> Your latter point is a bit of a cheap shot; of course we all know which country was "infamous" in WWII Indeed. But your phrase was "Britain's infamous antise

> Your latter point is a bit of a cheap shot; of course we all know which country was "infamous" in WWII Indeed. But your phrase was "Britain's infamous antisemitism". I was pointing out that British antisemitism during WW2 was in fact not "infamous". Indeed, if the worst thing that Britain did during WW2 wasn't harming Jews but not helping them as much as some people in the UK government would have liked, then they couldn't really have been very anti-semitic, could they? In Britain, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are Jewish, and has been for several decades. Furthermore, of Britain's two largest political parties, one has a Jewish leader and the other did from 2003-2005; it is unlikely that either party would have done this if it thought a Jewish leader would be an electoral liability, or if their rank-and-file members disliked Jews. Are these the actions of a country "infamous" for antisemitism?