Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts

15 January 2026

Why Socialists and Anti-Imperialists Should Support the Iranian Protest Movement Against the Regime and Defend the Regime Against Israel and US Imperialism

Liberation for the Palestinians and the people of the Middle East Will Not Be Achieved on the Backs of the Oppression of Iranian Workers, Women and Youth

We are witnessing the biggest rebellion of Iranians against the theocratic regime in Iran for decades. Whether the regime succeeds in repressing the demonstrations and surviving is an open question. I suspect, at least in the short term, it will survive because the Iranian state's repressive apparatus bears many similarities to those of classical fascism, e.g. in its abolition of trade unions and there is no strong or coherent opposition.

Let us be clear at once for the benefit of the 'anti-imperialists' who have forgotten what socialism means. Socialism is the emancipation of the working class and oppressed not the dictatorship of a theocratic regime.

As the statement of the independent Iranian trade unions make clear, neither Israel nor the United States are in the slightest bit interested in freedom for the Iranian masses. Both states were more than happy to support the vicious repression under the Shah of Iran, whose son Reza Pahlavi they are trying to bring back. The BBC as always is happy to act as their propaganda stooge.

Threats of military action and bombing by the US and Israel, far from weakening the regime, have the opposite effect by forcing people to rally round it. The cynicism of the genocidal Zionist regime and Trump’s neo-cons beggars belief.

This is the BBC's 'Balance'

The regime of Supreme Ruler Khameini and President Masoud Pezeshkian has been responsible for the murder of thousands of protesters, with the security forces using machine guns and live fire. It is impossible at this time to estimate how many people have been killed but it must run into thousands.

It is now resorting to mass hangings of protesters in an effort to coerce and intimidate the opposition.

There is no doubt that Israel and Mossad have played a part in the protests, but I also have no doubt that Israel has hyped its presence and operations for propaganda reasons.  I find it strange that those who usually doubt everything Israel says are now willing to believe these pathological liars.

It would be a grave mistake to believe that the demonstrations are the creature of Israel. People are on the streets because they have their own grievances with a dictatorial, corrupt and repressive regime.

Israel and the US want to see an end to the Iranian regime but what they don’t want is a democratic society to emerge in its place. Their problem is in finding a replacement which is why Trump’s words have not, so far, matched his actions. The last thing Trump, Israel and the West want is popular sovereignty.

Iran’s regime has its own neo-liberal agenda. Indeed its response to the sanctions has been to further privatise the economy, the exact opposite of what a socialist oriented regime would do. It is the poor in Iran who have paid the highest price for sanctions

Iran’s response to decades of sanctions has involved a turn to market-based policies rather than the socialisation of the economy. The state has pursued privatisation and liberalised certain market mechanisms, resulting in ‘crony capitalism’.

To withstand sanctions, Iran adopted a "resistance economy" strategy. This has integrated neoliberal-style policies, such as: 

·         Privatisation of State Assets: Successive governments have targeted the sale of state-owned enterprises to reduce government spending and settle debts.

·         Subsidy Reform: In late 2025, the government further reduced cash subsidies for energy and food, shifting toward a "ration-style voucher" system to manage fiscal deficits.

·         Price Deregulation: Major industrial producers in sectors like petrochemicals and metals are increasingly allowed to sell at international market prices domestically to maintain profitability despite sanctions. 

Iran’s privatisation efforts have largely benefited quasi-governmental entities. 

·         Institutional Control: Many 'privatised' firms were transferred to institutions linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or supreme leader-controlled foundations (bonyads).

·         Oligarchy and Corruption: These policies have fostered a "crony capitalist" system based on nepotism, where the powerful maintain control over wealth while the middle and working classes face extreme inflation—projected to reach 60% in 2026. 

The entrenchment of neoliberal ideology and policies has been an alternative to developing effective economic strategies to shield the working class and small craftsmen from the devastating effects of sanctions. Rather than adapting policies to protect vulnerable economic sectors, the establishment has doubled down on two core positions:

1.   Accelerating neoliberal policies

2.   Pursuing compromise with US imperialism, primarily to attract foreign investment.

See Neoliberalism Against Revolution: Iran’s Challenges for Resistance

The hypocrisy of Israel and the United States over the death of protesters is to be expected. However it would be a mistake to take their posturing as reflecting their true views. Israel has perpetrated a genocide of tens of thousands of people in Gaza. The US and the Trump regime has funded and supplied weapons for that genocide. They are hardly likely to be concerned about the death of Iranian protesters.

