Home Secretary Sajid Javid has come under fire on Twitter for retweeting a video of Jeremy Corbyn with the words: “A reminder of one of the biggest threat’s [sic] to our national security”.

The original tweet was posted by BrexitTory, an anonymous Twitter account claiming to be a Conservative party member.

It shows a video clip from a 2015 interview Corbyn did with Bahraini TV station LuaLuaTV, in which he says he is opposed to Brits who’ve gone to Syria to fight with Isis being denied return to the UK.

A reminder of one of the biggest threat’s to our national security https://t.co/MXRQqytehi — Sajid Javid (@sajidjavid) August 27, 2018

Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP and founder of the Initiative for Free Trade (IFT), an economic think tank that has been criticised by Labour ministers who say it pursues a hard-Brexit-supporting agenda, shared the video.

“[There] is an issue about some people going from Britain, allegedly to fight with ISIS in Syria,” Corbyn said in the clip.

“The British government's response has been to try to make it impossible for them to travel, to restrict their ability to travel, to take upon themselves the ability to remove passports and, strangely, to deny people the right of return - which is legally a very questionable decision. I suspect will be fought out in the courts in Britain.”

'Disgraceful misuse of your office'

This is disgraceful misuse of your office and needs reporting to the Parliamentary Standards committee . I would like to remind you that this is the Leader of the opposition. I’m actually shocked . Shame on you . — Pat Schan #IstandwithJeremyCorbyn#JC9 (@patsy24) August 27, 2018

Corbyn supporters responded to the tweet with anger.

“This is disgraceful misuse of your office and needs reporting to the Parliamentary Standards committee . I would like to remind you that this is the Leader of the opposition. I’m actually shocked . Shame on you,” responded Pat Schan.

“Trolling again Sajid? I think British people being kicked out is one of the biggest threats to our national security,” another said.

Another user referenced the fact that there have been calls for an investigation into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.

You are absolutely a disgraceful human being. I suggest stop using our home office to smear Jeremy Corbyn and do some actual work. By the way, has Theresa May started an inquiry into Islamophobia in her party? — Nadeem Ahmed (@Muqadaam) August 27, 2018

“You are absolutely a disgraceful human being,” wrote Nadeem Ahmed.

“I suggest stop using our home office to smear Jeremy Corbyn and do some actual work. By the way, has Theresa May started an inquiry into Islamophobia in her party?”

Islamophobia investigation

Corbyn is facing accusations of anti-Semitism after a number of incidents emerged in which he met with people linked to Palestinian terror groups and made remarks about Zionists.

The Muslim Council of Britain has also called for an investigation into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, and the chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum Mohammed Amin has criticised Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg for meeting right-wring provocateur Steve Bannon.

The BrexitTory Twitter account frequently posts criticisms and accusations aimed at Corbyn, and earlier this month posted a tweet insinuating transgender people have a “mental disorder”.

Conservative councillor Dominic Boeck resigned from his role as head of health at West Berkshire council after retweeting it, but remains a councillor.

talkRADIO has contacted the Home Office for comment.</s>(Bloomberg Opinion) -- This is the summer Jeremy Corbyn’s issues with Jews finally caught up with him.

Recent stories in the British press highlight a pattern in the recent past of the leader of Britain’s Labour Party. Here he is in 2012 defending a mural that caricatures Jews as money-grubbing and racist. Here he is in 2013 complaining about the failure of British Zionists to understand irony at a conference promoted by Hamas. Here he is in 2014 laying a wreath at the Tunisian memorial to one of the terrorists responsible for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

All of the U.K.’s Jewish newspapers, not to mention the Israeli prime minister, have denounced Corbyn as these stories have emerged. Meanwhile, he has flubbed efforts within his own party to be more forceful against anti-Semitism. As my colleague Therese Raphael has observed, Corbyn has managed to make the Conservative Party, divided and frazzled by Brexit, “seem unified and sane by comparison.”

All decent people should stand athwart Labour’s drift into darkness. At the same time, to focus on Corbyn’s anti-Semitism is to miss the wider context of his worldview. He embraces not only the rogues, fanatics and terrorists that despise Israel. He likes the ones that despise America and the U.K., too.

