‘Assadist list’ nothing more than McCarthyism paired with ‘hoodwink’ science

George Galloway
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years.
He presents TV and radio shows (including on RT).
He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
‘Assadist list’ nothing more than McCarthyism paired with ‘hoodwink’ science

 

To paraphrase those Hollywood actors when dragged before the arc-lights of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC): “I am not now nor have I ever been an Assadist.”

In the long stand-off between Syria and Iraq, with all its ruinous consequences, I was with Iraq. Between 1980 and 2002 – 22 years – I never set foot in Syria and wouldn’t have been welcome if I had. I have a house named after the Beirut Palestinian refugee camp Tel al-Zaatar which was razed to the ground by the Syrians [Phalange party/Lebanons Forces/Arafat] with many residents massacred. My first ever solidarity mission – more than 40 years ago – was to collect bagpipes for the orphans’ band from Tel al-Zaatar.

Side Bar

  • In his biographical profile of Yasser Arafat, The broken revolutionary, Robert Fisk writes: “When he needed martyrs in 1976, he called for a truce around the besieged refugee camp of Tel el-Zaatar, then ordered his commanders in the camp to fire at their right-wing Lebanese Christian enemies. When, as a result, the Phalangists and “Tigers” militia slaughtered their way into Tel el-Zaatar, Arafat opened a “martyrs’ village” for camp widows in the sacked Christian village of Damour. On his first visit, the widows pelted him with stones and rotten fruit. Journalists were ordered away at gunpoint.”
  •  The Real Story of Tel al-Zaatar

I met the late president Hafez Assad only once – at a World Peace Conference in Damascus where I shared the stage with him, Yasser Arafat and others. I was 26 years old.

I have met the now-president Bashar Assad only twice – both times in formal meetings.

I have zero relations with the government in Syria and never have had. In fact I denounced sections of the regime under examination by Michael Mansfield QC in an inquest not that long ago.

Read more

©

It’s true that in the existential battle for the Syrian Arab Republic between the Assad government and its motley array of enemies I have stood foursquare with the Republic. It’s true that in a fight between the Assad forces and the head-chopping, heart-eating Islamist fanatics of Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and the alphabet soup of extremism they have spawned, I stand with the former rather than the latter. But then what sentient being without an ulterior agenda wouldn’t?

It’s true I have said that Assad is being targeted by imperialism, not for the bad things about his political system, but for the opposite reasons.

The West is not against authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, to the contrary – all of its best friends are such. The West is not against one-party – even one-family – rule in the Middle East, to the contrary – we have preferred them, armed them and had the closest possible relations with such states in the Middle East for a 100 years. The West is not against rigged elections in the Middle East, to the contrary. We have facilitated them ever since such farcical elections began.

Syria as been targeted by imperialism and its local satrapies for other reasons. Because of its historic relationship with Russia, it has been the victim of a proxy war, in effect a war against Russia by other means.

Because it refuses to make a surrender peace with Israel, giving up in the process its sovereign territory on the illegally annexed Golan Heights.

Because it refuses to break relations with the Lebanese resistance, and with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Because it refused to allow its territory to be used as a back-door entry into Iraq to facilitate the Anglo-American illegal invasion and occupation of its neighbor.

For all these reasons I repeat what I have said many times: the Syrian Arab Republic is the last castle of Arab dignity.

Read more

© Omar Sanadiki

But none of that makes me an Assadist. It just makes me an enemy of his enemies.

Yet I have made the Assadist List, compiled by a student scribbler, a Kester Ratcliff, whose name needn’t detain us for long. He is his masters’ voice and his masters are whom we should focus on.

Mind you I am in good company on the list. My friend, Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn PC MP, Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for one. The multiply-commended award-winning, regularly British Foreign Correspondent of the year Patrick Cockburn is another. The Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott MP is another. As is Mother Agnes Mariam De La Croix, the Mother Superior of the Monastery of St James the Mutilated in Syria. The veteran Trotskyite leader Tariq Ali, who led my first ever demonstration against the war in Vietnam in 1968 when I was 14 years old, is another.

The redoubtable American author and journalist Max Blumenthal is apparently an Assadist, as is the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, as is Noam Chomsky! Baroness Cox of the British House of Lords makes the list as does Ireland’s finest MP Clare Daly. The American comedian Jimmy Dore is an Assadist, don’t you know!

