New Old Labour and the Jews

Antisemitism continues to pollute the Left

2015-09-22-02-49-48.corbyne bij anti israel demonstratie

Friday 25th March 2016

In February, the co-chair of the Oxford Union Labour Club, Alex Chalmers, resigned his position in protest against antisemitism in the society. That evening the OULC had voted to support Oxford Israeli Apartheid Week which, according to its official website, “aims to raise awareness about Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial project and apartheid policies over the Palestinian people.” An internal investigation conducted by the OULC has been sent to the Labour Party. A press release by the Oxford Union Jewish Society appears to vindicate Chalmers.

This month the Labour Party has re-expelled one vehement antisemite, Gerry Downing, has put another, Vicki Kirby, under investigation, and, has openly readmitted Beinazir Lasharie, a Labour councillor in Kensington who thinks that Jews were “behind 9/11 and … ISIS,” as reported by the blogger Guido Fawkes over at order-order.com. It would be easy to pin the blame on Jeremy Corbyn. His hard Left faction has always had a penchant for antisemitism, but it’s been spilling over into the mainstream for some time now.

Traditional antisemitism is based on eugenics and race theory. Jews, it is said, are an inferior race because of their parasitic nature. They set-up in a host country, take over its economic system by stealth, defile its women, muddy the blood of the natives, and break down the moral and structural fibre of civilisation. In the United Kingdom, this exists chiefly on the far-flung fringes of the extreme Right. This, however, isn’t the Left’s antisemitism. Framed by its own prejudices, the antisemitism of the Left can be described as ‘antisemitic anti-Zionism’.

Founded upon an excessive hatred for Israel, Leftist antisemites see the Jewish state as the last bastion of imperialism. White European settlers ethnically cleansed the land of an indigenous population of Palestinian Arabs. Palestinians tried to reclaim their property and were driven back into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Victimised and oppressed, beaten into submission, and at risk of being exterminated, the Palestinians have been forced by Israel to use violent methods to get their homes back.

At its most extreme, antisemitic anti-Zionism attempts to expiate the Holocaust by inverting it, making Israel play the role of Nazi Germany. Zionism is racist because it views Jews as superior, so the logic goes. The Palestinians have been herded into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, their “open air concentration camps.” Rumours persist of abductions, medical experiments and even clandestine mass exterminations. Palestinians are now the Jews, and the Jews have become the Nazis. Benjamin Netanyahu is Adolf Hitler, and the Israeli Defence Force is the SS – all that’s missing are a few swastikas.

If you peel enough layers off of the onion of history you can find your desired culprit. If you selectively read history and deny people agency then you can come up with a very warped narrative to nicely compliment your partly-peeled onion. Leftist antisemitism does both of these things superbly.

It is often said that criticising Israel gets one unfairly labelled an antisemite. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be (and is not) regarded as antisemitic. It’s when Israel is held up to a higher standard that it crosses the line into antisemitism. Political scientist Alan Johnson spoke to this topic in a 2015 lecture. He explained that it constitutes the demonisation of Zionism as racism, an absolute rejection of Zionism, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

This comes to the crux of the issue: the hard Left does not want a two-state solution; they want a single Palestinian state. They want to wipe Israel off the map “from the river to the sea.” There is a distinction between criticising government policy and demanding the end of a country, the latter is something quite different.

Nit picking over the founding of a state is also different; for example, I believe the partition of India to be a mistake. I think that the creation of Pakistan and, eventually, Bangladesh has created problems for future generations, some of which may well turn out to be insurmountable. That does not mean that I want to see the end of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The partition was completed long ago and I do not dispute the right of each nation to exist. The hard Left, on the other hand, yearn for Israel to be a thing of the past.

Stating that one is against nationalism is a legitimate position, but there can be no exceptions. If one does not view Palestinian nationalism with the same critical eye as they do Jewish nationalism then, unless they are Palestinians, they are prejudiced. Sure, question the treatment of the Palestinians, there is quite a bit of room for improvement in that department, but don’t protest Israel’s right to exist; as Christopher Hitchens said: “Lots of states are founded upon injustices or foolishness or bad ideas, it doesn’t mean that anyone can just come and evict or destroy them. … But it should be a matter of principle, if Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that principle, I think, is suspect.”

