One Man’s Terrorist…
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
We all deplore terrorism but there are deep political divides as to who exactly is to be labelled as a terrorist.
Calling Jeremy Corbyn a “terrorist sympathiser” is, as Daniel Finn argues, simply meant to discourage awkward questions about the double standards that govern Britain’s relationship with the outside world.
This article was originally published by Guardian on Wed 20 Nov 2019. Read the original here.
Calling Corbyn a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ is just a way to prevent awkward questions
Labour’s leader draws fire because he doesn’t go along with the double standards ruling the UK’s relations with foreign powers
Loading article text…
‘In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan denounced the African National Congress in South Africa as terrorists, while supporting insurgent groups elsewhere whose record of violence against civilians was incomparably worse, from Angola to Afghanistan, Cambodia to Nicaragua.’
Very true: in the 1980s the Thatcher government kindly gave money, arms and moral support to the Afghan jihadis who were busy destroying a secular reforming government that was trying to bring the country somewhere close to the twentieth century. And one of the few MPs who spoke out against this real support for terrorism was, yes, Jeremy Corbyn.
Daniel Finn shines a light on the hypocrisy of governments regarding terrorism.
Labelling Jeremy Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is for the purpose of demonising him, and that, in turn, is so as to try and undermine support for him amongst the electorate, as with the anti-semitism smear campaign and labelling him an anti-semite. The irony is that those who label him as such – and those who label groups such as Hamas as terrorists – are themselves by FAR the biggest terrorists on the planet, and responsible for millions of deaths since the end of the Second World War. The Nazi mindset didn’t just suddenly materialise out of thin air in the 1920s and 30s, and it didn’t suddenly vanish into the ether when the Nazis were defeated. But for the fascist psychopaths, the reality we live in would be totally different, as would our history.
I think that as often, we on the Left may be too defensive over the ‘terrorism’ accusation. As Daniel Finn says, the claims against Corbyn just don’t hold water. What may well justify further investigation, though, are the links -past, and maybe present, too – between the Tories’ allies, the DUP, and Unionist para-military groups in the North of Ireland. I’ve seen at least one post from a North of Ireland source which highlighted the remarkable lack of attention paid to this issue by the British media.
I’m not suggesting that a revelation of such links would somehow justify sympathy for terrorism by our side. Terrorism – even allowing for disagreements about how it should be defined – is never justified, by anybody. Such an investigation would nonetheless show up the hypocrisy of the Tories, and their media mouthpieces.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism employs several full time staffers to data mine for anti semitism against corbyn and momentum yet the best they can do is to find often unbelievably contorted “evidence” against people corbyn once met fifteen years ago. Yet it remains schtum against direct right wing antisemitism. Its almost as if they have some kind of agenda here.