Islamist Demagogue Cheered at Stop the War Meeting

Lenin’s Tomb links (approvingly) to a short video of a sanguinary speech delivered by Dr Azzam Tamimi at an anti-war meeting in London on Monday. The meeting was convened by Stop the War to oppose Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and any escalation of the conflict; Tamimi, however, seems to have little interest in stopping any war, as he rants about how Hamas and Hizbollah “deal with” the “Zionist entity”, which is “made of evil” – sentiments and rhetoric which, of course, can only delight those who wish to discredit the Palestinian cause.

Tamimi is a senior member of the Muslim Association of Britain and has strong links with Hamas, so perhaps one should not be too surprised. More depressing was the audience response. I was at a meeting in support of Palestinian rights at the same location (Friends Meeting House, HQ of the pacifist Quakers) back in 2003; I remember some nutter speaking from the floor about his delight at seeing the deaths of Israelis on TV. He was generally booed off, and a rebuke from former MP Tony Benn followed. Tamimi, in contrast, appears to have received an enthusiastic response. It looks as though the events of the past few years have had a corrosive effect on the ethical sensibilities of all sides of the debate.

Regular readers of this blog might know that I consider myself to be a strong supporter of Palestinian rights, although I don’t (usually) choose to bore people with political opinions that others have expressed far more eloquently elsewhere. But this is too much. Tamimi has many good reasons to be angry, but a pro-Palestinian (or anti-war) movement that exults in militarism and religious extremism, and which has lost its capacity for compassion, can only make the world a worse place. Those who preach dehumanisation must be challenged, wherever they are found.

UPDATE (4 August): Andrew Murray, the chair of Stop the War, has now written an op-ed for the Guardian which includes the following:

Calls for the destruction of Israel or any suggestion of welcoming the deaths of Israeli civilians in the present conflict are, of course, unacceptable. Not only wrong in principle, they also entirely miss the point that the authors of the present catastrophe are to be found in Washington and London above all.

9 Responses

  1. “Those who preach dehumanisation must be challenged, wherever they are found.

    Yes indeed. I’ll second that.

  2. Get over yourself. Israel is a racist state, and the context of Tamimi’s remarks was precisely the dehumanisation of Palestinians and Arabs generally implicit in Zionist ideology.

    I agree with Tamimi – Zionism has no more right to exist than apartheid. Any serious opponent of racism has a duty to oppose Zionism. The narcissistic Beautiful Soul liberals can meanwhile bleat about their putative support for the rights of Palestinians.

  3. I know full well the “context” of Tamimi’s remarks, but this was not a passionate critique of Zionism – it was a rant that celebrated missiles raining down on Israeli civilans, and the reactionary forces launching them. The fact that the Lebanese and Palestinian people are suffering worse does not make Tamimi’s sentiments any less unpleasant (plus he’s also completely inept, if he wants to win public support for the Palestinian cause).

    And I’m not going to apologise for having liberal values – they achieved much in the last century, while the legacy of the man whose name you take is far less impressive.

  4. […] attractive scene than that provided by Azzam Tamini, the ranting Palestinian advocate I had cause to criticise a few days ago, whether or not the political purpose of the event is persuasive. However, a member […]

  5. […] also noted this unhappy trend, and recently I blogged on British anti-war protestors cheering on a pro-Hezbollah and pro-Hamas rant from Azzam […]

  6. […] first time pacificism has been dissed there; in 2006 the Hamas-linked Azzam Tamimi was cheered at the same venue as he ranted rapturously about how about how Hamas and Hizbollah would “deal with” the […]

  7. […] of political expediency or because “solidarity” has become an unreflexive dogma (not something of which I approve either way). But as with the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s, we know that […]

  8. […] blog show that the idea of me sharing the SWP’s perspective or agenda is utterly absurd (e.g. this blog entry, which drew hostile comment from SWP blogger Richard Seymour). However, as I’ve pointed out […]

  9. […] and unrecognized fears) one can conclude that the repeated hosting of extremist groups with terrorist links at Friends House may in fact be less an unfortunate series of oversights and more an adherence to […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *