Jewish Chronicle columnist expresses "pleasure" over death of peace activist

Can you imagine if a Muslim columnist had written something similar? Geoffrey Alderman should be ashashamed.

Can you imagine the reaction if I wrote a column expressing my "pleasure" at the strangulation to death of an unarmed, peace activist at the hands of Islamist terrorists? I suspect I'd be clearing my desk here at New Statesman Towers rather than writing this blog post. I'd have columnists, bloggers and activists up in arms over my heartless and sickening remarks, demanding my resignation or sacking. Perhaps I'd be accused of being an "Islamist" or an "extremist" myself.

After all, which non-extremist revels in the murder of civilians? Well, if you really want to know, Geoffrey Alderman, that's who. Alderman is the writer and historian who defended Israel's war on Gaza, and the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians, on the basis that "every Gazan citizen who voted for Hamas" was a "legitimate" target for the IDF. (Can you imagine the response if a Muslim or Arab argued that "every Israeli citizen" who voted for Ariel Sharon was a legitimate target?)

On 13 May, however, Alderman went one step further, writing in his Jewish Chronicle column:


Few events -- not even the execution of Osama Bin Laden -- have caused me greater pleasure in recent weeks than news of the death of the Italian so-called "peace activist" Vittorio Arrigoni.

On Thursday 14 April, Arrigoni was murdered in Gaza by members of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ), who had him strangled and then dumped his body in a deserted Gaza apartment. This same group had previously had him kidnapped in order -- apparently -- to compel the Hamas government of Gaza to release the group's leader, Sheikh Abu al-Walid al-Maqdisi.

He added:

The death of a consummate Jew-hater must always be a cause for celebration.

This is not the language of a respectable or mainstream columnist or historian; this is the vile, heartless, bigoted language of the terrorists that Alderman claims to despise.

Yet the piece was published by the Jewish Chronicle. It is still there, unamended, on the JC website and defended by the Chronicle's editor, Stephen Pollard.

[Hat-tip: Harriet Sherwood of the Guardian.]

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows how her confidence has grown

After her Brexit speech, the PM declared of Jeremy Corbyn: "I've got a plan - he doesn't have a clue". 

The woman derided as “Theresa Maybe” believes she has neutralised that charge. Following her Brexit speech, Theresa May cut a far more confident figure at today's PMQs. Jeremy Corbyn inevitably devoted all six of his questions to Europe but failed to land a definitive blow.

He began by denouncing May for “sidelining parliament” at the very moment the UK was supposedly reclaiming sovereignty (though he yesterday praised her for guaranteeing MPs would get a vote). “It’s not so much the Iron Lady as the irony lady,” he quipped. But May, who has sometimes faltered against Corbyn, had a ready retort. The Labour leader, she noted, had denounced the government for planning to leave the single market while simultaneously seeking “access” to it. Yet “access”, she went on, was precisely what Corbyn had demanded (seemingly having confused it with full membership). "I've got a plan - he doesn't have a clue,” she declared.

When Corbyn recalled May’s economic warnings during the referendum (“Does she now disagree with herself?”), the PM was able to reply: “I said if we voted to leave the EU the sky would not fall in and look at what has happened to our economic situation since we voted to leave the EU”.

Corbyn’s subsequent question on whether May would pay for single market access was less wounding than it might have been because she has consistently refused to rule out budget contributions (though yesterday emphasised that the days of “vast” payments were over).

When the Labour leader ended by rightly hailing the contribution immigrants made to public services (“The real pressure on public services comes from a government that slashed billions”), May took full opportunity of the chance to have the last word, launching a full-frontal attack on his leadership and a defence of hers. “There is indeed a difference - when I look at the issue of Brexit or any other issues like the NHS or social care, I consider the issue, I set out my plan and I stick to it. It's called leadership, he should try it some time.”

For May, life will soon get harder. Once Article 50 is triggered, it is the EU 27, not the UK, that will take back control (the withdrawal agreement must be approved by at least 72 per cent of member states). With MPs now guaranteed a vote on the final outcome, parliament will also reassert itself. But for now, May can reflect with satisfaction on her strengthened position.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.