Jeremy Corbyn (Channel 4 News) The British Labour Party has encountered a storm of criticism following its decision to adopt a diluted definition of anti-Semitism. The definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the Labour Party is based upon the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition that has been adopted by multiple countries, including Britain itself. The Labour definition, however, differs from the IHRA definition in the omission of four key points that the IHRA considers essential to defining anti-Semitism. The four points include accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than their own countries, claiming that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavor, applying a double standard to Israel, and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. All of the language that was removed pertains to the insidious connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. The majority of the anti-Semitism emanating from the Labour Party is inextricably related to anti-Israelism. The backlash concerning the new definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the Labour Party has been immediate and severe. Particularly troubling to observers is the fact that Jeremy Corbyn, the head of Labour, had previously agreed to adopt the full definition, but apparently balked when it became apparent that too large a swath of the party membership would not support it. The new definition is quickly leading to dissension within the ranks of the Labour Party, particularly in regards to the Jewish members of the party. Margaret Hodge, a Jewish Labour MP, referred to Jeremy Corbyn as an “anti-Semite and a racist” following the adoption of the definition. The UK Labour party took swift and immediate action against Hodge, citing party guidelines against behavior that is disrespectful and brings the party into disrepute. This swift action was condemned in the face of the foot-dragging that the Labour Party has employed when dealing with accusations of anti-Semitism within its party ranks. The Labour party subsequently ended the disciplinary action against Hodge following the backlash . British Labour MP John Woodcock also condemned the parties tolerance of “anti-Semitism,” going so far as to tender his own resignation from the party. Woodcock stated that “anti-Semitism is being tolerated and Labour has been taken over at nearly every level by the hard left.” Several Jewish groups have stated their opposition to the Labour Party’s new definition, including the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). President of the Board of Deputies for the JLC, Marie van der Zy, stated to Haaretz that, “[i]t is for Jews to determine for themselves what anti-Semitism is. It is impossible to understand why Labour refuses to align itself with this universal definition.” The UK chief rabbi has also warned the Labour Party that it would be sending an “unprecedented message of contempt” for the opinions of British Jews should it adopt the softened version of IHRA definition. Commentators have been quick to point out that the new Labour anti-Semitism code may also be a breach of the Equality Act. The Equality Act enshrines the Macpherson principle, a doctrine which states that a racist incident is one perceived to be racist by the victim. By failing to implement standards of anti-Semitism agreed upon by not only the government of the United Kingdom, but also by the Jewish community at large, the Labour Party is failing to adhere to the both the moral intent and the actual standards of British law. The anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party, and its roots in anti-Israelism, is apparent. The new definition from the Labour Party seeks to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism on the grounds of free speech concerning the state of Israel. The new revisions to the definition state that “[i]t is not anti-Semitism to refer to ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionists’ as part of a considered discussion about the Israeli state.” The revisions further contend that while anti-Semitism is “unacceptable,” criticism of the State of Israel and its policies should not be “automatically regarded as anti-Semitic.” The IHRA definition, however, explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The Labour Party is seeking to exclude portions of the definition so as to mask repeated libels against the state of Israel in the form of comparisons to Nazi Germany, Holocaust denial, and support for terrorism. Recent reports of Jewish students in the United Kingdom feeling unsafe on campuses due to the anti-Semitism of the British Labour Party, coupled with the refusal of the party to oust anti-Semites from within its own ranks and its new definition anti-Semitism, suggest the Labour Party is uninterested in or unable to deal with the issue. Labour anti-Semitism has been a constant topic of discussion for the last three years, and will remain so as long as anti-Semitism is allowed to thrive within both the rules of the organization and its membership.