Breitbart is not antisemitic.
Corbyn, in many respects, is an unpleasant man and he's clearly a bumbling fool but it's pretty hard to argue that he doesn't have the right intentions or that he doesn't care for the welfare of people. He's clearly not someone who approves of violence and the right's insistence that this is the case comes across as hysterical and deranged.
He doubtlessly cares about the welfare of his people, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hugo Chavez probably cared about his people too. As for Corbyn not being someone who approves of violence, surely you could see why some think that him speaking of his "friends of Hamas and Hezbollah" suggests otherwise?
My argument is that the right's anti-Corbyn isn't persuasive, not that Corbyn is Good (he is not) or that he's anywhere near my first choice. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that he approves of Hamas or Hezbollah and their atrocities. A much more credible criticism is that he's a dunce who doesn't understand basic facts about the organizations and, thus, should not be PM.
Maybe I'm a dunce, too, but would you care to explain how Corbyn, being a dunce, managed to win two Labour leadership elections within 15 months against an extremely hostile party establishment and media?
I really do think the guy, if nothing else, deserves some respect.