Call it geopolitical masochism. Corbyn may present himself as anti-war, but he’s really just on the other side.

It’s easy to miss. Corbyn is unfailingly polite. He lives modestly. As Andrew Sullivan observes, Corbyn can be kind. He asks for leftovers at a dinner party so he can give them to the homeless. He campaigns in earnest for “the many, not the few.” He says he’s a big fan of peace and tolerance.

But he does not demand adherence to these values in his erstwhile allies. Corbyn has appeared dozens of times, for example, on RT, the Kremlin propaganda network, and in 2011 tweeted an endorsement of it. Corbyn was also paid about $27,000 between 2009 and 2012 to host a call-in show on Iran’s state propaganda network, PressTV, a network that has featured the forced confessions of Iranian dissidents.

Since becoming the leader of his party, Corbyn’s excuse-making has become more subtle. After Prime Minister Theresa May expelled Russian diplomats in response to the poisoning in March of a former Russian spy with a Soviet-era nerve agent, Corbyn was careful to say no one in his party supported Putin. Nonetheless, he urged caution and warned of a rush to judgment, despite his own government’s view that Russia was behind the attack. In 2017, following the terror attack at a rock concert in Manchester, Corbyn made sure to say the attackers should “forever be reviled” — while simultaneously asserting that government experts had linked such attacks in Britain to the country’s wars abroad.

Corbyn was not always this subtle. Daniel Finkelstein, a Conservative member of Parliament and columnist for the Times of London, has unearthed some of Corbyn’s more revealing views. For example, in 1989 Corbyn praised the Soviet Union for aiding socialist revolutions in the third world. Writing just four years ago in the Morning Star, the U.K.’s self-described socialist newspaper, Corbyn criticized NATO for its “colonial adventures” in the Middle East and called it “essentially a redundant force.”

Politicians like Corbyn are rare in mainstream American politics, but not in the U.K. In 2005 George Galloway, a member of Parliament who was eventually banished from the Labour Party, gave an infamous speech at Damascus University praising Syria’s dictator and rejoicing in the defeat of the U.S. army in Iraq. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, earned the nickname “Red Ken” for his apologetics for Britain’s foes. He quit the Labour Party this year after he was suspended in 2016 for saying Adolph Hitler supported Zionism, a conspiracy theory popular in the Middle East.

And this brings us back to Israel. For years Galloway and Livingstone were on the fringe of the Labour Party. Labour remained the party of Clement Attlee, who knew the difference between open and closed societies, between free nations and police states.

Today, that party is led by a foolish socialist who can’t seem to tell the difference. Is it any wonder that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have succumbed to the socialism of fools?

To contact the author of this story: Eli Lake at elake1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at mnewman43@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering national security and foreign policy. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI.</s>A former chief rabbi said Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on Zionists are the most offensive by a senior politician ‘since Enoch Powell’.

Crossbench peer Lord Jonathan Sacks accused Mr Corbyn of being an ‘anti-Semite’ and said he gave support to ‘racists, terrorists and dealers of hate’.

His comments came after footage emerged from 2013 of Mr Corbyn attacking a group of British Zionists who had criticised Palestianian ambassador Manuel Hassassian.

Mr Corbyn said: ‘They clearly have two problems.

‘One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all of their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.’

Lord Sacks told the New Statesman: ‘The recently disclosed remarks by Jeremy Corbyn are the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 “rivers of blood” speech.

‘It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.

‘We can only judge Jeremy Corbyn by his words and his actions.

‘He has given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map.

‘When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism.

‘When challenged with such facts, the evidence for which is before our eyes, first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates.

‘He has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow.

‘Now, within living memory of the Holocaust, and while Jews are being murdered elsewhere in Europe for being Jews, we have an anti-Semite as the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty’s Opposition.

‘That is why Jews feel so threatened by Mr Corbyn and those who support him.’

Mr Corbyn has said that his remarks had been defending the ambassador from ‘what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations’ by people ‘for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador’.

The Labour leader said: ‘I described those pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people – and that is made clear in the rest of my speech that day.