The final aspect Johnson described is the BDS movement: the exclusion of, as he put it, “one state – and only one state – from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity: the little Jewish one.” The organisations and groups which have signed up to the boycott do not sell or promote Israeli goods, nor do they allow Israelis a platform. The supporters of the BDS movement treat all Israelis as responsible for the actions of the state of Israel, and they only apply their standard to Israel, other nations are ignored. Turkey, for example, refuses to acknowledge the Kurds’ right to self-determination and has occupied a substantial portion of Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, since 1974, yet there is no BDS movement against Turkey, just Israel. Combined with the other factors, this double standard is antisemitic.

The Left has a problem with this antisemitic anti-Zionism. Indeed, the more one veers toward the hard Left, the more antisemitism one uncovers. The Stop the War Coalition, for example, which Jeremy Corbyn chaired until he became leader of the Labour Party, routinely crosses into antisemitism. The student unions of several British universities have signed up to the BDS campaign. The National Union of Students website has a free downloadable handbook “designed to be a practical tool for activists who are setting up local BDS campaigns.” Three hundred and forty-three academics at English and Welsh universities pledged to boycott Israeli academia in October 2015. This is the hard Left. It’s what to be expected when one pathologically hates anything which has links to the West. This wasn’t as problematic when they were the kooky fringe, but now they control the party. Corbyn is the leader. The hard Left is the mainstream by definition.

Early in his tenure, Corbyn spoke with Labour Friends of Israel and managed to exit the meeting without allowing the word ‘Israel’ to pass his lips. Furthermore, since he assumed the leadership he has not explicitly disavowed his links – however tangential – to antisemites like Raed Salah, Dyab Abou Jahjah, Paul Eisen, Stephen Sizer, and violent terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This is because, in one way or another, they’re all fighting Israel: Corbyn found common ground and has chosen to ignore the rest.

The rise of the hard Left (and the Labour Party’s consequential problem with antisemitic anti-Zionism) stems from a predominantly Leftist delusion. We like to gaze through an idealistic lens, one which can obscure reality. The Right are relatively quick to expel fascists and extreme elements from within its ranks. This is a legacy of fascism. If one has a fascist as a member of one’s party, it is unsurprisingly easy for opponents to levy the charge of ‘fascists’ and spark images of the Holocaust in the public’s mind. The Left has used this tactic with remarkable efficacy, so the Right has had to learn quickly. The Left, on the other hand, has been appallingly slow at dealing with its own extreme fringe: communists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc. Reasoning for this is twofold: first, the Left has a benign belief in ‘re-education’ which, when combined with a stubborn confidence in one’s principles and the powers of persuasion, leads to the idea that eventually anyone can be persuaded to your position. Secondly, communism does not have a symbol as emotive as Auschwitz; thoughts of the Gulag pale in comparison to gas chambers and leather jackboots. This may be a fault of our education system; nevertheless, ‘communist’ is not as pejorative as ‘fascist’. Thus the Left give second and third chances, the Right rarely does the same. Had Corbyn held a belief at the opposite end of the political horseshoe it is tremendously unlikely that he would have won the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Authoritarians and totalitarians will not become social democrats. They will try to recruit those from the centre ground, and in doing so they may just poison the well with a vile strain of antisemitism. The danger of the hard-Left needs to be understood by the centre-Left. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening any time soon. All the same, I think it’s too late.

