and I am sure you will agree, that it is also politically expedient for supporters of other parties to:
a) promote the issue of anti-semitism in the Labour party.
b) promote the perception/maintain the confusion over Jeremy Corbyn potentially being an anti-semite.
with (a), you are quite right that the way they have handled this situation is their own fault.
It is often the case that that left of centre parties, due in no small part to the intrinsic nature of their own political ideology, will put or become embroiled in internal ethical arguments/conflicts even at the expense of destroying any chance at gaining political power.
The Tories are not immune to such situations, such as on the current issues of Brexit and religious issues that impinge upon Christian values/Traditions.
However, the occurence of such issues is less frequent and more narrow in scope, along with a more 'conservative' natural attitude towards protecting the establishment, the party and tradition from criticism lest it/they lose the public's trust in and respect for those institutions.
In essence, in general/on average the Labour party has a bias towards ethics over institutions, while the Tories have a bias towards institutions over ethics.
As I've asked elsewhere, what are the differences and what are the objections to the differences?
Don't answer the working definition is clear, as you would again be avoiding the question.
Maybe let's ask another way, is criticising Israels policies anti-semitic? i.e. if I criticise segregation, is that anti-semitic?
We still have a question over what differences are, so lets for now say the differences areare over the criticism of Israel, then should a party have a policy that would define them as being anti-semitic if they objected to Israel's segregation?
Conservative Party might not have a problem with this because even if they didn't actively support apartheid in South Africa, they also didn't criticise it either. Something that David Cameron apologise for.
And round and round we go. I’ve already answered that several times in the other thread. Not a case of avoiding the question, it’s a case of not wanting to hear.
It really would your discussion if you attempt to stop bringing Israel into the conversation. Nobody is arguing that you can’t criticise Israel. But this isn’t the thread to do it. Don’t mix the two up please.
Ok, so at this point, innocent until proven guilty, we can agree that JC isn't anti-semitic.
You're welcome 
By the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism, Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite.
Jeremy Corbyn raised Nazi crimes to describe Israel in Gaza
I wasn't just referencing anti-semitism tbf, all types of bigotry are equally repulsive
For the record I'm not a fan of JC (hypocrisy re trident, Brexit & abolition of the HOC and his duplicity regarding Scottish Independence)
However it would appear that Corbyn personally has now been labelled an anti-semite because he went to a meeting in 2010 commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day where Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp repeatedly compared Israeli action in Gaza to the mass killing of Jewish people in the Holocaust
Corbybn's response was
“The main speaker at this Holocaust Memorial Day meeting was a Jewish Auschwitz survivor. Views were expressed at the meeting which I do not accept or condone.
“In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject. I apologise for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.”
I understand the legally non binding IHRA, however it has been used by some to automatically label people AS solely because they criticise the Israeli state for their actions
The Guardian view on antisemitism and Labour: not just a problem of perception | Editorial
Corbyn always claims that he meets people with views he rejects, yet in Northern Ireland he never met with the unionists, and regarding Israel, he never meets with Netinyahu. All of his interactions are completely one-sided. He makes mealy-mouthed apologies that never apologise for what he has done and only for him getting found out for the 'offence caused'.
It states in the response from Labour that he wasn't. Probably misquoted I guess.