29 November 2015

Labour Should Oppose the Bombing of Syria - Murder is not a Question of Conscience

No Support for Cameron's Lies and the 

Blairites' War Fantasies

Of one thing we can be certain. Bombing Raqa will not defeat ISIS.  The bombing of ISIS by the United States in the last year is positive proof of this.  Until Russia began bombing in earnest, it never occurred to the United States to stop ISIS’s lucrative trade in oil by bombing the tankers queuing up for miles to take oil from ISIS controlled Syria across the border.  Hence why the US only began bombing oil tankers in November 2015.  Isis in Syria: US air strikesdestroys 283 oil tankers used for smuggling to fund terror group 
Taking his cue from 'the Master' (Bliar) Cameron has learned the art of lying in support of the indefensible
As the article from Socialist Action below makes clear, the US in the past year hasn’t been serious about defeating ISIS because the alternative would have been to hand victory to Syria’s President Assad.  Instead it has played with ISIS like a cat with a mouse.  In essence the US has been on both sides of the Syrian war.  Aiding the Kurds in Kobani yet giving the green light to Turkey’s Erdogan to attack the Kurdish PKK, both in Turkey itself and in Iraq.  Turkey maintains that the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the PYD are just an offshoot of the PKK and that they will not hesitate to attack them.
French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Mediterranean
This was the reason why the United States and its faithful NATO lapdogs greeted Russia’s entry into Syria’s civil war with such dismay.  Putin was determined to support Assad’s ghastly regime and therefore intended to defeat his opponents.  Despite having failed to train a ‘moderate’ third force, the US and now David Cameron have talked up the ‘moderate’ Free Syrian Army which most observers admit is but a phantom force.  Most of the so-called moderates are Jihadi groups such as Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham. 
bombing Isis oil wells in Iraq
In what is a remake of Tony Bliar’s 45 minute warning of an Iraqi attack on Britain in 2003, Cameron now tells us that there are 70,000 Syrian fighters able and willing to attack ISIS held strongholds in Syria.  This phantom army will apparently form the ground troops, since everyone accepts that bombing by itself will not rid Syria of ISIS.
Russian TU-95 bomber launching cruise missile
Those like Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn who know the area are quite clear.  There is no such ‘moderate’ non-Jihadi or Salfafist opposition.  The clear choice is between Assad and the Jihadists, with the PYD/YPG fighting their own separate battles in the north-west of Syria.
Isis oil Russian strikes
John Ross (below) is quite right.  To bomb ISIS whilst turning a blind eye to Turkey’s role as the supply base and the oil trading partner of ISIS is to guarantee that ISIS won’t and can’t be defeated.  Instead the civilian population of Raqaa and other ISIS occupied areas will suffer heavy casualties.  Their response?  To flee Syria thus adding to Europe’s refugee problem!  Of course Cameron won’t take them but the rest of Europe will not have the same choice.

The other problem, which John Ross doesn’t address is what it is that is motivating support for ISIS.  ISIS came out of Al Qaeda in Iraq.    The reason for their growth was the nakedly sectarian, anti-Sunni nature of the Iraqi state and the Nouri Malaki regime that the US left behind.  Together with the Shi’ite militias and death squads it effectively waged war on Iraq’s Sunni population.  Iraq murdered hundreds of them on its death row.  Capital punishment in Iraq 

As long as Sunnis in Iraq are persecuted, so long will Isis continue to be supported.  The key to eroding Isis’s base of support is an end to the persecution of Iraqi Sunnis by either the government or the Shi’ite militias.  Bombing Raqa is simply irrelevant to this.

Jeremy Corbyn faces obvious difficulties in imposing a three-line whip on recalcitrant Labour MPs.  However for the Labour Opposition to have any credibility, it is necessary for the Labour Party to be seen to have a clear position even if the Blairites wish to repeat their criminal mistakes of 2003.  

Some like Simon Danczuk will want to support the Tories come what may and they should be deselected at the first opportunity.  Others in the shadow cabinet need to have their feet held to the fire.  Labour owes no loyalty to David Cameron and his utterly bankrupt strategy.  Those who are convinced by Cameron should be seeking an alternative profession, since politics is obviously not their forte.

This article by John Ross, on how to defeat ISIS, was originally published on Facebook.

Cameron’s claim in asking for authorisation to bomb Syria is that it is intended to destroy ISIS and other ‘jihadists’. But the facts show this is a lie, that Cameron’s aim in Syria is totally different, and that its end result will be to strengthen ‘jihadists’. As unfortunately some on the left have also not understood the real situation on this it is therefore important to clarify the real facts in Syria which demonstrate what are Cameron’s actual goals.

Who is really behind ISIS?

The beginning and end of wisdom on military conflicts is Clausewitz’s famous dictum ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’. War is not something ‘irrational’ and aside from politics but merely a (violent) means by which political forces seek to achieve their goals. Therefore to find out what is Cameron’s goal in bombing Syria it is necessary to analyse what are the political and social forces contending there.

It is simple to identify the political forces supporting ISIS and other ‘jihadist’ terrorist organisation in Syria. The key logistical support and supply routes for ISIS come over the border from Turkey. The chief financial support for ISIS comes from Saudi Arabia and Qatar - together with many of the weapons for ISIS. These facts are easily summarised and are widely reported in the media. UK and US intelligence agencies of course will have many additional details to those already available in the media through resources of electronic surveillance, human spies, satellite reconnaissance etc. Given these resources there can be no doubt Cameron knows the real situation in Syria – he is merely lying to conceal it with the aim of using others, who do not understand the real situation, to aid him in securing goals they would not agree with and which he is deliberately attempting to conceal.


Taking first the supply routes to ISIS, the most recent thorough analysis was the widely circulated article by Aris Roussinos on 20 November. This was carried by the US Vice news service and clearly identified the way ISIS could be defeated – indeed the article was entitled ‘How the West Could Actually Defeat the Islamic State’. Roussinos noted : ‘Turkey's blind-eye border policy with IS has allowed the group to funnel fighters back and forth with ease… Perhaps the greatest single obstacle to a successful coalition assault on Raqqa is IS [ISIS] control of Jarablus, the group's last remaining border crossing with Turkey. Without Jarablus, the group will find itself starved of funds from cross-border trade, the ability to replenish its stocks of explosive materials, as well as the ability to get terrorist cells to the West with ease.’

But Turkey, instead of cutting off the supply lines to ISIS/IS was carefully militarily protecting them: ‘the long-standing ambition… to seize Jarablus from IS has been blocked by Turkish pressure rather than a lack of military capability. Turkey has repeatedly threatened to respond to any Kurdish-led assault on IS positions in Jarablus with overwhelming military force.’

The situation with Turkey has been known for a long time. On 10 March the New York Times, in an article with the self-explanatory headline ‘A Path to ISIS, Through a Porous Turkish Border’, noted: ‘In the first years of the Syrian civil war, now approaching its fifth year, jihadists moved easily across the border, often with the help of Turkish agents acting on behalf of a government eager to enable the downfall of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad… Turkey still sees Mr. Assad as its primary enemy.’

The New York Times noted ‘Turkey has… been unable — or unwilling — to halt the flow as the group, also called ISIS or ISIL, continues to replenish forces depleted in battle… So far nearly 20,000 foreigners, including about 3,400 Westerners, have joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to Nicholas Rasmussen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington. The majority of them have traveled through Turkey,’

This situation is even openly admitted by the US security services. As the New York Times noted: ‘In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.

‘“No, I’m not,” Mr. Clapper said… “I think Turkey has other priorities and other interests.”…The consequence of Turkey’s stance, he said, is the continued “permissive environment” in the border region that still allows the movement of jihadists back and forth across the border.’

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark also stated bluntly, in an analysis made after the recent Paris terrorist attack, that ISIS was ‘serving the interests of Turkey’

The situation between ISIS and Turkey was described in detail by Newsweek magazine, which is worth quoting at length for its details.

‘A former member of ISIS has revealed the extent to which the cooperation of the Turkish military allows the terrorist group, who now control large parts of Iraq and Syria, to travel through Turkish territory to reinforce fighters battling Kurdish forces.

‘A reluctant former communications technician working for Islamic State, now going by the pseudonym “Sherko Omer”, who managed to escape the group, told Newsweek that he travelled in a convoy of trucks as part of an ISIS unit from their stronghold in Raqqa, across Turkish border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.

‘"ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks," said Omer of crossing the border into Turkey, "and they reassured us that nothing will happen, especially when that is how they regularly travel from Raqqa and Aleppo to the Kurdish areas further northeast of Syria because it was impossible to travel through Syria as YPG [National Army of Syrian Kurdistan] controlled most parts of the Kurdish region."…

‘YPG spokesman Polat Can went even further, saying that Turkish forces were actively aiding ISIS. "There is more than enough evidence with us now proving that the Turkish army gives ISIS terrorists weapons, ammunitions and allows them to cross the Turkish official border crossings in order for ISIS terrorists to initiate inhumane attacks against the Kurdish people in Rojava [north-eastern Syria]."

‘Omer explained that during his time with ISIS, Turkey had been seen as an ally against the Kurds. "ISIS saw the Turkish army as its ally especially when it came to attacking the Kurds in Syria. The Kurds were the common enemy for both ISIS and Turkey. Also, ISIS had to be a Turkish ally because only through Turkey they were able to deploy ISIS fighters to northern parts of the Kurdish cities and towns in Syria."

‘"ISIS and Turkey cooperate together on the ground on the basis that they have a common enemy to destroy, the Kurds," he added.’

In reality Turkey can do nothing without the agreement of the US. The US is both Turkey’s arms supplier and the US can also impose financial sanctions. Furthermore even if Turkey tried to defy the US temporarily the US possesses modern precision weapons with which it would be easy to bomb just inside the Syrian border from Jarablus and destroy ISIS supplies.

As the US takes none of these steps there is only one conclusion: Turkey is supporting ISIS, the US knows it, and the US is not seriously attempting to stop it.

