Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Beyond Salvaging?

AGM 2010 Report

Socialist Action Uses Every Device to Retain Control

Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Conference will be seen as a watershed, the year that the organisation surrendered its last vestige of independence as the Socialist Action retained its control of the organisation. SA have effectively handed the trade union bureaucracy a veto over the organisation’s policy and campaigning work in the unions.

The key debate this year, like last year, was over breaking links with Histadrut, Israel’s racist settler ‘union’. Unlike last year, trade union officer Bernard Regan did not pretend that our disagreements were only tactical. Now Bernard was honest about his and Socialist Action’s position.

According to Bernard Regan, Histadrut was all the things we said it was historically but from the 1990’s it became a different animal. Because of the monetarist Stabilisation Pact in Israel and Histadrut’s loss of its position as the second largest employer in Israel, most of its industry having been privatised, it is no longer the same creature.

It is true that today Histadrut is but a shadow of its previous self. Membership has dropped to less than 700,000, a loss of more than a million workers. It has shed most of its Arab members, since it no longer runs Kupat Holim, the health service, their only reason for joining.

But this is not a change of substance. At best it has become a more genuinely racist settler union for Israeli Jewish workers. It has never opposed the occupation of the West Bank/Gaza and its former General Secretary, Amir Peretz, as Defence Minister, launched the Lebanon invasion of 2006. Yes it has even agreed to organise migrant labour, but that is because of international pressure, and its base still demands their expulsion to create 'Jewish' jobs. It still supports replacing Arab with Jewish labour on the pretext that the latter have served in the army. In other words, its Zionist character hasn’t changed.

The question David Baker from Brighton PSC and I asked was whether or not we would have supported the TUC linking up with white trade unions in South Africa. Unsurprisingly we got no answer.

But TUC leaders are notorious for not wanting to upset the apple cart. They are member of the International Trade Unions Confederation, of which Histadrut is a member. They don’t want to introduce this kind of controversy into relations with other trade union bureaucracies. It would also be seen to be at odds with British Foreign Policy on Israel and the TUC's own support for a 2 State solution. So PSC has accepted a faustian pact. In exchange for money from unions like UNISON and a ‘Boycott’ campaign by the TUC, which so far consists of joint postcards from PSC and the TUC to MPs, PSC will refrain from mentioning the word ‘Histadrut’.

All Palestinian grassroots organisations, including the Palestinian campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the Palestinian trade union PGFTU, support a Boycott of Histadrut. When representatives of Sawt el-Amel, a Palestinian workers organisation inside Israel, came to Britain last year, they made it clear that they supported cutting links with Histadrut, which is rightly seen as collaborating in their oppression.

For Bernard Regan and Socialist Action to now give a stamp of approval to Histadrut is to scab on Palestinian workers inside Israel. They prefer to appease right-wing British trade union leaders who give lip-service to the Palestinian struggle rather than to get them to live up to their rhetoric. For the sake of preserving their control of PSC, trade union money and their jobs, Socialist Action has stabbed Palestinian workers in the back by in effect endorsing Histadrut.

Hugh Lanning, the Deputy General Secretary of the civil service union PCS chaired the conference quite disastrously. He gave every impression of not being a well person and this, it seems, compounded his already bureaucratic ailments. So when it came to a vote, because of the worry of PSC Executive as to how the vote would go, Lanning decided to engage in a traditional bit of vote fixing and gerrymandering.

There were 2 motions. One from 2 trade union executive members – John McGee of the FBU and Kevin Courtney of the NUT – did nothing except praise PSC Executive for winning its position at TUC Congress. The other, from Brighton PSC moved by David Baker, called for the cutting of links with Histadrut. Lanning ruled that if the relatively uncontroversial Motion 2 was passed Motion 3 fell. This was a quite outrageous manoeuvre but challenging the chair requires a 2/3 majority and in the event PSC Conference demonstrated its normal deference by voting against the challenge by 138 to 89 votes.

But in another example of where its real politics lie, the Executive sought remittance of an amendment moved by myself and Roland Rance condemning the apartheid treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel, attacks on the unemployed, primarily Arab workers subject to Wisconsin-style workfare schemes, and the attempts to substitute Jewish for Arab workers. Opposition to accepting this, we thought uncontroversial, amendment, demonstrates where the real politics of Socialist Action lie. Two States is their only solution and that means accepting Israel like it is. In reality PSC has all but abandoned the Palestinian diaspora and those living inside the Israeli state.

This is the only explanation for their refusal to utter one word of criticism of the Palestinian Authority. An invitation was extended to their representative in London Prof. Manuel Hassassian, to speak to the conference (last year he wasn’t invited). No mention was made of the PA withdrawing a motion endorsing the Goldstone Report from the UN Human Rights Committee. PSC Executive likewise had nothing to say about Egypt’s iron wall on Gaza’s southern border or Abbas's explicitly endorsement of this last week. To criticise the quisling Abbas would mean accepting that the whole of the Oslo process has been a disaster for the Palestinians and that what we now face now is a one state solution. PSC executive know full well that the diplomatic route to Palestinian self-determination is now a dead-end. The question is whether Palestinians have equal political and civil rights with Israeli Jews or not.

The agenda was stuffed with speakers. Some like the main speaker Mustafa Berghouti were very interesting as was Mark Serwotka’s description of his visit to Palestine. Rodney Bickerstaffe and Victoria Brittain were there to waste time that could have been used for policy formation.

Because of the Executive’s submission of a wide variety of constitutional amendments coupled with the plethora of speakers and late starting, Conference ran out of time in the afternoon. The only other debate was on students. The main Executive motion was from Fiona Edwards, the new student officer, who just happens to be the key activist in the vanishing Student Broad Left front of Socialist Action. She took over from Bryoni Shanks, SBL’s failed candidate in last year’s National Union of Students elections. Making up a triumvirate there is the Campaigns worker, Ruqqiah Collector, who just happens to have been SBL’s last member of NUS Executive and someone who has done precious little in terms of campaigning work.

The motion pointed out that the Zionist Union of Jewish Students has virtually a monopoly over NUS policy on Palestine with NUS supporting Israel’s attack on Gaza. Yet Edwards objected to this too! All mention of Action Palestine, the main group behind the occupation of some 40+ colleges and universities last year was omitted from SA’s history of the student movement. I was even accused of ‘red-baiting’ and McCarthyism for telling the truth i.e. pointing out that SA is a secretive freemasons style group that operates to obtain jobs and perks for its members.

SA do seriously believe that if you oppose them you are engaging in McCarthyism, though quite what the comparison is with the executed Rosenbergs r the travails of Pete Seeger is a mystery! Anne Grey, who was a member of PSC Executive many years ago with me, intervened in the debate to point out how ludicrous the charge of McCarthyism was and Martin Sullivan of West Midlands pointed out that the Conference was more a sea of grey than the youthful. The contrast between the vacuous rhetoric of Fiona Edwards and the reality of Conway Hall could not have been more marked.

Bernard Regan even stood up and asked me to withdraw the amendment, which I refused. It would have of course have made life easier but the choice - to speak the truth or withdraw the motion - was never an option. As I said in my speech, PSC has effectively sub-contracted its work to the student wing of Socialist Action. And given that SBL is the weakest left faction inside NUS that is not a very smart thing to do.

After the conference ended a woman came up to me from the Venezuelan Solidarity Campaign to say that Socialist Action was doing the same in that group and it was now in danger of failing altogether as a result of this parasite having latched onto it.

Socialist Action’s method is to talk up any successes and gloss over any failures. In other words there is no analysis of where the group is, whether it has made progress in the last year, what it has learnt from its failures or mistakes (because SA never makes mistakes). All is the onward march of progress. To the Executive, getting a motion passed by TUC Executive was a major or ‘superb’ victory according to their hype. In fact the more radical FBU motion calling for a boycott of all Israeli goods was overridden by the TUC General Council statement that called for a Boycott of just settler produce. Likewise the call for a review of relations with Histadrut was trumped. So whilst it was a victory it was far more minor than that made out.

The attempt by Fiona Edwards to claim credit for the dozens of occupations by students last year was somewhat undermined by the fact that she opposed the Occupation at Sheffield University. We happened to get hold of a leaflet, from Communist Students, attacking her for just this! And despite lying to PSC AGM and saying that she supported the occuption, she initially opposed it because some students (especially the Islamic Society) wanted to try first negotiating common demands with the university administration. There are conflicting accounts about whether she joined the occupation when it started.

Much was made of the fact that membership, 4,400, had risen by a 1,000 in the past year. But last year saw the invasion of Gaza, one of Israel’s greatest political mistakes. It resulted in enormous sympathy with the Palestinians. An organisation with an Executive which was being held to account would ask why it was that PSC had only gained an extra thousand members, most of whom it is destined to lose. In fact it has hovered around the 4,000 marks for as long as many of us can remember. The repetition by Betty Hunter of the fatuous slogan that we are building a mass anti-apartheid movement is belied by the reality. Socialist Action and Communist League (Regans + Hunter) could never build such a movement because it would threaten their own grip on the organisation.

All the Executive members elected (all officer posts were uncontended) in the block of 8 were loyalists and dissident candidates – Zoe Mars (a previous treasurer), Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and Phelim McCafferty of Green Left – received about 100 votes. The highest candidate receiving 190 votes. The only independent elected was Kamal Hawwash, the Vice-President of PSC, who resigned in the summer over his dismissive treatment by Betty Hunter and the Executive, who was elected unopposed. Probably because SA feared being seen to opey oppose a Palestinian.

PSC ended up the year with a £15,000 surplus. What is again worrying is that last year they summarily dismissed their part-time bookkeeper with no reason given. He was sacked after 11 months, i.e. just before gaining the right to claim unfair dismissal, which is what nastier anti-union employers do. No explanation of this was given to the AGM but it is interesting that they have employed another part-time bookkeeper. It raises fairly obvious questions since a small company audit does not go through vouchers, receipts etc.

What has been taking place for the past few years, because of the tendency of PSC to act as a brake on other’s initiatives and their reluctance to endorse BDS in practice, is the growth of an alternative Boycott movement such as Bricup and the more recent Boycott Israel Network. The latter was formed last summer as a result of a gathering at Wooller youth hostel and a similar get together is planned for the end of March. Groups like the SOAS Palestinian Society organise events like the Left and Palestine which are of far more interest than anything PSC is capable of organising, given the barren politics of SA.

I suspect that these groups will grow and PSC will become little more than the plaything of Socialist Action until they move on to fresh pastures or die out. Many individuals have spoken of giving up on PSC and this is certainly the attitude of activists. Branches are disillusioned with the Executive. It is interesting that the motion on EDO-MBM campaign in Brighton was virtually amended out of existence by an Executive which is afraid of taking any radical stance on an issue which may involve conflict with the British state. Yet the Palestinian issue is one requiring radical solutions and the timidity and conservatism of PSC are becoming an obstacle to solidarity with the Palestinians.

Tony Greenstein

Histadrut Thieves Stole Over £1 billion from Palestinian Workers

As readers of the blog will know, Histadrut, the racist settler union that created the Israeli state, began its life campaigning for Jewish Labour (Kibbush Ha'avodah i.e. the Boycott of Arab labour), Jewish land (to be redeemed from the Arabs) and Jewish produce (a Boycott of Arab produce).

Histadrut was established in 1920 and until 1959 refused to admit Arab members and then took another 7 years to change its name from the 'General Confederation of Hebrew Labour'.

Histadrut, which built the early settlements via its (now sold off) building company, Solel Boneh, has never opposed the occupation of the West Bank or Gaza. It is a complete misnomer to see Histadrut as any part of even the most timid of the Israeli peace movement. On the contrary it has consisted of the most hawkish and war-like parts of the Israeli Labour Party. It was no accident that Amir Peretz, the Labour Defence Minister who launched the attack on Gaza in 2006, was the former General-Secretary of Histadrut. The most war-like member of the Cabinet which oversaw the attack on Gaza last year was another former General Secretary of Histadrut, Haim Ramon. And Ofer Eini, Histadrut's current General-Secretary, was one of those pushing hardest for Ehud Barak to join the coalition government of Netanyahu and Lieberman.

It is therefore no shock to learn that research from the Alternative Information Centre in Jerusalem has established that something like £1.3 was stolen from Palestinian workers who worked in Israel during the occupation despite the fact that they could not join Histadrut. Histadrut has always set its face against joint Jewish-Arab solidarity against the employer or state. On the contrary it was established over the destruction of the mixed Arab-Jewish Railworkers trade union in Palestine. National solidarity, not class solidarity, was its buzz word.

Although Palestinians couldn't join Histadrut and received no protection from it, they reached a sweetheart deal with the Israeli government (which was also deducting money from Palestinian workers' wages for 'benefits' that they never saw) that allowed them to deduct 2% of workers' wages, in what is a disgusting mixture of corruption, theft and racism. To its ever lasting disgrace the quisling head of the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, Shaher Sae’d, negotiated a deal in 2008, which involved payment of about £4-5m by way of recompense. This blood money was used by Histadrut as a means of undermining the Boycott. At the Trade Union Friends of Israel fringe meeting I attended in 2008 this was a key reason for opposing Boycott. Likewise the TUFI fringe meeting at UNISON Conference last year likewise made heavy use of this agreement. Even worse PGFTU seem to have accepted the principle that Histadrut can continue to make such deductions in exchange for 'representing' Palestinian workers, rather than demand the right to organise on behalf of workers itself in Israel.

As TUFI's own site says, 'Initial collaboration between the two federations started in 1993 after the signing of the Oslo Accords.' [Historic Agreement for Israeli and Palestinian Trade Union Co-operation] Collaboration being the operative word!

Histadrut makes it clear in the above article, in a section referring to the Boycott, entitled 'Used as a justification for boycotts', what the purpose of reaching any agreement was with PGFTU:

'A number of critics of Israel within the trade union movement, especially in the UK and Ireland, emphasised the disagreement; repeatedly using it as a justification for promoting trade union boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions against Israel. However, throughout even the most difficult times, the two organisations continued to have dialogue and the Histadrut continued to help Palestinian workers attain permits.'

Repeatedly Histadrut has claimed that PGFTU doesn't support a Boycott of Israeli produce. It does but Shaher Saeed and his collaborator friends have consistently tried to undermine the Boycott. A little flattery by Histadrut is more than enough for Saeed (& Abbas on a larger scale) to sell out Palestinian workers.

See also the position of the PFLP on Histadrut 'PLAF calls upon PGFTU to expose Histadrut and campaign actively for international labor boycott' and Palestinian Labor Leader Calls for Boycott and Divestment

Tony Greenstein

Israel Owes Over NIS 8.3 Billion to Palestinian Workers from the Occupied Palestinian Territories

The State of Israel owes more than NIS 8.3 billion (including interest) to Palestinian workers from the Occupied Palestinian Territories who worked in Israel. This money was deducted from the Palestinian workers’ salaries for social benefits they did not receive. This is the conclusion of detailed research conducted by the Alternative Information Center (AIC) and Kav LaOved.

“This is theft, pure and simple,” notes Shir Hever, Economic Researcher with the Alternative Information Center and co-author of the research. “92.4% of the deductions taken from workers for National Insurance related social rights, for example, were transferred instead to the coffers of the Israeli Ministry of Finance. Palestinian workers from the OPT did not—and do not—receive the vast majority of social rights for which they are legally mandated to pay.”

Palestinian workers are forced to pay for rights they do not in actuality receive, including for income support, full severance compensation, seniority payments, vacation pay, continuing education, provident fund and holiday payments.

Palestinian workers in the construction sector have further been forced to pay 2% of their salaries to a fund “for the promotion of the construction sector in Israel.” This fund, managed by a non-profit association established specifically for this purpose, is meant to promote the hiring and training of Israeli workers in the construction sector. Palestinian workers are in essence forced to finance the training of workers meant to replace them. In practice, however, the fund—which contains NIS 34 million to date—is used to pay for public relations of the Contractors’ Association, grants to the families of Israeli workers and training for Israeli union activists. The height of cynicism in using this Palestinian-financed fund was in its purchase of portable stoves for Israeli soldiers to use during the December 2008-January 2009 Israeli military attacks on the Gaza Strip.

While most of the “excessive deductions” taken from the Palestinian workers were done so via the Department of Payments of the Ministry of Interior, the Israeli trade union Histradut also took money from Palestinian workers whilst denying them even the possibility of membership in the Histradut and representation in a host of labour-related areas. Although the Histradut claims in a response to the AIC and Kav LaOved that a 2008 agreement it signed with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) closes all outstanding claims in this areas, in practice the Histradut agreed to transfer less than 20% of the “organizing fees” it has collected from Palestinian workers over the years to the PGFTU.

The AIC and Kav LaOved call on Israel to return the money stolen from Palestinian workers from the OPT to the workers themselves or to their legal beneficiaries. This money should be returned with interest.

The full research, which will be available in late February 2010 in hard copies and on the website of the Alternative Information Center Arabic, English and Hebrew, includes precise sums deducted by the Israeli government for which Palestinian workers received no rights, in addition to a detailed research methodology and calculations for estimating the amounts that must be returned to the Palestinian workers.

Did US intelligence agencies allow Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Xmas flight?

I can honestly say that the whole conspiracy thing about 9/11 passed me by, as do most other conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean there weren't those in the 'intelligence' services who didn't desire Al Quaeda to do their worst in order to provoke the inevitable reaction, but I nevery bought into the idea that a group of Israelis cheering nearby or the sloth and laziness of Bush and his cohorts therefore meant that it was planned. The article below though is interesting. It beggars belief how someone whose own father had informed on him was allowed a free pass into the USA. Any read and see what you think! Tony Greenstein

Amid Media Blackout

Congressional hearing reveals US intelligence agencies shielded Flight 253 bomber

By Alex Lantier

February 03, 2010 "WSWS" -- A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane.

The hearing was reported in a brief article posted January 27 on the web site of the Detroit News, headlined, “Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation.”

The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.

This is despite—or perhaps more accurately, because of—the fact that this information exposes the official government story of the near-disaster to be a lie. President Obama, who has joined with top US intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security officials to insist that Abdulmutallab was inadvertently allowed to board the plane carrying explosives because of a failure to “connect the dots,” has from the start been deceiving the American people.

The official line strained credulity from the outset, given reports of multiple advance warnings that the Nigerian student was linked to terrorists in Yemen who were planning attacks on the US.

As was widely reported within hours of the failed bombing attempt, Abdulmutallab’s father—a former Nigerian government minister and prominent banker—went to the US embassy in Abuja in November to warn that his son was involved with radical Islamists in Yemen and had broken off contact with his family. The family said they had given US officials extensive information about their son in the expectation that they would “find and return him home.”

In his prepared statement to the House Committee on Homeland Security on January 27, State Department Under-Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy said: “In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on the day following his father’s November 19 visit to the Embassy, we sent a cable to the Washington intelligence and law enforcement community through proper channels (the Visas Viper system) that ‘Information at post suggests [Farouk] may be involved in Yemeni-based extremists.’”

Kennedy confirmed that all US intelligence agencies received warnings that Abdulmutallab was training with terrorists in Yemen. He noted that the initial diplomatic cable from Abuja misspelled Abdulmutallab’s name. However, Kennedy continued, “At the same time, the Consular Section entered Abdulmutallab into the Consular Lookout and Support System database known as CLASS… The CLASS entry resulted in a lookout using the correct spelling that was shared automatically with the primary lookout system used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and accessible to other agencies.”

Under questioning by the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Kennedy explained why the State Department might not revoke the US visa of a suspected terrorist: “We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, ‘Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?’”

He added: “And one of the members [of the intelligence community]—and we’d be glad to give you that out of [open session]—in private—said, ‘Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.’”

Under questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren, Kennedy confirmed that Abdulmutallab’s case was one in which US intelligence officials had interceded to block a visa revocation.

In prepared remarks at the same hearing, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter stated: “Within the intelligence community we had strategic intelligence that Al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP—the terrorist group in Yemen with which Abdulmutallab was in contact] had the intention of taking action against the United States prior to the failed attack on December 25th, but we did not direct more resources against AQAP, nor insist that watch-listing criteria be adjusted prior to the event.” He added that US intelligence analysts “did not push [Abdulmutallab] onto the terrorist watch-list.”

This inaction came despite the fact that US intelligence agencies were well aware of the threat posed by AQAP. According to Leiter: “The Intelligence Community highlighted the growing threat to US and Western interests in the region posed by AQAP, whose precursor elements attacked our embassy in [the Yemeni capital] Sana’a [in September 2008]. Our analysis focused on AQAP’s plans to strike US targets in Yemen, but it also noted—increasingly in the fall of 2009—the possibility of targeting the United States.”

Amazingly, the US government did not declare AQAP a terrorist group until January 19, 2010, even though it was referred to by that name in 2009. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that declaring AQAP a terrorist group would “prohibit provision of material support and arms to AQAP and also include immigration-related restrictions that will help stem the flow of finances to AQAP.” Thus, for nearly a month after the attempted bombing, US officials were not required to implement a range of measures against AQAP, including “an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo,” according to Crowley.

At the January 27 hearing, Leiter said that there had been “multiple” points of failure in the US government’s response to warnings of the impending attack. However, all three government officials testifying—Kennedy, Leiter and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Secretary Jane Lute—said no disciplinary action would be taken.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was invited to the hearing and was in Washington at the time, refused to attend. She did not notify committee members beforehand. Napolitano was widely criticized for claiming on December 27 that the “system worked” prior to, during and after the attempted bombing.

Official testimony now records that US intelligence agencies deliberately let Abdulmutallab board Flight 253, putting the lives of hundreds of passengers at risk, in the course of an as yet undisclosed intelligence operation. Whether US agencies were unaware of Abdulmutallab’s plans, or consciously decided to allow an attack to proceed, remains unclear.

In this context, it should be noted that the reason for US inaction given at the hearing—that US intelligence did not want to alert Al Qaeda that it was watching Abdulmutallab—does not hold water. As congressmen noted during the hearing, US Customs and Border Protection had prepared to interrogate Abdulmutallab upon arrival in Detroit, as he was on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database. This would be counterproductive if US agencies were mounting a concerted effort to hide their interest in Abdulmutallab.

There are a number of possible explanations for the decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board Northwest Flight 253. One possibility is that it was bound up with efforts by elements within the US intelligence apparatus to politically destabilize the Obama administration.

To seriously investigate the possible motivations behind the government’s actions, the question must be asked: What would have been the consequences of a successful attack? Hysterical media coverage would have provided fodder for the most right-wing factions in the ruling class to demand war against Yemen or other Muslim countries. At home, there would have been calls for a mass dragnet like that after the September 11 attacks, and immense political pressure for a new battery of police-state laws.

Even having failed, the attack was used as a pretext for expanding US military operations in Yemen, adding further security restrictions at airports, and expanding the “no-fly” passenger list and other databases by agencies unaccountable to the American people.

The testimony at the January 27 hearing also blows apart the line promulgated by the establishment media, which universally echoed the administration’s hackneyed phrase to explain the Flight 253 incident—a “failure to connect the dots” on the part of US intelligence agencies. This, of course, is the same phrase used in the official cover-up of the 9/11 attacks.

Thus, in a January 2 editorial entitled “Why Didn’t They See It?” the New York Times wrote: “No doubt sorting through heaps of information and determining what is urgent or even worthy of follow-up is daunting. Still, it is incredible, and frightening, that the government cannot do at least as good a job at swiftly updating and correlating information as Google.”

The Times itself, in a subsequent article published January 18, reported the results of its own investigation, based on interviews with senior White House and intelligence officials. The newspaper revealed more “missed clues,” including the fact that intelligence authorities learned in early November from a communications intercept of Al Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk” had volunteered for a coming operation. Despite such evidence of an official cover-up, the Times maintained the line that the near-disaster was the result of mistakes, omissions and an inability to “connect the dots.”

It is now possible to answer the New York Times editorial of January 2: They did “see it,” and the Times’ incredulous and cynical attempt to explain the Flight 253 attack as the result of mere incompetence was part of a campaign of disinformation. This is a campaign in which, by its silence on the January 27 hearing, the Times continues to participate.

The Congressional hearing vindicates the analysis of the World Socialist Web Site, which exposed the highly dubious character of the official story, pointed to the possibility of US government involvement, and demanded that officials involved in handling Abdulmutallab’s case be named and investigated.

In a December 31 column (“The Northwest Flight 253 intelligence failure: Negligence or conspiracy?”) the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “The general outlines of the Northwest bombing attempt and the 9/11 attacks are startlingly similar. One might even say that what is involved is a modus operandi. In both cases, those alleged to have carried out the actions had been the subject of US intelligence investigations and surveillance and had been allowed to enter the country and board flights under conditions that would normally have set off multiple security alarms.

“Both then and now, the government and the media expect the public to accept that all that was involved was mistakes. But why should anyone assume that the failure to act on the extensive intelligence leading to Abdulmutallab involved merely ‘innocent’ mistakes—and not something far more sinister?”

In the January 18 New York Times article cited above, the newspaper also noted that Obama personally met on December 22 with CIA, FBI, and DHS officials because Obama was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” In another meeting the same day, the Times reported, Obama’s homeland security advisor John Brennan held talks on Yemen, “where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target on Christmas day.”

Nevertheless, Obama gave a December 28 internet and radio address in which he falsely described Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist.”

He also declared: “A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable... We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”

Over a month after Obama made these claims, it is clear that US intelligence agencies were deeply involved and the White House is overseeing a massive cover-up.

State must apologize to Israel's Holocaust survivors - Knesset Speaker

A little reminder after Holocaust Memorial Day that when Zionists claim that the Holocaust sanctifies them and Israel uses the holocaust to ward off criticism, as to their real attitude. Israel claims (mistakenly) that it arose on the ashes of the Holocaust. It's a good story, but even now, when holocaust survivors are rapidly dying out, Israel does its best to ensure that the reparations for the holocaust go toward the upkeep of the Zionist state and in funding ‘educational’ trips to Auschwitz for Israeli school kids. These kids are kept apart from the Polish population, whom they are told are all anti-Semites, and the message they are fed is that only blood, fire and racism can ward off another holocaust – rather than those for whom the money was intended.

'Never Again' has been twisted and distorted into 'Never Again for Jews'

It is this which should put in context the Zionist exploitation of the holocaust in order to legitimise the apartheid State of Israel. Below is one of numerous article on Zionism’s real attitude to the holocaust survivors, an attitude that Tom Segev details in his book The Seventh Million, where those who first came to Israel were termed ‘soap’.

Tony Greenstein

Dalia Itzik: State must apologize to Israel's Holocaust survivors
Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz 20.8.07.

Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik said Monday that the State of Israel must apologize to Holocaust survivors for all the funds that the state has withheld from them over the years.

Itzik spoke during a special Knesset discussion on the topic of monetary assistance to impoverished survivors.

"The State of Israel demanded the reparation money that was transferred from
Germany, but wasn't wise enough to channel the funds correctly for the benefit
of those who needed and deserved it," Itzik said at the discussion. "Today we
are here to repair that mistake, so that we are able to look the survivors in
the eye, and with humility, tell them on behalf of the State of Israel, and on
behalf of Israeli society, that we are sorry."

Last week, State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss published a special report which concluded that the Finance Ministry had delayed and canceled financial support for institutions that assist survivors.

The report found that funds that were designated for survivors were not used for that purpose, nor is the primary body charged with coordinating the activities of survivors' organizations funded at all. According to the report, the problem is a result of mismanagement in the Finance Ministry.

Lindenstrauss further determined that survivors experience years of delays in processing their claims due to bureaucratic obstacles and the lack of adequate manpower.

During Monday's discussion, several MKs criticized Itzik for deferring the discussion until after a deal was struck Sunday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the survivors' groups over the amount of monthly assistance they would be eligible to receive.

Meretz Party Chair Zahava Gal-On criticized Olmert for failing to attend the special discussion. She added that the government mustn't discriminate between types of survivors, referring the distinction the prime minister had made between survivors who endured the camps, and those who escaped the Nazi-controlled areas and ended up in Soviet territories. The agreement reached between the Olmert and the survivors stipulated a monthly stipend for those who had survived the camps, but not the "second circle" survivors.

"There is no difference between people who experienced pain, suffering, humiliation, were tortured and fled," Gal-On said.

MK Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) said that "Israel cannot conduct another selection," referring to the selection the survivors underwent on their way to the camps.

However, government representative and Pensioners' Minister Rafi Eitan said that the large number of survivors requires such a sub-division.

MK Collette Avital (Labor) warned against the possibility that the treasury would undermine the planned assistance by dragging its feet.

"Israel's government must take organizational decisions
in addition to budgetary decisions. If we don't make the bureaucratic
system more efficient, repair those failures the state comptroller referred to
in his report, and ensure that the survivors receive appropriate and respectable
treatment, the money allocated to them will continue to get stuck in the
depths of bureaucracy and one day soon we will discover that the pretty
decisions made yesterday (Sunday) won't be worth more than the paper they are
written on."

MK Sarah Marom Shalev (Pensioners), a Holocaust survivor herself, urged the Knesset not to approve the 2008 budget until the financial aid to survivors is finalized. She said "yesterday I was at the funeral of one of my closest friends, a Holocaust survivor. He died at age 72 with nothing."

On Sunday, Olmert agreed, during his meeting with representatives of Holocaust survivors, to allocate NIS 100 million next year for medical and nursing-care benefits to survivors living in Israel.

In addition, he said the survivors would enjoy municipal tax discounts, an exemption from the television tax, and NIS 30 million in vacation and convalescence benefits.

The funds allotted for convalescence and for medical and nursing-care benefits, which will be distributed by the Holocaust Survivors' Welfare Fund, will double in 2009.

Olmert refused, however, to grant benefits to survivors who fled Nazi-controlled territory and were not placed in concentration camps or ghettos, saying that to do so would be to create an "ethnic gap" between European Holocaust survivors and elderly Israelis who fled persecution in other countries, such as Iraq.

"I don't doubt for even one moment the distress of those who fled from countries where the Nazis were, and they are survivors of the Nazi occupation," Olmert said, adding, on the other hand, that "I am not disregarding those who fled from the enemies of Israel - the Persians, the Moroccans, the Tunisians and the Syrians."

Noah Flug, who heads the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel, which represented the survivors in negotiations, told Olmert that two-thirds of Holocaust survivors from Poland managed to flee eastward during the Nazi occupation. He said most international groups and foreign governments - and previously, the Israeli government - recognized such refugees as survivors in every way.

The government negotiators were initially leaning toward granting benefits to those who fled Nazi-controlled territory, but changed their position due to the opposition of the Finance Ministry's budget division.

The ministry said financial problems relating to such survivors should instead be resolved within the context of a solution for all needy elderly Israelis. The National Economics Council is due to come up with such a solution by the Rosh Hashanah holiday in mid-September.

The Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors is aiming to help those who have fallen through the cracks, and who receive little government support in the form of the benefits received by most survivors that were in concentration camps or ghettos.

Some 8,000 survivors who have yet to receive a special government allotment for various bureaucratic reasons will be receiving NIS 1,200 a month for the next two years. The government will try to convince Germany to provide the funds for the payout. If it does not succeed, it will increase the benefits paid by Israel to NIS 1,600 a month after the two years have passed.

In addition, some 7,000 survivors who receive reparations from a German fund established in the 1990s, and who subsist thanks to income supplements, will receive an annual grant of NIS 3,000. The government will also fund a center that will inform survivors concerning their financial rights and help them receive the money that is due them.

The government, whose negotiating team was led by Prime Minister's Office director general Raanan Dinur, also agreed to symbolic gestures such as granting survivors a badge of appreciation on the occasion of Israel's upcoming 60th birthday. It will also establish a committee - half of whose members are survivors, and half ministerial directors - which will meet twice a year to discuss survivors' benefits and any related problems that might arise.

The government also committee to promote legislation recognizing the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors as the representative group in any future negotiations with the government

see also Germany: No additional reparations for Holocaust survivors

A Zionist & A Holocaust Denier Hold Hands Together

"It's a shame that either Hitler or the Angel of Death, missed your family's house. Or Neturei Karta's."

Normally I don't put anti-Semitic, holocaust denial or overt Zionist racist comments on my blog. However I'm going to make an exception today. Well I'm not going to post them but I'm going to place them together in the same article rather than as posts to older articles.

The first is by a charming fellow by the name of 'Mossad' - quite fitting in the circumstances. Our fascist Zionist, because there is little doubt that he is such, starts off with the usual accusations of being a traitor (don't know where he got the bastard bit) as well as being a 'leftist liberal Jew'. One of Hitler's pet hates except be believed all Jews were such. Actually I'm not a liberal leftist but a Marxist! And, unusual but not unknown even for Zionist lunatics, he ends up wishing that Hitler (or the Angel of Death (grip reaper!)) had managed to kill a few more people, viz. my family. But it is becoming more common and there was an example a few weeks ago in Jerusalem of settlers saying to Jewish demonstrators protesting against ethnic cleansing, that Hitler was right.

And of course, this is understandable. As the Defence Lawyer, in the trial of the 2 Revisionists in Palestine who were accused of the murder of Haim Arlossoroff in 1933 stated - but for Hitler's anti-Semitism we could have become the most ardent supporters of German fascism!

But there is nothing new in this. The phenomenon of 'cruel Zionism' is as old as Zionism. Zionism starts off from anti-Semitism, which it classifies as something you cannot fight because it is inherent in the Gentile. Then it finds that people do fight it successfully. So the Zionist movement either simulates anti-Semitism by, as in Iraq in the early 1950's, actually getting their own agents to plant bombs or by expressing the desire that if only anti-Semitism were a bit more virulent then those ungrateful Jews would come to their own state.

But as Theodore Herzl noted in his Diaries 'anti-Semitism too probably contains the Divine will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.' [Complete Diaries, p.231, ed. Ralph Patai). In the 1950's a columnist in the Histadrut paper, Davar, wrote that:

"I shall not be ashamed to confess that if I had the power, AS I HAVE: THE WILL, I would select a score of efficient young men... and 1 would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction (!). The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jewish and plague Jews with anti-Semitic slogans such as 'Bloody Jews', Jews go to Palestine' and similar intimacies. I can vouch that the results, in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries, who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears." A Lillienthall, 'The Other Side of the Coin' New York, p. 84 cited in Hirst p. 160.

The second comment is from one of the cruder holocaust deniers. Probably someone with whom 'Mossad' could have allied with, if only he had got over his obsession over the holocaust.

Bear this in mind next time you hear a Zionist accuse an anti-Zionist or supporter of the Palestinians of anti-Semitism.

I wonder whether Mark Gardener of the Zionist Community Security Trust will be logging this as an anti-semitic incident!

I've kept both comments on the log page as well as taking a screen shot, just in case someone doubts that there are Zionists who are quite capable of summoning the Nazis in their defence.

Tony Greenstein

Greenstein, you traitorous bastard, you leftist liberal Jew.

What do you leftist Jews think you are proving by being anti-Zionist?

You think you are a intellectual or something by choosing, supposedly, to "not follow the herd"?

You think these Jew-hating Muslims and other anti-Israel Jew-haters are your friends? When the time comes, they will wipe you out as well.

You don't want Zionism? So go back to live under Europe's boot. Go back to live in your little shtettls and ghettoes with the Jew-hater's hob-nailed boot over your head. Let us Jews who want to fight for themselves be. You cowardly traitor.

"Europe's Jews were primarily anti-Zionist"??? Where'd you get this? But I agree with the other poster.I usually don't ever make references to the Holocaust in this type of ugly manner, or curse fellow Jews, but for you it's an exception.

It's a shame that either Hitler or the Angel of Death, missed your family's house. Or Neturei Karta's.

Don't even call yourself a Jew,traitor.

Publish Reject

It is time to face the truth about the holohoax. The Nazis did not try to exterminate the Jews. The gas chambers are a hoax. The six million dead is phantasmagoria. Now, there is a web site that presents the salient facts about the hoax at xxx

Check it out with an open, skeptical mind. Here's a summary for those afraid to click on the site ...

I'll check back to explore any questions ...

The fundamentals of the holohoax are explained and documented at holohoax101.com Here's a brief summary -

1. The Zionists claimed that there was holocaust of six million Jewish victims during World War ONE. Documented by articles from the NYT.

2. The 'gas chambers' are a preposterous hoax, the only two in existence have plate glass windows. Photos included.

3. The pictures of Belsen victims, shown as evidence of the holohoax, died of typhus, other pictures taken at the same

time, which you've never seen, show healthy prisoners and happy children, documented by pictures.

4. Nazi death books at Auschwtiz show that more Roman Catholics died there than Jews, these books are now available to

the public. Link provided.

5. The holohoax is based on the lies of the 'survivors', the three best known, E. Wiesel, O. Frank, and P. Levi, were in

the hospital in Auschwitz when the Russians approached. Examples given.

6. No defendant at Nuremberg admitted to any part in the killing of Jews. Only one was charged with direct involvement,

and he testified that he learned of the hoax on allied radio. Testimony given.

7. Billy Wilder, famous Hollywood director, made a movie in Buchenwald within a week of its capture, full of degenerate

lies like shrunken heads, lampshades made of skin, and soap made from human fat. Documented by photo. The Zionist press

keeps these lies alive.

8. The Zionists are teaching the holohoax to students in many states starting in kindergarten. Links given.

For this and much more, with links, visit holohoax101.com

PSC AGM 2010 - Executive Libels Its Critics

PSC Executive Accuses Its Opponents of Being Zionist Agents

Executive Response to Criticism is to Restrict Democracy Further

Last summer, 13 of us (subsequently 27) sent a letter to Palestine Solidarity Campaign Executive. It is copied below*: As can be seen, we raised issues concerning the way PSC was being run. In the Annual Report of PSC Executive, which has just been sent (to some people) it states that ‘in August a group of 13 people made unsubstantiated allegations to the EC.’

A cursory reading of the Open Letter demonstrates that it wasn’t alleging anything, merely asking questions. Having the audacity to raise such questions was, however, deemed an act of lese majeste. PSC Executive and its Socialist Action/Communist League components, don’t do accountability and transparency.

A Stalinist Charge Sheet from ex-Trotskyists

The whole of the relevant section of the Annual Report, ‘PSC Internal Matters’, is copied below.** It reads like a caricature of a Stalinist charge sheet during the Moscow Trials. We are not authors of a letter asking questions, we are ‘perpetrators’. We are not calling for a debate or discussion, we are subjecting the EC to ‘public calumny.’ And most shocking of all, the authors (including two who were the co-founders of PSC) are accused of ‘help(ing) those who want to see PSC fail in our efforts to build a mass movement.’ This is the big lie at the heart of the passage. If you oppose us you are on the side of the Zionists and want us to fail.

This kind of argument has a long pedigree. In the 1930’s, in Stalin's Purges, Zinoviev, Kamenev etc. were accused of simultaneously being in league with Trotsky and agents of Hitler. The logic was that if you opposed Stalin you were bound to be a paid agent and lackey of Hitler.

It is the staple argument of the war monger. If you oppose ‘our troops’ you support the other side, a traitor in league with ‘our’ enemies. This was the argument of Thatcher and then Bush. If you oppose us you’re with General Galtiera/Saddam Hussein/Al Quaeda. It has all the intellectual and moral sophistication of the younger Bush, albeit without his eloquence.

In fact there is very little use the Zionists can make of debates inside the Palestine solidarity movement. It is a measure of the desperation of the PSC Execitove that instead of dealing with the arguments they resort to the kind of rhetorical device that McCarthy and his House of UnAmerican Affairs specialised in.

A couple of years ago UK and Israel JNF were at each others’ throats in the High Court. After the expenditure of millions of pounds, with virulent attacks on each other, they settled their differences. Did this affect support for the Zionists? Of course not. Support for the Israel and Zionism depends on things such as Israel's latest war, their settlements, the discrimination etc., not whether Betty Hunter and Tony Greenstein don’t see eye to eye on whether PSC should be democratic or not.

Healthy debate in PSC, if it leads to a rejuvenated and vigorous organisation and serious thinking about where we are going and how we can best get there, can only do the cause of Palestine solidarity good. The idea that, in the name of Palestinian unity, critics of Socialist Action/CL should shut up, can only damage the very cause that they purport to support. What PSC Executive are trying to achieve is some kind of para-Leninist command organisation. The Executive decides the priorities and campaigns and gives the orders and the membership blindly follow.

The problem is that some people have their own ideas and are not always convinced of the Executive's god given wisdom. Especially when PSC Executive reacts in its normal, cautious, hesitant and sometimes hostile manner as it seeks to retain control over PSC. Because control freakery is the other side of their political timidity.

Democracy & PSC Priorities

Above all this is about democracy. PSC’s Executive Report complains that critics of the EC are not using PSC’s ‘democratic processes’ and resorting to blogs and open letters. But this begs the question - what democratic processes or forums are there to debate where PSC should be going or doing or how it should be conducting campaigns? No doubt they exist within Socialist Action but not within PSC. There is no means, other than through personal contact, for PSC members to communicate and exchange ideas with other members across branches. In fact PSC Executive have made clear their dislike for the whole idea of regions – ‘another layer of bureaucracy’ in the words of their more sycophantic supporters.

In this debate PSC Executive have access to the whole of PSC's machinery to attack a letter that most people haven't seen. We have no such opportunities hence why this article has to be put on a public blog. Nor do we have unfettered access to PSC's mailing list.

The libellous accusation therefore of wanting PSC to fail should be seen as exactly that – a libel no different from the Zionist lie that to be an anti-Zionist is to be an anti Semite.

It was similar behaviour by Socialist Action which helped lead to extremely unfavourable publicity for Ken Livingstone in London and his downfall. But at least Ken knew the political affiliations of those he appointed as his advisors. In PSC this information is hidden away andwhen challenged PSC Executive members deny that they are members of Socialist Action. In the meantime SA are running PSC according to their political agenda. And at the top of that agenda is never, ever criticising the Palestinian leadership and Abbas, even if the latter is faithfully following Israel’s agenda by withdrawing the Goldstone Report from the UN's Human Rights Committee.

Many on PSC Executive see its role as some kind of not campaigning but diplomatic. We are there to influence government and act as an adjunct to the quisling Palestinian Authority in Britain. And how? By lobbying individual MPs. In their eyes, Britain’s pro-Zionist political stand has nothing to do with economic interests, imperialism or domination, still less capitalism. It is because individual MPs haven’t been ‘won over’. No doubt they will have even more fun with Cameron’s government given that 80% of Tory MPs are estimated to be in Conservative Friends of Israel.

When it comes to pickets and activities, PSC Executive are nearly all conspicuous by their absence. Most of PSC Executive are there not as activists but to make up the numbers. Ahava, Agrexco, the Windsor JNF picket, Barak picket – you’ll be lucky if more than one EC member attends at best. Two States is the objective and above all, it is important that a solidarity organisation engages in no internal debate about Palestine. Because if there were a thorough going debate PSC would have to face up to the fact that not only is an independent Palestinian state impossible but that to continue to campaign for this now means in effect to accept that Israel is right to deny political and civil rights to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. That is the real apartheid. We have one state already, but nearly half the population have no rights whatsoever.

And it might also mean having to face up to the fact that Israel's junior partners-in-crime are the Arab regimes. It was noticeable at the picket of the Egyptian Embassy over the attack on the Gaza Freedom March and Viva Palestina recently there was just one member of PSC.

The argument is often made that we are just a solidarity movement. But that is a cop-out. The first question that people often ask is what is our solutio. What do we want to see? Are we to say that we want to see Israel as a Jewish state established in harmony side by side with a Palestinian state? Do we accept that Israel, as a Zionist state is acceptable even behind the Green Line? Is this a solution to the question of Return? What about Israeli Arabs? Of course in practice these issues are buried and ignored in the hope they will go away. This means illusions in the ‘peace process’, [‘Will Obama do this etc.]

An example of how PSC’s priorities are distorted is the Gaza convoy, Viva Palestina. When the first convoy went at the beginning of last year, PSC nationally did nothing to help organise support for it. Remarks such as we are a political organisation and this is merely charitable were made by officers. But the recent convoy was supported (although the PSC Office didn’t let people know on a daily basis what was happening). So much so that Ms Collector went on it and Ms Colborne flew out to Egypt at one point. Why the change of heart? Because following the defeat of Ken Livingstone, Socialist Action have pulled out of entry work in the Labour Party and are now chasing George Galloway in Respect. They have even revealed their existence in a newly created, albeit sparse, website. And if there is a falling out of love with GG then we can expect PSC to drop its enthusiasm for convoys. This is the kind of sleight of hand that most members of PSC knowing nothing about. PSC’s choice of a campaign is now inseparable from Socialist Action's own political priorities.

Internal Matters

The section of the Annual Report on the resignation of 2 EC members is telling. Why were members of PSC not informed of the resignations? Why was the Branch Forum not told of the resignation of our Vice-Chair Kamal Hawwash and ex-Treasurer Zoe Mars? Why was there even an attempt to prevent them speaking?

Despite being ‘unsubstantiated’ the fact is, as Betty Hunter herself admitted to the Sheffield forum, that Sarah Colborne is a member of Socialist Action. She moved across from being Chair of PSC to Direction of Campaigns and Organisation. There is nothing wrong with this in itself, though it is unusual. And nor do I, or any of the signatories to the Open Letter, have any objection to PSC staff or EC members being members of any left-wing political organisation. What we object to is when small and secretive groups (SA/CL) with at most a hundred members, actively conspire to take over another organisation and run it, PSC, in line with the political priorities of Socialist Action/CL.

‘Our recruitment practices are fair and in accordance with equal opportunities’ the Annual Report states, yet it also states that ‘in July Ruqayyah Collector was appointed as Campaigns and Communications Officer.’ Ms Collector was also the last member of the National Union of Students Executive, elected on the Student Broad Left slate. PSC’s Student Officer, Bryony Shanks, was SBL’s unsuccessful candidate for NUS Executive and a member of SA.

It is a matter of common knowledge that SBL is Socialist Action’s student front. It is puerile and dishonest to pretend otherwise. What PSC Executive have effectively done is sub-contract out its student work to the weakest of all the left political factions in NUS. By any standards that is pretty stupid. Far from building alliances, as they claim, they are destroying any possibility of them. Hence why they were taken by surprise and at a loss to say anything, when a wave of occupations broke out in colleges and universities at the beginning of 2009 in protest at Israel’s savagery in Gaza.

And when one takes that with the short-term appointment of SA member Denis Fernando, the advertising for whose post was tightly restricted, this means that 3 of the last 3 staff appointments have been from one particular, small political faction. Is this really a coincidence? If so, the odds on winning the jackpot on the National Lottery are smaller.

Personal Abuse

The Annual Report speaks of ‘personal abuse’. Perhaps it was thinking of Hilary Wise’s e-mail of 10^th February 2009 to me. This was her response to the fact that I had disclosed on this blog a secret memo from PSC Trade Union Officer Bernard Regan to cronies and friends in the trade unions (some not even members of PSC), urging them to come to PSC AGM to oppose any motions that sought to break links with Israel’s racist ‘union’ Histadrut and to vote in favour of his own slate.

‘Like everyone else I know and work with closely in PSC, I am interested in the issue of Palestine and am working hard to try and change the situation. I don’t recall ever having seen TG at any of the dozens of meetings, demos, vigils, lobbies film shows etc where you find genuinely committed activists.’

Strangely I’ve never seen Ms Wise at a demonstration in Brighton either, nor for that matter in London! PSC Executive’s attack dog followed this up at the September Sheffield Branch Forum when even her supporters tried to shut her up, accusing me of being a ‘wrecker’. Presumably she meant helping to found PSC! Or maybe PSC EC was thinking of the time when Dianne Langford, in an open letter last summer (circa September) bizarrely referred to

‘the letter addressed to you plus copies of various emails originating from Tony Greenstein, including one urging the Merton branch not to affiliate to PSC and trying to recruit members to join the `opposition' to PSC.’

There was of course no e-mail to Merton branch, but why let that come between the facts and Ms Langford? Ms Langford’s previous claim to fame was ensuring that the SWP was kept off PSC’s Executive. Langford’s letter went on to allege that:

he [Tony Greenstein] and Roland Rance demanded that PSC should use its resources on a speaking tour denouncing Arafat and the PLO. The then National Secretary of PSC, John Gee, was castigated for standing firm on the principle of self-determination for the Palestinian people…. At the last AGM, while Gaza was still burning, valuable time was spent debating an unnecessary resolution on the issue of the Histadrut.’

The letter and e-mail Langford speaks about have only ever existed inside her head. They are total inventions, but why let that get in the way of a good story? But Langford lets slip what is the purpose of her fantasies. Boycotting Histadrut, as every Palestinian trade union and PACBI call for, is seen as a diversion by PSC Executive. It might even mean a disagreement with their trade union buddies. And what Ms Langford says openly PSC Executive says behind closed doors.

PSC AGM 2010

On the 6^th February PSC will hold its Annual General Meeting. Socialist Action/CL's response to our letter expressing concern at the lack of democracy in PSC has been to put forward constitutional proposals which, if passed, will all but destroy PSC’s democracy. There will be an annual conference, but its powers will be limited. It will certainly not be sovereign, even theoretically. The Trade Union Action Committee, whose membership is unknown and is not open to ordinary PSC trade union activists or members, at present sends 2 delegates to PSC Executive. Constitutional amendment 5, which has clearly been instigated by the Executive, suggests that the representation of TUAC be doubled to 4! As these places are Bernard Regan's gift, this will mean that a fifth of the EC (4/20) will be ‘elected’ by another member of the EC.

Constitutional amendment 4, by the same 2 individuals, suggests that organisations, i.e. trade unions with 500,000 members should be entitled to 7 votes at the Annual Conference (an increase from 3). So the GMB, which tried to amend the FBU motion to the TUC Congress to substitute ‘regret’ for ‘condemn’, in reference to the statement of Histadrut supporting the attack on Gaza, will be entitled to exercise 7 votes at a meeting of a body which is pro-Palestinian.

PSC has provision in Clause 6 of the existing Constitution for 5 regional representatives to be elected. This clause has never been operated and when Northern Network tried to so earlier this year, bureaucratic obstacles were put in its way by the EC. This is totally understandable from the point of view of SA. If you are a small group trying to control a larger group, then you don’t want the Executive Committee to be diluted by people that you can’t control or indeed what you may perceive as alternative centres of power. So the two movers speak express their ‘concern regarding the proposal for a formal regional structure of PSC is that it would divert local energy away from contributing to actions co-ordinated through a national campaign.’

Clearly devolution hasn’t yet made an appearance in PSC but in fact no machinery or bureaucracy is proposed. The idea of a diversion from national campaigns is laughable. This is a feeble excuse for keeping all power in the hands of the Executive. The establishment of regions would not only enable branches to co-ordinate campaigns more effectively but would enable individuals not in any branch to participate. Indeed the only ones who talk of bureaucracy or a diversion of energy is the Executive with their proposals for a ‘devolved administration’ i.e. the policing of the regions.

The real reason for this amendment becomes clear when reading Constitutional Amendment 3 from the Executive. They propose a new Point 9.6 of the Constitution. It is proposed that the election of regional representatives takes place not in the regions but at a London AGM. The reasoning is quite obvious. It is to ensure that SA can more effectively mobilise votes, in London, behind their preferred regional candidates. Because they do not trust the membership, they cannot allow the elections to take place in the Regions. It is as simple as that.

Routinism

What we have is an Executive that has run out of ideas except to exhort the membership to more routine activity. Rallies with Ken Livingstone and George Galloway are the main way of organising students rather than building with all forces in the student movement who genuinely support the Palestinians. Coupled with resolutions that lie in the filing cabinets of trade union general secretaries, an annual march and lobby of Parliament, this is the EC’s preferred annual cycle of activity. Routine activity ends up as little more than the Executive congratulating itself on another 'successful' year. It means going through the motions whilst in practice mounting no effective political challenge to the British government’s support of Israel. Political initiatives are to be frowned upon but they are not easy to control.

Yet none of these routines makes the slightest difference or impact as far as the Palestinians are concerned. The one thing which has been shown to rattle the Zionists and Israel is Boycott. Because it hits the settler state where it hurts most and in Israel’s case, it also hits its image and political support. The Academic Boycott set off a wave of activity in Britain, yet the EC initially opposed such a tactic and has had an uneasy relationship with Bricup. The relation of PSC Executive with its own Boycott Committee, which has in practice led to the setting up last year at the gathering at Wooller Youth Hostel of the Boycotting Network, is similar.

On trade unions the EC and Bernard Regan prefer to ally with an assortment of minor trade union bureaucrats, headed by Hugh Lanning of PCS, rather than develop an ongoing network of activists. Cosy chats between trade union friends – past and current - might seem a short-cut to success but what it means is allowing the Trade Union leaders to dictate to, and even control with SA, PSC’s work in the unions.

Union leaders spend much of their time dampening down strikes and struggles. They are innately conservative creatures. Their support for international struggles is strictly limited and ideas like Boycott are not well received. Trade unions in this country are now very weak, having lost half their members in the past 30 years. PSC Executive are, in effect, suggesting we model ourselves on organisations which themselves are controlled by Executives which deplore independent activity by their members. To allow union leaderships, even the more left ones, to tie our hands, is to weaken our campaigning abilities.

The purpose of work in the unions is to get them to support us and to show solidarity, not to enable them to take us over. Autonomy is a principle worth fighting for yet it is being surrendered by a sect in order that they can retain their own power. Motion 2, from Kevin Courtney (NUT) and John McGee (FBU) gives a flavour of this. It talks about supporting a Boycott only where ‘where trade union members should not put their own jobs at risk by refusing to deal with such products’. This must be the first time that cowardice has been enshrined as a principle! Should South African dockers who blacklisted ships to Israel or Greek workers who embargoed arms shipments first have asked their employer to promise not to dismiss them? If we follow this road there will never be a successful boycott. Indeed there would never have been trade unions either!!

The job of trade unions is to fight the employers and state if necessary not to ask for promises of immunity. It is our strength which guarantees that. What this means is passing resolutions that are never intended to be put into practice. It is mere posturing and hype.

That is why PSC Executive and Bernard Regan have opposed getting the unions to cut links with Histadrut. Cutting links with Histadrut is one of the few things unions can actually do themselves. They have the power to cut those links and in the daysbefore UNISON came into existence, its forerunner NALGO did boycott Histadrut.

The TUC’s foreign policy has historically been outsourced from the Foreign Office and even their staff in some cases were rumoured to be FO secondments. Cutting links with Histadrut would run counter to British foreign policy, itself something they would hesitate long and hard about doing. Instead the TUC has always treated Histadrut like any other trade union, despite the fact that it was a settler union which, from its formation, opposed even the employment of Arabs (‘Jewish Labour’). By refusing to call for a break in links with Histadrut PSC is effectively opposing a Boycott in the trade union arena.

The task is clear. If PSC is to live up to its claim to want to build a mass anti-apartheid organisation in Britain it first must belong to its own members, not a small ex-left sect like Socialist Action.

Tony Greenstein

* Letter to PSC Executive

Dear EC members

We, the undersigned, as members of PSC, would like to raise the following issues that have been of concern to us recently, and we would appreciate a response from you at the next branch forum meeting on12 September. We are sure that in the spirit of openness and transparency, the EC will welcome the opportunity to address these concerns.

1. Interference in the democratic process at the PSC AGM

Prior to the 2009 AGM, a secret memo was circulated to a selected list of people who had access to voting rights by virtue of their membership of PSC and/or affiliated organizations. The memo asked them to attend the AGM and dictated to them to vote on motions and for a list of candidates to the EC. The memo was headed “This is a personal note - not for circulation”. It stated that:

“This will in my view be an extremely important AGM because of the need to get the focus of the campaign firmly fixed on the events in Gaza and to keep trade unions at the centre of the PSC. There is an opposition within PSC which I firmly believe would take us well away from these objectives.”

The clear implication was that those candidates who were not on the list were doing the exact opposite. Because the memo was secret, the other candidates were therefore not given a chance to refute them. For a full copy of the secret memo which was leaked and put on the internet visit here. Some trade union representatives had three voting cards, and though they had no way of testing the truth of the allegations, their votes carried more weight than those of active members.

How does the EC intend to ensure that unfair methods to influence the outcome of votes will not be used again?

2. Fairness, accountability and equal opportunity in recruitment processes.

The three most recent appointments of office staff have gone to individuals with strong connections to the same, little known, organisation (Socialist Action.[1]) The three staff members who are reputed to be affiliated with this organisation are Sarah Colborne, Denis Fernando and Ruquayya Collector. We are not questioning the commitment or ability of these individuals to make an important contribution to the campaign for Palestine and we recognise that everyone has political beliefs. However, we do not believe it is plausible that a recruitment process incorporating principles of fairness and equal opportunities, and aimed at selecting the best candidate for the job, could have had this result. This is particularly the case when you consider that a job opportunity within a campaign organisation for Palestine would be expected to attract a significant number of candidates.

We are concerned that the interests of one organisation could have a disproportionate influence on PSC actions. Socialist Action members now act as gatekeepers between the membership and central administration. PSC’s reputation as an organization free of any political agenda other than solidarity with the people of Palestine and their campaign for liberation has been jeopardized, preventing it from becoming a mass movement.

Please explain how PSC ensures that staff recruitment conforms to equal opportunities, including an explanation of the advertising, short listing and interviewing process?

3. High staff turnover

Several people have left the PSC office unwillingly in the last few years. We are concerned about the high turnover of staff in PSC over the last few years, which has an inevitable effect on the ability of the office to provide a consistent and adequate service to the membership.

What steps are the EC taking to address this issue?

4. Financial management

Members are very concerned about an (un-minuted) statement by the PSC Director at the branch 30^th May branch forum that all the money collected during January as a result of the war on Gaza had been spent.

We therefore request an interim statement of accounts, and the budget for the current year, demonstrating how the Executive proposes to ensure PSC’s financial sustainability.

If we have a management / leadership team which is predominantly drawn from the same or similar background, or which holds to one political perspective there is little room for alternative viewpoints to be voiced, or for creative dissent to emerge. Constructive and challenging dialogue is a tremendous engine for imaginative thinking and precludes a blinkered approach; such dialogue is much likely to happen within a highly homogeneous group – where is the stimulating tension going to come from? And where's the democratic representation of the views of a diverse membership?

** PSC INTERNAL MATTERS

Internally it has been a difficult year for the EC and the staff of PSC who have been subject to a campaign of harassment and in some cases personal abuse by widely published emails and a blog. These actions can only detract from the work of PSC and help those who want to see PSC fail in our efforts to build a mass movement. We resisted engaging with the perpetrators, however in August a group of 13 people made unsubstantiated allegations to the EC. Since these were simultaneously distributed widely and the PSC were being subjected to public calumny, after two weeks the EC felt they had to make a response absolutely refuting the allegations. Regrettably two members of the EC resigned as they felt this had been dealt with precipitately.

At a branch forum in Sheffield .. they unanimously called for the two EC members to rescind their resignations. This call was later reiterated by the EC but unfortunately preconditions were demanded to which ther EC could not agree.

The size of the task that PSC has is enormous. We must continue to make solidarity with the Palestinian people our priority and not become embroiled in internal disputes. Differences in PSC should be conducted through the democratic processes that exist. Unity around our objectives, democratically agrred at the AGM, is of paramonunt importance if we are to build on our effectiveness.

---

[1] Though we recognise the Wikipedia is not an unbiased source of information for those unfamiliar with Socialist Action, a description is available here (there is little other information available because it does not have a website and operates in a secretive manner):

The Wikipedia entry states: “Socialist Action is a small Trotskyist group in the United Kingdom. ... From the mid-1980s Socialist Action became an entryist organisation, attempting to take over other organisations,with members using code names and not revealing their affiliation."

Blair Peach - Murdered by the Police

Coroner & British Establishment Covered Up Peach's Murder

None are so good at effecting a cover-up as the British Establishment. Blair Peach, an anti-fascist activist, was murdered by the Special Patrol Group in 1979 protesting against an NF election meeting. This group of thugs were responsible 30 years later for the murder of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 Protest. Their name changed but not their methods.

Unfortunately there was no CCTV at the time of Blair Peach’s death. But we all know who was responsible. Now we know for definite that the Coroner, John Burton, not only formed his view well in advance but did his best to marshall opposition to the very case that he was being presented with. Nor of course is this an isolated example.

The first Bloody Sunday investigation was conducted by Lord Widgery the Chief Justice. He too had private discussions and understandings with Ted Heath, then Prime Minister, as to what was in his report. Covering up the truth is second nature to the British establishment whilst at the same time effecting shock-horror at the fact that anyone could believe in such conspiracies!

Thirty years later, Coroner's courts are still being presided over by bigoted defenders of the Establishment. Many are legally untrained and are no better than the ordinary conservative magistrate, except they are in a position to do even more damage. Coroners have an unbroken record of supporting police violence and malpractice.

The following article is taken from the Guardian of 22.1.10.

Tony Greenstein

Secret document which implicated Blair Peach coroner withheld by Home Office

Doctor dismissed claims that Peach was killed by officer as political 'fabrication' before inquest had finished

Government officials withheld a document relating to the death of Blair Peach, the anti-fascist campaigner widely believed to have been killed by police in 1979, because they feared it would portray the coroner as biased and lend weight to calls for a public inquiry.

Peach, a 33-year-old teacher from New Zealand, died after being struck on the head at a demonstration against the National Front in Southall, west London. Witnesses said they saw him being attacked by police but after an internal investigation by the Metropolitan police no officers were charged. sdfsddf
df

The inquest, at which several suspected officers gave evidence, controversially returned a verdict of "death by misadventure", and the coroner, the late Dr John Burton, was accused by Peach supporters of prejudicing the jury.

Documents held at the National Archives at Kew reveal senior civil servants became concerned after discovering Burton had penned an "unpublished story" about the Peach death which railed against what the coroner saw as a leftwing campaign to destabilise the legal establishment.
Burton had also written to ministers before the end of the inquest, dismissing the belief that Peach was killed by an officer as political "fabrication". Fearing a public controversy if his leanings were made public, Home Office officials silenced Burton, the documents reveal. The Peach case will come under renewed scrutiny with the release of a three-decade old report written by Commander John Cass, the Metropolitan police officer who investigated the death.

dfsf

The document is being reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service prior to being made public.
The Met commissioner agreed to release the Cass report last year after Ian Tomlinson, a passer-by at the G20 protests in London, died of internal bleeding after being attacked by a police officer. The incident, which was caught on film obtained by the Guardian, prompted comparisons with the Peach case.

sdfsafd

Burton began writing to ministers about what he believed was "a widespread campaign to damage the institutions of the law" in January 1980, before the inquest had finished.
In letters to the home secretary, lord chancellor and attorney-general, he complained that an organised and well-funded campaign was spreading disinformation about the death. He criticised media organisations, including the BBC, which he accused of "biased propaganda".

sdfsdfs

Referring to some of the 11 witnesses who said they saw police attacking Peach, he noted how some were "totally politically committed to the Socialist Workers Party" and concluded: "The witness statements show that the story of the killing [of Peach] is a fabrication. This is a matter of fact and not of opinion."

After the verdict, Burton authored a lengthy article entitled The Blair Peach Inquest - the Unpublished Story and told civil servants he planned to disseminate the report to fellow coroners via the Coroners Society's annual report. A Home Office official noted how Burton was "extremely irate" at the way in which he thought the inquest had been hijacked by the "extreme left".

When his unpublished report was circulated in Whitehall in June 1980, it caused alarm. "I am a little disturbed at the proposal," one official wrote, "as I feel that if [his article] fell into the wrong hands it would be used to discredit the impartiality of coroners in general and Dr Burton in particular."

Another senior official agreed: "It only needs one leak for a great deal of harm to be done - not only to the standing of coroners but also in respect of the home secretary's decision that a public inquiry [into Peach's death] should be resisted ...

"An article like this would be a heaven-sent opportunity to those who wish to get maximum publicity out of this incident to argue that the coroner was biased and for this reason the inquest was unsound."

The civil servants met with Burton on to dissuade him from going public. After the meeting - and with apparent relief - an official relayed the news colleagues. "He accepted our advice that the whale which exposes his surface invites harpoons, and agreed not to publish."

Burton's seven-page report is a description of Peach's death and the subsequent inquest which, at times, implies a hostility toward Peach supporters. He complains about "the usual demonstrations by the usual people" outside the courtroom, and expresses frustration at what he saw his inability to control contemptible reports in the media.

He dismissed some witneses as telling "palpable lies" and, in an apparent reference to Sikhs who gave testimony, complained that some "did not have experience of the English system" to give reliable testimony. In contrast, he appeared to have more sympathy for the officers at the scene of Peach's death, even though there were also inconsistencies in their evidence.

"Many policemen pointed out that in such a situation one looked upwards for uncoming bricks and not around to see what others were doing," he wrote.

Peach supporters have long claimed that Burton was prejudiced, citing many of his official interventions before and during the inquest.

He initially resisted calls for a jury sit at the inquest - a decision overruled by the court of appeal.