Advertisements

Pigs and Evidence

Friday 25 September 2015

The migrant crisis was meant to be the topic this week. I didn’t really want to write about ‘Pig-gate’. When the story first appeared on Twitter I said that I wouldn’t do it, but here we are. I’m about to write about it and you’re going to read it. Let’s just accept that neither of us come out of this in a positive light, our standards of political discourse have slipped, so let’s hold hands and step into the void…

During his university days at Oxford back in the late 1980s, David Cameron placed his genitalia in the mouth of a dead pig as part of an initiation ritual for the Piers Gaveston Society, an exclusive men-only dining society. If that is true, then it is odd and shows that students do crazy things to be accepted by their peers. But we already knew that. Acceptance aside, it is terribly unlikely to have impacted his less than perfect performance as prime minister. We already knew that too. And, as Stephen Bush explained in the New Statesman, it is strangely not illegal: “Bestiality involves penetration of the “vagina or anus” of a living animal. Necrophilia involves having sexual intercourse with a dead person. The mouth of a dead pig is a legal no man’s land.” So what’s the big deal here? Its attraction lies in its absurdity.

Number 10 has not officially denied it. Once you start denying things like this it could open the flood gates. There are people who think David Cameron is a lizard man. As much as I enjoy the image of him at a podium saying the words “Let me reassure the electorate, and David Icke, that I am most certainly not a lizard man,” I really think that that and indeed this is somewhat beneath politics in this country, whether it is true or not.

Let’s take the story seriously for a moment because so many people I respect have done exactly that and have used social media to pass it on. Where did it come from?

The story appears in a biography of David Cameron to be released this year. It is titled Call Me Dave and co-authored by Lord Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott. Lord Ashcroft is a multi-millionaire and long-time Conservative Party backer. He was offered the position of junior whip in the foreign office in David Cameron’s 2010 government as a thank you for giving so much time and money (nearly £8 million according to Ashcroft himself) to the party. He rejected the position, however, saying that he was insulted to be offered such a lowly role, writing that “It would have been better had he offered me nothing at all.” Such is the entitlement of the super-rich that when they essentially succeed in buying their way into government they believe the position offered to be low and take personal offence. Ashcroft believed money, not talent, is what was important and felt personally slighted when he learnt otherwise.

Isabel Oakeshott is an award winning journalist with The Sunday Times. That’s her positive bio and probably the one which will feature on the inside cover. What one should know about Oakeshott is that two years ago one of her sources – Vicky Pryce – was jailed. I know what you’re thinking: surely that’s no fault of hers, Joe? Well, it was: the source was jailed because of evidence given by her and her editor, John Witherow. The evidence was not pried out of their hands by a legal diktat, nor was it stolen in a raid. No, it was freely volunteered to the judge. Journalists must protect their sources at all cost because the relationship between a source and a journalist is based on trust. Otherwise how could, say, a dissident living in a despotic dictatorship be able to trust that the journalist in front of them will not reveal their identity, which may endanger their life and those of their family? Oakeshott violated this trust. The ridiculous thing is that they appealed the decision – as they should have done – but they then handed over the files before the appeal took place! Then she wrote a piece in The Sunday Times blaming Pryce for her own imprisonment! How can anyone trust what Oakeshott says or does again?

On the one hand you have a peer with “beef,” and on the other you have a journalist lacking in principles. Nonetheless, a story is not axiomatically a lie if told by crooked individuals. It could be based on sturdy foundations. So, who told them the story? A Tory backbencher who claims he was a contemporary of Cameron’s at Oxford; however, he has refused to be publicly named but says he’s seen a photograph. Anonymous sources are sometimes a necessity, but without said photograph or a corroborator the story’s foundations are looking decidedly shaky. Luckily, for all of the parties involved, the story broke in a newspaper; hence, this newspaper is backing them up with its good name, its credibility, and the expertise that comes from years of ethical, objective investigative journalism. So, the newspaper has risked its reputation to put this story out, correct? Well, no, the book was only serialised in the newspaper. They did no further fact checking and merely printed what was in the book. The foundations are shaking themselves loose. It is so improbable that the story is true at this point that the only thing that can save it is the newspaper’s good name; so, what is the name of the bastion of journalistic excellence putting their moral weight behind the story? The Daily Mail. Ah, the story seems to have all but retracted itself.