Saudi Arabia

The situation is equally clear with Saudi Arabia. That Saudi Arabia is the main source of funding for ‘jihadist’ groups has been known for a long time to the US. A secret December 2009 paper signed by the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released by Wikileaks, already noted that that: ‘Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba] and other terrorist groups."

Clinton noted: ‘Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.’

As Robert Fisk analysed: ‘bin Laden was himself a Saudi, who in the 1990s did have a personal meeting with Prince Turki [of Saudi Arabia] in Pakistan. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi citizens. And within months of the US attacks, a classified Pentagon briefing was told by an analyst for the Rand Corporation – set up in 1945 with the help of the US military – that Saudi Arabia was the “kernel of evil” in the Middle East and was “active at every level of the terrorist chain”.

‘Deciding who is funding ISIS – and who should take the heat for its survival – depends upon the degree to which the world believes that the “Islamic State” is self-financing. Western governments have detailed the production of oil wells in Isis territory and the vast amounts of cash supposedly stolen from Mosul banks after Isis took over, but smuggling fuel and ransacking vaults can hardly sustain an Islamist “nation” which controls an area larger than the UK.

‘Millions of dollars must be arriving in ISIS hands from outside Iraq and Syria, and the question must be asked: if it doesn’t come from within Saudi Arabia – or Qatar – who on earth is providing the wherewithal? Iceland? Peru?’
General Wesley Clark explained the answer to the same question even more bluntly stating that ISIS was not only serving the interests of Turkey but also ‘serving the interests of… Saudi Arabia.’
Saudi Arabia is even less capable of acting independently of the US than is Turkey. With Saudi Arabia facing a potential confrontation with Iran, and with the US as its arms supplier, the US only has to blow its dog whistle and Saudi Arabia will come to heel.

In summary if Saudi Arabia doesn’t cut off funding for ISIS it is because the US hasn’t seriously ordered it to. If the US really wished it financial or arms sanctions would soon force Saudi Arabia to cut off financing of ISIS.

Cameron – parrot of the US

All these facts, which are totally public, are of course well known to Cameron. Indeed Cameron will have far more detailed knowledge from intelligence sources. Furthermore on such a grave matter as a war Britain cannot act independently of the US - as every British government since Suez has known. These facts on the ground prove that the aim of Cameron in bombing Syria is not to destroy ISIS - because ISIS could easily be destroyed by the far more effective means of cutting off its supply routes from Turkey and cutting off its finance from Saudi Arabia.

In summary Cameron’s aim in bombing Syria cannot possibly be to destroy ISIS because the facts prove Cameron is not supporting effective measures to destroy ISIS. But if Cameron’s aim in Syria is clearly not to destroy ISIS what is it?

The answer is actually contained in Cameron’s reply to the second of the questions asked him by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. Cameron refers to the: ‘true objective – political transition in Syria.’ In short Cameron’s real goal in Syria is to overthrow Assad. Indeed the alignment of forces in Syria makes that obvious – the support of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to ISIS is because this jihadist terrorist organisation is fighting Assad. But the reality the effect victory of the forces fighting Assad would have was entirely accurately described by Patrick Cockburn. It is the same as the one that took place in Libya after that country was bombed by NATO: ‘the departure of Assad would lead to a collapse of the state and the triumph of Isis and the self-declared caliphate.’

In summary the effect in Syria would be the same as in Iraq and Libya - Jihadist groups would become still more powerful. This would not only be horrific for the people of the countries concerned but also form a base for terrorist attacks such as those against Paris and Mali.

A dirty game aiding terrorists

But wouldn’t these fact mean that the terrorist threat to people in Britain would become even greater given Cameron’s policy? The answer is ‘Yes’. But the reality of US/UK policy for over three decades has been that it is prepared to see strengthening of jihadist groups in order to achieve other goals. This policy was admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Adviser at the time of the beginning of the Afghan war - in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur January 15-21 1998 regarding US policy in Afghanistan.

‘Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
‘Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? ‘

Note the clear explicit logic of Brzezinski’s analysis. It was preferable for the US to have Islamic jihadist terrorists, ‘Taliban’ and ‘some stirred-up Moslems’, than to have a state opposed to the US. This realpolitik logic applies not only to the Soviet Union but to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Gadhafi’s Libya, or Assad’s Syria, and explains clearly the real events which have unfolded in the Middle East.

• The Iraq state was destroyed by the 2003 invasion resulting in a situation when prior to the invasion ISIS and Al Qaeda were powerless and now they are powerful.

• In Libya the state was destroyed by the NATO bombings – prior to this ISIS was powerless, now it is powerful.

• In Syria prior to the war against Assad ISIS type forces were powerless, now they are powerful.
The ‘stirred up Moslems’ that resulted, ISIS and similar forces, had no power through terrorism to seriously threaten US interests – unlike the states which had existed previously.

