Lord Hermer’s reported advice against UK strikes on Iran is a disgrace

Lord Hermer is an example of the sort of centrist fundamentalist Jew whose contemptible progressive politics have suffocated any allegiance to the survival of his own people.

It brings to mind the words of Martin Luther King in a speech about the suffering of Soviet Jewry behind the Iron Curtain.

“We cannot sit complacently by the wayside while our Jewish brothers… face the possible extinction of their cultural and spiritual life,” he said. “Those that sit at rest while others take pains are tender turtles and buy their quiet with disgrace.” If you’re looking for a tender turtle, look no further than Lord Hermer, who frankly even looks a bit like one.

(It’s funny: Think of any privileged, progressive Jew who is more concerned with his own reputation in bien pensant circles than the life-and-death perils facing his ancestral homeland and you will find that he looks a bit like a turtle.)

In fact, if the man was only “sitting at rest”, he wouldn’t be so appallingly damaging. He’s going much further than that. Described by a legal friend as an “open activist” lawyer, Hermer – may I dispense with the Lordship? – has long represented enemies of Britain.

Given the infallible rule that anyone who sticks up for enemies of Britain also harbours deep hostility for Israel, the apparent sight of him ruling against British involvement in defending Israel entirely to be expected.

Over a long and ignoble career, Hermer has represented Gerry Adams, the former leader of Sinn Féin; Shamima Begum, the Isis bride; and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, one of the plotters of the 9/11 terror attacks described as Osama Bin Laden’s “right-hand man”.

He acted for Al Qaeda terrorists like Rangzieb Ahmed, who was linked to the July 7 terror attacks; and Abid Naseer, who was just days from carrying out a bombing attack on a Manchester shopping centre. He also helped the Treasury unfreeze the assets of Mohammed al-Ghabra, an al-Qaeda terror suspect nicknamed the “moneymaker” who was linked to the 21/7 London bomb plot.

Hermer’s office has suggested that he had no choice but to represent these people under the “cab rank” rule, a claim that has been resoundingly decried as cynical rubbish because, it is alleged, the senior lawyer has been long able to pick and choose his clients.

Those who defend Hermer may point out that even those accused of terrorism deserve representation. That, of course, is true. But law and morality are two different things. It says much about the animal instincts of a lawyer that he appears to seek out such clients, resulting in case outcomes that cut against both common sense and the national interest.

Is it any surprise that the attorney general has played a key role in Britain’s disgraceful surrender of the Chagos Islands, which is costing us upwards of £30 billion, a sum that could have purchased three aircraft carriers or an entire nuclear weapons system? Instead, the cash will be used to lower taxes in Mauritius.

In the end, it’s always about Jews, even for the Jews. Ironically, if American B-2s end up dropping 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on Fordow, they will take off from Diego Garcia.

Recently, Hermer was even forced to apologise for a “clumsy” remark comparing calls to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with the early days of Nazi Germany. For a member of a synagogue to make such a remark was especially baffling.

The conclusion is unavoidable. Our attorney general has weighed up loyalty to his country and his people against admiration from the left and plumped decisively for the latter.