The problem of antisemitism reared its ugly head whenever anyone from the British polity, like Jeremy Corbyn, spoke out against Israel’s conduct in the Palestinian territories. This was relieved when Starmer of the Labour Party expelled Corbyn from the parliamentary Labour Party. In an inflammatory piece, the Daily Telegraph’s Angela Epstein wanted him thrown out of Parliament together even though the man had committed no offense and was a democratically elected representative. 

 Epstein, in his article, recommends that Starmer change the laws under the Representation of the People Act to enable such purges and also go after other characters, such as Shami Chakrabarti, who led a probe into Labour party antisemitism. This raises an important question when criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism, thus resulting in an exaggerated call for the elimination of dissenters. 

 I will say that there is always a razor-thin line between criticizing the policies of the Israeli government and antisemitism that needs to tread with caution. There are some lobbyists and activists – some of whom were included in the mapping process – who regard any criticism of Israel as antisemitism, and this serves to add a layer of confusion to the debate. Some of the personalities more vocal about antisemitism in the Labour Party seem not to have understood the Equality and Human Rights Commission that focused on procedure instead of a culture of antisemitism in the party. 

 It looks as if Corbyn’s primary sin was not being like previous British political leaders by not being pro-Israel in the conventional sense. During his time in leadership, there was massive membership in the Labour Party, whereby people said he was real and taking the right stand on many issues, including the Palestinians. This, of course, also encompassed a few harmless but radical elements that were not in league with the broad Labour ideologies. 

In his defense, Corbyn said that antisemitism concerns have been sensationalized by other parties with completely different interests, a view that is enhanced by most Labour members who perceive that the issue has been blown out of proportion. 

 Some of the common grouses about Corbyn do not seem to realize that many complaints of antisemitism involved people who were not even Labour Party members. As with most things, the picture is more complicated; serious cases of antisemitism in which people were prosecuted largely involved far-right or extreme left, yet the distinction seems elided. Examples include Jewish Labour members like Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, who has been accused of antisemitism, and cases like these make these kinds of debates toxic. 

 A wider question is whether any of the mainstream politicians can denounce Israel’s policies without being labeled as antisemite. In the past, any Jewish person or organization who criticized the Israeli government policies received similar threats, and actions indeed followed some cases of threats. Such words as “apartheid” are freely used by critics of the government policies in Israel, and they do not get as much flak as the ones I am describing in this paper. 

 The education minister of Israel, Shulamit Aloni, once said the ‘anti-Semitic trick’ means accusing Jews of being anti-Semitic when they criticize their own country. This strategy is not without consequences for the very debate on Israel-Palestine, and it does not help in the fight against real antisemitism, which remains marginalized by these types of controversies. 

 Thus, it can be stated that the identification of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not only questionable but also counterproductive in combating actual antisemitism. This dynamic highlights the fact that there should be a more constructive and less polarized approach to questioning and analyzing Israeli political policies and their effects on the Palestinians rather than using antisemitism as a way of silencing anyone.