Britain’s best known foreign correspondent Robert Fisk makes the cut as does future US presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard. The world’s most famous journalist Seymour Hersh is there –  an Assadist, who’d a thunk it?

The quintessential English Christian gentleman newspaperman Peter Hitchens is too, as is the doyen of English journalism Simon Jenkins or, Sir Simon Jenkins FSA FRSL, to give him his Sunday name. An Assadist (if only the Queen had known when she tapped his shoulder with her sword at Buckingham Palace).

Read more

FILE PHOTO: Members of the Civil Defence, also known as the 'White Helmets'. © Alaa al-Faqir

Boris Johnson, the erstwhile British Foreign Secretary – he’s an Assadist! (although possibly only because of his “foolishness”)

Owen Jones, the liberal milksop from the Guardian newspaper, who witch-hunted Mother Agnes from public platforms in England on the grounds SHE was an Assadist, well, you’ve guessed it, he’s an Assadist too (though a “milder” Assadist).

The British Shadow Foreign Secretary – a well known “Friend of Israel” – Emily Thornberry is an Assadist. As is the former Associate Editor of the Guardian, Seumas Milne.

I could go on, believe me, there are 151 of us – but you have probably already got the picture. This list of Assadists is a farrago of foolishness, a soupcon of silliness, a pile of what the Pope called at the weekend – “the material of the toilet bowl.”

As such it could be laughed off as the teenage student scribbling that it is.

But just like the McCarthyite witch-hunts in 1950s America, this kind of malignant list-making can have consequences for those listed. Many of those never worked or were able to travel again. For some on this list the potential consequences could be graver still. Some on the Assadist list should be subject to criminal sanctions, according to the author.

It is fitting perhaps that the list comes complete with a diagram which looks like the unhinged green-ink scrawling of a madman in a hospital for the criminally insane. It purports to map all of those listed as somehow connected even though many of us hate each other’s guts. I could make a diagram of the connections between the gun-runners, the financiers and the propagandists for the Jihadists and the crucifying Islamist Pol Pots doing their dirty work. Whilst it would make a more convincing case, ennui I’m afraid precludes it.

In any case the great Western effort to overthrow Assad and destroy the Syrian Arab Republic has failed. All their money, all their weapons, all the blood they shed have been to no avail – except for the hundreds of thousands of lives they destroyed. Come to think of it, a hospital for the criminally insane is perhaps the best place for the author and his patrons.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Advertisements

“israel (Apartheid State) Has Taken Out a Contract on Jeremy Corbyn”


By George Galloway

British Media is not waving, it’s drowning…in a sea of its own mendacity

British Media is in a Sea of its Own Mendacity

“Israel has taken out a contract on Jeremy Corbyn” writer Gideon Levy wrote in Ha’aretz. As the contract crescendos, what does it tell us about Corbyn, the media, and Israel?

The Jewish establishment in Britain and Israeli propaganda have taken out a contract on him (Corbyn), to foil his election…” Levy wrote in an opinion piece last week.  This remarkable piece by Israel’s finest journalist Gideon Levy, published in Israel’s finest newspaper Ha’aretz, is remarkable not just in that it is a fine piece of writing on a par with what he writes every other day.

But it reminds those whose rushes of blood to the head too often lead them to erroneously believe that Israel is (not yet, at any rate) a “fascist” country. If it were, Levy would be dead, Ha’aretz long closed down and the strategic damage done internationally to Netanyahu by the steady stream of free journalism staunched in the interests of the state.

It is a commonplace that there is NO Arab country where such journalism is permitted. Even cartoonists enigmatically lampooning the Arab system are taken out, never mind trenchant existential attacks upon the character of the system and the leader, like this one.

Less palatable is the fact that NO British journalist would write this piece, quite the contrary. Virtually every British journalist is either writing the opposite or is engaged in a frantic search for the slightest morsel of historic Facebook scribblings to launch yet another assassination piece on the Labour leader.

It is his Arab season now but equally frantic, reckless, often mendacious offensives have been mounted over Corbyn’s Cold War activities and his Irish activities. Before that it was his clothes, his unfamiliarity with the words and music of God Save the Queen and his inability to kowtow like a Japanese General before royal personages and on state occasions.

Thank God you cannot bribe or twist/ the average British journalist/ but when you see what unbribed he’ll do/ you see there is no reason to” – From a poem by Humbert Wolfe (1885-1940)

Unbribed (one presumes), the average British journalist in just three years has sincerely believed and ruthlessly proselytized that Jeremy Corbyn (35 years a British MP) has been a Soviet spy, a Czech spy an East German spy. He’s been paid £10k per MEETING (at 1980s prices) for his philandering with Soviet bloc agents, he’s been on a motorcycle tour of the former German Democratic Republic where he was recruited by the KGB. This is all by way of background as to why Corbyn was the sole MP in the British parliament to ask for evidence from Theresa May for her assumptions as to the true identity of the would-be assailants of the Skripals in Salisbury. The BBC even photoshopped Corbyn in front of the Kremlin walls in a Russian hat.

And Corbyn has also been an agent of the Lebanese Shia Islamist resistance group Hezbollah. And a friend and brother of their equal and opposite Palestinian Sunni resistance group Hamas. And an agent of their equals and opposites, the Shia Mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And prior to all of that, Corbyn was an agent of the revolutionary Irish Republican Army in their long struggle to oust the British occupiers from their country. The fact that Corbyn was meeting leading Republicans in public at the very same time as UK ministers and civil servants were meeting the very same Republicans in secret is carefully elided. That Corbyn was right in trying to bring the political wing of the IRA in from the cold and into a peace process –now universally lauded as the Good Friday Agreement– has to be carefully concealed.

Long ago videos from obscure events, entirely ignored at the time by the self-same media, are being exhumed and distorted. Pictures of wreaths being laid are parsed and wild inferences made as to who exactly is being mourned in the pictures. Smears that were launched last year are relaunched to presumed gullible readers as if they were news this year.

This tidal wave, I remind you again, has all rolled out like a tsunami from the entire UK media –left right and center– in just the last three years.

In the same three years Corbyn has tripled the Labour Party’s membership, it is now bigger than all the other British political parties combined and is now the biggest political party in Europe, with over 550,000 members.

In that three years and in the face of the tsunami, Corbyn scored the biggest increase in Labour votes since Winston Churchill was turfed out on his backside in the Labour landslide in 1945.

If Corbyn did not have more than one hundred Blairite Labour MPs sitting behind him seeking, in perfect synchronicity with the media storms, to overthrow, subvert and undermine him, he would without doubt be sitting in 10 Downing Street right now. Just imagine that…

So, it is now obvious that not only does Israel have a more free press than Britain, but also that the British media has increasingly little purchase with the British people. Newspapers are going out of business, their owners posting billion-dollar losses. The press are bankrupt in public esteem, too. It seems that the more they hysterically blow, the more people disregard what they have to say and some more every day migrate to other media shores, on social media, on alternative media channels like RT. The British media, waving frantically, are not waving actually, but drowning. Drowning in the sea of their own mendacity.

The BBC radio flagship program “Today” has lost one million listeners in one year. The BBC flagship television program “Newsnight” has lost half its audience. The Persecutor-in-Chief, the Daily Mail –whose founder was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler – has lost 12% of its readership in the last year.

The Russophobia Times of London has lost 6.6% from a very low base. The ‘liberal’ Guardian newspaper, which daily plumbs new journalistic depths, has sunk by an unlikely 13%.

And the Daily Telegraph, house-journal of disgraced former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, has lost a mind-bending 25% of its readers in just one year.

George Galloway is a British politician, broadcaster and writer. Between 1987 and 2015, with a gap in 2010–12, he represented four constituencies as a Member of Parliament, elected as a candidate for the Labour Party and later the Respect Party.

This article was originally published by “RT

‘Curiouser and Curiouser’: Salisbury, the Skripals & the epic failure of the British Fairy Tale

By George Galloway

'Curiouser and Curiouser': Salisbury, the Skripals & the epic failure of the British Fairy Tale

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast” – Alice in Wonderland. The problem for the British narrative in the Skripal case is that one would have to believe way more than six things.

Let me start with the latest: the taxpayer-funded purchase for more than one million pounds of the homes in Salisbury of the British spy Sergei Skripal and the police officer Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This purchase is explained as necessary on security grounds and – some suspect – may be followed by the destruction of both houses and all the evidence therein.

