The Left has no idea how dumb and bigoted ‘free Palestine' sounds
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
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Did my MP vote against Starmer's plan to cut benefits?
Sir Keir Starmer 's welfare bill has managed to scrape past its second reading as he fended off what is believed to be the most significant rebellion since he became prime minister a year ago. The bill passed its second reading by 335 ayes to 260 noes, a majority of 75, with 49 Labour MPs voting against the welfare cuts which have caused controversy. Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms announced a last-ditch concession that plans to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP) – which had been the central pillar of the government's reforms – would not take place until after a review of the benefit had concluded. The government had initially planned to change the eligibility criteria for disability benefits for all new claimants from November 2026 but now the new system will not come into force until the review has concluded. It comes just days after the government watered down the legislation for the first time on Thursday, excluding all existing claimants from changes to PIP in a chaotic U-turn. Sir Keir's welfare bill has continuously caused controversy as a growing rebel camp, led at the time by Dame Meg Hillier, putting forward an initial amendment which forced the government to U-turn from its initial plans. While she voted to back the legislation, almost 50 Labour MPs expressed their discontent with the bill still. One key voice in the 'noes' was MP Ms Maria Tidball, born with a congenital disability affecting all four limbs, who broke down in tears as she delivered an impassioned speech criticising the welfare cuts. Another key rebel, Rachel Maskell, said disabled people will have been worried watching the debate. The MP for York Central said: 'I'm obviously really sad that the Bill went through but I think my greatest sadness is that disabled people will have been looking on and seeing Parliament debating their futures, and I think they'll be incredibly distressed when they see the way that Parliament was today. 'That's the thing that tugs at me, because I think ultimately we've got huge responsibility to disabled people and they weren't served well by the department today.' Sir Stephen Timms later said, in response to concerns over a two tier system, that it was 'completely normal in social security.' 'PIP replaced DLA (disability living allowance) in 2013 but half a million adults are still on DLA today. That doesn't cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it's often the fairest way to make a major change.' Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall said welfare reform was particularly 'difficult' for Labour because the party cared 'passionately' about the subject. Asked what the main lessons were from the backbench rebellion over proposed cuts, she told broadcasters: 'Welfare reform is always really difficult, perhaps especially for Labour governments. 'It's something we care passionately about.'
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Alcohol advertising ban dropped after industry backlash
A planned ban on alcohol advertising has been dropped after a backlash from industry. Public health measures considered for inclusion in the government's ten-year plan for the NHS have been left out after pushback from Treasury and business ministers concerned about the impact on the economy. Tougher health warnings telling drinkers that alcohol causes cancer are being considered, but there is unlikely to be a blanket requirement for them to be carried on bottles. Ministers have considered a model in Ireland, where alcohol packaging will soon be required to carry labelling warning of a 'direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers'. The plan is expected to include suggestions for exploring such a policy. Health officials had originally hoped to include a minimum unit price for alcohol in the plan, importing a Scottish policy that means a pint of beer cannot be sold for less than about £1.50 or a bottle of vodka for less than £20. However, this was vetoed at an early stage, while alcohol advertising restrictions remained in play. This could have been either a total ban or a 9pm watershed designed to bring alcohol into line with rules being introduced this year for unhealthy food. The Times understands that alcohol advertising restrictions have now been dropped from the plan to be published on Thursday after public health measures were watered down. • Restaurants to report diners' calorie counts in obesity drive The development followed a furious response from the industry, which urged ministers not to add to burdens after a rise in national insurance and the minimum wage. Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, told ministers of 'extreme concern' in the industry, criticising advertising restrictions as 'disproportionate, misguided and economically damaging' and warning they could lead to bankruptcies. She pointed to figures showing under-age drinking at record lows as young people turned away from alcohol. 'The beer and pub sector is not just an economic engine — it is a cornerstone of British culture and sport,' McClarkin said. 'These proposals were not included in the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto and risk being widely perceived as anti-growth and anti-business.' Health campaigners condemned the retreat on advertising restrictions. Jem Roberts of the Institute of Alcohol Studies said: 'One of the main goals of the ten-year health plan was to 'shift from treatment to prevention' — yet if reports are accurate, all of the prevention policies for one of the leading causes of death have been stripped out. 'That would be a baffling contradiction at the heart of a plan meant to prioritise prevention.' He said 'alcohol giants making billions from harm will be rubbing their hands in glee', adding: 'Ministers must now stand up to private corporate profits, protect the most vulnerable and, if alcohol is too 'difficult' for the ten-year plan, commit to a standalone alcohol strategy where all evidence is reviewed and all cards put openly on the table.' Campaigners have been warning of a rise in alcohol deaths. More than 10,000 people a year die directly from alcohol in the UK and deaths in England are at record highs. Thousands more cancer deaths are thought to be attributable to alcohol. Treatment costs the NHS at least £3.5 billion a year.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer must now take the road to political recovery