The ‘support’ of Israel and the US for the demonstrations and protests is cynical and self-serving. Both states are the partners of vicious dictatorial regimes all over the Middle East. The only disagreement they have with Iran’s clerical regime is in its independent foreign policy and its opposition to Israeli hegemony in the region.


There is a section of the anti-imperialist left, represented by people like Max Blumenthall, who take the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is a  mistake. The same people supported the Ba’athist regime of President Assad of Syria and we know how that turned out.


Anti-imperialism can never be successful when it relies on regimes which are hated by their own people. In the long term this can only strengthen the Israeli state. It allows Zionism and US imperialism to pass themselves off as the friends of the Iranian people.

The origins of the Islamic Republic lie in collaboration with the United States in order to thwart a genuine revolutionary challenge to capitalism and exploitation. This is not surprising since the clerical regime that emerged was based on the Bazaaris, the merchants and shopkeepers of the traditional marketplaces who represent a powerful and heterogeneous commercial class that has functioned as a central pillar of the country's economic and political history.

On 9 November 1978, in a now-famous cable, "Thinking the Unthinkable," the US ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, warned that the Shah was doomed. He argued that the US should get the Shah and his top generals out of Iran, and then make a deal between junior commanders and Khomeini.

Sullivan's suggestions caused friction with Jimmy Carter but by early January 1979 Carter had concluded that the Shah had to go.

While the U.S. did not formally support Khomeini, historical evidence confirms that the Carter administration engaged in secret diplomatic negotiations with him in January 1979 to ensure an orderly transition and prevent a radical leftist or workers revolution from taking hold. 

In 1979 during the Iranian revolution the US effectively backed Khomeini for fear of a workers revolution. Khomeini initiated a dialogue with the Carter administration to secure his return to Iran and prevent a military coup that might have kept him from power. 

From January 15 to 27, 1979, direct talks occurred in Neauphle-le-Château, France, between Khomeini’s chief of staff, Ebrahim Yazdi, and U.S. diplomat Warren Zimmermann. On 27 January Khomeini told the US just weeks before the overthrow of the Shah's government:

It is advisable that you recommend to the army not to follow Bakhtiar (...) You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans. (...) There should be no fear about oil. It is not true that we wouldn’t sell to the US. (...)

The primary goal of Carter was to preserve US interests and prevent civil war and an opening to Soviet influence. U.S. policy makers believed they could "do business" with the incoming regime, especially with moderate, Western-educated figures like Yazdi and Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, who were close to Khomeini at the time

Their major fear was of a potential communist or socialist takeover, which was a real possibility given the strength of the working-class movement and the influence of the USSR. Accommodating Khomeini was seen as a way to prevent Iran from falling to the left. 

The primary U.S. motivation for communicating with Khomeini was the fear of a power vacuum that would benefit the Tudeh (Communist) Party or Marxist guerrillas. There were three components to US strategy:

·         The "Soft Landing" Strategy: U.S. officials, including National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, feared a chaotic collapse of the state would invite a Soviet invasion or a takeover by local Marxist groups.

·         Khomeini’s Guarantees: From exile in France, Khomeini sent messages to the White House promising that he was not anti-American and that an Islamic republic would be a "stable" bulwark against communism.

·         Neutralizing the Military: To avoid a bloody civil war that leftists might exploit, the U.S. sent General Robert E. Huyser to Tehran to convince the Shah's generals not to launch a coup against the burgeoning revolution. This effectively cleared the path for Khomeini's return. 

Suppression of the Working Class and Leftists

Below is a Collective Statement of Independent Iranian Organizations  and Trade Unions opposing both the threats from Israel and US imperialism and the Islamic regime.  It is a statement that puts to shame all those 'anti-imperialists' like Miller, Galloway and Blumenthall who forget that imperialism is the projection of western capitalism and its concomitant political domination of weaker countries. 

Capitalism is the source of the oppression of workers and peasants, be it the American or the Islamic version. To support the Iranian regime when it is waging class war against its own workers and people is unforgivable.

Once in power, Khomeini moved aggressively to dismantle the secular, working class and socialist movements that had participated in the revolution:

·         Crushing the Left: By 1983, the regime had totally crushed the Tudeh and Fedayeen parties, executing thousands and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of political opponents.

·         Banning Trade Unions: The new regime banned trade unions and independent workers' councils (shoras), replacing them with state-controlled "Islamic Labor Councils" to ensure control over the working class. This is exactly what Hitler did with the formation of the Labour Front on 2 May 1933.

