Britain’s new far-left party may be Jeremy Corbyn’s undoing


Britain’s new far-left party may be Jeremy Corbyn’s undoing

Ben Cohen


For a new generation of activists, the former Labour Party leader is something of a fossil, no matter his common bond of anti-Israel sentiment.

British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn, April 22, 2020. Credit: U.K. Parliament/Jessica Taylor, Creative Commons via Wikimedia Commons.

Like a stubborn stain that clings to your shirt no matter how many times you venture to the dry cleaners, Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the ruling Labour Party in the United Kingdom, refuses to disappear.

Not a few pundits believed that with Corbyn’s expulsion from the Labour Party in 2024 over his continuing denial of the antisemitism scandals that plagued his term, he would fade into obscurity. But he continues to sit in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament in an independent alliance with four Islamist colleagues who were recently elected in heavily Muslim constituencies on anti-Israel platforms.

Last weekend, Corbyn was in the city of Liverpool, England, for the inaugural conference of Britain’s latest far-left experiment, known as “Your Party.” In theory, at least, the launch of a new vehicle for the far left should fill critical observers with dread, particularly at a time when extremists are making deepening political strides in an unhappy, polarized Britain. What we saw in Liverpool, however, was more like a form of comedy.

Delegates, who were decked out in the sorts of colors you would normally encounter in a bowl of Froot Loops, yelled and squabbled over procedure. Their voices echoed awkwardly throughout a cavernous hall that organizers claimed would fill with more than 13,000 activists, yet attracted only about 2,500. No decisions—on the name of the new party, on its leadership structure, on who was permitted to actually attend the conference and who wasn’t—were reached without acrimony. For many of those watching the debates or catching clips on social media, it was all deliciously reminiscent of the famed scene in Monty Python’s 1979 comedy “Life of Brian,” where the Judean People’s Front sit in an amphitheater showering abuse on the People’s Front of Judea.

In truth, we should not be at all surprised that Your Party’s first conference will be remembered for its recriminations and infighting. This has been the party’s story since its conception earlier this year. Ironically, the most immediate victim may be Corbyn himself.

Now in his mid-70s, Corbyn is no longer the cherished leader who was serenaded with chants of “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn” at the Glastonbury music festival in 2017. For a new generation of activists, he is something of a fossil. His bid to lead the party, as well as his opposition to the collective leadership model that was eventually adopted, was coldly rejected by the conference. His very public rift with the other key figure in Your Party—the far-left Member of Parliament Zarah Sultana, who resigned from Labour in July—has done him no favors. Increasingly, Corbyn is presented within Your Party circles as an intemperate, elderly white man trying to muzzle the voice of a young Muslim woman.

Official portrait of British Member of Parliament Zarah Sultana, July 23, 2024. Credit: Jessica Taylor via Wikimedia Commons.

Some of the issues dividing Corbyn from Sultana are internal, stemming from her decision over the summer to announce the party’s formation without his signoff, along with her funneling of more than $1 million in supporter donations into a bank account under her control. Some of them are more overtly political, getting to the heart of what still divides the secular revolutionary left from the Islamists it has so enthusiastically made common cause with. As the Your Party delegates were rudely reminded last weekend, Islamists—whether they are Hamas terrorists or members of the British parliament—believe that there are only two genders, male and female, and that the latter must always be subordinate to the former. Despite declaring herself a proud Muslim, on this question, Sultana is firmly in the secular camp, which holds that there are multiple genders, a message reinforced by multiple speakers from the podium.

In addition, and this is really quite incredible, several of the delegates in Liverpool accused Corbyn, who turned the Labour Party into a living hell for its Jewish supporters, of not being sufficiently inimical toward Zionism. Again, this dispute is rooted in a generational pivot. For boomer leftists like Corbyn, it has been routine to include boilerplate condemnations of Jew-hatred alongside their declared hostility to Zionism. For this new generation, the term “antisemitism” is abruptly divorced from its past, understood only as a suspicious construct designed to censor pro-Palestinian voices by reinforcing supposedly Zionist notions of “Jewish privilege,” thus perpetuating “Jewish supremacy.” This trend has been particularly marked since the Hamas pogrom in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

As well as being denounced as a crypto-Zionist, Corbyn failed to win the leadership of Your Party. Instead, delegates chose a laughably unwieldy collective leadership structure that excludes serving parliamentarians from the top roles on its executive committee. Corbyn also failed to prevent members of far-left sects like the Socialist Workers’ Party from joining Your Party, in another victory for Sultana, though one she may well end up regretting when these same sects inevitably turn their ire upon her.