‘I am now more careful with how I might use the term “Zionist” because a once self-identifying political term has been increasingly hijacked by anti-Semites as code for Jews.’

Lord Sacks has previously adopted robust stances supporting Israeli policies, and has come under fire for criticising multiculturalism.

According to Haaretz, he has also previously promoted a march which has alleged links to hate speech and violence.

The Labour Party told Metro.co.uk: ‘This comparison with the race-baiting Enoch Powell is absurd and offensive.

‘Jeremy Corbyn described a particular group of pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense – not as a synonym or code for Jewish people.

‘Jeremy Corbyn is determined to tackle anti-semitism both within the Labour Party and in wider society and the Labour Party is committed to rebuilding trust with the Jewish community.’</s>Jeremy Corbyn Brought Nastiness To Heart Of Labour, Says Former Blair Advisor

A former strategist to Tony Blair believes Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has brought "nastiness" to the heart of the Labour Party.

John McTernan said that his party had never had "these kinds of associations before" as Jeremy Corbyn faces further criticism for his handling of anti-semitism within the party.

It comes as Jewish MPs will be given bodyguards to protect them at next month's Labour Party Conference.

The former advisor told Nigel Farage that he believed Mr Corbyn was responsible.

He said: "The Labour Party has never had these kinds of associations before.

"They've come in because of the change in leadership.

"Now Jewish MPs are going to have to have protection - that is a nastiness that's been brought into the heart of the Labour Party by Jeremy Corbyn."

Protection at the conference is being offered as fears around their safety grow amid the anti-semitism row within the party.

Mr McTernan said: "[Jeremy Corbyn] is responsible for this.

"I would not be surprised if people think that we are now in competition for the title of the nasty party."</s>Labour is facing a fresh storm over allegations of anti-Semitism at the top of the party after former chief rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks compared Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on Zionists with Enoch Powell’s inflammatory “rivers of blood” speech.

Lord Sacks’ scathing remarks, in which he branded Mr Corbyn an “anti-Semite” who “supported racists, terrorists, and dealers of hate” drew an angry response from Labour.

Condemnation of the Leader of the Opposition by the crossbench peer, who served as chief rabbi between 1991–2013, comes just a week before Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) again considers its code of conduct on anti-Semitism.
• READ MORE: Ex-chief rabbi says Corbyn comment as bad as Powell Rivers of Blood speech

Labour hit back at the comments by branding them “absurd and offensive”.

Lord Sacks remarks came after footage from 2013 emerged of Mr Corbyn attacking a group of British Zionists who had criticised Palestinian ambassador Manuel Hassassian.

Mr Corbyn said: “They clearly have two problems.

“One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all of their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.”
• READ MORE: Ex-chief rabbi says Corbyn comment as bad as Powell Rivers of Blood speech

Lord Sacks told the New Statesman: “The recently disclosed remarks by Jeremy Corbyn are the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

“It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.

“We can only judge Jeremy Corbyn by his words and his actions.

“He has given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map.
• READ MORE: Ex-chief rabbi says Corbyn comment as bad as Powell Rivers of Blood speech

“When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism.

“When challenged with such facts, the evidence for which is before our eyes, first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates.

“He has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow.

“Now, within living memory of the Holocaust, and while Jews are being murdered elsewhere in Europe for being Jews, we have an anti-Semite as the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty’s Opposition.

“That is why Jews feel so threatened by Mr Corbyn and those who support him.”

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “This comparison with the race-baiting Enoch Powell is absurd and offensive.

“Jeremy Corbyn described a particular group of pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense, not as a synonym or code for Jewish people.
• READ MORE: Ex-chief rabbi says Corbyn comment as bad as Powell Rivers of Blood speech

“Jeremy Corbyn is determined to tackle anti-Semitism both within the Labour Party and in wider society and the Labour Party is committed to rebuilding trust with the Jewish community.”

The Labour leader has previously said that his remarks had been defending the ambassador from “what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations” by people “for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”.</s>As so often, the late Christopher Hitchens put it well: “The struggle for a free intelligence has always been a struggle between the ironic and the literal mind.” Unlike rigid ideology and fundamentalism, irony – saying one thing while meaning another – helps us to recognise complexity, paradox, nuance and absurdity.