While the Iranian Constitution (Article 26) theoretically permits "professional associations," the 1990 Labour Code and subsequent government actions have replaced genuine unions with state-controlled entities. The Islamic Labour Councils are tripartite organisations involving the Ministry of Labour, employers, and selected workers chosen based on loyalty to the state.

The "Workers' House" is a state-sponsored institution that ostensibly represents workers but is widely criticized for prioritising government policy over labour rights.

·         Intelligence Sharing: Reports indicate that even after the 1979 revolution, the U.S. provided the Khomeini regime with a "hit list" of Tudeh members in 1983 to help eliminate Soviet influence in Iran.

·         Leading global labor bodies like the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) rank Iran in their worst category for workers' rights.

Fear of a Leftist Takeover

·         Communist Strength: Various communist organisations, particularly the Tudeh Party, had significant support, including among the crucial oil workers, and posed an existential threat to both the Shah's regime and the nascent Islamic revolutionary government.

It was unfortunate in the extreme that after 1979 the Tudeh Party supported Khomeini until he turned on them.

·         Soviet Influence: During the Cold War, the U.S. was committed to preventing Soviet expansion. A communist Iran, with a shared border with the USSR, was a major strategic concern.

·         The Power Vacuum: The working-class movement, organised through factory councils known as shoras, had effectively taken control of key industries, including the oil sector, which paralysed the economy and created a power vacuum.

·         Khomeini's Assurances: Khomeini's secret messages to the Carter administration included assurances that he had no "particular affinity" for the Soviet Union and that an American presence was necessary to counterbalance Soviet influence. These messages made U.S. policymakers believe that they could work with the Islamists to maintain a non-aligned Iran. 

Today, unlike in 1979, the left is weak. That is the central problem facing the current demonstrations. Without a strong workers’ party it is difficult to see an alternative government arising.

Anti-imperialists see the present uprising in terms of, above all, the Palestinian question and Gaza. This is understandable but misplaced.

Iran’s anti-imperialism has been forced on the regime primarily by the opposition of the US and Israel to the regime. In order to preserve its power the Iranian regime constructed the Axis of Resistance, which today lies in ruins.

Hezbollah, an indigenous resistance movement, which arose out of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, has been severely weakened with the assassination of Nasrallah, its leader and the pager attack. Whether it will be able to respond to a renewed Israeli attack on Lebanon, which the US is trying to reconfigure by disarming  Hezbollah, is open to question.

Hezbollah was the jewel in the crown and was heavily engaged in supporting Assad in Syria at Iran’s behest. With the overthrow of Assad the route from Iran to Lebanon for arms supplies has been largely halted.

Hamas in Gaza undoubtedly obtained some help from Iran but it is noticeable that since October 7 Iran has not done anything to support the Palestinians facing Israel’s genocide. Even when it had a chance, when Israel sued for a ceasefire, Iran did not make its agreement conditional on an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The reality is that the Iranian regime has been in confrontation with imperialism and Israel despite itself. We should not forget that from 1981-86 Israel was supplying Iran with weapons in what became known as the Iran Contra Affair.

Whether or not the Iranian regime survives, one thing is for certain. That it will continue to be a friend of the Palestinians only so long as it deems it in its interests.

The Islamic Regime is a Barbaric Regime

The Iranian regime, with its rate of executions estimated to have doubled to 1,500 last year, is a barbaric state. It has the second highest number of executions of any state after China. Its method of execution, hanging from a crane, strangulation, is also the most barbaric.

The human rights record in Iran includes the persistent use of torture and what Amnesty International called a ‘Wave of floggings, amputations and other vicious punishments.’ Iran is certainly not a model state for socialists or anti-imperialists to idolise.

As regards the current clashes between the Iranian state and protestors, I have no doubt at all that the regime is using massive, lethal violence against the demonstrators. Amnesty International talks about:

a coordinated nationwide escalation in the security forces’ unlawful use of lethal force against mostly peaceful protesters and bystanders since the evening of 8 January....

Verified audiovisual evidence depicts severe and, in some cases, fatal injuries, including gunshot wounds to the head, including eyes, as well as individuals lying motionless on streets or being carried away amid what is believed to be continued sound of gunshots. Other footage shows patients bleeding profusely or appearing lifelesson hospital floors. In several videos, the people filming state that individuals have been killed.

At least two videos show security forces chasing and directly firing at fleeing protesters who appear to pose no threat warranting the use of force, let alone firearms or other prohibited weapons.

In an account shared with Amnesty International, a journalist from Tehran said:

“Tell the world that unspeakable crimes are being committed in Iran… Tell the world that if they do nothing, they [authorities] will turn the country into a graveyard.”

There are shills for the Iranian state like David Miller who, whatever the state does, however many people it hangs, it can do no wrong. 

the Islamic Republic of Iran is on the front lines of anti-imperialism and is actually the main defender of human civilisation that we have left.

There is no reasoning with such nonsense just as talking to 99% of Zionist apologists for genocide is like conversing with a brick wall.



 Israeli Involvement in the Protests

A favourite argument of Miller,  Blumenthall and others is Israel’s claims of massive involvement in the Iranian protests. There is no evidence for this.  It is an attempt by Israel to recover from some of the damage caused by their genocide in Gaza and to pretend that for once they are on the side of human rights.  

Quite frankly I don’t believe half of the nonsense that they and their hasbarists are putting out. It serves Blumenthall and others to go along with this narrative but it is a narrative at the expense of the Iranian people for whom Israel doesn't give a damn.


I agree (for once) with Owen Jones. It is using the thousands of dead and murdered Iranian people for its own racist and genocidal purpose.  But nothing will make Zionism or Genocide smell more sweetly.  It is useful for Blumenthall and others to latch on to Israeli claims but why believe Israel now when normally we call them liars?

As I said at the beginning, our support for the Iranian state is only against imperialism and Zionism not its own people.

A Region Wide Strategy

The original mistake of the PLO was to always believe that it could become just another Arab regime, as we see with the Palestinian Authority today. Their trust in the Arab regimes was entirely misplaced.

It is also clear that a military strategy against Israel is also doomed. What then?  Is Israel invincible?  I don’t think so.  In addition to its own internal problems with deep divisions in its settler population which the attack on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran have hidden, there is the danger of over extending itself as it invades yet more countries.

The main use of Israel to imperialism has always been its ability to help neuter radical Arab regimes and come to the aid of quisling ones like Jordan. Israel’s utility to imperialism comes from its role as a counter-revolutionary state in the heart of the Middle East.

The real question is to develop a strategy aimed at toppling the main Arab client regimes of the United States, in particular Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran does not provide a model to the people of the Middle East. Nor does it seek to overthrow  any of the surrounding regimes. It looks for co-existence with them in much the same way as it would like to co-exist with the United States.

The overthrow of the Arab regimes is the key to the overthrow of Zionism and imperialist influence in the Middle East.  There is no other way.

Tony Greenstein 

Posted by at 24 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 July 2024

NATIONWIDE IS AN ANTI-PALESTINIAN BANK

First They Blocked Payments to a Palestinian Children’s Centre & then Lied & Blamed it on Government Sanctions

When I Complained About Their Racist Discrimination They Told Me That They Were Closing My Accounts!

When people think of Building Societies they think of what is the fluffier side of British financial institutions. Most building societies like the Woolwich, Halifax and the ill-fated Northern Rock demutualised and became private banks in the 1990s and 2000s.

Most of them were subsequently taken over by the big banks or nationalised in the financial crash of 2008/9. Nationwide emerged as the largest of the remaining building societies.

Today it is clear, with its acquisition of Virgin Money for £2.9 billion, that Nationwide aims to be one of the big banks. It has also removed the accounts of critics of its expansion plans, so I am not the only casualty of its aversion to free speech. Despite having members’ AGMs building societies are anything but democratic. The same old Establishment worms its way in along with their amoral culture.

My problems with Nationwide began on February 2 and 12 when I sent £2,000 and then £1,500 to the Al Tafawk Children’s Centre in Jenin. Little did I know that 4 months later it would end up with me being told that they were closing my accounts. I’ve been with Nationwide for 25 years but that counts for nothing.

The first indication that something was amiss was when I received 2 emails from the Accounts Review Team [ART] (9 & 12.2.24) asking:

• Why is this payment is being sent via your personal account, on behalf of The Brighton Trust, and not directly from the registered charity’s own bank account? Will this payment be a one-off or an ongoing arrangement?

• We require evidence that beneficiary account details are associated to Al Tafawk Centre.

On 13 May Hannah from ART rang me and we had a perfectly pleasant conversation. Hannah told me she was happy with my responses. After we spoke I emailed her to confirm the details of our conversation. My email began:

Good to talk to you and glad we have resolved this though I am really unhappy that it was because of a payment to a Palestinian NGO.  I'm sure that this would not have happened with an Israeli Children's Centre.

