In Case You Missed It: What Is Antisemitism?

By Michael Neumann

March 27, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. Silently they congratulate themselves on their courage. With a little sigh, they suppress any twinge of concern that maybe the goyim–let alone the Arabs–can’t be trusted with this dangerous knowledge.

Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!

I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

“Antisemitism”, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry–a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “anti-Zionism is antisemitism! ” quickly alternates with: “Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you antisemite”

Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.

But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.

What difference does that make? Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.

It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.

What crimes? Even most apologists for Israel have given up denying them, and merely hint that noticing them is a bit antisemitic. After all, Israel ‘is no worse than anyone else’. First, so what? At age six we knew that “everyone’s doing it” is no excuse; have we forgotten? Second, the crimes are no worse only when divorced from their purpose. Yes, other people have killed civilians, watched them die for want of medical care, destroyed their homes, ruined their crops, and used them as human shields. But Israel does these things to correct the inaccuracy of Israel Zangwill’s 1901 assertion that

“Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country”.

It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace.

Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm, and whose very existence they contrived to ignore.

Zionist atrocities were not part of the initial plan. They emerged as the racist obliviousness of a persecuted people blossomed into the racial supremacist ideology of a persecuting one. That is why the commanders who directed the rapes, mulilations and child-killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel.(*) But these murders were not enough. Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order, but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. Like my parents, I have always been an atheist. I am entitled by the biology of my birth to Israeli citizenship; you, perhaps, are the most fervent believer in Judaism, but are not. Palestinians are being squeezed and killed for me, not for you. They are to be forced into Jordan, to perish in a civil war. So no, shooting Palestinian civilians is not like shooting Vietnamese or Chechen civilians. The Palestinians aren’t ‘collateral damage’ in a war against well-armed communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.

Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.

Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.

In other words there is a choice to be made. You can use ‘antisemitism’ to fit your political agenda, or you can use it as a term of condemnation, but you can’t do both. If antisemitism is to stop coming out reasonable or moral, it has to be narrowly and unpolemically defined. It would be safe to confine antisemitism to explicitly racial hatred of Jews, to attacking people simply because they had been born Jewish. But it would be uselessly safe: even the Nazis did not claim to hate people simply because they had been born Jewish. They claimed to hate the Jews because they were out to dominate the Aryans.

Clearly such a view should count as antisemitic, whether it belongs to the cynical racists who concocted it or to the fools who swallowed it.

There is only one way to guarantee that the term “antisemitism” captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.

For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture.

I, for example, grew up in Jewish culture and, like many people growing up in a culture, I have come to dislike it. But it is unwise to count my dislike as antisemitic, not because I am Jewish, but because it is harmless. Perhaps not utterly harmless: maybe, to some tiny extent, it will somehow encourage some of the harmful acts or attitudes we’d want to call antisemitic. But so what? Exaggerated philosemitism, which regards all Jews as brilliant warm and witty saints, might have the same effect. The dangers posed by my dislike are much too small to matter. Even widespread, collective loathing for a culture is normally harmless. French culture, for instance, seems to be widely disliked in North America, and no one, including the French, consider this some sort of racial crime.

Not even all acts and attitudes harmful to Jews generally should be considered antisemitic. Many people dislike American culture; some boycott American goods. Both the attitude and the acts may harm Americans generally, but there is nothing morally objectionable about either. Defining these acts as anti-Americanism will only mean that some anti-Americanism is perfectly acceptable. If you call opposition to Israeli policies antisemitic on the grounds that this opposition harms Jews generally, it will only mean that some antisemitism is equally acceptable.

If antisemitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews. The Nazis made up historical fantasies to justify their attacks; so do modern antisemites who trust in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So do the closet racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is antisemitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are. It also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish.

So far, I’ve suggested that it’s best to narrow the definition of antisemitism so that no act can be both antisemitic and unobjectionable. But we can go further. Now that we’re through playing games, let’s ask about the role of *genuine*, bad antisemitism in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in the world at large.

Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter. In other words, it is one thing to be told: you must simply accept that antisemitism is evil; to do otherwise is to put yourself outside our moral world. But it is quite something else to have someone try to bully you into proclaiming that antisemitism is the Evil of Evils. We are not children learning morality; it is our responsibility to set our own moral priorities. We cannot do this by looking at horrible images from 1945 or listening to the anguished cries of suffering columnists. We have to ask how much harm antisemitism is doing, or is likely to do, not in the past, but today. And we must ask where such harm might occur, and why.

Supposedly there is great danger in the antisemitism of the Arab world. But Arab antisemitism isn’t the cause of Arab hostility towards Israel or even towards Jews. It is an effect. The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat. Indeed its chief cause is not antisemitic propaganda but the decades-old, systematic and unrelenting efforts of Israel to implicate all Jews in its crimes. If Arab anti-semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm. Arab governments could only lose by permitting attacks on their Jewish citizens; to do so would invite Israeli intervention. And there is little reason to expect such attacks to materialize: if all the horrors of Israel’s recent campaigns did not provoke them, it is hard to imagine what would. It would probably take some Israeli act so awful and so criminal as to overshadow the attacks themselves.