This reminded me of an anecdote Hunter S. Thompson tells in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72 which has been flying about on social media as Pig-gate came to light. Supposedly, one of Lyndon Johnson’s first political campaigns in Texas was getting a bit too close for his liking, so he “told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.”

“Christ, we can’t get a way calling him a pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested.  “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”

“I know,” Johnson replied.  “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”

I hope you understand why I wanted to ignore this story and hope that everybody regained their collective sanity. It was unlikely to be true and not worth the time I had to put into it; hence, I forgot about it and went back to researching the migrant crisis.


“Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in,” says Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone in The Godfather: Part III.

I got pulled back in when I noticed the people most enthusiastically spreading the story. These were the same people who shouted “smear” when I and others raised objections about Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy for the Labour Party due to the unsavoury company he keeps. Stephen Daisley termed it nicely in his column for STV News:

The hypocrisies of this episode are boundless. The Corbynistas, who cry “smear” at every fresh revelation about Jeremy, jihad and the Jews, are gleefully retweeting a single-sourced claim from the Daily Mail.

The quandary here is that people – especially, it seems, those of my generation – appear to lose their critical faculties and sway according to their predilections and what they want to be true. To these people Jeremy Corbyn must be defended at all costs and, ergo, everyone else attacked mercilessly. Everyone is held to a higher standard than Corbyn because he is working towards the greater good.  For an example of what I mean, go to Twitter and search for the words “Liz Kendall Tory” and witness how Corbyn supporters debated campaign policies with another candidate during the leadership race (here is a link for those of you not on Twitter).

I got frustrated with the spreading of the Cameron story not because I am any kind of fan of his, but because the truth should win out. If someone is accused of something they did not do, I see injustice. Likewise, if they are accused of something which they have done then I think they should be judged accordingly. Corbyn supporters do not work within these basic parameters because he is working for the greater good. He is holier than thou. His cause is held above all others and his actions are therefore deemed necessary. This is leader worship based upon denial and revisionism. Imagine, if you will, asking a Corbyn supporter whether they had heard the radio interview where Corbyn refused five times to take the opportunity to condemn the actions of the IRA. The response you would receive would be an equivocal: no, that didn’t happen. Should you direct them to the clip on the BBC website and play it through to the point where he got so flustered that he hung up, you’ll be told that this is all part of the mainstream media’s attack on him. Should they accept that it happened they will then try to explain away why he wouldn’t condemn terrorism and cheerfully spout off some nonsense about dialogue and helping the peace process, not acknowledging their previous positions of denial or conspiracy theory. A full reverse ferret with bells on.

Martin Robbins wrote a brilliant article on Little Atoms last week highlighting this penchant for conspiracy theory. He used Richard Hofstadter’s seminal 1963 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics to explain how Corbyn supporters are drawn from the same conspiratorial mindset as those who consider Nigel Farage the saviour of the UK or Donald Trump as someone who will make the USA “great again.” I know Hofstadter’s essay intimately having spent hours studying it for my postgraduate thesis – the title of which is a play on Hofstadter’s own (and can be found here) – and I had to reconsider my position after reading Robbins’ article.

I thought that Corbyn supporters were the disillusioned and the disenfranchised. I thought that they could be persuaded, with reason and logic, to see that Corbynism is illogical and would lead both the Left and the UK in general down a disastrous path. I thought, naively as it happens, that if spoken to in the right tone and presented with the evidence Corbyn’s current supporters would admit they were wrong and would help us and our likeminded thinkers return the Left to its historical positions of anti-totalitarianism and pro-human rights. I can now see how wrongheaded that thinking really was.

Should you ask a Corbyn supporter if they think David Cameron’s has ever put his private parts into the mouth of a dead pig, one will receive a vociferous affirmative. This is because they believe that Cameron and his ilk are expected to debase themselves, what with them being all that’s wrong with society. However, by sacrifice and submission to  a greater cause, by breaking the monopolistic control that the right-wing media exhibits over the brainwashed general public, the true Left – the Corbynistas – can (and will) usher in a new leader who will rid our country of the evil in which it is currently engulfed, and welcome us into a new age of prosperity.

