Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the UK Labour Party, has once again drawn criticism for his controversial stance on Middle Eastern geopolitics.
In his first Commons intervention following a series of significant events in Syria, Corbyn chose to focus on the broader suffering of the Syrian people without directly addressing the role of outgoing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, a leader widely condemned for his brutal suppression of dissent and responsibility for the country’s devastating civil war.
Instead, Corbyn clung to familiar ground by criticising Israel’s activities in the Golan Heights.
A History of Polarizing Statements
Corbyn’s parliamentary question to Foreign Secretary David Lammy highlighted the plight of Syrians who have endured years of war, torture, and imprisonment, with many fleeing into exile. Yet, his remarks conspicuously avoided any mention of Assad, whose regime has been implicated in war crimes, including chemical weapons attacks on civilians. This omission did not go unnoticed, particularly given Corbyn’s history of taking contentious positions on Middle Eastern conflicts.
Image credit: Palestinian Embassy in Tunis, via Facebook.
In the past, Corbyn has been accused of showing leniency toward groups and individuals linked to terrorism.
His 2018 admission of attending a wreath-laying ceremony for individuals associated with the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre — a terrorist attack that targeted Israeli athletes — caused significant uproar.
Corbyn’s justification at the time was that he was honoring victims of an Israeli airstrike, a defence that failed to quell widespread condemnation, particularly from the Jewish community and Israel’s government. This incident, coupled with allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party during his leadership, continues to cast a shadow over his political legacy, (such as it may be).
Silence on Assad, Criticism of Israel
Corbyn’s reluctance to condemn Assad directly contrasts starkly with his readiness to criticize Israel, a nation he frequently accuses of violating international law. In his Commons intervention, Corbyn referenced Israel’s activities north of the Golan Heights, an area of strategic importance bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. This focus on Israel’s presence in the region, while avoiding the atrocities committed by Assad’s regime, has drawn sharp rebukes from his detractors.
Critics argue that Corbyn’s selective approach undermines his credibility as a voice for human rights. Assad’s regime has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the displacement of millions more. By sidestepping this reality, Corbyn’s comments appear to prioritise his ideological alignment over an unbiased assessment of the conflict.
Corbyn’s critics contend that his latest remarks fit a pattern of selective outrage. During his tenure as Labour leader, Corbyn frequently championed the rights of Palestinians, a cause he has long supported, but he has often been accused of ignoring or downplaying the actions of groups associated with terrorism. His opponents argue that this tendency reflects a broader unwillingness to hold certain actors accountable if doing so conflicts with his political worldview.
For example, Corbyn has been labeled an “apologist” for organisations like Hezbollah, and Hamas, which he has referred to as “friends.”
Although Corbyn has defended these remarks as efforts to promote dialogue, they have been widely interpreted as indicative of a bias against Israel. This perception has alienated many within the Labour Party and beyond, contributing to the party’s electoral defeats under his leadership.
Corbyn’s interventions on Syria and Israel come at a time when the Labour Party is striving to rebuild its reputation under the leadership of Keir Starmer. Starmer has sought to distance the party from Corbyn’s more controversial stances, particularly on antisemitism and foreign policy. While Corbyn remains a backbench MP, his statements continue to generate headlines and provoke debate, reflecting his enduring influence and the divisive nature of his political legacy.
Among Labour’s current leadership, there is little appetite to engage with Corbyn’s rhetoric.
Starmer has made a concerted effort to restore trust within the Jewish community and reposition Labour as a centrist, electable alternative to the Conservative Party. Corbyn’s ongoing focus on Israel and his perceived softness on regimes like Assad’s risk undermining these efforts, particularly as Labour seeks to present a united front ahead of the next general election.
Corbyn’s critics will argue that his failure to denounce Assad perpetuates a double standard, undermining the universality of human rights advocacy.
Conversely, Corbyn’s defenders maintain that his focus on Israel is consistent with his long-standing commitment to opposing occupation and supporting self-determination for oppressed peoples, in particular, it appears, those with Marxist tendencies and a proclivity towards terrorist activities. They argue that his emphasis on Israel’s actions in the Golan Heights is justified, given the region’s disputed status and the broader context of Israeli-Palestinian tensions.
By choosing to highlight Israel’s actions while sidestepping the role of Bashar al-Assad in Syria’s devastation, Corbyn has reignited debates about his priorities and biases. While his defenders view him as a principled advocate for human rights, his critics see a politician whose selective outrage undermines his credibility and damages the causes he seeks to champion.
As the Labour Party continues to navigate its post-Corbyn era, his legacy remains a source of contention, reflecting the enduring challenges of balancing ideology with accountability in the complex arena of international politics.
Main Image: By ©UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor – UK Parliament, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=152330278
