Palestinian Harry Potter Fan calls out JK Rowling for Backing ‘Culture of Co-existence’ Letter

Palestinian Harry Potter Fan calls out JK Rowling for Backing ‘Culture of Co-existence’ Letter

A music teacher from Dunfermline has crafted a Facebook post to one of her favourite authors, JK Rowling, calling her out over her support of the Guardian’s “Culture for Coexistence” letter.

Seeing the news on her Facebook of Rowling’s support, 25-year-old Mia was shocked and upset, and posted her reaction on social media.

The open letter was written in the hope of JK Rowling spotting it and responding to her long-term fan.

“I wanted to speak to her, because she had spoken to me and given me so much support over the years through her books that I needed to hear that she was still the same person who argued for freedom and peace in her novels,” said Mia.

The letter so far has had over 3,000 shares, it can be read in full below.

Dear J. K. Rowling,

I am an avid fan of yours, and have continuously read your Harry Potter books non-stop since the age of 11. My whole house is splattered with memorabilia, and I have just returned from visiting Harry Potter World which was one of the most amazing trips of my life. I’m 100% obsessed with your books, and frequently dream about them – in particular, the Battle of Hogwarts, where my sub-conscious always brings in my own personal battle, but a battle in which I think everyone should be taking part.

I am writing to you in response to your public support for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and opposition to the BDS movement in the Guardian’s “Culture for Coexistence” letter. As a Palestinian, I have to say that I was completely disappointed when I read about this, because your books have been the very source of all the hope I have for peace and justice in my homeland someday. You see, my Battle of Hogwarts dreams have always had the death eaters as Zionists, and Harry and his peers as Palestinians. Knowing that the idea for your epic novels was from World War II and the Nazis, I naturally drew parallels between the books and Zionist Israel and Palestine. I am therefore entirely confused and heart broken at your support for this letter, because to me, as a Palestinian Potterhead, it does not quite make sense.

The letter in question states: “Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory and will not further peace … Open dialogue and interaction promote greater understanding and mutual acceptance … Cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change. We wholly endorse encouraging such a powerful tool for change rather than boycotting its use.”

I feel that this letter has not contextualised the grim reality of Israel/Palestine, and is paradoxical in its nature. In this response to your support of the letter, I will be drawing parallels between the Harry Potter world and the Palestinian world in order to demonstrate my confusion.

Firstly, “boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory,” is a ridiculous sentence in itself. I’m not sure whether you know the history of Israel, but it did not exist before 1948. It is a settler-colonial state which operates on the apartheid of an indigenous people and has broken international law and UN resolutions every single day since its existence.  The practices Israel enforces in its culture and every day functioning are in themselves divisive and discriminatory. No cultural engagement between Palestinians and Israelis will ever build bridges, because rather than the “two sides are to blame” argument the letter you signed endorses, there are no two sides.

When the death eaters take over the Ministry of Magic and begin to run the magical world, would you have placed them in an equal side to the Potter trio? I definitely would not; the death eaters ran a ministry of oppression – from the “Magic is Might” statue of the naked muggles being used to support the robed wizard, to the brutal treatment of muggle born students at Hogwarts. Additionally, the death eaters had the advantage of fighting together using the Unforgivable Curses, having an army of brutal magical creatures including giants and dementors, having magical spells to track the Potter trio’s movements and having full control of the magical world through their position of power.

In contrast, Harry was working in isolation with the support of his two friends. His “side” were terrorised families who could not step one foot out of line in fear of being tortured and/or killed, or who were in hiding and on the run. It was a completely uneven distribution of power and most definitely not two sides. It was a case of the oppressor and the oppressed.

Now let’s consider this in the Israel/Palestine context. How can we, as Palestinians, sit and conduct peaceful dialogue with Israelis, as equal sides, both to blame for a “conflict”, when there is also an uneven distribution of power?

Israel has the fourth largest army in the world and receives $10.2 million in military aid daily from the U.S.. Palestine has no army and receives no money for military aid. When you look at news articles and pictures of the so-called “conflict”, you can see the Israeli Defence Forces kitted out in uniform, armed with guns and helmets and tanks and illegal chemical weapons and f16s and drones. In contrast, you see Palestinians with rocks and handmade weapons, if they are lucky enough. You can see the damage made with something like drones or white phosphorous in contrast to the damage of “Hamas rockets” (the media’s favourite phrase). This very example shows the uneven distribution of power, and sets the base for why it is argued that Israel and Palestine are not two sides, but the oppressor and the oppressed.