That’s the founding myth of Corbynmania and a perfect conspiracy theory. People who fall for these myths make everything fit their preconceived worldview, no wonder they believe the Daily Mail when it suits their interests.

Don’t read this as a crossing over to conservatism, I still believe in the foundations of the labour movement. This isn’t about Dave anymore, it’s not even about the long deceased pig; it’s about large swathes of the Left – my political home – giving up their critical faculties and surrendering in exchange for delusions. It does force me to ask a brutally honest question, though: is a government led by David Cameron preferential to one headed by Jeremy Corbyn? Does one want the pig or the hammer and sickle? The political landscape of the United Kingdom is beginning to look ever so bleak.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Foreign Policy Mess

Friday 4 September 2015

In the early years of this century, a coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom went ahead with military intervention in Iraq. The arguments in favour of leaving Saddam in power were rejected and they rallied support around the pretence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Those who considered that liberating Iraq from a fascist dictatorship was a good thing thought that once the anti-war Left came to terms with their loss, they would begin gazing through a humanitarian lens. Their campaign had been to prevent the war from beginning, thus, as it had started, it was believed that they would make the best out of a bad situation and fall back on the Left’s classical, fail-safe positions: anti-totalitarianism and pro-human rights. The Left of the 1970s and 1980s, for example, had been fervently against the rule of Saddam Hussein and routinely protested against the human rights abuses of his regime. Saddam had not changed in that period — human rights abuses continued unabated — so, surely, advocates of liberation thought, we would now all work together to help a broken country and its poor, downtrodden people who had lived under tyranny since the late 1960s.

Nothing of the sort happened. The anti-war Left stubbornly continued to protest the Iraq War, their momentum congealing into the toxic belief that anything the West touches is evil by definition and must be opposed. This was not a new phenomenon. The anti-war Left has a long history of opposing the West. During the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, for example, the anti-war Left saw no reason to prevent genocide if those wanting to put a stop to the mass killings included the West. The plight of the Iraqi people ever since the start of the Gulf War in 1990 had been nothing but a token in the anti-war Left’s ideological battle against the greater enemy — the West. In 2003, the anti-war Left started supporting those fighting against the coalition. Its members and its groups celebrated ‘the insurgency’. One of the leading groups — the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) — released a statement in favour of Iraqis resisting ‘by whatever means they find necessary’. Did it matter that this ‘insurgency’ was made up of former Baath Party members and suicide murderers from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq? No, they knew it did, but the warped logic of the anti-war Left embraced with open arms the concept of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. If you were against the coalition, if you were anti-West, then you were a comrade. The anti-war Left has continued down this path for the last twelve years and has turned a blind eye to those who want to kill Westerners, and especially those who want to kill Israelis and Jews.

I occasionally think about how different it would have been had the anti-war Left rid themselves of their self-imposed shackles and become the pro-human rights Left by supporting, at the very least, the anti-totalitarian dimension of the Iraq War. I routinely look with contempt at those commentators and politicians who decided against this noble idea and opted instead to continue organising Stop the War marches and rallies, rejecting liberalism and supporting Baathism and Islamism. Admittedly these people, until recently, were fringe politicians; however, the anti-war Left has reappeared in the Labour Party’s leadership race.

My dislike of Mr. Corbyn stems from his opinions about foreign policy and the company he has kept when discussing those issues, especially Israel and Palestine. Professor Alan Johnson put it best in an essay for the New Statesman recently when he wrote that

This corrupting ideology can be called “campism”. It has caused parts of the left to abandon universal progressive values rooted in the Enlightenment and sign up instead as foot soldiers in what they see as the great contest between – these terms change over time […] – “Progressive” versus “Reactionary” nations, “Imperialism” versus “Anti-Imperialism”, “Oppressed” versus “Oppressor” peoples, “The Empire” versus “The Resistance”, or simply “Power” versus “The Other”.