Corbyn’s predicament is another example of how, as an 18th-century French writer put it amid the bloodshed that followed the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy, “the revolution devours its children.” In his case, it is perhaps fitting that his latest difficulties emanate from the objections of his ostensible supporters and not from those inside and outside the British Jewish community, who have long opposed his pro-Hamas, anti-NATO, pro-Russian policies and his indulgence of the most vicious antisemites.

Your Party’s current hero is the 34-year-old mayor-elect of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who was hailed by Sultana for having secured a win “in the very heart of Empire,” thereby ensuring that “a new politics emerges.” Like Sultana, Mamdani comes from the ranks of the far left. Both of them are likely to discover in the coming years that their erstwhile comrades will try to grasp them in a bear hug, lest they be tempted to make the sorts of compromises needed to govern effectively.

Still, what unites these quarrelsome leftists is an unshakeable commitment to the Palestinian cause and a determination to make “Palestine” the standout issue in a package that also includes environmentalism, wealth redistribution and rejecting efforts to defend against Russian and Chinese destabilization efforts as “militarism” and “imperialism.” If history is any guide, then Your Party will go the same way as other initiatives in Britain to create a left-wing party outside Labour’s environs—straight into its trash bin.

Even so, as we’ve learned bitterly over the last two years, the far left doesn’t need to be in government to make life miserable, particularly for Jewish communities. They can do exactly that from their perches in the universities, municipal government, national legislatures and non-governmental organizations. Judging by the antics in Liverpool, Your Party may well be headed for organizational and electoral catastrophe, but beware. Its spirit will live on.


Ben Cohen is a senior analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and director of FDD’s rapid response outreach, specializing in global antisemitism, anti-Zionism and Middle East/European Union relations. A London-born journalist with 30 years of experience, he previously worked for BBC World and has contributed to Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, Tablet and Congressional Quarterly. He was a senior correspondent at The Algemeiner for more than a decade and is a weekly columnist for JNS. Cohen has reported from conflict zones worldwide and held leadership roles at the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. His books include Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through 21st Century Antisemitism.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


MERRY CHRISTMAS From Israel – NAZARETH

MERRY CHRISTMAS From Israel – NAZARETH


This is how Israel “apartheid” looks like
.

Merry Christmas. Welcome to the city of Nazareth on Christmas. Walking through beautiful and ornate streets at night. Special and amazing Christmas trees.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Why the Rabbi’s Daughter Has a Christmas Tree

Why the Rabbi’s Daughter Has a Christmas Tree

DEBBY WALDMAN


How I came to embrace my husband’s holiday
.

TABLET MAGAZINE

When I was about 7 or 8, I was so desperate for a Christmas tree that when I found one discarded by the curb at the end of December, I dragged it home. I was still young enough to believe that it was finances and not faith that had kept Mom and Dad from getting us a tree of our own.

“We’re Jewish,” they reminded me. “Jews don’t have Christmas trees. And it wouldn’t look right for the rabbi to have a Christmas tree in a house that the temple owns.”

This conversation took place on the front steps. I wasn’t allowed inside until I dragged the tree back up the street to where I’d found it, because it also wouldn’t look good to have a discarded Christmas tree outside the house that the temple owned.

The following year I came up with a workaround that involved my menagerie of Schleich animals and plastic trees, which I curated as if they were an exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. I borrowed a couple of dime-sized shiny ball ornaments from my Catholic best friend. For tinsel I used dental floss—or maybe it was yarn. Mom and Dad didn’t notice, which meant I could have a Christmas tree forever.

It didn’t occur to me that a day would come when I would no longer want a Christmas tree, that I would find the idea as wrong as my parents did. I remember the exact moment it happened: Mom, my sister, and I were visiting some wealthy temple members—I’ll call them the Tannenbaums—for afternoon tea during Hanukkah. Prominently displayed in the Tannenbaum living room was an artificial table-top tree, a white, fuzzy, furry-looking fire hazard sporting shiny ball ornaments strikingly similar to the ones on the miniature molded plastic tree atop my bookcase.

Mrs. Tannenbaum called it a Hanukkah bush. In the privacy of our car on the way home, Mom called it a travesty. “It’s a Christmas tree,” she scoffed. “And a Christmas tree doesn’t belong in a Jewish house.”

