 Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who's accused of not doing enough to stamp out anti-Semitism within the party, is again under pressure to take a tougher stance. He was forced to apologise after it emerged. He'd hosted an event in 2010 on Holocaust Memorial Day, where speakers reportedly compared Israel's actions in Gaza to Hitler's regime. Claims of anti-Semitism have plagued the party, and Mr Corbyn, since he was elected leader in 2015. So, how long will the public tolerate this and how has it affected his leadership? Joining us from Westminster is James Bottwell, senior editor at Independent News website, Navarra Media, and Dan Hodges, commentator for The Mail on Sunday. Hello, gentlemen. Thank you both for joining us on Sky News this afternoon. Dan, to you first, if I may, a longer leader than Gordon Bryan of the Labour Party now. He seems to be weathering storm after storm. He's going nowhere. He is the leader that the party wants. Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, you've just put your finger on it. He's the leader that the party seems to want, but he's the leader who is embroiled again, I mean, say embroiled again, who has continuously been embroiled in these anti-Semitism scandals since actually even before his election, and indeed during his election campaign, it was pointed out by many of us of Jeremy Corbyn's past associations with people who were overtly anti-Semitic, and we did say at the time that this issue would come back and haunt the Labour Party, and so it has proven. I mean, I do think we have had quite a defining moment today, though, because obviously we've had this debate about the international holocaust sort of definition, the definition of anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition, and some of us had been arguing and assuming that Labour wasn't signing up to it, because we thought that if they did so, then many ordinary Labour members would fall foul of the code. What we've seen today is that if Labour adopted the code, and if Labour does adopt the code, then somebody who would have fallen foul of it is Jeremy Corbyn himself, and I think that is quite a significant moment in this whole debate. OK, James, perception is reality, and the perception is that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. What does he need to do to try to convince not just the party but the rest of the country that he is the right man to lead the country? Well, look, the first thing that matters here is that perception might be reality, but reality matters. It matters that the meeting that Jeremy Corbyn hosted was a meeting that had, as its prime speaker, a survivor, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz who had been critical and was critical, he's passed away now, was critical of the Israeli government's actions and compared them to the kind of rhetoric that he saw and suffered under in Nazi Germany in the run-up to the Holocaust. Now, that matters. I don't think there is any suggestion, and I certainly hope that Dan isn't suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn himself made that comparison because he didn't. It's also, I think, probably quite important to point out here that the Labour Party has already adopted the definition put forward by the IHRA. What matters here, I think, is a commitment, and there should be a commitment, and I'm glad that there does now seem to be a commitment on the part of the NEC, governing body of the Labour Party, to reopen consultation with the Jewish community over the way it approaches the Code of Conduct about anti-Semitism. That seems to me a very positive mood. I think more needs to be done. I think it's important for Corbyn to give a clear message to his supporters that, look, there is, within pockets of the Labour Party, anti-Semitism, it's not widespread, but it needs to be stamped out. OK, adopted the definition with some amendments. It has to be said, disapproving of Israel and wanting a Palestinian state doesn't make him anti-Semitic, does it, Dan? No, but breaching the IHRA guidelines on what constitutes anti-Semitism does make somebody anti-Semitic. And I'm glad James said, you know, that reality matters. The reality is we can set aside what was actually said at this event and by whom. The event, I think I'm getting the title right here, was framed as from Auschwitz to Gaza. It was specifically framed in a way to align the actions of the Israeli government and the actions of what the organisers called Zionists with the actions of the Nazis, and that is in clear breach of the code. Jeremy Corbyn organised the event. He hosted the event. Mind-standing is he was warned about the nature of the group before he even attended the event. And crucially, I think this is the crucial thing of all, Jeremy Corbyn agreed and helped facilitate the event to take place on Holocaust Memorial Day, which was obviously deliberately designed to cause maximum offence to the Jewish community. And as you just pointed out to James, there have been elements of the IHRA code and the examples which underpin it, which Labour has refused to accept in the form drafted by the IHRA. And one of those specifically relates to the issue of comparing Jews to Nazis. And that's not a coincidence. The reason why Jeremy Corbyn has refused to sign up to that and Labour has refused to sign up to that is because, as I've said, they know that many, many members of the Labour Party would fall foul of that definition if they were accepted. And unlike what James has said, it's not just a few individuals. As we've seen, this issue goes right to the top of the Labour Party and right to its leader. OK, James, provocative to say the least. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. Look, I think it's really... What bit is nonsense, James? The bit that is nonsense is the idea that Labour hasn't, in its code of conduct, suggested that comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is wrong. That was in the code of conduct. But they say it's anti-Semitic. No, what matters here as well is that what was said there does matter. This was a meeting that was addressed by a Jewish holocaust survivor addressing a room predominantly of Jewish people who were naming and discussing their own history in relation to Israel's actions in Gaza. And this was immediately after the Gaza War, in which the Israeli government had used white phosphorus munitions. Look, I would not use that comparison, but it is far from my right, and I think it's certainly far from your right, to suggest that Jewish people themselves are not able to talk about their history in this way. But with respect, James, that's obviously not what I'm saying, and I think the viewers will have seen that's not what I'm saying. But you've just suggested that what was said there was anti-Semitic. No. What I said, let me be clear, what a holocaust survivor wants to say at an event like that is a matter for the holocaust survivor. I'm not going to tell him what he or she should say in those circumstances. That would be inappropriate. But we're not talking about what the holocaust survivor said or did. We're talking about what Jeremy Corbyn said or did. He is the leader of the Labour Party. He is the person that organised the event. And I know... So what is your suggestion about what Jeremy Corbyn did or didn't say at this event? I'll repeat what he did. I'll try again. I'll repeat. He organised an event that... No, no, no, you said you were talking about what he said. Hold on, James. You want him to make the point and you want him to ask the question, let him do it, and then we'll come back to you. Exactly. Thank you. No, that's all right. That's all right, James. I know what I'm saying because I'm the person saying it. Jeremy Corbyn, as I said, organised an event that was titled, that was specifically titled, From Auschwitz to Gaza. It was part of a national series of events that was specifically designed to draw a comparison between the actions of what were termed Zionists and the Nazis. There was no ambiguity about that. The organisers, it's there on the website, you can look it up for yourself. The organisers were very clear about that. And Jeremy Corbyn, as the person who organised and facilitated the event, did so on Holocaust Memorial Day. Jeremy Corbyn is not Jewish. Jeremy Corbyn is not Holocaust survivor. It is not... Jeremy Corbyn does not get the leeway that you are prepared to give to others that were speaking at the event. I'm not interested in what other people speaking at the event did. I'm interested in what Jeremy Corbyn did and what he continues to do as a leader of the Labour Party. Go on, James. OK, well, look, I think it matters here that the title was something that arose from the campaign and the tour itself, as Dan has just admitted. It's not a title that Corbyn gave to the event. But he was aware of the title of the event, James. He organised the event. Right, good. James, that's very interesting. No, no, no, no. It was Jeremy Corbyn. OK. If you have people... This is a group that approached Jeremy Corbyn and said, here are a number, here is a Jewish Holocaust survivor who wants to hold this meeting to discuss in the wake of the Gaza War the continuities that he sees between those two things. It seems to me just and legitimate to allow Jewish people to discuss their experiences and their oppression in this way. That's not what Dan was saying. It's baffling to me that Dan suggests otherwise. No, no, he didn't suggest otherwise. Sorry, Dan, I'm not speaking for you. Go on. No, I didn't say that. I mean, James seems to be suggesting that Jews are unable to discuss these issues unless Jeremy Corbyn facilitates them. No, absolutely not. Well, that's what you were just saying, James. But you made a very interesting point there, James, and I'm glad you said it. You said yourself that Jeremy Corbyn was aware of the title of the event before he organised it. You also said yourself that it's not a title that you would have used. Jeremy Corbyn himself, when he tried to explain his actions, initially tried to say that he wasn't in any way aware of the nature of the organisation or the people speaking to it and has distanced himself from it. He specifically apologised for the comments that were made at the event. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say, oh, he didn't know, but actually he did know and you yourself disagree with the wording. So the question is, James, why do you disagree with the wording and why did Jeremy Corbyn not disagree with the wording? Well, look, the point here surely is that... Why don't you answer the question, James? I am answering the question, Dan, if you'll allow me to speak. Look, what confuses me about your position here is that Jeremy Corbyn was approached by these people to say we want to have this discussion. We'd like to have it in Parliament. This is my understanding of it. And that seems to me an eminently reasonable thing to do. Now, Jeremy Corbyn's apology, his apology was making clear that in the wake of the discussion over the IHRA definitions that he didn't share the views of those people, but in the pursuit of a just settlement he has shared platforms with people whose views he doesn't share. No, James, just to make the point that Dan's trying to get you to clarify, the title of the event, what it said on the tin is what you should have expected. I wouldn't go to an event that said white supremacists and Ku Klux Klan join here. I just wouldn't. So what Dan's point is that if you know what the title of this event is that potentially you should have been aware of the leader of the Labour Party at some time in the future, it's not necessarily the right place to go. What confuses me is the suggestion that this is something like white supremacy, but that's a kind of bizarre suggestion. I use that as an extreme example as well, no. I know that's why you used the example. But it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to attempt to host these kind of discussions. I wouldn't use a title like that because I'm not Jewish, I'm not a Holocaust survivor. If someone comes to me and says I am a survivor of the Holocaust, these things make me extremely worried and I want to host this kind of discussion. That seems to me eminently reasonable and I understand why one would do it. There you go. Makes a very decent point, Dan. Final thought from you. Well, I'll ask James a very simple question. James said that... I mean, use the example of comparing anti-Semitism to white supremacy. He didn't compare the two. Why don't you compare the two, James? I didn't say I didn't compare the two. I said the title of the event was not like KKK join here. That's a preposterous suggestion. So what is your objection to the title of the event? My objection to the title of the event is that I think it's not helpful for people who are not Jewish to, you know, to wander in on debates over this kind of stuff. But I think it's necessary and legitimate... Jeremy Corbyn's not Jewish. He doesn't decide the title of the event. You just said it's not helpful for people who are not Jewish to wander into events like this. That's literally what you just said. No, no, no. I said it's not helpful. It's not helpful for someone like me to make that kind of comparison. Now, if that comparison... Why is it helpful for Jeremy Corbyn? Why is it helpful for Jeremy Corbyn? Why is it helpful for Jeremy Corbyn to make that comparison? He facilitated the event. Because Jeremy Corbyn, as I assume you know, is the kind of person the ability of people to discuss the event. So it's alright for Jeremy Corbyn to do it. It's alright for Jeremy Corbyn to do it. Just not other people who are non-Jews. Jeremy Corbyn has this unique position. You are seeming to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn chose the title of this event. He did not. This is a title that was chosen by the people who had organised the tour and had done so at the behest of someone who was a Holocaust survivor. Now, if someone came to me and said, I want to put on this sort of event, I'm not interested about the title, yes. Would I feel that they had a right to discuss it? Also, yes. So you would facilitate an event with that title? I wouldn't choose the title myself. I would believe that people have the right to discuss in those terms. That's not what I said. I said, would you facilitate an event with that title? Well, I'm not an events facilitator, Dan. I'm not as Jeremy Corbyn, but he did facilitate the event. Well, I mean, he was approached to host this meeting by people including, you know, for an audience of many Jewish people as well. Yeah, absolutely. And Jewish people who attempted to disagree with the points that were being made at the meeting were asked to leave. Jewish people who attempted to shout down the speakers on stage. Were you there? Were you at the event? No, these are the reports that I've read and that you've read as well. No, I haven't read any reports that attempted to shout people down. I have read that they attempted to intervene and they were removed. Guys, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you both of you for joining us. Dan Hodges trying to do me out on my job again.