The latest attempt to derail the huge momentum of Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for Labour leadership is utterly desperate.

This time it’s to do with Jeremy’s participation in a studio discussion on Press TV, during which he described Bin Laden’s assassination by US special forces as a “tragedy,” with the inference being made that the Labour MP for Islington was articulating sympathy for the founder of al-Qaida.

He of course was doing no such thing. Instead, as per a political worldview that understands the circular relationship between Western foreign policy and the proliferation of terrorism and terrorist groups, Corbyn was lamenting the fact that Bin Laden was not arrested to face trial for his crimes, including the atrocity of September 11.

The difference is, of course, that the man who has taken the country by storm with his positive message of anti-austerity, peace and justice, does not subscribe to the right-wing, reactionary view that our violence — far more destructive and responsible for far more innocent deaths than al-Qaida’s or Bin Laden’s — should not also be subject to legal sanction as justice demands.

Dr Alan Mendoza of the right-wing, anti-immigrant, neoconservative Henry Jackson Society think tank, who was responsible for this latest smear, clearly thinks otherwise — else why over four years after Bin Laden’s death is the world a more dangerous place than it was when he was alive, including when he and his vile ideology were being treated as freedom fighters by the West when they were fighting in Afghanistan to bring down the leftist government of Mohammad Najibullah in the 1990s?

For weeks now the words “extremism” and “extremists” have been conspicuously attached to Corbyn’s campaign, a campaign which despite the existing party leadership’s decision to purge thousands of new supporters and affiliates as “entryists” remains on course to sweep him to victory on September 12 when the winner is declared.

Corbyn has found himself under a sustained attack over past interviews he has given and platforms he has shared, attempting to paint him as a decidedly dodgy character with some decidedly dodgy views — a man who has kept company with some nefarious individuals.

In the process the dread-word “anti-semitism” has reared its head, bringing with it that dark cloud of calumny beneath which no self-respecting politician, candidate or public figure dare find him or herself, condemning those who do to the status of political and public outcast.

Anti-semitism is far too serious to be as frivolously implied as it has been when it comes to Corbyn and his political associations, causing him to be repeatedly castigated by right-wing newspaper columnists and hounded in TV interview after TV interview.

We know we are living in an upside down world when a man who has spent his entire adult life campaigning and speaking up against the extremism of British foreign policy going back many years — a policy characterised by war, occupation and alliances with dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia’s — is depicted as an apologist for terrorism and as being soft on anti-semitism.

Being a strong critic or opponent of Israel does not make someone an anti-semite, as much as its most ardent supporters and apologists would have us believe.

On the contrary, given its decades-long occupation of the West Bank, expansion of illegal settlements and its massacre of civilians in Gaza, opposing Israel and its actions is non-negotiable for anyone who supports human rights as a universal concept rather than a privilege of power.

Evidence of the gulf in understanding that exists today between the political and media class and the general public when it comes to Israel comes in the form of a petition calling for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes when he arrives on an official visit to Britain next month.

Thus far it has attracted over 90,000 signatures, yet not one mainstream newspaper has highlighted or given it any coverage.

Corbyn has consistently identified and railed against the aforementioned record of injustice which successive British governments have been associated with, which includes its longstanding support for Israel and the exceptionalism it enjoys. This is his real crime in the eyes of those who don’t like the company he keeps.

Only a foreign policy underpinned by the universal application of international law and human rights, rather than might is right, is capable of making serious inroads into reversing the spread of terrorism, radicalisation and extremism that has scarred and blights our world.

Thus, it is not Corbyn but those who supported the war in Iraq, the bombing of Libya, who provide unquestioning support to Israel, and have little or nothing to say over Britain’s shameful relationship with Saudi Arabia who have questions to answer.

For those on the receiving end of our foreign policy, what we consider democracy is nothing more than organised hypocrisy, which is why, with his pledge to apologise to the Iraqi people for Britain’s role in destroying their country if elected leader of the Labour Party, Corbyn has proved that not only is he qualified to lead the party, it is essential that he does.