This is difficult to explain in the absence of a state purchase of the Zizi’s Pizza Restaurant where Skripal and his daughter Yulia ate what could have very well ended up being their last meal, and where they spent at least as much time as DS Bailey could have been in touch with the pair. Ditto the pub the Skripals visited before repairing for lunch. And anywhere else they went after leaving their door handle on which was smeared in gel form the strangely innocuous Novichok(ish) which killed none of the people who ingested it.

This presupposes that DS Bailey was never in the Skripal house but was – oddly, given his rank – merely a first responder on the park bench where the Skripals slumped at exactly the same time and in the same form, despite their differences in age, height, and physical form – itself difficult to understand if both were affected by the Novichok(ish) several hours before from the doorknob.

Neither Skripal showed any signs of having been affected in the pub, or wherever else they visited en route to Zizi’s, or in the restaurant, or even in the only short piece of CCTV footage seen in the public domain after they had left the restaurant but before they reached the park bench on which they slumped five hours after leaving their doorknob.

IF all of the foregoing is a truthful account of what happened, then one thing is now the settled will of the majority of thinking people in the United Kingdom – even in Salisbury – whatever else was on the doorknob it was not a “deadly military grade nerve agent… of a type developed by Russia.”

Because, if it had been, they would have both been dead in the short walk from the doorknob to the car or certainly before they had driven to the end of their street. They would have been found dead either on the garden path or slumped behind the wheel of their car, not five hours later on a park bench – very unwell but now thankfully apparently well again – and in Yulia’s case looking the very picture of health.

Sergei, of course, we have not seen, but given his discharge from hospital just a few days after Yulia’s, it is logical to infer that he too has made the same Lazarus-like resurrection from what we had been told was his imminent deathbed just the day before Yulia’s now famous telephone call with her cousin in Moscow.
But IS what we have been told about the chain of events the truth? I have met no one, literally no one, who believes so.

And NO evidence, none whatsoever, has been produced by the government or any state authorities which gives the slightest justification to Theresa May’s rush to judgment and blame issued peremptorily against the Russian Federation and – in the mouth of both the foreign secretary and the defense secretary – against President Putin himself.
It is established by the very fact the Skripals survived that what struck them was not Novichok.

Even if it had been, it is untrue that the family of nerve agents called Novichok was “developed by Russia.” It was developed by the USSR, and not in Russia but in other republics, including the now-Western ally Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Its stockpiles were certified, destroyed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray attended a reception for the UN chemical weapons watchdog in Uzbekistan as they celebrated the successful conclusion of this work.

One of the leading Russian scientists in the Soviet-era Novichok team moved to the United States where he published a book containing the exact chemical formula needed to make Novichok. The book was available on Amazon. One eminent US scientist I interviewed on my radio show by phone from the United States told me that ANY of his undergraduate students could make Novichok and so could any university chemistry student anywhere in the world.

But it was not Novichok or any “military-grade nerve agent” which struck the Skripals – if it had been, they would be dead. I repeat that for emphasis.

But the other parts of Mrs. May’s narrative haven’t fared any better.

It was claimed by the PM that “only Russia had the motive” to attack Sergei Skripal. But this is clearly ridiculous as I said at the time. On the principle of Cui Bono, i.e. who benefits from this crime, obviously Russia, days before its presidential election and exactly 100 days before the World Cup opening ceremony, had the least to gain from carrying out this crime – certainly at that time.

Russia could have attacked Sergei Skripal at any time, with no collateral damage to his daughter or a passing policeman, either long before or alternatively after the World Cup. Simple logic demanded at least the consideration that the crime may have been carried out by someone or some state which sought to damage Russia. The faked murder of the Russian journalist Babchenko in Ukraine in May being such a case in point.

Moreover, the whole principle of spy swaps would have been gravely undermined by a Russian state attack on Skripal, if not rendered otiose entirely. After all, what spy is going to agree to be swapped if his fate is sealed in an agonizing demise even many years down the line? For that reason, Russia has never attacked any foreign agent released in a spy swap.

But such simple logic was never deployed in Mrs. May’s rush to judgment.

