In the wake of Rebecca Long-Bailey’s dismissal Keir Starmer, many politicians & political correspondents have all talked of having a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. None of these people have such an approach. Their approach to anti-Semitism is best described as flexible

The entire political establishment, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party leadership, political correspondents all display remarkable flexibility when it comes to their treatment of anti-Semitism. They tolerate it, contextualise it and excuse it in certain circumstances

To start with the most glaring example: Rachel Reeves. Reeves has been fulsome in her praise of a notorious anti-Semite. Reeves commemorated Nancy Astor, a Nazi sympathiser who was regularly abusive towards Jewish people, as recently as last year.

This is very far from a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. This is a flexible approach to anti-Semitism. But this commemoration did not stop Keir Starmer, who says he takes a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism, from including her in his front bench.

Again, this is a flexible approach to dealing with anti-Semitism. Zero tolerance would not allow for the commemoration of anti-Semites. I’m not saying either are anti-Semites, but neither have a zero tolerance approach towards it. They’re flexible on anti-Semitism.

Then you have Iain McNicol. Documents were leaked showin that under McNicol, complaints against anti-Semitism were deliberately mishandled. This is about as clear a case as you can get of flexibility on anti-Semitism, as here it is instrumentalised for political gain.

This is not a zero tolerance approach. A zero tolerance approach would mean the complaints were dealt with with urgency. But Labour HQ turned a blind eye in some cases for political gain. That is a flexible approach to anti-Semitism.

But it doesn’t stop with McNicol. His role in undermining the handling of anti-Semitism is being investigated. Has he been suspended? No. Compare that to Chris Williamson who was suspended pending investigation. This again shows a flexible approach.

But it’s not just in Labour. Has McNicol been accused of anti-Semitism for his role in mishandling complaints? Do any Conservatives condemn Nancy Astor? No. They’re flexible.

It also brings to mind Nick Timothy, the man who bungled Theresa May’s campaign, who peddles Soros conspiracy theories. Labour critics like Dan Hodges decided that Soros conspiracy theories were all of a sudden not anti-Semitic, because Timothy peddled them. Flexibility

Saying that the IDF trains US police forces? Anti-Semitic.

Saying that a rich Jewish man secretly funds campaigns and controls politicians from behind the scenes? Not anti-Semitic.

So spare me the talk of zero tolerance.

Starmer, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the British press, all accept and tolerate anti-Semitism (without necessarily supporting it) in certain circumstance, when the costs/benefits of doing something about it point a certain way. They are flexible on anti-Semitism.