It is one of the most important means of defending humanity, decency and pluralism that we have. It turns the frown of the fanatic into the wry smile of uncertainty. But, sorry to say, it is in poor shape. On social media, the inflections of face-to-face contact and the subtleties of humour are washed away in a storm of assertion and counter-assertion. Twitter is a boot stamping on the face of irony.

Comedians, for instance, face unprecedented scrutiny on the ludicrous grounds that they always mean what they say, and the even more ludicrous grounds that objectionable speech is violence (as opposed to an incitement to imminent violence, which is something very different).

As for politics, I cannot think of a time when the leaders of the two main parties were more stodgily wedded to the literal, so dull in their verbatim repetition of boilerplate language, so lacking in self-awareness when they sound silly. Theresa May set the bar high during the 2017 election campaign with her insistence that “nothing has changed” – immediately after the Conservatives had performed a screeching U-turn on social care.

Yet she outdid herself after her party lost its majority in a vote it was meant to win by a landslide, declaring in Downing Street that only the Tories had the “legitimacy and ability” to provide the “certainty” that Britain needed. Apparently satisfied by her own ridiculous argument, she concluded: “Now let’s get to work.”

Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, is to irony what Donald Trump is to feminism. The Labour leader, though routinely presented as a humble and saintly man, is not even slightly self-deprecating. His absolute certainty about absolutely everything means that he is often visibly exasperated by questions that he considers an impertinence – as he was during the furore over his laying of a wreath in Tunis four years ago.

His default position is that the debate, whatever it may be, is over, and that he is on the right side. Doubt, reflection and irony enter a hostile environment when they enter the world of Corbynism.

This is one of many reasons why his remarks in 2013 about “Zionists” were so preposterous, as well as being so vile. It was undoubtedly antisemitic of Corbyn to claim that “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony”.

This, as Anthony Julius shows in his book Trials of the Diaspora, is a depressingly common rhetorical device in this country’s long history of antisemitism: “encouraging [Jews] to accept that they have certain talents, certain resources, the possession of which is not quite consistent with an ideal conception of what it is to be English … Jews are then thought to expose themselves as literal-minded, unhumorous people, incapable of taking a joke”.

That Corbyn believes that Jews (or the “Zionist” subset to which he refers) do not appreciate irony is – well – spectacularly ironic. It suggests that his acquaintance with Jewish humour is not, perhaps, as rich as might be expected of one who claims to speak to, and for, all people who suffer from oppression. It also suggests that he does not actually understand what irony is.

In this case, Corbyn was referring to an earlier speech by Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority representative to Britain, and the reaction to it. Hassassian had argued that the long suffering of the Palestinians had led him to question divine impartiality. “You know, I’m reaching the conclusion that the Jews are the children of God, the only children of God, and the Promised Land is being paid by God! I have started to believe this because nobody is stopping Israel building its messianic dream of Eretz Israel [the Land of Israel] to the point I believe that maybe God is on their side.”

In response to the objections of unnamed “Zionists” – apparently the blogger Richard Millett was among those he was referring to – Corbyn said triumphantly that “Manuel does understand English irony and uses it very, very effectively.” But Hassassian wasn’t being ironic at all. He was being hyperbolic: exaggerating his doubts about God’s allegiance to press home his point about the extent and duration of Palestinian suffering. In Corbyn’s tortured logic, the fact that the so-called Zionists didn’t grasp the irony – which, ironically, wasn’t there in the first place – showed only that, in spite of all the years they and their families had spent here, they didn’t truly understand Englishness.

I find it depressing that so much energy is still being expended trying to explain away Corbyn’s remarks, or to deconstruct them to his advantage. They are wearyingly literal: these people have been here a long time but do not study history and still have not learned all our English traits.

It need not be so. There is nothing inevitable in the flight of irony from political life. Indeed, one of the privileges of writing about politicians over the years has been to hear them – usually, though not always, in private – acknowledging the nonsenses and contradictions of what they do, taking aim at themselves and their follies. The sad news of the death of the US Republican John McCain reminds me of an extremely unlikely conversation I once had with him about the pop group Snow Patrol, the absurdity of which was not lost on either of us.

I wish this approach to politics were not increasingly rare. But it is. In an age of post-truth populists, fundamentalist fervour, digital echo chambers and history-hugging ideology, there has never been a greater need for irony and the shared understanding and intelligence that it fosters. Its decline is disastrously timed. It is, one might say, ironic.</s>Labour is facing a fresh storm over allegations of anti-Semitism at the top of the party after former chief rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks compared Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on Zionists with Enoch Powell’s inflammatory “rivers of blood” speech. Lord Sacks’ scathing remarks, in which he branded Mr Corbyn an “anti-Semite” who “supported racists, terrorists, and dealers of hate” drew an angry response from Labour. Condemnation of the Leader of the Opposition by the crossbench peer, who served as chief rabbi between 1991–2013, comes just a week before Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) again considers its code of conduct on anti-Semitism. Labour hit back at the comments by branding them “absurd and offensive”.

Lord Sacks remarks came after footage from 2013 emerged of Mr Corbyn attacking a group of British Zionists who had criticised Palestinian ambassador Manuel Hassassian. Mr Corbyn said: “They clearly have two problems. “One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all of their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” Lord Sacks told the New Statesman: “The recently disclosed remarks by Jeremy Corbyn are the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech. “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien. “We can only judge Jeremy Corbyn by his words and his actions. “He has given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map.

“When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism. “When challenged with such facts, the evidence for which is before our eyes, first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates. “He has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow. “Now, within living memory of the Holocaust, and while Jews are being murdered elsewhere in Europe for being Jews, we have an anti-Semite as the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty’s Opposition. “That is why Jews feel so threatened by Mr Corbyn and those who support him.”</s>A former chief rabbi has branded Jeremy Corbyn an “anti-Semite” and claimed the Labour leader’s remarks on Zionists are the most offensive by a senior politician since Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech.

Crossbench peer Lord Jonathan Sacks accused Mr Corbyn of giving support to “racists, terrorists and dealers of hate” as claims of anti-Semitism continued to rock Labour.

The comments came after footage from 2013 emerged of Mr Corbyn attacking a group of British Zionists who had criticised Palestinian ambassador Manuel Hassassian.

Mr Corbyn said: “They clearly have two problems.

“One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all of their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.”

Lord Sacks told the New Statesman: “The recently disclosed remarks by Jeremy Corbyn are the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

“It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.

“We can only judge Jeremy Corbyn by his words and his actions.

“He has given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map.

“When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism.

“When challenged with such facts, the evidence for which is before our eyes, first he denies, then he equivocates, then he obfuscates.

“He has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow.

“Now, within living memory of the Holocaust, and while Jews are being murdered elsewhere in Europe for being Jews, we have an anti-Semite as the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty’s Opposition.

“That is why Jews feel so threatened by Mr Corbyn and those who support him.”

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “This comparison with the race-baiting Enoch Powell is absurd and offensive.

“Jeremy Corbyn described a particular group of pro-Israel activists as Zionists, in the accurate political sense, not as a synonym or code for Jewish people.

“Jeremy Corbyn is determined to tackle anti-Semitism both within the Labour Party and in wider society and the Labour Party is committed to rebuilding trust with the Jewish community.”

The Labour leader has previously said that his remarks had been defending the ambassador from “what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations” by people “for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”.</s>Labour has received an official complaint concerning Jeremy Corbyn’s 2013 comments about some British Zionists not understanding ‘English irony’.

The Labour Against Antisemitism group reported the party leader ‘for anti-Semitism and for bringing the party into disrepute’.

Mr Corbyn was recorded five years ago saying a group of Zionists had no sense of irony, despite ‘having lived in this country for a very long time’.

Euan Philipps, a spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism, told The Guardian: ‘The leader of our party must be subjected to the same scrutiny and procedures as any other member.

‘It is time for the Labour party to show it is serious about tackling antisemitism by immediately suspending Mr Corbyn and launching a full and independent investigation into his conduct.’