In the magical world, the muggles and muggle borns were completely exploited and ridiculed by the death eaters. Muggle borns were named the derogatory name “Mudblood” and were accused of “stealing magic” if they could not provide proof of magical relatives. Muggle-born students were singled out in Hogwarts when the death eaters started teaching there, and some muggle borns had to go on the run and were often rounded up by Snatchers. The death eaters’ hatred and discriminatory practices against the muggle borns were not a secret; they were plain for everyone to see, much like the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel.

How can we talk about cultural bridges when Israelis live in illegal settlements (under international law) with unlimited supplies of running water and electricity, whilst meters away Palestinian villages have one of the worst droughts in the world? As one of my dear friends so aptly put, will these bridges of peace bridge the Palestinians who are literally fenced into ghetto villages by an 8m concrete wall, checkpoints and watch towers (which eerily look like the watch towers of Nazi concentration camps) to the land they have been cut off from, which Israelis can access at any time? Will our cultural bridge of peace bridge Shuhada street in Hebron, where Palestinians literally have to use a specific walkway separate to Israelis (much like the bus services around the country)? Shall we invite the Israelis, who are off-duty from their military tasks in for a cup of tea before they return to bombing us with one of the world’s most advanced armies? Maybe when they come over they can wear their t-shirts depicting pregnant Palestinian women, saying “1 shot 2 kills” and talk about how distressed they feel as their leaders are celebrating their regime saying “we are the masters”.

Have you ever even looked at the type of Zionist statements made against Palestinians? For example, just two weeks ago 13 year old Ahmad Salih Manasra was shot and a video taken of the scene documented Israeli onlookers shouting, “Die, son of a whore!” and ordering police to “Give him one in the head” whilst he lay bleeding and struggling to breathe on the floor [8]. Perhaps Ahmad would like to have those onlookers as visitors at the hospital he’s now recovering in – they can bring in flowers, see how he’s doing and he can listen to how threatened they felt watching him be attacked.

The suggestion of dialogue is as absurd as an oblivious muggle who has no awareness or willingness to understand of the context between a death eater and muggle born. It’s like Vernon Dursley shaking his head, saying that we’re all being foolish and peace will come if only Dean Thomas, whose father was killed because he refused to serve the death eaters, and Antonin Dolohov sat together and “talked it out”. Of course, that would never happen because Dolohov was outwardly for the expulsion of anyone against Voldemort, and could have been the very person who plotted and killed Dean’s dad. How could Dean ever contemplate sitting with someone who’s colleagues killed his father, who was actively seeking out his peers from school, and who was torturing and maiming people for their identity?

How about, when the death eaters storm and wreck Xenophilius Lovegood’s house looking for Harry in false exchange for Luna, they all pause their “conflict” and talk to each other about how all of this is making them feel. Because, the death eaters’ feelings are just as valid as Xenophilius’. Because there are two sides to every story.

Just like Palestinians when they face daily military incursions, house arrests and house demolitions. I’m sure the families in Sheikh Jarrah (East Jerusalem) would love to talk to the Israelis who made them homeless by illegally kicking them out of their houses so that they can use them as holiday accommodation, and who force them to pay for their water, gas and electricity bills even though they don’t have access to them. Or perhaps my friends in Susiya village, who have had their homes and temporary tent shelters demolished time and time again, would love to invite the illegal Israeli settlers who stole their farm and the Israeli soldiers responsible for their demolitions over for some dinner. Because the illegal holiday making settlers who thieved their homes and farms, and the Israeli soldiers who order house demolitions on tent shelters have feelings just as valid as the families whom they stole their homes from. Two “sides” to every story.

I have a feeling, with all due respect, that you have never spoken to a Palestinian before. Your signature on this letter seems to be made from a judgement purely based on privilege and monetary benefits. I therefore welcome you to come visit me and talk to my family about whether they would like to have some dialogue with Israelis and build a cultural bridge of peace.

