I know this is what the up-vote button is for. But I do want to add a redundant comment appreciating this explanation. It explains this adequately in three short paragraphs.
The second paragraph is worth expanding from a little. As it can be argued that fear of anti-antisemitism among the left is well warranted. A good example of that is Jeremy Corbin constantly being accused of anti-antisemitism for criticizing the state of Israel for their human rights violation in the last UK general election (a tactic that perhaps worked given the lousy performance of the labour party). Even Bernie Sandars—a jew himself with family ties to holocaust survivors—gets smeared for this reason.
"Before becoming Labour leader he called 1902 book containing antisemitic tropes ‘brilliant’.
Jewish leaders have written to Jeremy Corbyn to express “grave concern” and demand an explanation after it emerged he wrote a glowing foreword for a century-old political tract that includes antisemitic tropes."
This 2 minute web search is flawed. You don’t disprove a smear by a short web search. If there truly is a smear this smear will be included in the results, so your data is biased and proves nothing.
My short web search found a secondary source[1] which debunks some of the claims you have mentioned here by offering a little more context around them. The Wikipedia page about Jeremy Corbyn has a whole section devoted to this[2] and all the claims are either vague or unsubstantiated.
Now I don’t personally know whether Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite (he might very well be), but there is nothing which he has done which indicates for any amount of certainty that he is. The campaign to smear him as one has most certainly succeeded, and his support for Palestine probably in no small is to blame for this.
The 'debunking' is just noting that the book in question has over 400 pages. Shouldn't we expect a guy writing a glowing foreword to have actually taken the time to read the book he's praising?
As far as I can tell, there's a lot of consistent smoke. Somehow Corbyn is always involved but never ever notices the bad stuff. There was a good basis to be concerned: Whether Corbyn is an antisemite, cynical or just totally oblivious, is not as material when he's running to such a powerful position. An oblivious PM could do some damage still.
Elections are not a court - we have to decide based on probabilities, and most British voters found Corbyn to be more unworthy than Johnson.
>The campaign to smear him as one has most certainly succeeded, and his support for Palestine probably in no small is to blame for this.
There could be a connection. It could be argued that strong opinions on ME conflict led people to ignore things they did not want to see. From Corbyn supposedly not noticing multiple cases of outright bigotry, to some Labour supporters not noticing a pattern with Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbin did more than just “criticizing the state of Israel for human rights violations” though. This is a politician who, amongst many other things, called Hamas and Hezbollah “my friends”, so clearly his issue with Israel is not about human rights per se.
The second paragraph is worth expanding from a little. As it can be argued that fear of anti-antisemitism among the left is well warranted. A good example of that is Jeremy Corbin constantly being accused of anti-antisemitism for criticizing the state of Israel for their human rights violation in the last UK general election (a tactic that perhaps worked given the lousy performance of the labour party). Even Bernie Sandars—a jew himself with family ties to holocaust survivors—gets smeared for this reason.