Had I been aware that even Theodor Herzl had a Christmas tree, I would have defended the Tannenbaums (and myself) by explaining to Mom that many wealthy German Jews who had been in the United States for generations had adopted the tradition, as had more recent landsmen desperate to assimilate. But I was decades away from that knowledge, and the disdain in Mom’s voice shamed me so profoundly that the first thing I did upon returning home was to strip the Schleich and vow to never again have a tree in my house.

“A Christmas tree doesn’t belong in a Jewish house.”

Even after I fell in love with a non-Jewish man, I maintained my no-tree policy. As with any marriage—interfaith or otherwise—Dave and I made compromises. For me, the biggest was that I agreed to raise our children in his hometown: Edmonton, thousands of miles and a border away from the tightknit Jewish community where I grew up in New York state. Dave’s was agreeing that we didn’t have to have a Christmas tree as long as we lived in Edmonton and could celebrate with his parents, in the house where he grew up. We made the deal shortly before our wedding in 1992.

It never occurred to me that when we had children, they would consider Christmas their holiday. At home we observed Jewish holidays. On Shabbat we lit candles and blessed the wine and homemade challah. I brought Elizabeth and Noah to Shabbat services and Hebrew school, and both had b’nai mitzvah ceremonies. The only time they went to church was when my mother-in-law signed them up for a weeklong day camp one year when they were in elementary school.

Dave isn’t religious but he loves celebrating Christmas, and he wanted to share his favorite parts of the holiday with his children. When Elizabeth and Noah were young, he helped them write a letter to Santa every year. They’d leave it on a tray by the fireplace, along with cookies and milk. After tucking the kids in, Dave would disguise his handwriting and leave a letter next to the empty plate and glass, where Elizabeth and Noah would discover it on Christmas morning before we went to their grandparents’ house for brunch and gifts.

I can’t remember the first time Elizabeth asked why we couldn’t have a tree, only that she was young enough that she was satisfied when I pointed that we were Jewish and that Grandma and Granddad had a tree and depended on her and her brother to help decorate.

As she got into her late teens and 20s, that answer became less acceptable.

“It’s my house, too,” she would point out, but Dave and I stood our ground: As long as we could celebrate Christmas at his parents’ house, we wouldn’t have a tree.

Still, every once in a while he would make a comment about how a Christmas tree was a pagan symbol, that it wasn’t religious at all, that plenty of people who didn’t celebrate the holiday had trees.

“It’s called a Christmas tree,” I’d remind him, and that would end the discussion.

In the early days of our marriage, I couldn’t or didn’t want to see far enough into the future to a time when we wouldn’t have Christmas at his parents’ house. COVID-19 changed that. Our province, Alberta, went into lockdown on Dec. 8, 2020. No indoor gatherings were allowed. The kids wouldn’t be able to go to their grandparents’ house to decorate a tree, much less open presents over brunch on Christmas morning. For the first time in our marriage, we’d be on our own for the holiday.

Instead of trying to imagine a Christmas tree in my living room, I tried to imagine what it would be like if I couldn’t observe my holidays in my house, if I couldn’t light Shabbat candles, invite friends over for Rosh Hashanah dinner, host a Seder, decorate the house for Hanukkah. It wouldn’t feel like my home.

That’s why, when Elizabeth insisted shortly after the lockdown announcement that we had to have a Christmas tree, I didn’t say no.

“Take it up with Dad,” I said. “If you guys want a tree, go ahead, but I don’t want anything to do with it.”

I told myself my hostility was a function of my fear of being left with the care and feeding of the tree, not so far-fetched given that Dave, a biochemist, is so wrapped up in his research that household duties inevitably fall on me. But he surprised me: Not only did he and Elizabeth order a tree, they put it up, and he took it down before the middle of January.

Having a tree in the living room was disconcerting. Dave and Elizabeth staged it in front of the picture window. I thought of hanging a sign, “This is a Jewish house,” in case anyone got confused when they saw the tree coexisting with the mezuzah on the front door and the hanukkiah decal in the window. I contemplated explaining that the tree was not my idea. But in the end, I realized the only person troubled by the juxtaposition was me.

I plan to be more gracious this year. I still don’t believe a Christmas tree is a pagan symbol, nor do I think one belongs in a Jewish house. But after 29 years of marriage I’m ready to admit that ours isn’t a Jewish house: It’s a house in which one of the inhabitants is Jewish and one isn’t. And those people love and respect each other. And when you love and respect someone, it feels really good when they embrace what you embrace. For 29 years, Dave has embraced my holidays. Now it’s time for me to embrace his, at home.