Maybe you could ask my father, who lived through three wars before the age of 25; who grew up with drones flying over his head during his early childhood; who lost contact with his parents, siblings and family whilst he was at university because Israel expelled them from their home; and who was banned from returning to his home because he “willingly left” to go study in Egypt and could therefore not return to search for his family. Or you could ask my mother, who has not been allowed to even visit her birth city in over 40 years.

How about talking to all 6 million Palestinian refugees who are dispersed all over the world, waiting with their keys from when they left their homes in 1948 to go back to their still-intact houses; waiting for the promise of their return (granted by the British) to be acted upon at last; waiting for Israel to comply to UN resolution 194 (III) which states “that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible”; waiting for the international community to stop preaching about “two sides” and “dialogue” and to recognise that the state of Israel has been guilty of consistently breaking international law from its creation.

Sure, they would love to talk to every Zionist out there who is actively contributing to their displacement. I for one just love to read about American Jews who have no genetic ties to Israel but want to move there because they just love it there, meanwhile if I try to visit I am strip searched, interrogated and shot at even though my parents were born there. Yeah, let’s have some dialogue – it’ll solve everything!

The letter you signed is a prime example of the “good, unbiased Westerner approach” which actively ignores international law violations, dehumanises the indigenous Palestinians, and lazily sweeps Western responsibility under the carpet. The elephant in the room that we all need to talk about is: none of this would be happening if it weren’t for Britain who gave the land to Israel in the first place, with no consultation from the indigenous population.  No, let’s ignore history and statistics and daily reports of atrocities and say, “you both need to calm down, let’s all sit at a table like we’ve been doing for the past 60 years and talk about your feelings and find some shared experiences from perspectives.” How dare anyone, who has not picked up a book or watched a documentary on the subject, who has never even spoken to a Palestinian about their life tell them what to do when they have no idea how it feels to be oppressed; to be cut off from your homeland whilst international settlers take up camp there; how it feels to see pixelated images of your friends’ dead, mutilated bodies appear on your computer screen through a news report whilst people tell you to “stay calm”; how it feels to stay up all night worrying for 8 months straight whilst the love of your life has been subjected to torture methods in solitary confinement and administrative detention without trial or charge?

Can you imagine someone sitting Hermione and Bellatrix down, after Bellatrix has tortured Hermione, to talk things out? Perhaps Neville could join them, and report back to his deranged parents the success of their dialogue. Intergenerational trauma is one of the most prevalent mental illnesses in the Palestinian community, with PTSD being the most common disorder in Palestinian children.  Every family living in Palestine has had at least one member of their family arrested under administrative detention and tortured by soldiers for information. Why should a Palestinian who has been subjected to extreme means of psychological and physical torture sit across from an Israeli to hear their perspective? That’s like a cancer patient listening to someone who is completely healthy complaining about a bruise on their leg.

“Ah,” I can hear you say, “But what about the Israelis suffering?”, and in response to that I would say please study the published statistics on those killed in the “conflict” and recognise that you cannot even begin to compare the number of deaths of Israelis to Palestinians. Millions have been massacred and murdered, thousands incarcerated in jails without trial or charge. For you, you hear the words “Israel” and “Palestine” maybe once or twice a year, but I hear them every day when my friends tell me of the news coming from there. Additionally, Israel does not limit its atrocities to Palestinians; in this month alone there have already been reports of a British man, Rabbi and Israeli being attacked by Israeli soldiers.

Like the propaganda created to argue that muggle borns stole magic, propaganda is dispersed everywhere to paint Palestinians as terrorists, and Israelis as victims. Harry was depicted as dangerous and mad, like a terrorist, to the wizarding community – much like the Palestinians you will see flickering on your tv screen. But, as Hermione might suggest, sources mean everything, and I only hope that you have not taken your information from the Zionists’ version of the Daily Prophet, but rather the Palestinians’ version of Potterwatch. Because just like your novels show, the best way to get information is to go straight to the source instead of a mass media production site. Rita Skeeter herself demonstrated the dangers of reporting and spreading biased and exaggerated news articles, and although I’m extremely certain nobody would trap you in a jar as a beetle, I’m sure that one day you will have to backtrack your arguments.

I honestly think you are one of the most creatively intelligent writers we have, and up until now you have inspired me beyond belief. I would hate to think that you knew all of this previously before signing that letter, because by signing it you have automatically signed up to Netanyahu’s inner circle of supporters – the same man who regularly denied that Palestine ever existed and referred to Palestinians as “Arabs” to strip them of their racial identity who has just said that the genocide of the Jews in World War II wasn’t actually from the Nazis but from the Palestinians themselves (yes, he used the ‘P’ word showing that his consistent denial of Palestine was a political tactic).

To the Palestinians, many of whom rely on Harry Potter as a means of inspiration and escapism, you have outed yourself as a sympathiser of today’s present-day Nazis who are conducting ethnic cleansing as we speak. I only hope that now I’ve highlighted my concerns that you might withdraw your signature and realise that a peaceful, practical approach to fighting apartheid is to endorse BDS until Israel complies with international law. It worked with South African apartheid, which I’m sure you never supported, and it will work with Israeli apartheid too.

So many intellectual academics, scholars, musicians, artists, novelists, scientists and performers have spoken out for their support of BDS. It is the only logical way that this madness will stop. We have spoken until our tongues have dried out – dialogue is a method that has gone stale. We need action and that action is BDS until Israel recognises international law, like every country on this planet should.

The letter you signed uses the word “coexistence” in its title – but “coexistence” will never be reached until the lives of every single person is treated with dignity and respect. Somehow, I don’t think sitting down and talking is going to teach the IDF or Israeli settlers to start respecting Palestinian life, because they are so indoctrinated into a culture of brain washed military life. For example, they have been recorded watching the bombing of Gaza as though it were a movie at the cinema. Coexistence will happen once this culture is torn down, and I am so sure that if Harry could defeat Voldemort, Neville could behead Nagini, and Snape could be good, that Palestine will be free and we will all live as one people on this Earth.

I hope that this letter is shared as widely as possible so that you may see it, and that I can hear your reply.”

Church of Scotland urges Cameron to teach Netanyahu about discrimination .

Church of Scotland urges Cameron to teach Netanyahu

Classroom of the Church of Scotland-run Tabeetha School in Jaffa.Classroom of the Church of Scotland-run Tabeetha School in Jaffa.

While Benjamin Netanyahu was being feted by his British counterpart inside Downing Street during talks on the crisis in Syria and Iran’s nuclear programme, hundreds of protesters were rallying outside in Whitehall. Most were pro-Palestinian and demanded Netanyahu’s arrest for war crimes in Gaza following a 107,000-signature petition which was ignored by the British government even though the number of signatures qualified it for a debate in the House of Commons.

Close by, outnumbered 7-1, were members of the pro-Israel lobby, including a small number of Christians who gave their vocal support and the impression that solidarity between Christians and Jews in the Zionist state is unconditional and solid. This is simply not true.

What these Christian Zionists either chose to ignore, or were not aware of, is Israel’s blatant discrimination and religious persecution of Palestinian and other Christians. It’s certainly not an impression that Netanyahu and his government promote, but while he regularly introduces “the threat to Christians in the Middle East” in his speeches, he ignores conveniently what is happening in his own backyard by diverting attention elsewhere, specifically calling out the persecution of Christians at the hands of the Iranian government and Islamic extremists.

By accusing neighbouring states of religious intolerance he neatly airbrushes the fact that Christians are persecuted regularly by Israel to such an extent that the religion’s original flock in Bethlehem (the “Living Stones”) is dwindling at an alarming rate. The Christians who remain there say that this persecution and the strangling of the local economy by Israel’s Apartheid Wall, which virtually surrounds the historic town which they believe is the birthplace of Jesus, is making their life well-nigh impossible. Moreover, it’s not just the Christians in Bethlehem who are being discriminated against; it is happening on many different levels in other parts of the “Holy Land”, from graffiti and arson attacks on churches by Jewish extremists through to state-driven persecution in the education system.

It has now emerged that brutal government funding cuts pose a “mortal threat” to the future of one of Israel’s most famous Christian schools, founded by a Scottish missionary more than 150 years ago. The Church of Scotland is so concerned about this that it has asked David Cameron to raise the funding crisis facing Christian schools in Israel with Netanyahu. The church regards this as religious discrimination.

The Rt Rev Dr Angus Morrison, Moderator of the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, says that those under “mortal threat” include the Church of Scotland-run Tabeetha School in Jaffa. Staff there have been on strike since last week in solidarity with the country’s 47 other Christian schools, in protest at budget cuts imposed by Israel’s ministry of education.

