Corbyn's In It Again

[Galant]

Short snippet of Corbyn giving some sort of address/speech. Context is lacking but he's talking about the rationale behind suicide bombing and how it's understandable...

https://twitter.com/magnitsky/status...97534800543744

"Iggy Ostanin
‏
@magnitsky
I unearthed a video of Jeremy Corbyn expressing sympathy with Hamas suicide bombers. He met Palestinians who knew suicide bombers: “none of them agreed with it. But they knew why they did it. They said put yourself in our place”. ""

[PC-LAD]

"none of them agreed with it. But they knew why they did it." Is what he said. I personally do not believe that is sympathy. There is also no context to the convocation, why is he talking about suicide bombers?

[Ttaskmaster]

We understand why many people do bad things, even if we don't agree with them...
What is this Corbyn thing supposed to indicate/prove/condemn/trigger/victimise me for?

[Galant]

My main reason for posting this, per the title, is that Corbyn is again going to be in hot water for comments he's made. Multiple times he's said or done things that will earn him enmity.

In this case it's very similar to when Cherie Blair basically said the same thing - suicide bombers can be understood.

The reason this is problematic is multifaceted, I may miss something here but:

1. He's showing an effort to be empathetic/sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, and in a very extreme aspect, but doesn't often appear to be equally empathetic/seeking understanding on the other side.

2. His comments will be very offensive to the family members of victims of past bombers - who will most likely be innocent civilian targets. Consider if this was in reference to the bombers in London, Paris or elsewhere.

3. In his willingness to seek understanding or seem understanding, he'll be seen as naive as well, because he focuses on the notion of poor victimised bombers and doesn't mention or take into consideration the wider picture - powerful organisations persuading/funding/coercing this bombing and the relevant religious aspects, which is something very different to the simple picture of a desperate person trying to make a statement (by killing innocent people). If my understanding is correct, no Israeli would actually be considered 'innocent', but in fact valid targets.

Basically, in his comments he'll seem strongly biased to one side of the conflict, and seeking to show an out of balanced empathy to people many would consider don't deserve it.

[SeriousSam]

Battlestar Galactica: Season 3 Episode 1 - Occupation

[Galant]

By way of update, here's the wider context for/event at which he made, his comments:

"The debate, held by the Cambridge Union Society on October 29, 2009, was entitled “This House Believes that Israel Demands Too Much and Gives Too Little in the Peace Process,” in which Corbyn, together with three others spoke in favor of the proposition.

“I remember asking a group of young Palestinians in Nablus one time, I sat down with them, and I said, ‘What do you think about suicide bombers,’” Corbyn recalled.

“All of them knew someone who had been, how should I put it, involved in suicide bombing. None of them agreed with it, but every one of them knew why they did it. They said put yourself in our place, a life of hopelessness, a life under occupation, a life of demoralization and bitterness,” he continued.

“That is where it leads to,” asserted Corbyn."

via JP

[opel80uk]

This OP epitomises all that is wrong with political discourse at the minute. Nowhere in that 38 second clip does Corbyn express an opinion one way or the other on suicide bombings. The mere fact that he spoke to people NOT involved themselves in suicide bombings, but who knew of people who did, is somehow being used as a stick to attempt to beat him with. This straw clutching is beginning to look desperate.

Here's another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzSOyqI4Yw

This one is even better. Here an actual Jewish Holocaust survivor compares Israel to Nazi Germany at a meeting Corbyn is chairing, and again Corbyn is criticised, with the implication that he is AntiSemitic.


But let’s look at the more nuanced points made:

He's showing an effort to be empathetic/sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, and in a very extreme aspect, but doesn't often appear to be equally empathetic/seeking understanding on the other side.

So what? Politicians do this all the time. They done this in apartheid South Africa, they done this Northern Ireland until Major decided that it wasn’t working. While the Yemen is being blown back to the dark ages by the Saudis (the ‘good’ type of dictatorship apparently), the UK is actively selling arms to it. What makes him so special in this regard?

His comments will be very offensive to the family members of victims of past bombers - who will most likely be innocent civilian targets. Consider if this was in reference to the bombers in London, Paris or elsewhere.

Leaving aside your generalisation of what family members of past bombers may feel, using your logic, do you think the same applies to anyone attempting to understand Israeli actions? I’m just wondering if you feel as much concern about potentially causing offence to Palestinians who have lost innocent family members in Israeli air strikes that kill more innocent civilians than militants? Or does this only apply to Corbyn, and only one way?

In his willingness to seek understanding or seem understanding, he'll be seen as naive as well, because he focuses on the notion of poor victimised bombers and doesn't mention or take into consideration the wider picture - powerful organisations persuading/funding/coercing this bombing and the relevant religious aspects, which is something very different to the simple picture of a desperate person trying to make a statement (by killing innocent people). If my understanding is correct, no Israeli would actually be considered 'innocent', but in fact valid targets.

And you’ve come to that conclusion based on an edited 38 second clip from what appears to be a longer talk, in which he relays what was told to him? Ironic that Corbyn is deemed the naïve one.

Basically, in his comments he'll seem strongly biased to one side of the conflict, and seeking to show an out of balanced empathy to people many would consider don't deserve it.

If, on the basis of that clip, someone comes to the conclusion that he is seem strongly biased to one side of the conflict, and seeking to show an out of balanced empathy to suicide bombers, I wouldn’t worry too much about it; in time they might come to think for themselves.


The irony of all of this is that there is real Antisemitism within the Labour party. This kind of false narrative by the OP/Twitter thread gives fodder to those who claim that it is all lies and is simply a smear used to discredit Corbyn by his detractors, and it makes it harder for those who do acknowledge it exists and who are trying to do something about it. It's a sign of our times I guess; in another thread someone labelled most animal rights activists as terrorists, here the implication is that Corbyn is antisemitic because he spoke with people who knew suicide bombers. The dilution of these words, and the lessoning of the impact they have when said as a result is counterproductive, and highly irresponsible by those that engage in it.

[Galant]

The intention of the OP was to share a recent news item about Corbyn who again is receiving focus for comments/behaviour that a lot of people will feel relevant in understanding the current opposition party leader. There was no intention here to get into the overall issue of Palestine/Israel And I won't be doing that. Don't have the time, and it's been done before, extensively.

With regards your points:

This OP epitomises all that is wrong with political discourse at the minute. Nowhere in that 38 second clip does Corbyn express an opinion one way or the other on suicide bombings. The mere fact that he spoke to people NOT involved themselves in suicide bombings, but who knew of people who did, is somehow being used as a stick to attempt to beat him with. This straw clutching is beginning to look desperate.

Here's another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzSOyqI4Yw

In the OP I mentioned that there was a lack of context for the clip. Nevertheless I posted it because it had been, is, doing the rounds and thought it worthy of reference/consideration. Context here is crucial, not just for the clip or speech, but for Corbyn in general. Perhaps Corbyn was giving a two-sided summary of events, perhaps it was a speech about the mentality of terrorists and suicide bombers. As my post today pointed out, the context for this clips is a university debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and whether Israel asks too much and gives too little. So that helps us understand this a bit more clearly. However, beyond the immediate context, there's also the wider context of Corbyn and his previous comments and actions. This isn't the first time he has waded into this territory and fits precisely into what seems to be his philosophy/approach of strong empathetic/understanding support for the Palestinian side in the conflict, but also, an absence of equal understanding/support for the Israeli side. Within that context, these comments further support that general view, but they also deal with a very specific aspect, suicide bombings.

The context now makes it clearer that he was arguing that the general situation in Palestine, caused by the Israelis, is understandably generating these sorts of attacks.

That sort of argument will generate a lot of animosity. It's disputable whether 'hopelessness' or destitution are what lie behind suicide bombings, and the nature of these attacks being what it is, one would be wise to treat this subject very carefully.

Instead, Corbyn comes across, to many, as being to eager to agree with one side over the other, even in extreme circumstances.

That's an important possibility to consider as concerns the opposition leader and possible future Prime Minister.

It's not to say, in any way, that he would advocate for suicide bombings as a valid tactic in conflict. I'm sure he wouldn't. But some would wonder whether his approach of 'understanding' the bombers as lending indirect support for those sort of actions, maybe encouraging it. That's not what I'm saying, let's be clear. I'm no expert on the mindset/psychology of bombers and terrorists etc. But it's a reasonable concern, especially coming in public comments from a leading figure.