This is why Cameron and the US may drop a few token bombs in Syria, although nothing like the huge air attacks in Iraq or Libya, but they refuse to take the effective measures that would really defeat ISIS – financial and arms sanctions against Turkey and Saudi Arabia, bombing of the supply lines close inside the Syrian border at Jarablus and other border crossings with Turkey. In short Cameron and the US are waging no effective campaign to destroy ISIS but wish to conceal this.
This is of course the dirtiest of games. The population who die in terrorist attacks in Paris or Mali pay for this US/UK logic and policy with their lives. Because civilian populations, including the population of Britain, don’t like to be killed to serve this logic it has to be concealed. That is why there must be verbal rhetoric of a ‘war on terror’ – but a reality of continual US/UK actions that result in strengthening ‘jihadism’.

This is therefore the reality behind Cameron’s lies on Syria. Cameron does not want to bomb Syria to destroy ISIS. He wants to intervene in Syria to overthrow Assad even if this results in strengthening jihadists in Syria.

By these means Cameron will not only act to strengthen jihadism but to increase the terrorist danger to the British population. This is why Cameron’s policy on Syria, including its bombings, has to be totally opposed.

28 November 2015

The Witchhunt of Gerald Kaufman - Crucified for Supporting the Palestinians

Anti-Semitic?  No – His only crime was supporting Palestinian Human Rights

My only encounter with Gerald Kaufman was when we exchanged sharp words twenty years ago, after I had told the then Labour Friends of Israel organiser, Valerie Cocks, the wife of the Chief Whip, Michael Cocks where to go.

Pilloried for his support of the Palestinians
However I have forgiven Gerald and indeed come to admire and respect him despite the fact that he is still a Zionist, of sorts.  He boasts of his friendship with every Labour Zionist Prime Minister whilst forgetting that it was Labour Zionism which presided over the original expulsion of the Palestinian refugees.  He undoubtedly wouldn’t accept my argument that there is nothing that Likud has done that the Israeli Labour Party hasn’t done before it.

Nonetheless Gerald Kaufman has been a consistent supporter of Palestinian human rights for the past decade and more and a few ill-chosen words, which contained a kernel of truth, have led to him being viciously attacked for ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Zionist press.
Sir Gerald Kaufman is one of the last members of Harold Wilson's kitchen cabinet
I want to say here and now that Gerald Kaufman is no anti-Semites, unlike many of his detractors.  I have no hesitation in defending him.  He is a magnificent defender of human rights, unlike his detractors.
Gerald Kaufman on a trip to Israel as part of a parliamentary delegation
This all began when Kaufman spoke to the Palestine Return Centre.  He apparently said that ‘"There is now a big group of Conservative members of Parliament who are pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what Israel, in what the Israeli government does."

According to The Independent he went on to claim that 

"They're not interested in the fact that Palestinians are living a repressed life, and are liable to be shot at any time. In the last few days alone the Israelis have murdered 52 Palestinians and nobody pays attention and this government doesn't care."
The so-called Campaign Against anti-Semitism is partially sighted.  Only Palestinians qualify.
The Zionist ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’, whose only concern is to link ‘anti-Semitism’ with support for the Palestinians, claimed that ‘The speech delivered by Sir Gerald Kaufman, as reported by David Collier, is antisemitic and the Labour Party must investigate immediately.’  And as if to impress us with their credentials, we are informed that the ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism is in contact with the Opposition Chief Whip.’

The so-called CAS [a political propaganda group that has just become a 'charity'] sprang up during Operation Protective Edge last year, when over 2,200 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli blitzkrieg on Gaza, including over 550 children.  The CAS’s sole concern was to deflect support for the Palestinians by making claims of ‘anti-Semitism’ against opponents of Israel.  Not once, ever, have they expressed the slightest concern about the Palestinian victims of Israel’s attacks. 

This is not surprising since those involved in CAS are devoted Zionists and supporters of Israel, right or wrong.  People like Simon Cobbs of the far-Right Sussex Friends of Israel which last year invited Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli ‘academic’ and former officer to speak.  Kedar has advocated raping Palestinian women in the fight against ‘terrorism’.  Picket Meeting Of Israeli Professor Kedar Who Advocates Rape As A Deterrent - The Zionist Federation and Sussex Friends of Israel Invite an Advocate of Rape to Speak 

The CAS used what it termed ‘The globally-recognised EUMC definition of antisemitism’  to prove that Kaufman was anti-Semitic.  The only problem is that the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism is globally derecognised.   The European Union Monitoring Committee definition was only ever a ‘working definition’ and it is now no longer even that.  The EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency has erased it from its website. Blanca Tapia of the FRA was quoted, in The Times of Israel as saying that it had never viewed the document as a valid definition. Agency officials said the document had been pulled offline “together with other non-official documents.” EU drops its ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism  
The racist Palestinian Media Watch group
This is but one example of the fundamental dishonesty of the so-called ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’  The Zionist hatred of Sir Gerald Kaufman is because of his withering criticism of Israel’s barbarities.  If you want an example of this go to the blog post I did Sir Gerald Kaufman, veteran British Parliamentarian and Zionist compares Israelis in Gaza to the Nazis  when he made one of the finest parliamentary speeches I have heard. 
The Campaign Against anti-Semitism uses the racist anti-Palestinian group Palestinian Media Watch for its evidence 

Sir Gerald went on to say that:

“It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives.”  

