assessed "against the requirements of international law or the standards of behaviour expected of democratic states" and that double standards should not be applied.
A party spokeswoman said: "The code of conduct adopts the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition and expands on and contextualises the IHRA examples to produce robust, legally sound guidelines that a political party can apply to disciplinary cases."
Tory vice-chairman Rehman Chishti said: "Labour's failure to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitic racism in full is shameful."