Debby Waldman is a writer and editor in Edmonton, Alberta.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Christmas in the Holy Land

Christmas in the Holy Land

Erick Stakelbeck


Host Erick Stakelbeck gives an on-the-ground look at Christmas in Israel, including an annual Christmas tree tradition in Nazareth that brings Jews and Christians together and a journey to Jerusalem’s Old City to meet “The Santa Claus of the Holy Land.” Plus, a fascinating glimpse into the possible origins of the Three Wise Men.

 


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

 


Jednokierunkowa maszyna migracyjna


Jednokierunkowa maszyna migracyjna

Aynaz Anni Cyrus


Jak państwa islamskie i azjatyckie bronią swojej tożsamości, podczas gdy Zachód rezygnuje z własnej

Talibowie poinformowali, że 9 grudnia irańscy strażnicy graniczni zabili co najmniej dziesięciu Afgańczyków próbujących nielegalnie przedostać się do Iranu. Los dwóch kolejnych osób pozostaje nieznany. Ciała zostały przekazane rodzinom, lokalni przedstawiciele Talibów zażądali wszczęcia dochodzenia, na co Iran do tej pory nie odpowiedział.

Po tym, jak opisałam to zdarzenie – ani niezwykłe, ani zaskakujące dla kogokolwiek znającego realia regionu – zdałam sobie sprawę, że to właściwy moment, by rozszerzyć tę dyskusję. Ten incydent obnaża bowiem znacznie szerszy problem, z jakim mierzymy się na Zachodzie, i pokazuje, jak dalece silniejszych działań wymaga sytuacja, jeśli rzeczywiście chcemy chronić nasze własne państwa.

 

Zachód pochłania falę nielegalnej migracji z krajów o większości muzułmańskiej i azjatyckiej, a jednocześnie odmawia zadania trudnych pytań czy zmierzenia się z realiami tych migracji ludności. Nie dzieje się tak dlatego, że Zachód jest wyjątkowo współczujący. To wynik powtarzanego w kółko, błędnego przekonania, że dyplomacja i sygnalizowanie moralności mogą zastąpić egzekwowanie prawa, bezpieczeństwo i zachowanie tożsamości narodowej.

Śmiertelna w skutkach reakcja Iranu na migrantów z Afganistanu jest dobrze udokumentowana. W ciągu ostatniej dekady Afgańczycy byli tam rozstrzeliwani, bici lub deportowani bez żadnego przesłuchania i bez procesu sądowego. Iran uzasadnia to względami bezpieczeństwa narodowego i konsekwentnie trzyma się tej polityki.

Turcja stosuje tę samą logikę. Human Rights Watch potwierdziła wiele przypadków, w których tureckie siły graniczne otwierały ogień do Syryjczyków próbujących przekroczyć granicę – w tym do rodzin z dziećmi. Ocaleni opisują ostrzał bez ostrzeżenia i natychmiastowe odsyłanie z powrotem. Ankara zaprzecza wszystkim oskarżeniom i kontynuuje tę politykę do dziś. I mogę zaświadczyć, że takie traktowanie nie ogranicza się do Syryjczyków – Irańczycy próbujący przedostać się do Turcji spotykają się z tą samą reakcją: użyciem broni, wypędzaniem z powrotem i zerową tolerancją.

Historia Arabii Saudyjskiej jest jeszcze bardziej jednoznaczna. Raport ONZ z 2023 roku udokumentował setki Jemeńczyków zabitych na granicy saudyjsko-jemeńskiej z użyciem karabinów maszynowych i ciężkiej broni. Niektórych rozstrzelano po złapaniu. Rząd saudyjski nie zmienił swojej polityki ani nie sygnalizował zamiaru jej zmiany.

Siły graniczne Indii zabiły w ciągu ostatnich piętnastu lat ponad tysiąc obywateli Bangladeszu. Amnesty International i inne organizacje wielokrotnie dokumentowały przypadki strzelania „bez ostrzeżenia” do rolników, nastolatków i pracowników migrujących. Indie bronią tej polityki jako niezbędnej dla stabilności państwa i walki z przemytem.

Malezja, Tajlandia i Indonezja regularnie odsyłają łodzie z uchodźcami Rohingya z powrotem na otwarte morze. Łodzie z migrantami były odrzucane i pozostawiane bez wsparcia, co prowadziło do śmierci głodowej. Nikt w Azji Południowo-Wschodniej nie traktuje tego jako problemu praw człowieka.