If as I suspect your concern was that we might be funding 'terrorism' then I can lay your concerns to rest. Our charity only funds a children's centre - it used to be toys and equipment but today water and food is the priority

Clearly I trod on some raw nerves as the ART clammed up. Hannah didn’t reply. They also failed, until 5 March, to recredit my account with the money that they had refused to transfer. For a month I could get no explanation as to what had happened to the money and whether it had been sent on as Hannah had promised.

I made a complaint about their behaviour and Louise from Member Service ‘investigated’ my complaint and found nothing amiss. At which point I protested at her barely literate, contradictory letter and demanded a proper investigation. I began my appeal thus:

In her letter to me of 20 February Louise Morris stated that: ‘I hope this letter explains things clearly’ and goes on to say that ‘If you think I’ve missed anything... please email me. Clearly Ms Morris has a sense of humour.

My appeal was upheld on 6 March by Simon, a Team Manager at Member Service and I was awarded £250 compensation. My complaint concerned the behaviour of the ART. I emphasised, once again, that this would not have happened if I’d tried to send money to an Israeli children’s centre.

On 7 March I sent an email to the ART asking a simple question viz. ‘Will you hold up future payments? I went on to say that

‘your discrimination against a Palestinian children's centre is an outrageous example of racism as this would not happen in the case of Israel. Presumably Jewish children are kosher and Palestinian children are not.

The latter remark was humorous but I suspect that a sense of humour is something that is alien to the Israel’s supporters in the ART.

On 26 March I received a ‘Final Warning’ from Haleema, a Member Relations Consultant (!) which began:

‘I've been told that on 07 March 2024, you sent our Review Team emails consisting of abusive and racial comments. This type of behaviour goes against our account's terms and conditions and we won't put up with it.

My first reaction to this letter was to wonder whether Member Service employees have any training. If Haleema was minded to issue me with a final warning (it was the first!!) she might have bothered to read the email she was commenting on. Or is it general practice for Nationwide staff to accept allegations at face value?

The email in question contained nothing abusive or ‘racial’ (unless a reference to Israel is considered ‘racial’). Clearly this letter had been cooked up behind the scenes and was the product of a ‘revenge complaint’ from the ART at having had an adverse finding made against it.

I attempted to resolve matters informally with Haleema but she didn’t comprehend the points I was making. As a result, on 5 May, I made a complaint.

On 21 May I chased up the complaint and on 23 May I received a letter turning down my complaint from Rhianna. She too seemed to have difficulty reading but whereas Haleema had accused me of sending abusive emails Rhiannon changed this to a question of perception. The problem was that:

I appealed this and on 19 June Fay Ingram asserted that

I called the Israeli army ‘bastards’ which is descriptive not swearing. The phone call in question was terminated when I challenged the staff member as to why no information could be provided about my funds.

But it’s not clear why that should cause upset. It’s simply a comment unless of course members of ART have some form of emotional attachment to Israel’s genocidal army.

I also emailed a number of people about what had happened to me and they wrote to Nationwide. It is clear that Nationwide actively discriminates against sending payments to Palestinians.

This is especially shocking given that Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank openly flouts the 4th Geneva Convention relating to the protection of civilians at time of war. The International Court of Justice at The Hague has just ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is illegal. Yet despite this Nationwide is refusing to transfer money to Palestinians on the West Bank whilst placing no obstacles in the way of transfers to Israel’s settlers.

In a letter to Mr T on 8 May Nationwide wrote:


we’re unable to send monies to countries currently under sanction by the UK government...  we regrettably cannot make transfers to countries on the high-risk list... We’ve to abide by this list and cannot give any more information on why we cannot send to this relevant country.

The relevant country in question was Palestine. Then on 17 July Andrea Doyle wrote a second letter apologising for the ‘confusion’ that their first letter caused. Doyle wrote:

Within our response we noted that payments cannot be made to any countries that are sanctioned by the UK Government. Given the context of your letter, you may have understood our letter to be suggesting that Palestine is a sanctioned country. I apologise for the confusion this appears to have caused. To clarify, Palestine is not a sanctioned country under the UK Law.

... we do occasionally need to stop payments and seek further information about the nature/purpose of the payment. In some instances, again in order to comply with our obligations, we do need to refuse payments. However, such decisions won’t have been based on the fact that the payment was being made to an unsanctioned or non-proscribed organisation operating in Palestine.


