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
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496