If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, “`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says”, Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)

Of course there are historical reasons for fearing a horrendous attack on Jews. And anything is possible: there could be a massacre of Jews in Paris tomorrow, or of Algerians. Which is more likely? If there are any lessons of history, they must apply in roughly similar circumstances. Europe today bears very little resemblance to Europe in 1933. And there are positive possibilities as well: why is the likelihood of a pogrom greater than the likelihood that antisemitism will fade into ineffectual nastiness? Any legitimate worries must rest on some evidence that there really is a threat.

The incidence of antisemitic attacks might provide such evidence. But this evidence is consistently fudged: no distinction is made between attacks against Jewish monuments and symbols as opposed to actual attacks against Jews. In addition, so much is made of an increase in the frequency of attacks that the very low absolute level of attacks escapes attention. The symbolic attacks have indeed increased to significant absolute numbers. The physical attacks have not.(*) More important, most of these attacks are by Muslim residents: in other words, they come from a widely hated, vigorously policed and persecuted minority who don’t stand the slightest chance of undertaking a serious campaign of violence against Jews.

It is very unpleasant that roughly half a dozen Jews have been hospitalized–none killed–due to recent attacks across Europe. But anyone who makes this into one of the world’s important problems simply hasn’t looked at the world. These attacks are a matter for the police, not a reason why we should police ourselves and others to counter some deadly spiritual disease. That sort of reaction is appropriate only when racist attacks occur in societies indifferent or hostile to the minority attacked. Those who really care about recurrent Nazism, for instance, should save their anguished concern for the far bloodier, far more widely condoned attacks on gypsies, whose history of persecution is fully comparable to the Jewish past. The position of Jews is much closer to the position of whites, who are also, of course, the victims of racist attacks.

No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.

It is not Jews who live most in the shadow of the concentration camp. LePen’s ‘transit camps’ are for ‘Arabs’, not Jews. And though there are politically significant parties containing many antisemites, not one of these parties shows any sign of articulating, much less implementing, an antisemitic agenda. Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that, once in power, they will change their tune. Haider’s Austria is not considered dangerous for Jews; neither was Tudjman’s Croatia. And were there to be such danger, well, a nuclear-armed Jewish state stands ready to welcome any refugees, as do the US and Canada. And to say there are no real dangers now is not to say that we should ignore any dangers that may arise. If in France, for instance, the Front National starts advocating transit camps for Jews, or institutes anti-Jewish immigration policies, then we should be alarmed. But we should not be alarmed that something alarming might just conceivably happen: there are far more alarming things going on than that!

One might reply that, if things are not more alarming, it is only because the Jews and others have been so vigilant in combatting antisemitism. But this isn’t plausible. For one thing, vigilance about antisemitism is a kind of tunnel vision: as neofascists are learning, they can escape notice by keeping quiet about Jews. For another, there has been no great danger to Jews even in traditionally antisemitic countries where the world is *not* vigilant, like Croatia or the Ukraine. Countries that get very little attention seem no more dangerous than countries that get a lot. As for the vigorous reaction to LePen in France, that seems to have a lot more to do with French revulsion at neofascism than with the scoldings of the Anti-Defamation League. To suppose that the Jewish organizations and earnest columnists who pounce on antisemitism are saving the world from disaster is like claiming that Bertrand Russell and the Quakers were all that saved us from nuclear war.

Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.

This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.

In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.

* Not even the ADL and B’nai B’rith include attacks on Israel in the tally; they speak of “The insidious way we have seen the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians used by anti-Semites“. And like many other people, I don’t count terrorist attacks by such as Al Quaeda as instances of antisemitism but rather of some misdirected quasi-military campaign against the US and Israel. Even if you count them in, it does not seem very dangerous to be a Jew outside Israel.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca

This article was originally published by “Counterpunch” –

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.

Advertisements

Neither East Nor West: A One Palestinian Palestine

22-12-2017 | 15:30
When facts get blurry, returning to history can be useful. The colonialization of Palestine and its occupation by “Israeli” forces is not a saga based on which Palestinian grandparents make up stories to tell the new generations. In fact, these grandparents were exiled from their homeland, Palestine, where the “Israeli” apartheid entity was established and its immigrants came to become the settlers of these occupied lands.

Al-Quds

After more than 69 years to the plight of the Palestinians, and the day when the “Israelis” attacked Palestinians and committed the infamous Deir Yassin Massacre, US president Donald Trump announces his decision of moving the US embassy to Occupied Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and simply declares that Al-Quds to be the capital of the occupying apartheid regime. At least since the 1967 war, the United States has been “Israel’s” strongest advocate.


A Quick Historical Review

Al-Quds, the capital of Palestine, is an Arab and Muslim small country in the Asian continent that has a very sensitive strategic location owing to its history, geography, and the fact that it is the cradle of different civilizations and religions.

For Muslims, Al-Quds was the first qibla, before the Kaaba in Mecca. This spot was the place from which Islam’s Prophet Muhammad proceeded on his journey, described as the ascension to heaven in Islamic literature. It is also the place in which Jesus called for Christianity, shared the Last Supper with his disciples. Historically speaking, Al-Quds has generally been the site for Muslim pilgrimage, prayer, study or residence. Al-Aqsa Mosque was a particular seat of learning.

This city, where people from the different faiths lived together, became witness to the worst crimes committed by the “Israeli” apartheid entity which was established in 1948 by virtue of the Balfour agreement, which was set up by Britain in the course of World War I. The roots of the idea of establishing an “Israeli” apartheid entity goes back to decades earlier. In 1896, Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist living in Austria-Hungary, published the foundational text of political Zionism, Der Judenstaat [“The Jews’ State” or “The State of the Jews”], in which he asserted that the only solution to the “Jewish Question” in Europe was the establishment of a state for the Jews.

It is worth mentioning that in 1916, when Palestine was still under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, the Jews back then were not Zionists, and they constituted 3 per cent of the population who lived side by side with people of other faiths. It is worth noting here that the people of Palestine differentiate between Judaism and Zionism. The latter is not a faith, but rather a political phenomenon with expansionist, racist and colonialist aims that under the cover of the Jewish religion takes on a religious appearance and tries to pursue its goals as the savior of the Jewish people.

Muslims represented the majority of the population back then, followed by the Christians.

If we are to overview the entire history of the region, the story becomes endless. But the guidelines provided above present a few of the links that make up a full chain; the bigger picture.

Palestine and the Iranian Revolution

In 1979, a dramatic change took place in the Asian continent. A popular movement led by Imam Ruhollah Khomeini was initiated in Iran and an Islamic Republic was established. Iran no longer was a client to the United States of America. The Asian country also no longer supported what it declared to be an occupation, and an apartheid regime.

For three decades before the Islamic revolution, between “Israel’s” illegal establishment in 1948 and Iran’s revolution in 1979, the two countries had close relations based on common strategic interests. Iran became an important source of oil for “Israel”, and “Israel” became an important source of weapons for Iran. It has been reported that thousands of “Israeli” businessmen and technical experts aided Iranian development projects.

Even before the revolution, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini paid a great deal of attention to al-Quds, the holy Aqsa mosque, and the Palestinian cause.

As early as 1968, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini addressed the Palestinian cause in his struggle. The ideas behind the revolution inspired the slogan “Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!”

“My proposal for establishing an Islamic government does not mean a return to the past. I am strongly for civilization and progress”, said Ayatollah Imam Khomeini in January 1979. By that, he meant that Iran does not have to be under the impact and rule of the communist thought at that time represented by the Soviet Union, nor by the capitalist ideology that was raised as the only method of success by the US. Yes, rejecting both the influence of capitalism and communism, Iran decided to become independent and different. For Imam Khomeini, “Neither East Nor West” was a proposal that proves the freedom from subjugation and guarantees success in creating an independent strong identity and defending rights.

For Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, who descended from the Islamic Shia school of thought, the oppressed and the oppressors was a notion that was the focus of his attention. It was a must to support the oppressed, and not only in defend Islamic sanctities. It was the spirit of the revolution that rose from the people with Ayatollah Imam Khomeini’s leadership to support the oppressed across the world in order to realize a just cause.

But of course, Palestine was of vital importance owing to its Islamic identity. Deciding to establish an “Iran” with an independent Islamic identity, Iran’s Ayatollah Imam Khomeini stressed throughout his discourses that Palestine is a central cause to the Muslims.

In an interview when in exile in Iraq’s Najaf city during the early 60s, he said

“When you realize that the blood of your innocent brothers and sisters are shed in the holy land of Palestine and when you notice that our territories have been occupied, and our homes are demolished at the hands of the Zionist criminals, under such circumstances there is no other course left but continuing of jihad. It is incumbent upon every Muslim to extend his material and spiritual aids in this lofty struggle.”

In remarks at a meeting with a group of Palestinians and Bishop Cappucci on 2 April 1979, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini said

“For many years now, perhaps twenty years, I have repeatedly aired my views on Palestine and “Israel”, and I will say again: We condemn “Israel”. “Israel” is an usurper. The land it has taken, it has taken unlawfully. Al-Quds must be freed and “Israel” driven out. The Arab governments must unite and drive “Israel” out of their lands and sever the hands of the colonizers.”

In 1979 and shortly after the revolution, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini designated the last Friday of the holy Islamic month of Ramadan as a new national holiday – al-Quds Day– to “proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine.”

Ayatollah Imam Khomeini always considered that returning to Islam and uniting is a prerequisite to save Palestine and block Zionism’s expansionist plans. Islamic differences were never an issue for Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, in fact he always called on Muslims to put their differences aside and seek unity.

Imam Khomieni, addressing the Muslims altogether stressed that the apartheid regime will not stop at a certain end, noting

“I have continuously spoken about “Israel” and its crimes in my sermons and writings, and have brought to the notice of the Muslims that “Israel” is a cancerous tumor in a corner of the Islamic countries which will not be satisfied with Al-Quds and the other places. No, they (the Zionists) intend to move on. They are the followers of America’s policy and America does not simply aspire after one place . . . the Muslims must awaken.”

Extracting of the Ashura philosophy in Islam, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini noted in another sermon

“Truth will defeat the satanic and tyrannical forces. Your troubles and suffering are not new to Islam and the Muslims, the forces of tyranny have always opposed Islam and fought with the Muslims.”

While addressing the people, he pointed out to the different dimensions of the war on Palestine and the Muslims, and explaining at the time the notion of the “colonialization of the mind” and how it is used to manipulate the people of the region as means to weaken them.

“Those who seek to rule over these countries (the imperialists) have, through the distorted propaganda they have circulated over the past few hundred years and the influence they have achieved in the universities and the centers which educate the sons of Muslims, made the Muslims lose hope in themselves, they have made them lose themselves. The Muslims must strive to find their greatness.”

In the Last Message, The Political and Divine Will of His Holiness the Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, reiterated that the international Zionism does not stop short of any crime to achieve its base and greedy desires, crimes that the tongue and pen are ashamed to utter or write.”

Iran Maintains Position; Palestine Central Cause 

After the passing away of Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, the pro-Palestinian discourse did not stop. It is true that the two countries do not share the same borders, and they come from different Islamic schools of thought, and they speak two different languages, but Ayatollah Imam Khomeini had demonstrated that nothing can impede Iran from standing by Palestine and the Palestinians. It is Islamic values and ethics that form the driving force behind the Iranian support, and true values do not die in general.

In fact, the speeches of His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, leader of the Islamic Revolution, are a continuation to that same identity that supports the Palestinian cause. From the Islamic Republic’s point of view, it is and has always been a confrontation against oppression and distortion.

In all his discourses, Ayatollah Khamenei describes unity as the only way to resist the aggression of the enemies of Islam. He explains that “unity is not the same as adopting identical views. On the contrary, it means that people with various tendencies must move shoulder to shoulder and consider national interests as preferable to everything else, especially their own interests. They must not allow selfishness enter political and social arenas.”

Pointing out to the importance of confronting the “Israeli” apartheid regime and realizing the liberation of Palestine, Ayatollah Khamenei noted in one of his speeches that “pinning hopes on the compromise process and begging the Zionist enemy for peace. This option will only help “Israel” to humiliate the Palestinians and dictate its demands to them. This is what we have already witnessed.”

Also, stressing the idea of colonialization and usurping of property and land, Ayatollah Khamenei highlighted in a ceremony that “Palestinians are by no means going to live outside their own country forever. Or if they are living inside the country, they are never going to be an oppressed minority forever, making room for the invading outsiders to stay in their country.”

Just like Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei time and again reassures that Iran’s position on the issue of Palestine is crystal clear.

“Our position on the issue of Palestine is also clear. We believe that all Palestinian lands belong to the Palestinians. Those who tried to wipe Palestine off the map of the world made a mistake. Such a thing will not happen. Palestine will survive. The usurpers have occupied Palestine for a few decades, but there is no doubt that Palestinian lands will be restored to the people of Palestine and to the world of Islam.”

The “Israeli” soldiers have carried out all sorts of crimes against the Palestinians; from killing the people, destroying their homes and farms and arresting and torturing men and women and even their children, to humiliating and insulting that nation and trying to destroy it, to building illegal settlements and attacking the Palestinian refugees in the camps inside Palestine.

Al-Quds: Neither East nor West

Very recently, Ayatollah Khamenei said in comments on the US move to declare Al-Quds as capital of the “Israeli” apartheid regime

“Today, the issue of Palestine is at the top of the political issues of the world of Islam and the Islamic Ummah. Everyone is responsible towards defending Palestine, and the freedom of Palestine and the Palestinian nation. Everyone is responsible towards fighting and working to that end.”

He pointed out to the “Israeli” regime and the US’s desperation

“The enemy is desperate in this regard. You should know this. When they claim that they want to declare al-Quds as the capital of the Zionist regime, this is a sign of their desperation and incapability. Their hands are tied on the issue of Palestine. Without a doubt, by doing so, they will receive a harsher blow and the world of Islam will stand up against them.”

Today, Iran stands strong in face of the US decision, and voices support to the Palestinians as well as urges the international community to act. Iran does not stand alone but is supported by regional players both state and non-state actors. For instance, as Lebanon’s Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah clearly stated that the resistance stands with utmost readiness to defend al-Aqsa mosque and support the Palestinian brethren, Turkey’s Erdogan pointed out that al-Quds is a “red line” for Muslims who will not accept any aggression on its Islamic sanctuaries, and said that what “Israel” is doing against Palestinians wolf does not do against the sheep.

Today, Iran reiterates “neither East, nor West” but an independent Palestinian Palestine that has the right to preserve its people, land and sanctities. No East Al-Quds and no West, but a one Palestinian al-Quds acknowledged as the capital of Palestine and its native people.

