Corbyn: Various Battels at Once

Adel Samara

Occupied Palestine

While there is no difference between who is currently in the Whit House than any of his predecessors whether Republican or Democrat, and the same for who is in Westminster-London who also did not differ from his predecessor whether Tories or labor, we witness two big developments following the election of Corbyn for the British labor party:
• A development that contradicts US policies on world scale
• And a development that contradicts the traditional policies of both Tories and labor parties of Britain.
But, what are the US policies which are rejected by Corbyn?

 

It is particularly US aggressive policies of the neo-conservatives against Arab Homeland which reached its most criminal peak by the occupation and destruction of Iraq. The following quotation shows how it is started:

 

“‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

 

This is the essence of US neo-conservatives. But how about the policies of Democrats in the same US?

 

Following is what US president Obama repeated five years ago:

 

“The international community has decided that it’s time for Assad to go. He clearly has lost legitimacy to lead. He has lost the confidence of those citizens of his country — at least the ones that — or I guess I should say particularly the ones that he is using the resources of the military to attack.”

 

Both policies of the two parties led to the same target which is the destruction of Arab republics. The neo-conservatives destroyed Iraq by direct military occupation, and the Democrats are launching a brutal war against Syria. A war that is paid and implemented by Arab regimes and forces of Politicized Religion (Wahhabism, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS) against Arab nation especially the secular regimes.
At the British level, the Tories doctrine is that war necessary for charismatic leaders. This is what Margret Thatcher said following British aggression against Argentina in Falkland war. Thatcher wrote in her memoirs:

 

“It is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of the Falklands War transformed the British political scene. The so–called ‘Falklands factor’ was real enough. I could feel the impact of the victory wherever I went”.

 

The position and role of the previous labor leader Tony Blair is the same as he the first criminal, after G.W Bush, in the destruction of Iraq 2003.
BUT, following the election of Corbyn for the labor party, the right wing journalism especially those owned and managed by Zionists attack Corbyn and launched a harsh campaign against him as follows:
The Rupert Murdoch-owned Sunday Times tried to dig up some scurrilous angle on party splits in a breathless report claiming: “Corby sparks Labor civil war”; while the Daily Express crowed with supercilious delight: “Bye Bye Labor”; and the Mail on Sunday denigrated Corby’s election as signifying that the Labor Party was now: “Red and Buried”.
But the main change is what Corbyn himself is saying following his success to lead the Labor party:

 

Corbyn’s radical agenda is equally applicable to foreign policy. He is against Israeli occupation of Palestine, opposes Britain’s membership of the American-led NATO military alliance, and he is against the creeping British military involvement in Syria. Corbyn wants to normalize relations with Russia, and he is campaigning to disarm Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

 

Finally, there are several questions here: To what extent Corbyn is radical in practice not in words only?

 

Is he going to insist, albeit he will able or not, on transcending the traditional British colonial policy and crimes against humanity and especially against Arab nation?

 

Will he be able to unite the labor and the society behind him and to oppose US aggressive policies?

 

As far as I know that there are many Trotskyites in the Labor, I am not sure if he is close to them or not. But his statement doesn’t look like those of them. As for Palestine, his position is still limited to the level of rejecting the Zionist occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which is a tiny part of the Palestinian people’s Right of Return.