In essence this is true.  The people who are giving the money to the CFI are Jewish and they don’t care one little bit about the evil that results from their donation.  These donors of murder money are the people who should be condemned, not someone who criticises them using language which identifies them by religion rather than their politics. 

The term ‘Jewish money’ is a short-hand.  Of course it would be better to say ‘Zionist money’ or ‘Zionist donors’ but to say, in the context of donations to the CFI that the money is ‘Jewish money’ is not anti-Semitic.  Zionist propaganda organisations and Israeli government hasbara spend all their waking time claiming that to be Jewish is to be a Zionist (except for a few Jewish 'traitors' or to use the Nazi term, ‘self-haters’).

The Independent also says that Kaufman also claimed that "more than half" of the stabbings that have recently happened in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the rest of Israel were fabricated, in comments that were recorded by blogger David Collier.  No doubt this too was proof positive of his ‘anti-Semitism’.

Unfortunately under pressure, Jeremy Corbyn criticised Sir Gerald Kaufman, for making “completely unacceptable” remarks about the Jewish community.’  

What Corbyn should have done is to make it clear that though the words could have been chosen more wisely the sentiments were sound enough.  Those rich Jewish scoundrels who donate thousands to CFI in order to support the oppression of the Palestinian people are no less guilty of war crimes than those who pull the trigger.  Gerald Kaufman's ‘racism’ pales into insignifiance against the crimes of these powerful supporters of genocide.  It is nothing less than utter hypocrisy.  
No less than 590 search items revealed in a search of the Jewish Chronicle archives
Hypocrisy – The Term ‘Jewish money’ is used by the Jewish Chronicle 590 times!

But my dear reader.  This campaign, which was launched by the Jewish Chronicle is utter and total tripe even on its own terms.  Here is the strange thing.  I had a brainwave.  How many times has the term ‘Jewish money’ appeared in the Jewish Chronicle, the self-declared Zionist mouthpiece of the Jewish community?  Well I did a quick search on its archive and came up with the result.  No less than 590 mentions!  Now some of these are articles on the anti-Semitic use of the term ‘Jewish money’ but many of them are nothing of the kind.  ‘Jewish money’ is simply an accepted term when used by 'JC' correspondents but it becomes anti-Semitic when used by someone who is a supporter of human rights.

Jewish Chronicle Uses of the Term ‘Jewish Money’

Another example of Alderman's anti-Semitism!
In a column by Jewish Chronicle columnist Geoffrey Alderman, Obama’s false  Iran Alternative (14.8.15) Alderman speaks of ‘the fact that Jewish money, albeit American-Jewish money – is being used to this end has led the president to adopt an unfortunate and worrying rhetoric.  Israel and its supporters are warmongers and American-Jewish money is being used to drag America into war.’  In other words ‘Jewish money’ is being used to campaign against the US-Iran agreement.’
Alderman - a Zionist hypocrite calls for Gerald Kaufman's banning for doing the same as he does!
And despite the fact that Alderman used the phrase ‘Jewish money’ twice within the same article he had the effrontery to use his column of 20th November A man who deserves banning to call for Gerald Kaufmann’s excommunication from the Jewish community.  
Alderman:  opposing anti-Semitism is 'political correctness'
This is even more surprising since Alderman had previously excused very explicit anti-Semitic remarks, such as the comments of David Whelan, former owner of Wigan Athletic football club who stated that ‘there is nothing like a Jew who sees money slipping through his fingers’ and when challenged by the Guardian responded that ‘I think they [Jews] are very shrewd people…. I think Jewish people do chase money more than everybody else.  I don’t think that’s offensive at all.’ 

What was Alderman’s take on this?  Presumably he called for the expulsion of Wigan Athletic from the football league or Whelan being stripped of all association with it?  Possibly he called for his prosecution?  I'm afraid not.  Alderman, in another example of Zionist hypocrisy, called talk of anti-Semitism 'political correctness' no less - PC being the last refuge of the bigot.

It was ‘a sad and miserable tale of political correctness taken to new depths of absurdity.’  This football fuss is a bit rich 5.12.14.  Despite ‘shrewd’ being used in the sense of canny or mean, i.e. a stereotypical comment about Jews and money, Alderman’s comment was ‘who reading this column could take umbrage at that?’  And as for Jews chasing money, Alderman was most circumspect:  ‘as far as I’m aware no serious research has been done on this subject.  But it’s certainly true that the Jewish view of money differs considerably from that of Christianity.’  

No doubt when someone next claims that Jewish noses are distinctive and longer than non-Jewish noses, or make some other anti-Semitic comment, Alderman will pipe up that no one has yet measured or quantified the length of the noses!

Alderman considers himself a virtuous man and so we should rest with the old adage that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.  But Alderman is not alone in his hypocrisy:
In an article (JC 9.11.12.) by Simon Rocker ‘BBC’s Washington reporter rapped over ‘Jewish lobby’ remark’ we learn that Katy Kay commented on the Presidential contenders that ‘no one running for President wants to alienate the power and money of the Jewish lobby.’  Quite.  And the BBC was quite happy defending Ms Kay.
Aaronovitch is quite happy with the phrase 'Jewish money'
In an article by the ultra-sanctimonious David Aaronovitch, ‘The Rumours and the Rampage’ Aaro was quite happy to talk of a ‘Mr Bacile, the Zionist Israeli who had made a $5 million film with Jewish money had gradually turned into Mr Nakoula, the indicted fraudster…’ 

And in an article ‘How I Avoided Becoming a Madoff Victim’ by Paul Berger (11.12.09) we learn that ‘The Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of Modern Art used to refuse Jewish money.  Now if you walk into the Met every second gallery or pavilion has a Jewish name on it.’