Now that could have been mere incompetence – full disclosure, having known personally every British prime minister since Harold Wilson, I generally lean to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy theory of politics – or it could have a predetermined plot to justify the deliberate escalation of tensions with Russia either unilaterally as a diversion or in cahoots with the cowboys of the US deep state currently utterly mesmerized by the Russian Bear. Either way, it hasn’t worn well.

Not the least of the reasons so few people in Britain are sold on the state narrative of what happened in Salisbury is the complete absence of any journalistic enquiry – an absence entered into either voluntarily or by compulsion. No pressure by the press on the hospital, on Porton Down, on the security services, on the government, on Whitehall. Just a deep, silent and growing chasm.

Again full disclosure, I broadcast sometimes daily on a Rupert Murdoch-owned national radio station – TalkRadio – and I have often raised the Skripal case on my radio shows and have never been asked, let alone told, not to. But I am the only one. Perhaps the government knows that any attempt to serve a so-called D-Notice on me would occasion my mounting the plinth in Trafalgar Square to defy it. Or perhaps they have other plans, I don’t know. But apart from my own regular exposure of my doubts and now certainties on the Skripal case there has been absolutely no “mainstream” radio, television or newspaper discussion questioning the state narrative by any other commentator.

The British people are not fools, far from it. They are used to a raucous media, screaming tabloid enquiry and a fading but still extant tradition of investigative journalism. In its absence, the public have drawn the obvious conclusion.

So what did poison the Skripals and DS Bailey, who carried out this attack, and why?

And why are we paying such a high price to own their houses?

To take the last point first, it seems overwhelmingly likely that these houses are being bought to purchase the silence of the parties involved. There can be no “security” reason for doing so in the absence of the destruction of Zizi’s (who might well have welcomed it!). We must assume that DS Bailey – uniquely for a police hero who has been attacked in the course of his duty – has settled not for the reward of a grateful nation and a place on the pantheon as a public defender, but for lifelong obscurity, and a half million pounds or so.

Equally, it seems unlikely that Yulia’s cousin will be hearing from her again.

As to who, what and why – perhaps, we will never know. But last week on RT, the most plausible theory from the most credible source I’ve yet heard finally emerged.

I have worked with Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Seymour Hersh before and closely, almost 30 years ago. That work is worth retelling on another occasion. Suffice to say that Hersh is no journalistic trifle. He is of impeccable, near Olympian, standards.

Hersh claimed last week that the Skripals were attacked by Russians, just not the Russians identified by Mrs. May. But by Russian criminals, organized criminals, Russian Mafia criminals. The reason? Well, Hersh believes because the British security services had reactivated the bored (or broke) Sergei Skripal to begin working again, this time in cracking down on the nest of oligarchs and their often criminal money and enterprises operating in London.

I don’t know this to be true, but it has the ring of truth. A far clearer ring of truth than anything I’ve heard from the British government.

This article was originally published by “RT

Galloway: Free Word on Iran’s nuclear deal

NATO virus is spreading, aggressive & immune to any antibiotic of logic

By George Galloway

NATO virus is spreading, aggressive & immune to any antibiotic of logic

Like a geographical virus the spread of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has broken all natural boundaries. It is immune to any antibiotic of logic and poses a deadly threat to the health, peace and stability of the world.

For decades in the West, NATO was believed to have been a defensive response to the creation of the Warsaw Pact – despite the fact that it was formed long before the treaty, which has in turn been nearly 30 years dead. Nonetheless, like death and taxes, membership of NATO has been assumed to be one of life’s few certainties with an increasing share of national wealth going to pay for it.

This might have gone on unquestioned but for the multiple East-West crises of the last few years and the bizarre inclusion of, brothers-in-arms and non-North Atlantic states, Colombia and Israel in recent NATO activity.

Almost overnight, interest in my long-quiescent No2NATO campaign has picked up as public opinion has switched on like a light to the fact that there is little that is defensive about NATO and even less that is North Atlantic.

When the Colombian President announced a Co-operation Agreement with NATO in 2013 and expressed hope that his country would eventually join the US-led alliance, it was met with opposition in his own country and embarrassed chortles at NATO HQ. Jungle fighting against the FARC guerrillas or a confrontation with the Chavez revolution in neighboring Venezuela were clearly “out of area” – even for the mission-creepers in Brussels.