Source: Al-Ahed News

TAKFIRI NAKBA AT WORK IN TARTOUS AND JABLEH TODAY: 145 SYRIAN CIVILIANS BUTCHERED

two nakbas

by Jonathan Azaziah

Indescribable inhumanity in Tartous and Jableh today. No grouping of words, no matter how eloquent or impassioned, can really express the pain, the shock and the sheer horror felt after the viciousness inflicted on the Syrian people in these gorgeous coastal regions this morning by the Takfiri maniacs of Ahrar al-Sham. At least 145 civilians have been martyred, most of them women and children, and hundreds more have been wounded, in a sophisticated septuple assault consisting of five suicide attacks and two car bombs. This barbaric terrorism comes as the Syrian Arab Army, Hizbullah and their comrades are on the move throughout every major battle front, including the “Vengeance For Hajj Moustafa Badreddine” operations in East Ghouta, the fresh advancement in Deir Ez-Zor and the reactivation of maneuvers in Aleppo’s southern countryside. It doesn’t take a geopolitical genius to figure out the Wahhabi murderers’ motivation here: Unable to subdue Mouqawamah Axis forces in toe-to-toe combat, these beasts engage in the mass murder of the unarmed, innocent and vulnerable, true to their cowardly nature.

And perhaps it is this cowardice that bonds the Takfiris and their ‘Israeli’ masters together so closely, beyond the strategic symbiosis–it was indeed ‘Israel’ alongside the American regime and Al-Saud which created ISIS, Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, etc. to undermine, subvert and overthrow their adversaries, chiefly Syria and the Resistance Axis–as well as the similar delusional notions of supremacy which are foundational to Zionism and Wahhabism. Today’s atrocities in Tartous and Jableh, along with the recent string of malevolent attacks in Iraq, are a stark reminder of the 2006 July War, when the ‘Israeli’ enemy, after being thoroughly beaten to a pulp and humiliated by Hizbullah, unleashed four million cluster bombs on Dahiyeh, slaughtering hundreds in this bombardment alone and rendering the southern Beirut suburbs to rubble. Operation Mighty Cliff in summer 2014 also comes to mind, when the Zionists eviscerated the Gaza City suburb of Shuja’iyah after getting smacked around by the Palestinian Resistance.

Thinking about it further I am reminded of the carnage in Deir Yassin on April 9th, 1948; the wanton bloodshed and expulsions in Ramle and Lydda throughout July 1948; the ungodliness in Dueima in November 1948; the cold-blooded killing in Kufr Qassem on October 29th, 1956 and the Khan Younis barbarity only days later on November 3rd; the butchery of 3,500 Palestinians and Lebanese Shi’a in Sabra and Shatilah by the Zionist-backed Phalangists on September 16th-18th, 1982; the pure evil of the first Qana Massacre on April 18th, 1996; the monstrosities against the civilians of Jenin during the Second Intifada, and too many more to heartrendingly recall. Takfiris literally learned everything they know about terrorism from these Zionist savages who have been colonizing and putrefying the Arab-Islamic world for the last 132 years.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called the proliferation of this aggressive, sanguinary, expansionist Wahhabi terror the “Takfiri Nakba” for a damn good reason. And just as we must uproot ‘Israel’ and its entire psychopathic settler population to end the Nakba in Palestine, we must uproot every last Zionist-backed Wahhabi terrorist goon from every last corner of our region to finish off the Takfiri Nakba for good if crimes like what happened today in Tartous and Jableh are to cease once and for all. May ALLAH (SWT) grant eternal serenity to the martyrs. ‪#‎DeathToTakfirism‬ ‪#‎DeathToIsrael‬

Jewish Murderers and What to Do About Them: A Suggestion from David Ben-Gurion

 photo bengurion2_zpsc2avyb2y.jpg

By Richard Edmondson

Recently Sen. Patrick Leahy and ten other members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry expressing concern over possible extrajudicial executions by Israeli forces of four Palestinians named in an Amnesty International report.

The signatories to the letter cite “allegations of gross violations of human rights” (in both Israel and Egypt) and request Kerry to look into the matter with a view toward determining whether a cutoff of US military assistance might be mandated as required under the Leahy Law.

The letter was dated February 17 but wasn’t made public until late March after a video went viral showing Israeli soldier Elior Azaria firing a gunshot at point blank range into the head of a Palestinian who had been wounded and lay on a street practically motionless.

What that video clearly shows is an act of murder, but the charges against Azaria have been reduced to manslaughter, and some say even that is nothing more thanpublic relations. The video comes at a time when approximately 200 Palestinians have been killed in what the Israelis in most instances have alleged to be stabbing attacks, but in a number of these cases witnesses have refuted the official version of events, and there have been numerous allegations of knives being planted on or near bodies.

Moreover, the killings didn’t start with the outbreak of the latest intifada. In July of last year, Jewish settlers threw petrol bombs into a Palestinian home, killing three members of the Dawabsha family, including an 18-month-old baby, and a few months after that a video surfaced showing Jewish radicals celebrating the attack while stabbing the baby’s photo.

Four people are presently facing charges in the Dawabsha case, though only one has officially been charged with murder, and even if he is convicted, it’s doubtful he will face more than a couple of years in prison. Moreover, the arson attack on the Dawabsha home wasn’t the first time Jews in Israel burned someone to death. In the summer of 2014, Jewish settlers kidnapped 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir off the street and set him on fire after forcing him to swallow gasoline. It would require a diseased mind to do that to anyone, much less a 16-year-old kid who had done nothing to harm the attackers.

Clearly there is a problem in Israel with murderers running rampant, but this is nothing new. It has been a problem ever since the the Jewish state has been in existence–something recognized by no less than David Ben-Gurion. Moreover, Ben-Gurion put forth a proposal for stemming the tide of butchery, though actually his solution was not that novel or new. Simply put, he advocated imposing the death penalty. Only this, he reasoned, would deter Jews from the gratuitous killing of Arabs. The former prime minister’s thoughts on the matter were expressed in a cabinet meeting in 1951, and were the subject of a recent article in Haaretz.

“I’m not the justice minister, I’m not the police minister and I don’t know all criminal acts committed here, but as defense minister I know some of the crimes, and I must say the situation is frightening in two areas: 1) acts of murder and 2) acts of rape,” he said.

Ben-Gurion at the time was serving simultaneously as prime minister and as defense minister, and the subject up for discussion that day was whether or not to abolish the death penalty–a statute still left on the books from the years of the British mandate. Most of those present were in favor of abolishing it. Ben-Gurion and a few others were opposed.

“In general, those who have guns use them,” Ben-Gurion asserted, adding that some Israelis “think Jews are people but Arabs aren’t, so you can do anything to them. And some think it’s a mitzvah to kill Arabs, and that everything the government says against murdering Arabs isn’t serious, that it’s just a pretense that killing Arabs is forbidden, but in fact, it’s a blessing because there will be fewer Arabs here. As long as they think that, the murders won’t stop.”

Ben-Gurion said he, too, would prefer fewer Arabs, but not at the price of murder. “Abolishing the death penalty will increase bloodshed,” he warned, especially between Jews and Arabs. “Soon, we won’t be able to show our faces to the world. Jews meet an Arab and murder him.”

Keep in mind Ben-Gurion’s comment about the “mitzvah to kill Arabs” and the Israelis who regard Arabs as less than human. One who sided with Ben-Gurion  on the death penalty debate was Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, but for the latter it was a complete reversal from a previous position he had taken on the issue. When the capital punishment issue first had come up in 1949, Sharett had been in favor of abolishing it. But by 1951, Sharett had had a complete change of heart.

“With great regret I’ve become convinced that abolishing the death penalty is inconceivable,” he announced, noting that even countries “which are immeasurably more humane than we are – I’ve spent years there and I live here – maintain the death penalty.”

The main reason for his U-turn, however, was “the crimes that have happened and are happening week after week, especially in the army,” including some that weren’t public knowledge. Sociopaths might not be deterred by the death penalty, Sharett admitted, “but that Jewish chap who kills two Arabs he met on the road, I’m not willing to say, without trying it first, that he’s a killer by nature and won’t fear the death penalty.”

Some Jews, Sharett said, think “every Arab is a dog, a wild dog that it’s a mitzvah to kill.” And “to save them from killing human beings, it’s a mitzvah to have the death penalty here. As long as we don’t have it, these murders will continue, and we’ll be held accountable, and it will create moral corruption here…”

Once again we have a reference to Jews regarding Arabs as subhuman, and note also Sharett’s comment about “sociopaths” as well as his remark about countries “which are immeasurably more humane than we are.” It is as if Sharett is conceding that Jews by nature are not especially humane–you could almost read that into the quote.

In any event, the death penalty in Israel was officially abolished in 1954.

The world just a few days ago marked the 68th anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre. On April 9, 1948 members of the Ergun and Stern Gang terrorist groups invaded the village of Deir Yassin at about 3 a.m. and began slaughtering its inhabitants. When they met with resistance from the villagers, they put out a call for help to the Haganah (which later became known as the “Israeli Defense Forces”), which indeed responded to the call. By the time it was over, some 250-360 Palestinians lay dead.

And Deir Yassin has been repeated in one form or another down through the years, including in Gaza which seems to get a thunderous torrent of murder and mayhem unleashed upon it every other year or so.

It is kind of ironic that Sharett and Ben-Gurion, as we can see now, shared at least one thing in common with Adolph Hitler–all three advocated the death penalty for Jews. The reason I invoke Hitler’s name is because history, and particularly Jewish history, has a tendency to run in cycles (109 expulsions since the year 250 A.D.), and Israel’s ability to flaunt its barbaric behavior, while at the same time continuing to receive support from Western politicians, simply underscores in people’s minds the extent to which Jews hold power over them.

