The Left has no idea how dumb and bigoted ‘free Palestine' sounds
Is there a more maddening slogan than 'Free, free Palestine'? It's inescapable. Wander into a city centre on a Saturday and you'll see swarms of the smug belting it out from behind their keffiyehs.
It hangs thick in the air of every campus quad. It's chanted like a godless prayer by the plummy white saviours of Palestine Action. And of course it rang out across Glastonbury at the weekend.
The eejits of Kneecap said it from inside their tricolour tea cosies. And Bob Vylan too. When he wasn't hollering for the death of the IDF, or telling us gammon that we'll never get our country back, he was barking: 'Free, free Palestine!'
The crowd went wild. Those three words induce a Pavlovian response in the faux-virtuous middle classes of the modern Left. No sooner does the grim cry hit their ear drums than they're out of seats and babbling along, making a spectacle of their moral rectitude.
It's partly the omnipresence of this tuneless motto that makes it so grating. It's the new 'Trans women are women' – a neo-religious mantra that the woke blather on a loop to show the world how righteous they are.
Its aim is less to raise awareness about Palestine than to raise awareness about the ethical perfection of the person saying it. They say 'free, free' but all I hear is 'me, me'.
But there's a bigger problem with this noise pollutant masquerading as a rallying cry: it is historically ignorant. Stunningly so. Nothing better captures the cluelessness of the Israelophobes than their unthinking utterance of this daft slogan.
Ask yourself: free Palestine from what? The impression given by this suffocating chant is that evil Israel has its jackboot on Palestine's throat.
Palestinians' right to statehood is being frustrated by those bastards in Tel Aviv, the keffiyeh classes will say. And it's high time to 'free, free' the Palestinian nation from the Israelis' deranged lust for every inch of the Holy Land.
This just isn't true. It's a caricature bordering on defamation. The truth is that the Palestinians have been offered their own free state many times. And each time, they've turned their noses up at it.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a two-state solution: one state for the Jews and one for Arabs. But the Arab nations said No. And when Israel declared independence in 1948, seven Arab armies invaded the newborn nation.
Remind people of this next time they wail that the two-state solution is dead. Yes, but it wasn't Israel that killed it – it was strangled at birth by Israel's enemies.
In 1993, the Oslo Accords tried to resuscitate the two-state solution. The Palestinian Authority was created. It was to enjoy self-governance over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – a nascent Palestinian state that might live in peace with Israel.
But it was scuppered, by the murderous antics of Palestinian militants and the autocratic tendencies of the Palestinian Authority itself.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad launched a wave of suicide bombings inside Israel to signal their bloody rejection of peace with Jews. And the PA descended into the cesspit of corruption.
It is the PA that denies liberty to Palestinians. This is summed up in the fact that Mahmoud Abbas is currently in the 20th year of his four-year term as President of Palestine. Free Palestine? I agree – from its own venal leaders.
Israel tried again. In 2005, then PM Ariel Sharon conceded more of the West Bank to Palestinian rule and handed over the entire Gaza Strip.
We know what happened next. Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 and turned it into a forever launch site for fascistic violence against the Jewish nation. This culminated in the pogrom of October 7 when a 6,000-strong army of Islamofascists invaded Israel to rape and murder Jews.
It is an unforgivable inversion of truth and reason to depict Israel as the thwarter of Palestinian liberty. It was Palestine's leaders, often with apocalyptic violence, who rejected statehood next to the Jewish State.
The Left's Israel-haters have no idea how dumb and bigoted their cheap sloganeering sounds. If Palestine is to be 'freed', it should be from the racist, misogynistic, homophobic militia that ruthlessly rules over Gaza, and the bent elites living it up in Ramallah.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
PETER TATCHELL: How can 5 words provoke more outrage than Israel's mass killing?
Something is seriously wrong when chanting five words provokes more outrage than Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza, including 15,000 children. Bob Vylan led crowds at Glastonbury in chants of 'Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces].' He said he was calling for a 'change in foreign policy.' Such a call is legitimate free speech but the way he expressed it is questionable. Although I am highly critical of Israel's (and Hamas's) war crimes, I would not have used those words. But from a Palestinian perspective, Israel is indiscriminately bombing their homes, shops, hospitals and schools. To them, those words are the equivalent to British people saying 'Death, death to the German airforce', as it bombed our cities during World War Two. If we defend the latter, why is a similar sentiment against the IDF over its war crimes so outrageous? Free speech includes the right to say offensive, and even appalling, things. But it does not include the right to make violent threats. 'Death, death to the IDF' comes very close to inciting the murder of Israeli soldiers, in response to their murder of innocent Palestinians. If it had been a call to kill specific Israeli personnel, the charge of incitement might be answerable in court. But a generic call for death probably would not. Besides, no one at Glastonbury is going to kill an Israeli soldier as a result of Vylan's words. It's protest rhetoric; not intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, if a neo-Nazi band urged 'Death, death to black people' most of us would find that unacceptable. We'd agree it was tantamount to inciting murder and could pose a real threat to the safety of Black Britons from violent far right groups. The BBC had no idea what Vylan was going to say. But to cover itself, it posted on-screen warnings about discriminatory language during his set. It could have switched coverage when the offensive chants were heard, which may have been the best option. But that would have left the BBC open to the charge of censorship. Either way, the real issue is the moral obligation to speak out against war crimes. That's what Vylan did, even if his words were outrageous.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Who are the key Labour rebels in the revolt against Starmer's welfare bill?
Keir Starmer's welfare reforms hang by a thread the day before a vote that could define his premiership. The prime minister was almost certainly heading for his first Commons defeat in government before a last-minute deal reached last week between government officials and leading rebels. However, the result remains uncertain, with a series of Labour MPs warning on Monday that they could not back the bill in its current form. Many are angry about the fact that the controversial four-point system to qualify for personal independence payments (Pips) will take effect in November 2026, no matter the outcome of a government review into the system. With ministers still unsure of winning the vote, Labour whips were calling colleagues throughout Monday to gauge support levels. One of the problems for party managers is that opposition is coming from a large and disparate group without one clear leader. But here are six of the Labour figures – inside and outside parliament – whose voices are being listened to particularly closely. MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch As head of the cross-party Treasury select committee, Hillier's parliamentary role is more usually that of impartial inquisitor rather than rabble-rousing rebel. So, her name as the first signatory on last week's wrecking amendment gave the rebellion the momentum it needed to force the government into concessions. It was unsurprising, therefore, that Hillier was one of the small group of MPs who thrashed out a compromise deal last week. Her support for that deal was vital in persuading the government they had done enough to sway other moderates. But her questions in the House of Commons on Monday over the details of the concessions reflected an unease about the details which is shared by many of her colleagues. MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth Along with Hillier, Abrahams, the chair of the work and pensions select committee, helped negotiate the compromise package struck last week. But also like Hillier, her comments in the Commons on Monday suggested she was still unconvinced that they go far enough. 'The [Pip] review should determine both the new process, the new points and the new descriptors,' she said. 'We shouldn't pre-determine it at four points at the moment.' Abrahams is understood to be more hardline in her opposition to the compromise she helped agree than Hillier, and whips will be working hard to talk her round. MP for Sheffield Heeley Having been sacked from the cabinet last November, Haigh has found a new lease of life as unofficial leader of the soft left on the Labour backbenches. Although she has not played the most visible role of the rebels, she has been acting as their unofficial whip, counting MPs' votes and helping to decide the wording of the wrecking amendment. Haigh was thought to have been mollified by the government's concessions last week, but on Monday her allies were criticising the government for the way they had handled the fallout. MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge For the last few weeks, Tidball has remained largely silent on the welfare bill, despite being one of parliament's only visibly physically disabled MPs. Although she had not put her name to the rebel amendment, she played an important role trying to persuade the Treasury to make concessions, culminating in what is reported to have been an angry conversation between her and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Tidball broke her silence on Sunday, detailing her objections to the bill in a piece for the Guardian. She made an impassioned contribution to Monday's debate in which she argued: 'Having no public consultation of these plans excludes the voice of disabled people.' However, she has not yet said which way she intends to vote and her final decision will be keenly watched by Labour whips. MP for York Central A persistent thorn in Starmer's side, Maskell has emerged as a softly spoken champion of the left of the party. From winter fuel payments, to overseas aid cuts, to compensation for Waspi women, Maskell has often been one of the government's most eloquent left-wing opponents. Party managers expect the MP for York Central to line up against them on Tuesday. If they persuade her not to, they could peel off a large chunk of the remaining rebels. Mayor of Greater Manchester When Keir Starmer is in trouble, Andy Burnham has a knack of making himself prominent. The Greater Manchester mayor does not have a vote in Tuesday's debate, but his intervention over the weekend, telling MPs not to vote for a '50% U-turn', will have been noticed in Downing Street and on the soft left of the party. Burnham's position was echoed on Monday by his London counterpart, Sadiq Khan, pitting the country's two most powerful Labour politicians outside Westminster against the prime minister.
Rhyl Journal
26 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