And in yet another article on the appropriately named Bernie Madoff, Too good to be true?  6.3.09. we learn that ‘A large amount of  “Jewish” money has simply disappeared.’

In a short article on a Hamodia reader, 29.8.08.  we learn that in a letter to the paper, a TY of London expresses his or her dismay at ‘Jewish money being used for this purpose’ [hunting down elderly Nazi war criminals] and in yet another article ‘I know I am, I’m sure I am, I’m Turkey till I die’ Simon Round explains that ‘The Swiss nicked a lot of Jewish money, whereas the Turks didn’t do anything particularly bad in the war…’  13.6.08.

If that was not enough we also learn in an article ‘Diamond dealers shine as property slumps for this year’s Rich Listers’ that ‘Nonetheless, Rich List compiler Philip Beresford saw it as ‘a very good year for Jewish money, both new and old.’  No doubt it was.  After all diamonds are more than just a girl’s best friend.

I won’t bore you with any more examples, you can search the Jewish Chronicle archives yourself if you are a subscriber (no they don’t’ do public interest.  It costs £5 to download each pdf file!,  But I’ve screen printed them for free for your benefit! 

As everyone who is Jewish knows, the term ‘Jewish money’ is as common as muck.  It is used continually within the Jewish community and to pretend that its use is anti-Semitic is just plain, vanilla hypocrisy that only Zionists are capable of.  Operating in a high visibility arena Gerald Kaufman’s only crime was to lay himself open to the criticism and vitriol of the professional ‘anti-Semite’  merchants.  Never was Jesus’ comment about discerning the mote in one’s brother’s eye before the beam in one’s own eye more relevant.  Yet it is the Zionist movement that is truly and disgustingly anti-Semitic. 

If Gerald Kaufmann had talked of ‘fumigating Jewish  vermin’ then there is no doubt that this would be deeply anti-Semitic.  Yet Israel’s first Justice Minister Pinhas Rosenbluth described Palestine as ‘an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin’. [Joachim Doron, p.169 Classic Zionism and modern anti-Semitism: parallels and influences’ (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism 8, Autumn 1983]. 

Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President and President of the Zionist Organisation, went one better, describing German Jewish refugees as ‘the germ-carriers of a new outbreak of anti-Semitism.’ [Edwin Black, Ha’avara – The Transfer Agreement, p.259, citing Palestine Post 5.7.33].  

Jacob Klatzkin, the editor of the Zionist Organisation paper Die Welt,  held that Jews were:
'a people disfigured in both body and soul - in a word, of a horror… some sort of outlandish creature… in any case, not a pure national type.... some sort of oddity among the peoples going by the name of Jew.'  [Arthur Herzberg, The Zionist Idea, p. 322/323, Temple, Atheneum, New York 1981].

It would be churlish to continue.  Zionism held that Diaspora Jews had developed unhealthy asocial characteristics and only ‘normalisation’ on Jewish national soil would remedy this.  They held that the anti-Semites were in fact correct.  As the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote :
In Paris..., I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism. Diaries (p.8)
Zionism held that there was something rotten and horrible about Jews outside Palestine/Israel.  In Klatzkin’s words the Jews were ‘a people disfigured in both body and soul’ because they were not ‘a pure national type’.  Only a 'return' to Palestine could remedy this.  This attitude persists today but groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism [CAS] deliberately ignore Zionist anti-Semitism and pretend that they are horrified by the ‘anti-Semitism’ of fighters for Palestinian human rights like Gerald Kaufman.  It is noticeable that they have little or nothing to say about the anti-Semitism of the English Defence League and the British National Party, because these groups are also supporters of Zionism.

When I did a search on the site for BNP nothing came up at all.  When I searched for British National Party there was one result - Jeremy Corbyn and anti-Semites.  Nothing about the BNP though.

When I searched for English Defence League again there were no results.  When I searched for EDL there were about 12 results, nearly all of them concerned with Jeremy Corbyn, none of them to do with the fascist group!  There were a few posts about Hezbollah flags but nothing about British anti-Semites.  This is the real test of CAS's sincerity.

Kaufman’s words were nothing out of the ordinary and more to the point he was pursuing a human rights agenda, unlike those who criticise him in order to justify and whitewash the most atrocious war crimes.

So an end to this hypocrisy.  I for one have no hesitation in defending Sir Gerald Kaufman.  He is a splendid example of the Jewish tradition of anti-racism.