Describing Palestinian organisations as ‘unsanctioned’ or ‘non-proscribed’ casts a pall of suspicion and guilt over them. Would Israeli organisations be so described?

This letter was disingenuous. There was no confusion. The first letter made it clear that Palestine was subject to sanctions. That was wrong. Why not admit you were wrong?

In an email to David, also of 17 July, Doyle wrote that:

I can tell you that we wouldn’t restrict payments solely on the basis that they are intended for an unsanctioned or non-proscribed Palestinian organisation. (my emphasis)

Identical comments were emailed to Mrs E, Mr R, Mr W, Ms M, Mr B, Mr R, Mr  W, Ms D Ms R – all on 17 July by Andrea Doyle and in one case Emily Draper. Note the word ‘solely’. In other words if you are trying to send money to Palestine, a country the subject of an illegal occupation, it may not be the only factor in a refusal to transfer money but it is clearly a major if not principal factor.

It is clear that Nationwide is in practice refusing to make payments to Palestine. Why? Well one can only assume that members of the ART sympathise with Israel’s military and therefore took exception to me criticising the ‘world’s most moral army’ as bastards!

This was expressed in a letter of 23 May by Rhiannon which stated

The hypocrisy of this beggars belief. It is the behaviour of the Three Wise Monkeys who refused to see, hear or speak evil.

The reason that the ‘conflict’, in fact occupation of Palestine by Israel, was raised was because Nationwide refused to transfer payments to a Palestinian children’s centre. It was they who allowed the situation in the Middle East to intrude on their decisions. Nationwide took and still takes a position that anything Palestinian is suspect. This is confirmed by the letter which has been issued which says that being Palestinian won’t be the ‘sole’ reason for refusing transfers.

In her email to me of 19 June, Fay Ingram, asserted that the ART

‘doesn’t have to answer specific questions about a block that has been placed’ and ‘that we actively review all payments and can stop payments when we hold concerns.

Of course the ART doesn’t have to answer questions but what possible reason can there be for not doing so? It is a lie that they ‘actively review all payments’. Over time I’ve made a number of international payments from Nationwide. They have never been subject to any hold-up. These are camouflage words.

This is especially relevant when the ART provide a false explanation to another customer about Palestine being a sanctioned state.

However much Nationwide twist and turn it is clear that in practice they are operating a policy of sanctioning Palestine. When I’ve tried to send money from other banks I haven’t had this problem. If Nationwide is to maintain that it’s not treating payments to Palestine differently then it needs to challenge the anti-Palestinian racism which permeates the ART. They should lay down clear rules and guidelines about not discriminating against the Palestinians whose only crime is suffering under an illegal and brutal occupation.

I have quoted only brief excerpts from the email correspondence. If you wish to see the full emails, then they are saved here.

One final matter. The first time I learnt that my accounts were being closed was on 24 June when I receive a ‘reminder’ that my accounts were being closed. I had not previously had any such notice although Nationwide maintains that a letter was sent out on May 10. Given my post is reliable my suspicion is that this letter was never sent.

What is interesting is that on 19 June, over a month after the letter of May 10 was apparently sent, Fay Ingram wrote to me stating that

Why was Ingram saying that my accounts could be closed when elsewhere Nationwide are asserting that such a decision had already been made?

Likewise Rhiannon sent an email on 23 May saying of Haleema’s letter that ‘I can’t agree that we...  threatened we’d close your accounts.’ She may not agree but how else should I interpret Haleema’s threat that

if we hear about any further incidents or similar behaviour towards our colleagues, we'll close your account immediately without telling you first. [bold in the original]

Rhiannon’s email was sent nearly a fortnight after the letter closing my accounts was apparently sent. It reveals how shallow Nationwide investigations are that they are unable read their own correspondence.

It is clear from my recent experiences with Nationwide that their attitude to Israel/Palestine is that of the Britain’s Political Establishment which is to penalise the Palestinians and treat Israel as a normal western democracy. This means ignoring the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and adopting a mentality that conflates Palestinians with terrorism and sanctions.

What You Can Do?

Although some people have written threatening to close their accounts if Nationwide doesn’t change their stance I’m not asking people to do this. Nationwide’s institutional racism and amorality is par for the course in the capitalist banking world.

What you can do is to bombard them with complaints about their behaviour and demand accountability for decisions to stop transfers to Palestinian organisations such as children’s centres. This is especially the case if you are a member.

Tony Greenstein

Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)