colliric wrote:I find anti-establishment Jews interesting generally. So what?
Johnson has had a history of anti-semetism too, so it's not all a one way street. I guess our Jewish Members went with "the lesser of two evils" approach.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jews- ... on-1328319
Corbyn wasn't the only one with a questionable attitude to the Jews generally. But of cause as he believes in Free Palestine, he has to be the most evil person in history next to Hitler and Boris being "lesser anti-semetic" means he gets the vote.
The left had one of its favourite weapons turned against itself and was completely inept in dealing with it. I actually doubt whether it had a significant influence on the election outcome, but it was still a joy to see. If you wear "anti-racism" credentials on your sleeves, you better live up to your own expectations. Best of all, the Guardian officially declared itself morally bankrupt by writing that the anti-semitism in the Labour Party was terrible but nevertheless endorsing the party in the same article.
As for the Israel/Palestine conflict, I agree that a large part of the Labour Party's recent troubles with anti-semitism stem from this, but it is just a particular expression of the leadership's third worldism/anti-imperialism ideology, albeit an obsessive one that is out of proportion as compared with other similar conflicts. It's no coincidence that Corbyn was warmly welcomed and endorsed by Nick Griffith and similar people and, as we all know, by the left-wing logic of guilt by association the endorsed person is just as guilty as the person endorsing him. In left-wing parlance, Corbyn enarmoured anti-semites and gave them room and a platform.
Furthermore, the Muslim vote plays a role as well. This is an ethno-religious conflict playing out in western countries, predominantly within left-wing parties, and the more numerous group usually wins.