Politicians such as Hillary Clinton may think they’re doing a service to American Jews by pandering to AIPAC and pledging their eternal fealty to Israel, but in reality they may be accomplishing just the opposite. A good many of America’s problems right now are attributable to bankers and media owners, and the fact that Jews dominate in both industries (“and so what if we do?” wrote one rather famously) is not being lost on increasing numbers of people.

In other words, the anger is spreading outward. It is no longer confined simply to “Israel” or its “lobbies.” It is spreading outward–to encompass Jews in general. You don’t see it so much in public spaces, but on the Internet it is plainly visible. And probably for this reason the Department of Homeland Security has awarded more than 90 percent of its grants to Jewish organizations–a gesture which may increase security at a few synagogues and community centers but which will also have a tendency to stoke the public anger even further.

For this and other reasons, it might be well, for those with the capability of thinking rationally, to actually go ahead and invoke the Leahy Law at this time and cut off military aid to Israel. Doing so would act as an escape valve; it would help defuse some of the public anger. And for whatever it’s worth, I think David Ben-Gurion would approve, for it might well impress upon the Israelis that there are consequences to actions–something they don’t presently seem to understand.

Invoking the Leahy Law would have other bonuses as well. A cutoff of military aid would reduce Israel’s ability to wreak havoc in the Middle East, and reducing its capacity for creating havoc will make for a saner world than we have at present. It will not, of course, cleanse the collective Jewish psyche of its supremacist tendencies, its murderous urges, or its inclinations to view others as subhuman.

How that may ever be achieved, I do not know. It may well require an act of God.

Deir Yassin Massacre

April 9, 2016 10:54 AM IMEMC News

09 APR 10:54 AM

Today, Saturday, is the sixty-eight anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre committed by the Ergun and Stern Zionist terrorist organizations against this village in 1948, killing 250-360 Palestinian in cold blood, after the two groups invaded the village of 750 inhabitants.

By the time the villagers realized the intensity of the terrorist attack, hundreds were already dead, and the rest fled for their lives, before the terrorist groups occupied it.

The attack and bloodshed started approximately at 3 at dawn, but the two Zionist groups were met with armed resistance that also led to the death of four attackers and the injury of 32 others.

After that, terrorists of Ergun and Stern called for help from the “Hagana” leadership in Jerusalem, and once more armed terrorists arrived, many carrying automatic machine guns, they started firing on the villages, including women, elderly and children, and managed to retrieve their dead and wounded.

The assailants also asked for reinforcement from the “Palmach” striking company under the Hagana leadership.

The Palmach, stationed in a military base near Jerusalem, started shelling Deir Yassin with mortar shells, in order to facilitate the invasion by Stern and Ergun.

By noon that day, all forms of resistance in Deir Yassin were eliminated, then Stern and Ergun terrorists started detonating the village’s homes, one by one, with dynamite.

Many villagers were detained, forced against walls and executed on the spot, and the terrorists then loaded cars and trucks with Palestinians captured in the village, and paraded through the streets while chanting racist slogans.

The massacre in Deir Yassin remains a historic mark in the Palestinian struggle that witnessed dozens of massacres, forcing hundreds of thousands of terrified Palestinians to fled Palestine into nearby Arab countries before the 1948 war that eventually led to occupying historic Palestine, and the establishment of Israel.

The Nakba led to the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-48, after hundreds of villages and towns were destroyed, and depopulated.

 

Palestine news

Israel: ‘Barbarism by an Educated and Cultured People’ — 1948 Dawayima Massacre was Worse than Deir Yassin

Global Research, February 09, 2016
Yair Auron

“There was no battle and no resistance (and no Egyptians). The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?” For the first time ever, a letter quoting one of the Israeli soldiers who were part of the Al-Dawayima massacre in October 1948 is published in full.

On Friday, February 5th 2016, Haaretz published an article in Hebrew by Israeli historian Yair Auron [pictured left], which covers one of the biggest massacres of 1948. The massacre is of Al Dawayima, west of Al-Khalil (which is often referred to as Hebron). In a 2004 interview with Haaretz, Israeli historian Benny Morris refers to this as a massacre of “hundreds”.

After the massacre, a letter was sent to the editor of the leftist affiliated newspaper Al-Hamishmar, but never published. As Auron notes, there are still many archives of the time which are classified. Auron also states that there was an investigation that was never concluded and “died out” as a massive amnesty was provided to military personnel in February 1949.This is a very exhaustive article, but I found it useful enough to translate this letter in full on its own. The letter, which first “disappeared,’ was provided to Auron by historian Benny Morris. Although these matters have been referred to in passing in historical summaries, the letter has never been published before in full.

Historian/sleuth Benny Morris

To comrade Eliezer Peri, good day,

Today I have read the editorial of “Al Hamishmar” where the question of our army’s conduct was aired, the army which conquers all but its own desires.

Historian/sleuth Benny Morris

A testimony provided to me by an officer which was in [Al] Dawayima the day after its conquering: The soldier is one of ours, intellectual, reliable, in all 100%. He had confided in me out of a need to unload the heaviness of his soul from the horror of the recognition that such level of barbarism can be reached by our educated and cultured people. He confided in me because not many are the hearts today who are able to listen.

