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

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.