Chiny stosują najbardziej surowy model: osoby przekraczające granicę nielegalnie – zwłaszcza obywatele Korei Północnej i Mjanmy – są zatrzymywani, „znikają” lub są odsyłani do krajów, gdzie czekają ich tortury. Nie istnieje żadna ścieżka azylowa ani kontrola opinii publicznej.


W ten sposób świat poza Zachodem egzekwuje swoją suwerenność
 – konsekwentnie, bez przeprosin i z przekonaniem, że tożsamość oraz stabilność są nierozerwalnie związane z kontrolą demograficzną.

Iran pozostaje irański, ponieważ broni irańskości. Turcja pozostaje turecka, ponieważ państwo nie dopuszcza niekontrolowanego napływu. Arabia Saudyjska pozostaje saudyjska, bo odrzuca jakikolwiek wpływ demograficzny. Indie utrzymują swój trzon demograficzny, stosując siłę, gdy uznają to za konieczne. Chiny utrzymują jednolitość społeczną poprzez model zerowej tolerancji.

Nie znaczy to, że te rządy troszczą się o dobro swoich obywateli – ale zależy im na zachowaniu własnego sposobu życia, zasobów i kontroli. Chronią swoje rynki pracy, tożsamość kulturową i strukturę polityczną z pełną determinacją. Nie odwołują się w kwestii swojego przetrwania do argumentów moralnych, oczekiwań z zewnętrznych.

Tymczasem Zachód postanowił postrzegać ochronę granic jako porażkę moralną, a nie podstawową funkcję państwa. Uczy się nas, że suwerenność to rasizm, ostrożność demograficzna to ekstremizm, a tożsamość narodowa to wstydliwa spuścizna historii. Rezultat jest przewidywalny: jedna strona zachowuje spójność, podczas gdy druga rozpuszcza się w paraliżu decyzyjnym.

Premier Wielkiej Brytanii, Keir Starmer, niedawno wezwał do rewizji Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, ponieważ Europa nie jest w stanie deportować nielegalnych migrantów bez procesów prawnych, nakazów sądowych i reakcji politycznej. Nawet podstawowe procedury usuwania wymagają współpracy sądów, NGO, parlamentu i wielu organów nadzorczych.

Iran nie negocjuje swojej polityki granicznej z sądami ani organizacjami pozarządowymi. Turcja nie debatuje nad deportacjami w parlamencie. Arabia Saudyjska nie pyta aktywistów o zgodę. Indie nie czekają na międzynarodowy konsensus. Chiny w ogóle nie dopuszczają społeczeństwa obywatelskiego do głosu.


Różnica ma charakter strukturalny
: Zachód potrzebuje zgody, by działać. Reszta świata działa, ponieważ przetrwanie jest samo w sobie uzasadnieniem.

Państwa wysyłające migrantów na Zachód nie przyjmują migrantów z Zachodu, nie dopuszczają do zmian demograficznych u siebie i nie pozwalają, by obca kultura kształtowała ich społeczeństwa. Ruch migracyjny ma charakter jednokierunkowy, ponieważ bodźce działają tylko w jednym kierunku.

Konsekwencje tego ponoszą zachodnie miasta, podatnicy, systemy społeczne i lokalne społeczności, podczas gdy kraje wysyłające migrantów pozostają odizolowane od presji kulturowych, ekonomicznych i bezpieczeństwa, które ich obywatele przenoszą na Zachód.


Przekaz jest jasny
: oni chronią swoją tożsamość, oczekując, że Zachód zrezygnuje ze swojej. Oni strzegą swoich granic, jednocześnie wykorzystując zachodni opór wobec jakiejkolwiek ochrony. Oni utrzymują stabilność, eksportując destabilizację. I to działa tylko dlatego, że Zachód uczestniczy w kapitulacji wobec samego siebie.

Dla jasności: nie opowiadam się za zabijaniem migrantów. Wskazuję jedynie na konsekwencję działań tych państw i egzekwowane przez nie zasady – zasady, które stosują bez wahania – podczas gdy Zachód nie jest w stanie zastosować nawet ich najbardziej podstawowej wersji.


Link do oryginału: https://substack.com/home/post/p-181249287

@liveuptofreedom  10 grudnia 2025

Aynaz Anni Cyrus – była muzułmanka, ateistka, urodzona w Iranie Amerykanka, autorka bloga Live Up to Freedom, 


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com