The Church of Scotland has owned and managed the multi-faith Tabeetha School since 1911. It is an open, ecumenical and interfaith school, which from the very beginning has provided the opportunity for Christian, Jewish and Muslim children to learn together in the same environment. These regularly include the children of staff working at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv.

“A key purpose of the school is to serve the Arab Christian community, whose children form the majority of its pupils,” Rt Rev Dr Morrison told Cameron. “An equally essential purpose is to encourage creative and constructive ways of living together, in contrast to what is too often the pattern in Israel outside the school gates.” The Church of Scotland, he explained, sees itself as pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian: pro Christian, Muslim and Jew. “We stand for justice and reconciliation between these troubled communities. In this perspective, discriminating against Christian schools in Israel and, indeed, the whole Arab-Israeli education sector, is not only wrong in principle. It is foolish and self-defeating.”

The Israeli government claims that it grants Christian schools 75 per cent of the per capita funding of state schools in Israel, even though ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in the same category receive full funding. Over the past 10 years, the funding calculation has seen the number of teaching hours cut from 1,100 to 660. The funding proportion has remained at 75 per cent, but in real terms provision has been cut by almost half, said the Church.

This imposes a growing burden on Arab-Israeli citizens – Christian and Muslim – who must pay more and more in tuition fees to meet the schools’ financial shortfall. When the ministry proposes also to cap these tuition fees, the 47 schools are facing the very real threat of bankruptcy.

“As a friend of Israel,” added Dr Morrison in his letter to the prime minister, “the UK should be arguing against this and advocating change. We know that you have already met with Prime Minister Netanyahu; but I ask you to speak to him again on this subject.”

Israel and Britain are both parties to the 1960 UN Convention Against Discrimination in Education. In addition, under Israeli law, discrimination in educational funding is illegal.

Jafar Farah, the Director of Haifa’s Mossawa Center – The Advocacy Centre for Arab Citizens in Israel — told the Jerusalem Post recently that there is growing solidarity from communities within Arab society over the issue. “This is also a civil struggle that shows that education is becoming a high priority for the community,” he added. While the government in Tel Aviv likes to talk about how it protects the Christian community, this latest funding episode revealed that “it is not doing so.”

Will David Cameron be prepared to give the Israeli leader a history lesson on the 1960 UN Convention Against Discrimination in Education and how its terms are applied? Or will this be yet another example — there are many to choose from — where the state of Israel chooses not only to ignore a UN resolution or convention accepted by the rest of the world, but also to violate its terms in spirit and in deed?

Click here to view the letter submitted by the Church of Scotland to the British Prime Minister.

Why Jeremy Corbyn is Terrifying The London Elite

Why Jeremy Corbyn is Terrifying The London Elite

For a decade, I have argued that democracy in the UK is dysfunctional because an entrenched party system offers no real choice. The major parties offer political programmes which are virtually indistinguishable. As I put it in lectures, if the range of possible political programmes were placed on a linear scale from 1 to 100, the Labour and Conservative parties offer you the choice between 81 and 84.

This exclusion of political possibility is reinforced by a corporate media structure, led by the BBC, in which ideas outside the narrow band of establishment consensus are ridiculed and denigrated. Therefore even political ideas which have the consistent support of the majority of the population, such as nationalisation of railways and other natural monopolies including utilities, simply cannot get an airing. Of all the broadcast coverage of the Iraq War, less than 3% gave time to anti-war voices, despite a majority opinion against the war.

This phenomenon explains why a large majority of both Conservative and Labour MPs are members of the Friends of Israel when public opinion consistently sympathises more with Palestine. It also explains the quite extraordinary media onslaught against Scottish independence.

I pointed out that Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance in the TV leadership debates was the first major airing of an anti-Trident argument on broadcast media in England for a decade. Actually hearing anti-austerity arguments led to a huge surge in support for the SNP in England as well as Scotland.

Now Jeremy Corbyn, having obtained a platform where on occasion he has been able to have his views broadcast direct without media mediation, is experiencing a massive surge of support. Ed Miliband’s lasting achievement is that he managed to put the ordinary people who marched against the Iraq War in charge of the Labour Party, not the careerist Blairite committee manipulators. The result is stunning.