Again and again, the curse of campism has dragged the political left down from the position of intellectual leader and agenda-setter to that of political irrelevance, or worse, an apologist for tyranny.

Only when we register the grip of this ideology will we understand why some leftwingers march around London waving placards declaring “We are all Hezbollah now!”. Only the power of the ideology accounts for the YouGov poll that showed 51 per cent of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believe America is the “greatest single threat to world peace”, and one in four think a “secretive elite” controls the globe.

Writing in The Spectator, James Forsyth understated the issue when he described Mr. Corbyn as ‘Michael Foot without the anti-fascist record.’ By choosing to share platforms with certain people, Mr. Corbyn has given tacit support to extremists, if not fascists. Mr. Corbyn is, therefore, indifferent to fascism when it presents itself as the oppressed, anti-imperialist, reactionary resistance to the hegemony of the West – even more so if it is specifically against the United States or Israel.  Not having a record of fighting fascism is one thing, indifference is quite another. ‘I tried’ versus ‘I don’t care’. Take, for example, what Mr. Corbyn said on PressTV after the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011:

This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

Can’t we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper? The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.

Put aside that Mr. Corbyn was appearing on PressTV – a propaganda arm of the Islamist regime in Iran. Let us also ignore that Mr. Corbyn questions whether it was actually bin Laden that was killed and that this is possibly why the United States does not want to release the photographs (see the full clip here). Furthermore, let us overlook that Mr. Corbyn said that the attempt to free the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban was an attack on the country, and that he clearly does not have a clue about – nor, I presume, wish to understand – why Islamists despise the West. Can you see what Mr. Corbyn did? He morally equated the September 11 attacks with the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and the death of Osama bin Laden. Why? He did this because he wants to paint the picture that the United States is just as evil as any terrorist, especially someone like bin Laden. In doing this he has created the notion that the USA has committed crimes equal to al-Qaeda. That they’re even. You think al-Qaeda is evil? Well take a look at your own country and sort out your own affairs before you comment on those of another people! I’m sure I don’t need to explain why this is wrong so I will merely point out that the intent of Jihadist attacks is to kill civilians specifically, at no point during the Iraq War or the Afghan War did the US have that aim. There is a huge moral difference between the two. I loathe Mr. Corbyn because he does not understand or acknowledge this difference. (For those who say that this is 2011 and Mr. Corbyn has grown since then, here is a recent example of Corbyn morally equating the coalition with ISIS – this time on Putin’s propaganda channel, Russia Today in 2014.)

There are numerous other points on Mr. Corbyn’s record, for example, blaming the USA and NATO for the Ukrainian crisis, not Vladimir Putin’s aggressive imperial nationalism, and believing that any and all support for the Ukraine is folly. I would like to briefly highlight a few people who, in the past, he has welcomed to the United Kingdom with open arms. According to Mr. Corbyn, Raed Salah “represents his people extremely well and his is a voice that must be heard.” In 2007, Salah was found guilty of spreading the blood libel – the ancient antisemitic accusation that the Jews use the blood of gentile children in their Passover matzos. Mr. Corbyn ignored this and other comments Salah had made when he invited him to tea on the terrace in 2012. When asked, Mr. Corbyn said he could not remember meeting a man by the name of Dyab Abou Jahjah, but there is a photograph of them sitting together. Jahjah has also recently spoken of his “collaboration” with Mr. Corbyn who is “absolutely a political friend.” Jahjah has said that he counts “every death of an American, British or Dutch soldier as a victory”; he’s also added that homosexuals are “Aids spreading faggots”. Finally, Mr. Corbyn has said that Hezbollah and Hamas are “friends”, arguing that the latter are not terrorists.

