This is way beyond a face-palm moment.<\/p>\n
Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review\u00a0into the Labour party’s supposed “anti-semitism crisis” \u2013 in fact, a crisis\u00a0entirely confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much\u00a0else) are being thrown at Corbyn to\u00a0discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this campaign and Labour’s reponse\u00a0here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of states that are Islamic. He said:<\/p>\n Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said \u2013 not even close.<\/p>\n First, even if he had said “Islamic State”, which he didn’t, that would not have meant he made a\u00a0comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances\u00a0based on their religious or ethnic background. He was saying it was unfair to make\u00a0such assumptions of either Jews or Muslims.<\/p>\n In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share)\u00a0would be\u00a0more unfair to Muslims than\u00a0to Jews. It\u00a0would suggest that some Muslims\u00a0easily\u00a0feel\u00a0an\u00a0affinity with\u00a0a terror organisation, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state (which\u00a0may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is far\u00a0uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.<\/p>\n But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any such\u00a0comparison. He\u00a0clearly\u00a0referred to\u00a0“various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”. A spokesman later clarified that he meant “Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza”. In other words, “various self-styled Islamic states and organisations” \u2013 just as\u00a0he said in the speech.<\/p>\n Surprise, surprise, the supposedly liberal Guardian’s coverage of this incident is as appalling as that<\/a> found in the rightwing Telegraph. The Guardian\u00a0has an article<\/a>, quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course, that he didn’t.<\/p>\n In fact, contrary to all normal journalism, you have to read the Guardian story from bottom-up. The last paragraph states:<\/p>\n This story was amended on 30 June to correct the quotation in the second paragraph. An earlier version quoted Corbyn as saying: \u201cOur Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Islamic friends are responsible for Islamic State.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or in other words, the Guardian reporter did not even bother to listen\u00a0to the video of the speech posted alongside her report on the Guardian’s own website. Instead she and her editors jumped on the same bandwagon as everyone else, spreading the\u00a0same malicious rumours and misinformation.<\/p>\n When it later emerged that the story was a complete fabrication \u2013 one they could have proved for themselves had they\u00a0listened to what Corbyn really said \u2013 they simply appended at the bottom a one-par mea culpa that almost no one will read. The Guardian has\u00a0continued to publish the same defamatory article, one based on a deception from start to finish.<\/p>\n