So what? Politicians do this all the time. They done this in apartheid South Africa, they done this Northern Ireland until Major decided that it wasn’t working. While the Yemen is being blown back to the dark ages by the Saudis (the ‘good’ type of dictatorship apparently), the UK is actively selling arms to it. What makes him so special in this regard?

So his comments matter - both in what he does and doesn't say. In diplomacy both are important and either side of any conflict would want to hear that their side is at least understood or considered. A consistent failure to appear balanced isn't a good thing. As for other failures by other individuals - those don't excuse poor performance/failure now. Politicians, like everyone else, should strive to get it right.

Leaving aside your generalisation of what family members of past bombers may feel, using your logic, do you think the same applies to anyone attempting to understand Israeli actions? I’m just wondering if you feel as much concern about potentially causing offence to Palestinians who have lost innocent family members in Israeli air strikes that kill more innocent civilians than militants? Or does this only apply to Corbyn, and only one way?

This is the exact point above. Flip it around either way, showing understanding should apply both ways. In the case of Corbyn, there's a real question as to whether he believes that, but yes, it should/does apply to everyone.

And you’ve come to that conclusion based on an edited 38 second clip from what appears to be a longer talk, in which he relays what was told to him? Ironic that Corbyn is deemed the naïve one.

My comment was that Corbyn would be perceived that way. It's based on how people behave. People will see it that way. Again, I did preface the OP by saying it lacked context. But this sort of thing is exactly why the video was posted, it is how people will see it and it is why Corbyn is "in it again". Now, is it unfair? It depends on what was said, but again, based on the history we have of Corbyn, presenting an overly simple view of bombers as desperate victims, would fit with what we know of him. Perhaps he was far more nuanced on the night, but that's what people are going to be thinking.

If, on the basis of that clip, someone comes to the conclusion that he is seem strongly biased to one side of the conflict, and seeking to show an out of balanced empathy to suicide bombers...

Certainly. One would hope that anyone would take a wider view, as mentioned, and look at this clip (and anything else) as objectively as possible. The clip is the clip. It's up to the individual how to use/view that clip, but I'm not the one that unearthed it. It's out there, in the media, doing the rounds and getting Corbyn 'in trouble' again.

The irony of all of this is that there is real Antisemitism within the Labour party. This kind of false narrative by the OP/Twitter thread gives fodder to those who claim that it is all lies and is simply a smear used to discredit Corbyn by his detractors, and it makes it harder for those who do acknowledge it exists and who are trying to do something about it. It's a sign of our times I guess; in another thread someone labelled most animal rights activists as terrorists, here the implication is that Corbyn is antisemitic because he spoke with people who knew suicide bombers. The dilution of these words, and the lessoning of the impact they have when said as a result is counterproductive, and highly irresponsible by those that engage in it.

I didn't once raise the issue of antisemitism or that Corbyn is, or was being, antisemitic, and I certainly didn't state that he's antisemitic because he spoke with Palestinians. You're reading that into my comments. There can be interest in Corbyn's views on Palestine and Israel and terrorism beyond any the specific issue of antisemitism. I'd argue that's actually the more important consideration. How would a possible future leader conduct himself, how would he approach this on-going situation, and how might he be perceived?

[peterb]

And yet several Jewish members of the Labour party have resigned the whip because they consider the party - and by implication, the leadership, are anti-semitic.

However, to balance that, I don't feel comfortable with the view that criticism of the Israeli Governments action in a political arena should necessarily be regarded as anti-semitic as that effectively gives the Israeli Government a "get out of jail free" card to do what they like without fear of criticism.

[opel80uk]

In the OP I mentioned that there was a lack of context for the clip. Nevertheless I posted it because it had been, is, doing the rounds and thought it worthy of reference/consideration. Context here is crucial, not just for the clip or speech, but for Corbyn in general. Perhaps Corbyn was giving a two-sided summary of events, perhaps it was a speech about the mentality of terrorists and suicide bombers. As my post today pointed out, the context for this clips is a university debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and whether Israel asks too much and gives too little. So that helps us understand this a bit more clearly. However, beyond the immediate context, there's also the wider context of Corbyn and his previous comments and actions. This isn't the first time he has waded into this territory and fits precisely into what seems to be his philosophy/approach of strong empathetic/understanding support for the Palestinian side in the conflict, but also, an absence of equal understanding/support for the Israeli side. Within that context, these comments further support that general view, but they also deal with a very specific aspect, suicide bombings.


The context now makes it clearer that he was arguing that the general situation in Palestine, caused by the Israelis, is understandably generating these sorts of attacks.

That sort of argument will generate a lot of animosity. It's disputable whether 'hopelessness' or destitution are what lie behind suicide bombings, and the nature of these attacks being what it is, one would be wise to treat this subject very carefully.

Instead, Corbyn comes across, to many, as being to eager to agree with one side over the other, even in extreme circumstances.

So here you have a politician, who has bothered to go to one of the areas concerned and speak with not actual militants, but local people not involved in these attacks, to ask them their thoughts and feelings. This group are potentially the next wave of yet-to-be-converted militants, and they are telling him that the general situation in Palestine is causing these attacks. He comes back and relays that, whilst also voicing an opinion that he feels that some of their concerns are valid, and unless what they feel is addressed, the problem will continue. Whilst that might not be everyone’s take on it, I would imagine there are an awful lot of people who do agree with that assessment. But leaving aside the actual conflict, why is Corbyn not allowed that view? What is so extraordinary about that position that makes it post worthy? What’s the controversy?

But some would wonder whether his approach of 'understanding' the bombers as lending indirect support for those sort of actions, maybe encouraging it.

If someone thinks that by understanding something, that in itself lends encouragement or offers support, then that person lacks the intelligence to be concerning themselves with things like this; only the most myopic could watch that 38 second clip and conclude that Corbyn is offering support, even indirect, to suicide bombers.

So his comments matter - both in what he does and doesn't say. In diplomacy both are important and either side of any conflict would want to hear that their side is at least understood or considered. A consistent failure to appear balanced isn't a good thing. As for other failures by other individuals - those don't excuse poor performance/failure now. Politicians, like everyone else, should strive to get it right.

So in your opinion, a politician cannot, or should never, take a side in any conflict, even after they have settled on a position that they believe to be true?

This is the exact point above. Flip it around either way, showing understanding should apply both ways. In the case of Corbyn, there's a real question as to whether he believes that, but yes, it should/does apply to everyone.

I only ask because, given your concern at offending victims of violence, I can’t seem to find any threads started by you criticising the numerous clips of UK MP’s who rush to defend Israel’s actions whenever there are innocent Palestinians killed.

My comment was that Corbyn would be perceived that way. It's based on how people behave. People will see it that way. Again, I did preface the OP by saying it lacked context. But this sort of thing is exactly why the video was posted, it is how people will see it and it is why Corbyn is "in it again". Now, is it unfair? It depends on what was said, but again, based on the history we have of Corbyn, presenting an overly simple view of bombers as desperate victims, would fit with what we know of him. Perhaps he was far more nuanced on the night, but that's what people are going to be thinking.

Certainly. One would hope that anyone would take a wider view, as mentioned, and look at this clip (and anything else) as objectively as possible. The clip is the clip. It's up to the individual how to use/view that clip, but I'm not the one that unearthed it. It's out there, in the media, doing the rounds and getting Corbyn 'in trouble' again.

Yeah, I don’t think so. If you read the comments under the Twitter thread, an awful lot of them start with something like ‘I don’t like Corbyn, but…’, and then proceed to not see what's wrong with he's saying. regarding this specific clip, I think most intelligent people, regardless as to what their own opinions of Corbyn are, will see it for what it is – a non-story.

I didn't once raise the issue of antisemitism or that Corbyn is, or was being, antisemitic, and I certainly didn't state that he's antisemitic because he spoke with Palestinians. You're reading that into my comments. There can be interest in Corbyn's views on Palestine and Israel and terrorism beyond any the specific issue of antisemitism. I'd argue that's actually the more important consideration. How would a possible future leader conduct himself, how would he approach this on-going situation, and how might he be perceived?

I never said you did. The original tweet was sent directly by the original tweeter, with a ‘might be interested’ after it to 7 addresses who are all campaigning against Corbyn, accusing him of being anti-Semitic. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to see what the implication is.

[opel80uk]

And yet several Jewish members of the Labour party have resigned the whip because they consider the party - and by implication, the leadership, are anti-semitic.

However, to balance that, I don't feel comfortable with the view that criticism of the Israeli Governments action in a political arena should necessarily be regarded as anti-semitic as that effectively gives the Israeli Government a "get out of jail free" card to do what they like without fear of criticism.

But on the actual video clip in the OP, as a Corbyn critic yourself, I'm interested to hear what your opinion is on what he said.

[Galant]

I'm not a fan of these line by line replies. Often it seems like people just read and reply as they go without reading ahead or reflecting back. Not saying you did that, necessarily, but some of this has been covered already.

... What’s the controversy?

Didn't specifically say it was a controversy. I said it was potentially relevant as further insight into how Corbyn handles this issue, this sort of debate, and his views on the Israeli/Palestine question. It's particularly controversial because this specifically refers to the act of someone strapping explosives on their body, entering a crowded space, and blowing up themselves and those around them, usually shoppers, worshippers, club/event goers etc. and that in a context where it is known that Palestinians are financially and religiously encouraged to do so. Corbyn knows this because it's common knowledge. Therefore, to raise the issue in a debate, and present it in an over-simplified fashion, with anecdotal evidence, suggests a great sympathy with one side, without the necessary balance and criticism the subject deserves. One might ponder whether he simply accepts the one account as the truth, or is just making the point in that way for rhetorical effect, leaving aside the complicating factors. Terrorism is obviously an emotive subject, and one could argue that he should be far more careful in his treatment of it.

If someone thinks that by understanding something, that in itself lends encouragement or offers support, then that person lacks the intelligence to be concerning themselves with things like this; only the most myopic could watch that 38 second clip and conclude that Corbyn is offering support, even indirect, to suicide bombers.

The point here isn't about trying to understand something but being aware that these sorts of comments can come dangerously close to justifying terrorist actions, and that's potentially dangerous. I hope that's understandable.

So in your opinion, a politician cannot, or should never, take a side in any conflict, even after they have settled on a position that they believe to be true?

No. I think you forgot the reason you even raised the initial question. The point was about being diplomatic - understanding how your words might be taken, and who might be listening, and making sure to speak in such a way so as to stay on side with both sides, where possible.

I only ask because, given your concern at offending victims of violence, I can’t seem to find any threads started by you criticising the numerous clips of UK MP’s who rush to defend Israel’s actions whenever there are innocent Palestinians killed.

He's potentially the next leader of the UK. What he says carries particular weight. I don't recall posting very much on party leaders at all, however, when one of them makes comments about terrorist actions, then that draws my attention.

Or then again, maybe I should just say, so what?

Yeah, I don’t think so. If you read the comments under the Twitter thread, an awful lot of them start with something like ‘I don’t like Corbyn, but…’, and then proceed to not see what's wrong with he's saying. regarding this specific clip, I think most intelligent people, regardless as to what their own opinions of Corbyn are, will see it for what it is – a non-story.

We can agree to disagree, but any time a potential PM speaks, especially on a controversial/violent subject, it's a story.

I never said you did. The original tweet was sent directly by the original tweeter, with a ‘might be interested’ after it to 7 addresses who are all campaigning against Corbyn, accusing him of being anti-Semitic. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to see what the implication is.

Fair enough, but again, Corbyn should, perhaps, be more aware of how he will come across on these issues. He generally seems to want to be seen as a friend of the Palestinians but not really concerned with being a friend of the Israelis. One would think an aspiring national leader would want to be seen as both. That imbalance might be the central issue here, with whatever that implies (and it's important to recognise that the Israelis, and others, see Hezbollah as an antisemitic organisation which, if true, would mean Corbyn should be careful of wanting to be seen as a friend of an antisemitic group, and not also a friend of Israel).

I've tried to be pretty balanced in all that I've written. I won't hide, and haven't hidden, that I'm not a fan of Corbyn. I disagree with most of his politics. However, rather than simply engaging in mudslinging (whatever the Tweet's original intention), I see importance in the words that any national political speak, and especially those that deal with issues like this one. That what I'm interested in here. Corbyn and his (mis)handling of this subject.

FYI, I'm not going to do any more line by line break downs. I don't think they're a good way of engaging in dialogue. I'd rather keep it short and direct.

[peterb]

@opel80uk

He is putting forward a Palestinian point of view - why they believe suicide bombers exist. He isn’t explicitly endorsing suicide bombers, any more than someone explaining why (for example) Dignitas exists, without necessarily endorsing assisted suicide.

Based purely on that 38 second clip.

[opel80uk]

@Galant

I genuinely don't mean to be rude, but it’s quite hard to take you seriously when you criticise Corbyn for presenting the issue in ‘an over-simplified manner’ and for not being more careful in his treatment of terrorism, using a 38 second clip of a debate that was presumably a lot longer in length, where we didn’t hear anything else he said, and in the small clip he did he didn’t even really profess an opinion of his own. If what you are doing here is not the epitome of ‘over simplifying’ something (in this case Corbyn’s Views), then I don’t know what is.

And the reason I asked about whether you had started any other threads about MP’s defending Israel whenever they kill civilians out of concern for victims of their violence, is because I was curious as to whether your requirement for Corbyn to take that into consideration when he speak extends to other MPs, Given that actual Prime Ministers, including the current one, routinely defend Israel whenever the IDF kill civilians during violence. I suppose I just assumed that, given in what a high regard you appear to hold ‘balance’ in, you’d be concerned that the words the Prime Minister of UK might offend victims of IDF violence, and perhaps even encourage Israel, especially seeing as it would have involved ‘a controversial/violent subject’. Still, maybe next time.

[Galant]

@Galant

I genuinely don't mean to be rude, but it’s quite hard to take you seriously when you criticise Corbyn for presenting the issue in ‘an over-simplified manner’ and for not being more careful in his treatment of terrorism, using a 38 second clip of a debate that was presumably a lot longer in length, where we didn’t hear anything else he said, and in the small clip he did he didn’t even really profess an opinion of his own. If what you are doing here is not the epitome of ‘over simplifying’ something (in this case Corbyn’s Views), then I don’t know what is.

And the reason I asked about whether you had started any other threads about MP’s defending Israel whenever they kill civilians out of concern for victims of their violence, is because I was curious as to whether your requirement for Corbyn to take that into consideration when he speak extends to other MPs, Given that actual Prime Ministers, including the current one, routinely defend Israel whenever the IDF kill civilians during violence. I suppose I just assumed that, given in what a high regard you appear to hold ‘balance’ in, you’d be concerned that the words the Prime Minister of UK might offend victims of IDF violence, and perhaps even encourage Israel, especially seeing as it would have involved ‘a controversial/violent subject’. Still, maybe next time.

I understand what you're saying about reading too much into a short clip. However, I've tried to do three things when I've posted. 1 - State the limitations of the clip. 2 - Consider possible implications for discussion - and avoid making an statements like "this video proves Corbyn is a Jew hating scumbag", which, as you've pointed out, it doesn't. 3 - I've tried to explicitly state that this clip must be taken in the wider context of Corbyn's previous words and actions, and that there are multiple ways to look at this - from the issue itself, Corbyn's views, and Corbyn's general conduct as a high-level statesman. I've had to generalise somewhat, but I do not believe I've oversimplified anything here, although I have tried to summarise the overall view of things and possible considerations. It certainly didn't take me just 30 second to write however many words are sitting on this thread.


Your second point is, quite frankly, irrelevant to this point of discussion. I didn't post this because I was concerned Corbyn was offending Israelis. I posted it, in small part, because as a statesman he should be concerned about the impact of his words, and because it provides potential further insight into who he is, and how he would be, as a leader. I can genuinely say that I haven't heard any statement by May about Israeli attacks. And I don't think I'd post here if I did, for the simple reason that I don't think it would be 'news'. Most state leaders follow a similar line. There's nothing distinctive about it. Corbyn's words, that could be construed to walk the line of justifying terrorism, are very distinctive.

Bottom line - I'm not the politician police. I thought this was somewhat news worthy and worth sharing. Would I like to see zero violence and death in Palestine and Israel? Absolutely. Do I think Israeli policy is impeccable? Not in the slightest. Why talk about Corbyn? Because as a possible leader we may have to vote on again, I think the information is valuable.

Speaking personally, I would not like to see a PM who has the sort of views he seems to repeatedly put on display. I think and strong and balanced approach in needed in that scenario, I don't think Corbyn is that leader.

[hb904460]

Corbyn isnt going to be spending too much more time with Hezbollah

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47359502