Supporters of Mr. Corbyn claim that he acknowledges when one has to open a dialogue and that these are smears by the Tory establishment to discredit him. The latter is clearly incorrect as a smear is a claim based upon a false accusation and these have all been proven. The claim that this is the opening of much needed dialogue is more troubling and harks back to campism. The common cause these groups share with Mr. Corbyn is being, in one form or another, pro-Palestine. Israel is considered a part of the West, so must be opposed and those groups fighting against it should be given support, even if those groups are viciously anti-Zionist or antisemitic. The issue with saying that this is a process of dialogue is that nobody has been able to find an instance of Mr. Corbyn speaking with the other side since his election in 1983. A dialogue is not a dialogue when it is one-sided, then it is merely a conversation between likeminded individuals. This is no dialogue, so that is no defence.  Free speech dictates that these people not be censored, but –as many universities are finding nowadays – if you lend these people your good name then you are all but supporting their views, especially if an opposition is nowhere to be found and you don’t unflinchingly condemn their immoral beliefs. There is a difference between saying ‘you can’t speak’ and ‘I won’t speak with you’. This is a difference Mr. Corbyn understood in 2012 when he congratulated Ken Livingstone on refusing to share a platform with the far-right British National Party.

I’m sure that my opposition to Mr. Corbyn’s campism is as distinct as the anti-war feelings of those who were against attempting to free the Iraqi people from fascism. So, if Mr. Corbyn is announced as the leader of the Labour Party in September, should I do what I think the anti-war Left should have done back in 2003 and put aside my objections? Should I try to make the best out of a bad situation and continue to support the positive things which the Labour Party stands for while clearly rejecting Mr. Corbyn’s hideous campism?

The arguments are not comparable. The anti-war Left had to choose between:

a.) continuing to rally against an ongoing war and rejecting the opportunity to help Iraq and the Iraqi people.

b.) continuing to state that the war was wrong and that they were against it, but recognising that it has begun and diverting energy to giving humanitarian aid to needy Iraqis. Aiding the rebuilding of a country which had been described as a mass grave underground and a concentration camp above.

The decision that the anti-war Left and Mr. Corbyn, who is still a member of the Stop the War Coalition, had to make was help those in need or refuse to do so.

The decision which I and my likeminded contemporaries face is either:

a.) rally against the democratically elected leader of the opposition by continuing to point out the disastrous position in which Labour finds itself. If all is lost and the party becomes the playground of the StWC and the hard Left, then we will take our votes elsewhere. After all, we will have kept both our principles and our sanity intact. If the hard Left element fails of its own accord then we shall help to rebuild the party.

b.) continue to support the Labour Party regardless. Suppress any and all cognitive dissonance while repeating the old Labour mantra: “anything is better than a Tory government.” Convince ourselves that Corbyn is electable. Preach an inevitable Corbyn landslide in 2020. Keep an edible hat to hand just in case a Paddy Ashdown-esque statement escapes one’s lips on election night.

Friends of mine have approached me and whispered “don’t worry, sweetie – Jez is electable. You’ll see. Just stick with us.” My response is that even if Mr. Corbyn was certain to be the next prime minister it does not matter. Electability is irrelevant – this is a matter of principle. Campism is immoral, and we – my co-thinkers and I – refuse to compromise our principles for another depraved attempt at another man’s utopia. The position we hold is unambiguously anti-totalitarian. Whereas Mr. Corbyn’s is one which tolerates totalitarianism if it suits his interests. We believe all totalitarian regimes – communist, fascist, Islamist – should be opposed by whatever means we have at our disposal. Diplomacy and economic sanctions must come first and military intervention is always a last option, but it is an option. Furthermore, we believe deeply that human rights are international. Mr. Corbyn consistently associates with those who want to curb human rights because they support a cause close to his heart. It is imperative to remember that human rights are for everyone – they’re global or they do not mean anything. A government or even an opposition with a Corbynian foreign policy would be despicable and disastrous for the UK. It would place campism – an assorted hierarchy of anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli, self-hating anti-Western thought – above anti-totalitarianism and above human rights. The cry of ‘it’s for the greater good’ is often the cacophony one hears before the inevitable plunge into depravity. By all means enjoy the ride, but leave the rest of us out of it.