On Friday evening, Jeremy Corbyn had an article published by the Guardian on the subject of antisemitism.

Friday evening is not generally a good time to publish something you want people to take notice of, especially when it’s something supposedly aimed at the Jewish community. Not many religious Jews will have seen that statement before Shabbat came in.

On Sunday we found out that Mr Corbyn’s team had actually asked the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council whether it would be perceived as insulting to the Jewish community to release a statement like that so late on a Friday. The two organisations told them unambiguously that yes, it would.

Mr Corbyn’s team went ahead with it anyway.

But this makes a lot more sense when you consider who Mr Corbyn’s article was actually for. Because it wasn’t for Jews at all.

A few weeks ago, when 68 rabbis signed a joint letter criticising antisemitism in Labour and urging the National Executive Committee to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, that letter wasn't published in a Jewish paper. To do so would have been preaching to the choir. The intended audience was the Left - many of them Labour members - who read the paper, some of whom may have been unaware of the strength of feeling, across traditional divides within the UK’s Jewish community, on this issue. That's why it was sent to the Guardian.

It is no secret that there are large swathes of the Jewish community who view the Guardian with contempt. For them, it has worked overtime in recent years to downplay the issue of left-wing antisemitism, especially when it comes to the subject of Israel. Its letters page appears to have a permanent slot available for the small fringe of far-left Jews who deny the very real fears of the rest of the community.

So when you publish, as Mr Corbyn's team did, a piece on the Guardian website on a Friday evening, which is in the paper edition of the Guardian on a Saturday, you are, in fact, not aiming the article at Jews at all. You are aiming it at what for you, is a far more important audience and a key percentage of the paper’s readership - Labour moderates who have been shocked to the core by their party’s problem with antisemitism and the apparent inaction of the leadership over the issue. 

The article itself is, sadly, all style and no substance. Some language seems encouragingly strong - a clear message, for example, to Labour antisemites that they “do not do it in my name” and  “have no place in our movement” - but the rest is littered with inaccuracies and half-truths. For example, there are far more disagreements about Labour’s definition of antisemitism than “half of one example”, as he contends. The disagreements are also, despite what the Labour leader suggests, not limited to “free speech in relation to Israel” - most notably, the Labour definition’s relegates the accusation of dual loyalties from being described as a type of antisemitism to simply being termed “wrong”. 

Furthermore, Mr Corbyn met with Jewish communal representatives months ago who made it clear to him at the time that adoption of the full IHRA definition was non-negotiable. He didn't listen. The Jewish Labour Movement, the official voice of Jews in the Labour Party, also made it clear that the IHRA definition needed to be accepted in its entirety. Labour’s high command treated the JLM with utter contempt, disinviting them from one meeting on the subject and denying them access to another. For Mr Corbyn to breezily suggest, as he does in his article, that any differences between the IHRA and Labour definitions can quickly be ironed out seems proof that he is operating on a different plane of reality. The significant space allotted to dwelling on Israel’s iniquities (no mention of Palestinian misbehaviour, naturally), is either Mr Corbyn giving in to his natural tendencies or a clumsy attempt to signal to his supporters that, despite this article, he is still “strong” on this issue. It is, on the contrary, rather pathetic. 

A subsequent video on the subject, published by Mr Corbyn’s team on Sunday, also had some glaring omissions. Perhaps most importantly is the continuing reluctance of Mr Corbyn to accept any sort of personal responsibility for the circumstances his party finds itself in. Not once has he ever acknowledged that his decades of cosying up to a variety of repugnant individuals with antisemitic views might well have sent a message when he ascended to the leadership that the Labour party was now a place receptive to their odious views.

Yesterday evening also revealed the complete lack of sincerity behind Mr Corbyn’s strong words. Despite saying, to the camera, that people who espouse antisemitic views have no place in Labour and do not speak for him, Mr Corbyn was utterly silent when hours later, his devoted supporters launched an online attack on Tom Watson for daring to criticise the party’s handling of the antisemitism issue.

Things are close to breaking point, and with his three years of inaction, Mr Corbyn is unequivocally responsible for the mess the party finds itself in.