Why? It's pretty evident at this point that the whole Labour anti-Semitism thing was a cheap way to generate clicks and tank Corbyn-led Labour. Criticism of Israel's genuinely awful human rights record is not anti-Semitic.
There were plenty of examples [0] of unpleasant statements coming from people on a Labour party platform or at their events, which were not dealt with sufficiently quickly or seriously by the Labour Party. They could’ve made this problem go away by just having a proper policy and dealing with these cases swiftly and appropriately. They didn’t.
[0] https://news.sky.com/story/12-shocking-claims-of-abuse-in-le...
We would have seen this fiction in USA too, if voters would have just forgotten that Bernie is actually Jewish.
It’s not unreasonable to hold a leader somewhat responsible - it’s not like Trump isn’t criticised (rightly) for things done by other people on his watch.
It is interesting to imagine holding the national leader of a political party responsible for her or his own actions, let alone the antics of other party members. Whatever UK has done to make this possible, we should do. Only, I suspect it will turn into yet another double standard.
Meanwhile, over in actual Israel they're busy setting up an apartheid state and enacting race based policies.
It's simply not possible to be consistently anti racist without being accused of anti-semitism. Rebecca Long Bailey getting fired is simply the latest illustration of that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/12/05/jeremy-corbyn...
Clearly you could decide that you will hold a leader to be (somewhat) responsible simply by virtue of them being the leader, as a matter of principle. However, it seems quite possible to at least _imagine_ situations where a leader is "fatally" undermined by people within their own organisation. Given that, it is worth considering whether that may have been the situation for Corbyn, and if so where culpability lies.
To complete your point, I would contend that this isn't the key issue with Trump - it isn't obvious to me that generalising over these situations is really that useful.
"The 860-page document claims that “an abnormal intensity of factional opposition to the party leader” had “inhibited the proper functioning of the Labour Party bureaucracy” and contributed to “a litany of mistakes” in dealing with antisemitism, which it admits was a serious problem in the party."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-r...
Meanwhile, the Tory party gets a free pass on their rampant Antisemitism and stoking hatred of immigrants.
You’re the leader of Labour; your party is being criticised in very damaging ways and (for the sake of argument) it’s because your internal processes are being sabotaged. What do you do? Maybe... look into it? Fix it? Change the people responsible if that’s what it takes? At best, it was weak leadership. At worst, it was a reluctance to discipline political allies.
I think it's pretty clear that Rachel Reeves, Ian Austin et al are not allies when they are funnelling money and faking ad spend, and leaking lies to the press specifically to stop labour from winning.
(I'm not referring to all claims of antisemitism here as lies by the way, but many of the stories that broke in the Guardian were later redacted as bunk)
It's like, what are the priorities here?
We’re not talking about a ranked value system here, we’re talking about an organisation that can do multiple things at the same time.
I don't care if it was exasperated by "saboteurs". If Corbyn can't adopt this basic moral position that all humans ought to adopt, I don't care to hear any excuses at all.
Edit: you seemed to have silently edited your comment to change your argument, so I’ll do the same:
> No. The "real solution" is to oppose anti-semitism with all due expediency.
And the labour leaks show that a faction of the party was purposefully undermining labours ability to do this against the wishes of the leadership. Do you accept this?
> I don't care if it was exasperated by "saboteurs". If Corbyn can't adopt this basic moral position that all humans ought to adopt, I don't care to hear any excuses at all.
That makes no sense: are you really arguing that Corbyn’s political enemies’ actions lead you to hate Corbyn’s moral position, even when it ostensibly matches your own?
Maybe you should have another think before you reply
Conspiracy theories, whataboutism, insults -- these are less than nothing, yet the spineless Corbyn and his supporters dare claim leadership over better people, and fabricate whiny paranoid stories of their persecution. Given that there are liberals and leftists who are not comfortable with pointless evil, everything else is insignificant.
Corbynite Labour is the party you vote for to fight fascism and antisemitism. But instead media parrots like yourself prefer to ignore any nuance because - I suspect - it suits your conservative political ideology.
It’s destructive thought patterns like the ones you are displaying which have allowed Boris Johnson into power. I think you’ll find that if Jewish people in the UK (and I sincerely And truly hope this never, ever happens - to Jews, or any other vulnerable group) is ever treated like they have been in the past, it won’t be from people like Corbyn, it’ll be by people like Patel.
But, you know, you do you.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-hq-used-facebook-a...
The centrist and right-wing of the Labour party have a lot to answer for and have clearly displayed that they will stick at nothing to ensure that:
* There is no Green New Deal and the climate crisis is going to happen * Power remains in the hands of few incompetent fail sons and their sociopathic remoras.