Several of the examples in tbe so-called definition are extremely problematic. I repeat. The definition was drawn up by a committee of pro-Israel advocates at the request of the EU. The definition was seen as badly-drafted and weak and was NEVER adopted by the body that commissioned it. It was eventually removed from the website of the FRA, the successor body to the EUMC who first commissioned the definition, having never been adopted. It had never got past the work-in-progess stage. It was deemed unworkable and too controversially in favour of restricting criticism of Israel. Three years after it was finally ditched it was jumped on by the IHRA. They adopted it more or less verbatim, with all its badly-drafted phraseology, without scrutiny (which they admitted - not my opinion). Since then it has been adopted by 31 countries who have allied themselves to that body. That is not "the whole world" for the information of Iains. There are 195 countries in the world. So 164 countries have not adopted the definition. The man who first drafted the definition is unhappy with the manner in which it has been used to restrict free speech and criticism of Israel, stating that that was not the definition's intention.

I'd suggest that political pressure to adopt this definition in full without demur is improper. Credit to Labour so far for the resisting the clamour of the headless chickens. I'll be disappointed if Labour caves in and am absolutely certain that, if they do, it won't be the end of of the matter, not by a country mile. After all, this isn't about antisemitism at all. It's about trying to unseat Corbyn by the disaffected right-wing of the Party and about preventing, at all costs, the election to PM of a leader who is one of the very few in the west who is sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians in a way that is more than just paying lip service.