After a series of open revolts by his backbenchers – the last so powerful that it overwhelmed his government's ability to withstand it – and having executed a variety of hand-brake turns, U-turns, and very nearly leaving the highway altogether, the prime minister finds himself at a fork in the road. Behind him is a milestone that reads '2 July 2024. The first Labour election victory since 2005.' Ahead of him, two routes. One, bearing left, is a dead end, as he must surely realise. He cannot carry on as he has in recent weeks, relegated to being a back-seat passenger with a succession of backbench rebels grabbing at the wheel. No prime minister can survive in such circumstances – as the recent history of the Conservative Party graphically reminds us. 'Chaos and confusion' was how Sir Keir Starmer derided it in opposition, as the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations gyrated around like broken shopping trolleys. Now, against all expectations, the prime minister has suffered some unfortunate traffic collisions of his own. Those who wish for the Labour government to succeed in taking difficult but necessary decisions in the national interest, as was always and apparently sincerely promised, are frankly dismayed that it should come to this. A critical friend has therefore to warn the prime minister of the parlous position he finds himself in, and so early in his time in office. The fiasco over the welfare bill acts as an exemplar of what has gone wrong – but which need not have done so. His government has now managed to push a greatly weakened version of its original welfare bill through the Commons, and with maximum pressure applied to the loyalty of his MPs. In many respects, it represents a defeat, if not a humiliation for Sir Keir. It should not have happened in this fashion, and he has not been well-served by his chancellor, it must be said. The aim of placing the social security system on a sustainable footing is well supported across the political spectrum. All agree there is a balance to be found between being fair to vulnerable people and to the taxpayers. There was an opportunity to create a better system, one that both kept the budget within realistic constraints, and which removed some of the present anomalies and flaws. Given time and attention, it might even have been a new Beveridge report, refounding the welfare state. It would – should – similarly command public confidence and cross-party consensus. Instead, we suffered a thinly camouflaged, Treasury-led exercise in finding £5bn in cuts because Rachel Reeves was in a hurry. She had, not for the first time, allowed herself insufficient room for manoeuvre on her own fiscal rules. Liz Kendall's reforming ambitions were left badly mauled as a result – but with them, Sir Keir's own authority and credibility. What's done is done, and now the prime minister needs to learn the lessons of recent events, and display the sort of grit and steely determination in steering his party that he did in the early years of his time as leader of the opposition. That is the road to political recovery he can take, and there is an extremely happy precedent – himself. After all, Sir Keir has done a restoration job before, and he should remind himself of that. Against all odds, as has been too easily forgotten, perhaps even by Sir Keir himself, he picked up the pieces after the Corbyn debacle of 2019, when no one else could or wanted to, and led his party to that famous triumph a year ago. When he was elected leader of the party, it was in the middle of the Covid lockdown, and no one much was interested in anything he wished to say. Labour looked to be out for a decade, or longer. Certainly, Sir Keir was greatly assisted by the antics of his Tory opponents, but there was also nothing preordained about the last general election. He and his team transformed a Conservative majority of 80 into a Labour overall majority of 174 – unprecedented in modern times. The position now is eminently recoverable. Unlike in opposition, Sir Keir can do things, and has the whole machinery of government at his disposal. He can learn the lessons of recent events. He and those around him need to rediscover their political instincts and their sure touch for public opinion. He needs to work harder on his 'messaging' – astonishingly, his government has not yet crafted a definitive 'narrative', something that can guide his ministers, reassure his party and persuade the voters to stay on board. Clearly, he needs to engage more with the parliamentary party, and ensure he has a team with sufficient political nous close to him in No 10 and around the cabinet table. He cannot afford to be blindsided again in the way he also was with the rise of Reform UK in the local elections, and the pensioners' winter fuel payment, the worst disaster of all. Conversely, Labour successes in the NHS, in investing for growth, rebuilding links with Europe, and in trade and foreign affairs, are there to be boasted about. He also needs a wordsmith who can help him avoid some of the gaffes he has needlessly made, notably that 'island of strangers' moment. He has to regain his authority over his party – and remind them who they owe their seats to, and the reality of the ultimate catastrophe of handing power to Nigel Farage. There is much more to be done. On schools, social care, social security, local services, housing, the cost of living and irregular migration, the public is impatient for that word we heard so often this time last year: 'change'. The good news is that Sir Keir still has time on his side – but he does need to keep his eye on the road, and, as it happens, the Treasury.