There was no battle and no resistance (and no Egyptians). The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks. There was not a house without dead. The second wave of the [Israeli] army was a platoon that the soldier giving testimony belongs to.

In the town were left male and female Arabs, who were put into houses and were then locked in without receiving food or drink. Later explosive engineers came to blow up houses. One commander ordered an engineer to put two elderly women into the house that was to be blown up. The engineered refused and said he is willing to receive orders only from his [own] commander. So then [his] commander ordered the soldiers to put the women in and the evil deed was performed.

One soldier boasted that he raped an Arab woman and afterwards shot her. An Arab woman with a days-old infant was used for cleaning the back yard where the soldiers eat. She serviced them for a day or two, after which they shot her and the infant. The soldier tells that the commanders who are cultured and polite, considered good guys in society, have become vile murderers, and this occurs not in the storm of battle and heated response, but rather from a system of expulsion and destruction. The fewer Arabs remain – the better. This principle is the main political motive of [the] expulsions and acts of horror which no-one objects to, not in the field command nor amongst the highest military command. I myself was at the front for two weeks and heard boasting stories of soldiers and commanders, of how they excelled in the acts of hunting and “fucking” [sic]. To fuck an Arab, just like that, and in any circumstance, is considered an impressive mission and there is competition on winning this [trophy].

We find ourselves in a conundrum. To shout this out in the press will mean to assist the Arab League, which our representatives deny all complaints of. To not react would mean solidarity with moral corruption. The soldier told me that Deir Yassin [another massacre, by Irgun militants, April 1948] is not the peak of hooliganism. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?

It is necessary to initiate a scandal in the internal channels, to insist upon an internal investigation and punish the culprits. And first of all it is necessary to create in the military a special unit for the restraint of the army. I myself accuse first of all the government, which doesn’t seem to have any interest to fight the phenomena and perhaps even encourages them indirectly. The fact of not-acting is in itself encouragement. My commander told me that there is an unwritten order to not take prisoners of war, and the interpretation of “prisoner” is individually given by each soldier and commander. A prisoner can be an Arab man, woman or child. This was not only done at the exhibition windows [major Palestinian towns] such as Majdal and Nazareth.

I write this to you so that in the editorial and in the party the truth will be known and something effective would be done. At least let them not indulge in phony diplomacy which covers up for blood and murder, and to the extent possible, also the paper must not let this pass in silence.

Kaplan

Paul Eisen on Jeremy Corbyn – The finest man in British politics

June 05, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Paul Eisen

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/
I just heard that Jeremy Corbyn is going to stand for the leadership of the British Labour Party.

I hate all politics and I hold the hopelessly compromised and Zionised Labour party in particular contempt. But if Jeremy Corbyn does stand for leader I’m going to join that party so I can give him my vote.

Jeremy has been my MP for pretty much the entire thirty-five years myself and my family have lived here in North Islington so, over the years, I’ve got to know a little about the man.

One thing I and every single resident of Islington knows is that if you’ve got a problem and you go to his surgery and you need his help, you’ll get it –  and I’ll bet that if Jeremy were to become leader of the Labour party, or indeed of the nation, that won’t change one bit.

I’ve also noticed that his support isn’t confined to those issues which he personally supports. I’ve seen Jeremy as busy with a Barnsbury Residents Association concerned about the preservation of their Georgian Square as with a refuge for asylum seekers.

One issue he most certainly does support is that of Palestine solidarity and one evening fifteen years ago I cycled over to see him. I was just beginning to establish Deir Yassin Remembered in the UK and I wanted him to join. I’d hardly begun my feverishly-rehearsed pitch before his cheque book was on the table. From that day on, without fuss or bother, whether DYR was flavour-of-the month or the maggot-at-the-bottom-of-the-food-chain, he attended every single Deir Yassin commemoration.

Since then I’ve seen him here and there. I’ve seen him at solidarity meetings and also at events unconnected with Palestine. One was a meeting of firmly middle-class Islingtonians rabbiting on about protecting the trees in their neighbourhood. But Jeremy Corbyn was there and Jeremy Corbyn was as Jeremy Corbyn always is – fair, approachable, non-judgmental and always committed to the finest ideals of a British Parliamentarian i.e. representing the wishes and feelings of his constituents.

But there’s one final thing I want to tell you about Jeremy Corbyn because it means a lot to me. During the time when I felt so marginalised and isolated, when the movement with which he was associated so despised me, Jeremy always said hello. What’s so great about that? Well, if you ever find yourself in that situation you’ll know exactly what so great about it.

I can hear them now: “Oh sure, Corbyn’s a fine man, a man of principle but that’s not necessarily what we need in a leader”. I disagree. In these terrible times, that’s exactly what we need in a leader.

You can read all the standard stuff about Jeremy Corbyn here and click the ‘YES’ button to show your support. Also, under party rules a candidate needs to be nominated by 35 fellow MPs to appear on the ballot. You can sign a petition here to press Labour MPs to support this fine man.

%d bloggers like this: