Jeremy Corbyn defamed – putting the Tunis wreath-laying accusations in context
JVL Introduction
We have long argued that there is no case to answer about the accusation that Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath in Tunis to honour terrorists responsible for the Munich assassination of Israeli athletes.
It is simply untrue. He didn’t.
This accusation, having played its part in the demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn, will no doubt vanish when he steps down as leader. But there was method in it, says David Samel as he puts this initiative to demonise Corbyn in context.
The fact that Corbyn was laying a wreath in honour of the victims of a real and universally acknowledged Israeli terrorist attack was totally sidelined by this false accusation.
It’s part of a pattern. Israel has frequently used retaliatory and extreme violence, openly styled as revenge killings, in answer to perceived threats, in defiance of international law. Those responsible for such terrorist actions, like David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Ariel Sharon and many more, are held in reverence and respect.
This article was originally published by Mondoweiss on Sat 28 Dec 2019. Read the original here.
Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to Tunisia cemetery exemplifies defamation campaign against him
Loading article text…
Spot on!
What is more evidence that Corbyn did NOT lay that wreath on the memorial to the terrorists is available with a minimal amount of searching.
The fact that the deaths of innocent people were ignored in that piece of false news was itself reflected in the complete absence in 2018 of reports on the bombing in the Yemen by the Saudi. Viewers saw spurious allegations against Corbyn on the news channels – followed by desperate pleas for help during the commercial breaks by various charities who were struggling in the Yemen to aid victims of the bombing. However we very rarely saw reports on the war there in the main news, these only occurring at times when it was impossible to ignore.
Spot on !
Unless you are a pacifist and opposed to the use of lethal force under an circumstances, “terrorist” just means someone who uses lethal force and whose objectives you don’t agree with.
Lethal force should only be used by governments ? That means the civilians who fought against the Nazis should be labelled terrorists.
You should never target unarmed civilians ?
That most certainly means the IDF are terrorists.
Terrorists are condemned for their methods but this argument falls apart under scrutiny. Why is it OK to indiscriminately target civilians from an aircraft but not ok face to face ?
In reality it is wholly a matter of moral legitimacy. A “terrorist” is someone whose political aims you consider illegitimate.
What the Israeli government is really saying is that Palestinians have no right to violently resist and they should passively accept their fate. But in fact any group of human beings facing violent occupation (including Jews) would resort to similar methods.
Palestinians have no advanced weapons so it is a simple choice of sometimes crude resistance or submission.