Mr Corbyn claims he used the term Zionist ‘in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people’ when he was defending the Palestinian ambassador from ‘deliberate misrepresentations’.

He has since promised to be ‘more careful’ with the language he uses when discussing anti-Semitism.

Dan Hogan, a former member of Labour’s governance and legal unit, previously accused the leader of getting preferential treatment.

He said on Twitter: ‘If Corbyn were any other member, he would have been suspended and investigated, and the [National Executive Committee] would nod through the bulging report on his offences.’

A Labour spokesperson said: ‘The Labour party’s complaints procedure operates confidentially in the interests of fairness to all concerned.

‘This is to ensure protection of the personal data both for any members who make complaints, and for those to whom complaints relate.

‘This enables procedures to be followed properly. Therefore we do not comment on individual cases.’</s>Jeremy Corbyn has been made the subject of an official complaint to the Labour party over his suggestion in 2013 that some British Zionists do not understand “English irony”.

The Labour leader has since sought to clarify the remarks, which have ensured that the party remains embroiled in a row over its attitude towards antisemitism that has dragged on for months. Some MPs and peers are understood to be discussing the possibility of a kind of split, with one faction awaiting the outcome of the party’s handling of Brexit to decide what to do next.

Speaking at a London conference five years ago, Corbyn was recorded saying that a group of Zionists had no sense of irony, despite “having lived in this country for a very long time”. The comments angered some of his MPs and led one to say she felt “unwelcome in my own party”.

Corbyn said he had used the term Zionist “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people” and that he was defending the Palestinian ambassador from “deliberate misrepresentations” by people “for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”. However, he also committed to being “more careful” with the language he used.

The party was delivered an official complaint on Saturday about the comments by the Labour Against Antisemitism group, which said it was reporting Corbyn “for antisemitism and for bringing the party into disrepute”.

It comes after a recently departed Labour staffer involved in investigating complaints raised concerns about the remarks. Dan Hogan, a former member of Labour’s governance and legal unit, said on Twitter: “If Corbyn were any other member, he would have been suspended and investigated, and the [National Executive Committee] would nod through the bulging report on his offences. He would join the long queue of other awful people waiting for a disciplinary hearing with the National Constitutional Committee.”

Euan Philipps, a spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism, said: “The leader of our party must be subjected to the same scrutiny and procedures as any other member. It is time for the Labour party to show it is serious about tackling antisemitism by immediately suspending Mr Corbyn and launching a full and independent investigation into his conduct.”

Labour insiders have claimed that the number of people working on party disputes has actually fallen, despite the crisis over antisemitism and an apparent backlog of complaints.

The row has reopened deep divisions within Labour, despite the party still commanding 40% support in the polls. Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger said Corbyn’s 2013 remarks were “inexcusable comments” which made her feel “unwelcome in my own party”. She received support from fellow MPs. However, Corbyn’s supporters insist his comments have been misinterpreted.

The infighting has led to open talk among some MPs about whether or not they feel they can stay in the party as a result of their disagreements with the leadership. Some said that it was now highly likely that some would opt to sit as independent MPs at some point – an option already taken by former Labour MP and Corbyn critic, John Woodcock.

The next fortnight will be significant in the party’s handling of antisemitism. It is set to decide whether or not to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, as well as its accompanying examples. Doing so may help defuse the row, though Corbyn has said he wants to ensure that legitimate criticism of Israel is not damaged in the process.

It sets the scene for a fractious Labour conference next month, when the party will also have to confront splits over its position on Brexit. In the meantime, some MPs are not sure how to react when they return to Westminster after the summer. “Luciana reflected this well,” said one. “Some of us are being made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.”

While one party source said they were not aware of the complaint, a Labour spokesperson said: “The Labour party’s complaints procedure operates confidentially in the interests of fairness to all concerned. This is to ensure protection of the personal data both for any members who make complaints, and for those to whom complaints relate. This enables procedures to be followed properly. Therefore we do not comment on individual cases.”
Home Secretary Sajid Javid comes under criticism for describing Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter as "one of the biggest threat's [sic] to our national security".