The interesting thing about pieces like this is how any rebuttal immediately places the one making it, in the dock.

We could make a case against Ken Livingston because its easy to see how what he said was devoid of nuance when he straight out linked Hitler with leading Zionists. Like George Galloway his grasp of history is flawed and allows conflation of certain events to justify their distrust in Israeli officials. I will concede that Ken caused offence and made it worse by not apologising. Though he was Jeremy Corbyn’s friend, Corbyn was right and had no choice but to call for his suspension. I still don’t believe Ken is anti-Semitic but I would not want to argue with Labour suspending or expelling members (or at least prominent members) for similar behaviour.

But we are not allowed to make reasoned arguments like a defence lawyer would do in defending someone who is clearly guilty. What the article conveniently ignores are all the obstacles put in the way of resolving cases by those opposed to Corbyn. There is no need to propose a pro Israeli conspiracy to houls of outrage, there clearly has been what might generously be described of gross mismanagement in dealing with anti-Semitism and this had nothing to do with the Corbyn leadership.

The article cruises through the whole argument with little reference to actual evidence, thowing most of the Labour membership under the bus and leaving any who would question its validity having to navigating a field where mines are conveniently placed.