But with the sharpening of US hostilities towards Venezuela, holder of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and now officially an enemy of Washington subject to the usual spectrum of regime-change bombardment, NATO-Colombian relations have suddenly been cranked up dramatically.

It is likely that the US will soon turn to a Contra-style physical confrontation with the tenacious Chavistas in Venezuela, in which case a maritime and even ground force presence for the US will be necessary. When the Venezuelans fight back, this could be deemed to be an attack on a “NATO-partner and candidate member”. Vietnam 2 could then be fought by, not only the US, but Britain, France, Belgium and Uncle Tom Cobley.

Although not European, Israel has long participated in such cultural highlights as the Eurovision Song Contest – and has often won it! They ply their less-successful football trade in the UEFA Champions League too. The ever advancing NATO encroachment towards the border with Russia has, until now, kept Israel out of NATO. It had to make do with being a “Mediterranean Partner” alongside the likes of Egypt and Morocco.

Israel’s complex relations with Russia pose a dilemma for Benjamin Netanyahu. After all, it is only weeks ago that the Israeli premier shouldered his way to President Vladimir Putin’s side on the Victory day parade in Moscow. Huge numbers of Russian Jews are also citizens of Israel – including, virtually overnight last week, Roman Abramovich. There is visa-free travel between the countries and significant economic relations.

Being on opposing sides in the long-war in Syria has tested relations between Moscow and Tel Aviv but it has not broken them. So when 18,000 NATO soldiers just invaded the Baltic States and Poland for the eighth Saber Strike military maneuvers aimed at Russia, nobody expected the Israeli Parachute Regiment to turn up. But they did.

The “exercises” are designed to cast a shadow over the World Cup in Russia, and to act tough – as a bolster to the spectrum of sanctions on Russia at a time when they are beginning to fray as Putin’s visit to Austria just demonstrated.

The message is, our soft power might be tissue-thin but our guns still pack a punch. And now we’ve got the Israelis on the front-line too. Together with the recent reckless bombing in Syria, which came uncomfortably close to vital Russian interests, and the increasingly bellicose threats of war by Israel against Iran, sabers may begin to be sharpened on both sides after the World Cup is won.

NATO’s value to its US overlord is that it can bypass individual nuances on policy in member states. So, while Germany, Italy and France are chafing somewhat against endless economic sanctions on Russia, and where virtually everyone is against Trump on Iran, NATO’s independent institutional power and its elaborate trip-wire system can plummet everyone into a crisis – irrespective of member-state nuances never mind hostile public opinion.

It may be hoped that NATO membership assumes consent to US orders as a kind of default position. That when a trip wire is allegedly crossed, the alliance itself will move into action before European public opinion can even begin to get its boots on.

A couple of years ago I shared a platform at an important festival of ideas in Hay-on-Wye, on the Welsh-English borders, with a freshly retired English general who had just been serving with NATO High Command.

The general bluntly stated that “British mothers have to realize that their sons may have to give their life’s blood on the streets of Vilnius” in defense of NATO’s positions there.

My own protestations, that Russia posed no threat whatsoever to the Baltic States and that, in any case, British mothers had never heard of Vilnius and would never agree to spend their children’s blood there, were met with a contemptuous wave of the hand. It signaled that no anti-war agitation from the likes of me would be allowed to be of any consequence whatsoever.

I believe that NATO and its partner organizations, far from being a defensive shield, are an aggressive, ever wider broadsword. Far from keeping the peace they represent a clear and present danger of war. Far from representing ‘the democracies’, NATO poses a real threat to democratic control of foreign and defense policy in member countries. It is for these reasons I will shortly relaunch my No2NATO campaign. Before it is too late to do so.

George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. @georgegalloway

This article was originally published by “RT

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

Gaza: Watch George Galloway’s incredible interview with Laura Loomer

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The statement was issued through the efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, the principal Zionist leaders based in London; as they had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home, the declaration fell short of Zionist expectations.

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”

Bishop Desmond Tutu

“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”

Fr. John Sheehan of the Jesuit Order

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

WATCH – George Galloway delivers bombastic blast on Sergei #Skripal

Source

Our host said “only someone with access to Colonel Skripal’s home could have poisoned the people in the house”

%d bloggers like this: