At The Financial Times, episode DCCCLIII: the defamation of Jeremy Corbyn reaches another hysterical denouement. Old Socialist considers some of the ‘arguments’

For the readership of this newspaper with a memory longer than last week, this newspaper and its writer/hirelings have been Anti-Corbyn, since he began his rise in the Labour Party, as the alternative to the ruling Blairite faction. The Party Line at the Financial Times evolved from the ‘Rebellion Against The Elites’ , to the ‘Populist Menace’ , and now the hue and cry about Anti-Semitism! I read the hysterics of the priggish Mr. Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian and the comments on Ken Livingstone, which was the first iteration of this manufactured ‘crisis’!

But the obvious answer to the ineluctable rightness of the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism, advocated, or better yet demanded,  by the Financial Times editorial writers-   the Labour Party can and is responsible for creating a definition of its own. That includes the very real fact that BDS and Anti-Zionism do not constitute Anti-Semitism. Look to the sanctions on apartheid South Africa as the paradigmatic case!

And the right of Palestinians to a state,  to the exercise of political civic self determination, and even the Right of Return, must the stated unequivocally in any such statement of Labour principals, about not just Anti-Semitism, but about the imperatives of Human Rights in this historical moment.The ‘Two State Solution’ is dead! What are the possible alternatives? Who is asking this question?

The Tories and New Labour, have found common cause in the hysterical defamation of Jeremy Corbyn. The failure of each of these Thatcherite Parties has led them into a self-serving political nihilism, that cannot be undone. Such is the level of this crime!

Old Socialist

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.