Thread by @NudderingNudnik

Today a tweet appeared from Jeremy Corbyn.
It used language that should worry any democrat.
But it also used language that will send a chill through the heart of many British Jews.

The period between March and now has seen Labour's crisis over antisemitism reach fever pitch. It's been unrelenting.
In late July (just 6 weeks or so ago) the 3 main Jewish newspapers in the UK all published the same leading editorial on their front pages.

The phrase that was then picked up and run with by the rest of the media from this leading article was that a Corbyn led government would pose an "existential threat" to British Jews.

That phrase has come to signify and encapsulate the issue: Jews perceive Corbyn as a threat.

This concept has been used daily in discussions of the issue - whether from those who (like me) believe Corbyn to be a threat or from those who consider this a wild and unfounded allegation about a man venerated as a true anti-racist freedom fighter by his supporters.

So for Corbyn to tweet this today "Ten years ago today the financial crash began. The people who caused it now call me a threat. They’re right." sees us enter a new moment.
There are 2 scenarios/explanations:
1. Corbyn & his team have decided to directly threaten British Jews.

2. Corbyn & his team are reckless to the point of dangerous stupidity.

It could be either.

In the first scenario, they will be able to plausibly deny a direct threat. It's impossible to prove that they meant it as a threat.

In the second scenario, there are a number of possible explanations:
a) The Jewish fears of the threat that Corbyn represents have made so little impact on them that they absolutely didn't even think of the risk of using this very particular language.

b) They were aware of the possible "misreading" but decided to stick with the language because it adds a frisson of "fuck you" Jew baiting that is pretty much irresistible to them right now.

c) They are so utterly stupid and unprofessional that literally not one person in the team spoke up and said "ummm, isn't the word threat a bit, well - touchy - right now"
d) It could be a mixture of all 3, with different members of the team coming from each of those positions

The crucial context is of course that antisemitic discourse on the Left has since the days of early Socialism positioned Jews as prime movers in international Capital, though banking and trade: "usury" in the old parlance.

Naturally, the history of the Jews is used as proof.

Jews were denied the right to most professions, in most countries in which they found themselves. And England was no exception. Jews first arrived here after 1066 and were expelled in 1290. In the meantime they were forced to operate as moneylenders as Canon law did not apply.

This was replicated in most other Christian kingdoms and so the narrative of Jewish usury was born. And this is of course where the Socialist antisemitism of the 19th century was rooted.
And still it persists on the Left today.
So - anyone with even an iota of care might think:

"A political leader at the centre of Jewish concerns about a threat to their safety and wellbeing, from a strand of the Left with deep problems around this Jews/Capital/banking discourse ought not to be using this very specific language."
It's not hard, is it?