And it should also be noted that the Jewish Chronicle under the editorship of cold-war warrior and Henry Jackson Society member, Stephen Pollard, launched the campaign against Sir Gerald Kaufman.  Pollard it was who defended arch-anti-Semite, Michal Kaminski, Euro-MP for Poland’s Law & Justice Party and Chairman of the European Conservatives & Reform Group which the Tories belong to.  

Kaminski, who is a vehement Zionist (like many anti-Semites) fought tooth and nail against an apology being given in Poland and a memorial being erected in Jedwabne in memory of the Jews (estimates range from 300 to 900) who were herded into a barn and burnt alive in 1941 by anti-Semitic Poles.  Pollard’s description of Kaminski was that ‘ "Far from being an anti-Semite, Mr Kaminski is about as pro-Israeli an MEP as exists."  Which is half true.  Kaminski is as pro-Israeli as it gets.  But he is also anti-Semitic.  Just as the BNP and EDL are both anti-Semitic and pro-Zionist. 

In a Guardian Comment Is Free piece (9.10.09.) Pollard went even further:  ‘Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews’.    Indeed Kaminski is ‘one of the greatest friends to the Jews in a town [Brussels] where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of Israel are rife. 

Pollard isn’t stupid and he knows very well that anti-Semitism and support for Zionism go hand in hand.  If he isn’t aware of this then he could do worse than consult back copies of his own paper!  One of Israel’s finest novelists A B Yehoshua, in a lecture to the Union of Jewish Students observed that
"Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist" [Jewish Chronicle 22.1.82.] 

See Jedwabne – The Polish Village Where Up to 900 Jews Were Burnt Alive by Fellow Poles – Michal Kaminski the Polish Zionist & anti-Semite that Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard Just Loves

Tony Greenstein 

27 November 2015

My Facebook Account Was Suspended – It is Now Reinstated –

Enjoy it while you can!!
The old London Evening News
Earlier this week when I tried to log into my facebook account I found it had been suspended.  Why?  Don’t ask me.  A list of reasons were given as to why it might have been suspended but there was nothing definitive.  One of the reasons was that I might be impersonating myself!  So I had to send off a scan of my passport.
I hope the Israeli state wasn’t behind this as FB’s Mark Zuckenberg is apparently a Zionist.  And Israel loves to steal passports and details therein in order to make false passports in order to then carry out assassination operations.

Some people might recall the day of 19th January 2010 when Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh  was assassinated in Dubai by Israeli agents.
Well my Facebook account is back but no doubt will still be susceptible to a false or malicious complaint from Zionists/fascists or other malconents!
Enjoy while you can!!

Tony Greenstein 

26 November 2015

The Egyptian Police State & the War Against Democracy

It is one of the strange ironies of life that the leaders of the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ feel so more comfortable with a strong dictator than the more anarchic situation in Lebanon.  When Hosni Mubarak was in danger of falling victim to the Spring Revolution in Egypt,  Shimon Peres, Israel’s President and Netanyahu, had kittens. 

As Ha’aretz of 24.11.11. reported ‘Netanyahu:Arab Spring Pushing Mideast Backward, Not Forward Netanyahu ‘blasted Israeli and world politicians who support the Arab Spring revolutions and accused the Arab world of "moving not forward, but backward.’    Even the Americans paid lip-service to the Egyptian revolution whilst doing their best to subvert it.  Netanyahu wasn’t even prepared to do that. 
The Ha’aretz report continued that ‘Netanyahu said. His forecast that the Arab Spring would turn into an "Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic wave" turned out to be true, he said.’
working class faces repression
Democracy in the Arab world always means Islam and naturally it is anti-Western and therefore not something to be encouraged.  Unlike Netanyahu and his Cabinet of enlightened progressives, an Arab revolution would also be ‘anti-liberal’. 
The kind of state the United States loves - Egypt receives the largest US aid after Israel - all military of course
Who knows they might organise a beast parade, like that ultra-tolerant Bayit Yehudi MK Bezalel Smotrich whose party is in coalition with Netanyahu.  It was meant to be a parody of gays.
Indeed as is his wont, ‘Netanyahu also slammed Western leaders, and especially U.S. President Barak Obama, who had pushed Mubarak to resign from power. At the time this was happening Netanyahu said in closed talks that the American administration and many European leaders don't understand reality.’

Israel and Netanyahu will of course be pleased with the General Sisi, the Egyptian President, who runs an even more repressive regime than did Hosni Mubarak.
Repression in the Middle East will never attract Israeli criticism unless the regime concerned is hostile to Zionism or Israeli policy in any way.

Below is an article from the Egyptian Institute for Human Rights calling for the repeal of a law that effectively bans all demonstrations. 

President Must Repeal Unfair Protest Law and Immediately Release Thousands of Innocents

The undersigned organizations the prosecution and detention of tens of thousands of people for exercising their right to peaceful protest and assembly or for simply being in the area of such protests, in the wake of the adoption on November 24, 2013 of the law regulating public assemblies, processions, and peaceful demonstrations in public places, known as the protest law. The law was issued by Presidential Decree 107/2013 despite the widespread objections of rights groups, numerous political and public-interest forces, and six ministers, as well as a warning from the previous UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay that the law could lead to serious violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
The undersigned organizations reiterate their demand for the repeal of the law and the immediate release of all persons detained or convicted under it. If the law remains in force when the incoming parliament is convened, we urge parliamentarians not to approve it, to annul all consequent prosecutions and sentences, and suspend enforcement of the law until a new law can be issued that complies with the provisions of the constitution, adheres to international standards, and responds to the recommendations of the National Council on Human Rights and rights groups, while putting the law up for social debate.
Interim President Adli Mansour issued the law in November 2013 over the objections of six ministers, among them the deputy prime minister for economic affairs and the foreign minister, who detailed the grounds of their objection on October 9. Confirming the fears of civil forces, the law has been used to criminalize all forms of peaceful assembly, including public demonstrations and meetings, and has legitimized the use of excessive force to disperse peaceful assemblies.
This law was the first of a raft of legislation that contravened the spirit and letter of the 2014 constitution. Current President Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi has issued numerous such laws, including the law on terrorist entities, the counterterrorism law, and amendments to Article 78 of the Penal Code on foreign funding,. The Cairo Administrative Court agreed in June 2014 to refer a case challenging the constitutionality of the protest law to the Supreme Constitutional Court.

While the government justified the adoption of the protest law by pointing to the need to confront demonstrations by a particular political faction and restore stability to the Egyptian street, the situation in Egypt is now less stable than ever. Violent extremism is finding new supporters by the day, and prisons have become recruiting grounds for violent groups.

Joining a peaceful demonstration carries numerous risks, from the arbitrary killing to arrest and sentencing of up to five years in prison in some cases, or prolonged pretrial detention.

In contrast, with the exception of the killing of Shaimaa al-Sabbagh, security forces are not held accountable or prosecuted for the use of lethal force to disperse demonstrations; the few cases that were subject to investigation or trial ended with their acquittal. At the same time, the Supreme Constitutional Court has failed to take up constitutional appeals to decrees issued by the minister of interior that justify the murder of peaceful demonstrators.

The performance and practices of security forces in Egypt has not changed. The same violations and crimes are committed with every peaceful assembly and demonstration. On January 24, 2015, human rights defender Shaimaa al-Sabbagh was shot and killed by security forces as they dispersed a peaceful protest march calling for bread, freedom, and social justice and carrying flowers to commemorate the martyrs of the January revolution. The next day, security forces used lethal force against demonstrators in various locations in Cairo and Alexandria, leaving dozens of protestors and ordinary citizens dead or injured.

Under the law hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested for failing to obtain demonstration permits from the competent security bodies. The law requires organizers of assemblies to meet several unreasonable, impractical conditions while giving the Ministry of Interior the right to object to any “notice” of an impending demonstration on vague grounds, such as information that it may threaten security or peace. In practice, this means that individuals’ exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is subject to a system of prior permit, which contravenes Articles 73 of the constitution and Article 10 of the constitutional declaration of July 8, 2013, in force when the protest law was issued.
Despite sentencing hundreds to prison for demonstrating, the Egyptian judiciary has not seriously examined the repeated police allegations that typically accompany arrests for demonstrating without a permit, including assembly, blocking public roads, and assaulting security personnel, accepting such allegations as fact even in the absence of credible evidence. In contrast, it has taken no action on complaints by defendants in demonstration cases alleging that they and their families have faced grave physical assaults by security personnel, despite legal documentation of these assaults, even voluntary witnesses are sometimes treated as suspects and referred to investigation and trial.
Most recently, security forces arrested 13 demonstrators on November 19 for participating in demonstrations to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Mohammed Mahmoud events. The prosecution charged the demonstrators with demonstrating without giving notice, assembly, and blocking roads. Although a judge with the Qasr al-Nil court ordered the defendants released on bail, the Public Prosecution contested the order. The Qasr al-Nil Appellate Misdemeanor Court, convened in chambers on November 23, subsequently ruled for the prosecution, after which the defendants were remanded for 15 days.

The confiscation of the right of expression and peaceful assembly through liberty-depriving penalties was and remains part of a systematic plan to shut down the public sphere. The incoming parliament must be aware of the consequences of enforcing unconstitutional laws and violating fundamental rights and liberties and how these laws have a negative effect on Egypt’s stability.
The undersigned organizations therefore call on the following:
  1. The president must repeal the protest law or use his constitutional powers of pardon to immediately pardon persons convicted for exercising their right to peaceful assemble and demonstration.
  2. The parliament must not approve the protest law. It should hold debates on the rules necessary to guarantee the right of peaceful assembly as is consistent with the constitution and international standards while involving human rights organizations in these debates.
Signatory organizations
  1. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
  2. Alhaqanya Center for Law and Legal profession
  3. Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-Violence Studies
  4. Appropriate Communications Techniques for Development
  5. Arab Network for Human Rights Information
  6. Arab Penal Reform Organization
  7. Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression
  8. Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance
  9. Egyptian Commission for rights and freedoms
  10. El-Nadeem Centre for the rehabilitation of victims of violence and torture
  11. Masryoon Against Religious Discrimination
  12. National group for human rights and law
  13. The Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights
  14. The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies
  15. The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
  16. The New Woman Foundation