The sheer panic gripping the London elite now is hilarious to behold. Those on the favoured side of Britain’s enormous wealth gap are terrified by the idea that there may be a genuine electoral challenge to neo-liberalism, embodied in one of the main party structures. This is especially terrifying to those who became wealthy by hijacking the representation of the working class to the neo-liberal cause.

The fundamental anti-democracy of the Blairites is plainly exposed, and the panic-driven hysterical hate-fest campaign against Corbyn by the Guardian would be unbelievable, if we hadn’t just seen exactly the same campaign by the same paper against the rejection of neo-liberalism in Scotland.

I think I am entitled to say I told you so. Many people appear shocked to have discovered the Guardian is so anti-left wing. I have been explaining this in detail for years. It is good to feel vindicated, and even better that the people I have repeatedly shared platforms with, like Jeremy and Mhairi, are suddenly able to have the genuinely popular case they make listened to. Do I feel a little left behind, personally? Probably, but I would claim to have contributed a little to the mood, and particularly my article on the manufactured myth that the left is unelectable has been extremely widely shared – by hundreds of thousands – in the social media storm that is propelling the Corbyn campaign.

There has been very little comment on the impact a Corbyn victory would have on the SNP. Indeed, despite being unbendingly unionist, the Scottish media have been unable to avoid representing by omission the fact that the Labour leadership contest is taking place almost entirely in another country with another political culture. But there is no doubt that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be more attractive in Scotland than the Tory lite version, although the paucity of Labour’s Scottish leadership would be a constant factor. Much would depend on the wider question of how the careerists who make up most Labour MPs and MSPs would react to a Corbyn victory.

At Westminster, I can see no reason at all why Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna and their like cannot simply cross the floor and become Tories. Cameron is astute enough to find junior ministerial positions for them and the Tory ranks would be elated enough to swallow it. But most of the careerists will look at their new constituency members and suddenly discover left wing principles. It will be less bloody than people expect.

In Scotland, a Corbyn victory will bring some swing back to Labour from the SNP, but most of the old Labour demographic have now set their hearts on independence. Should Corbyn actually look set to win a UK general election in 2020, that would very possibly dent the enthusiasm for independence at the margins. It would in no sense reduce my own desire for independence, but even I would feel it less urgent. A Corbyn led UK would not cause the same feeling of moral revulsion. All of which is a good argument for having the next referendum early.

Should Corbyn not win the Labour leadership, the effect will be opposite. The SNP will be boosted by the death of the last hope that the Labour Party might actually mean something again, rather than be a vehicle for soulless careerists spouting management-manual jargon. If Corbyn loses, the Labour Party in Scotland really might as well wind up. The cause of independence will be furthered.

So what do I want to happen? I want Jeremy to win, of course, deeply and sincerely. I am an internationalist and not a Machiavellian. I want the chance of a just society and an ethical foreign policy for England and Wales. Like me, Jeremy wants to see Ireland eventually united. I have never discussed Scottish independence with him, but I am quite sure his opposition is not of the Britnat imperialist variety.

You can be sure that the security services are heavily targeted on the Corbyn campaign. Allow me one last “I told you so”. I came in for much ridicule when I stated, from certain knowledge, that MI5 were targeted on Scottish Nationalists (I had actually been shown the tasking). This comes into the category of obvious truths which the media and political consensus seeks to deny. The ridicule even came from some within the SNP – which, like any other organisation deemed a threat to the UK, is itself penetrated by the security services. Well, now that truth has become mainstream too. I do not anticipate any apologies.

Craig John Murray is a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and was Rector of the University of Dundee. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Jews are leaving Scotland

In the past, we were told Jews left Iran as result of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Yes, nearly 100 of them out of 30,000 Jewish population left Iran after the Islamic regime took control – but mostly for United States and not Israel.

Then came the news that Libyan Jews are leaving because Qaddafi’s hatred forJews. Not a single one out of country’s 200 Jews left the country.

After the so-called Arab Spring, Tunisia is “not safe for Jews,” the BBC told us. Jacob Lelouche, leader of 2000-strong Jewish community told BBC: I’m notstupid enough to move to Israel.

Netanyahu has told 500,000 French Jews on several occasions that even under a Jewish government of president Hollande, they’re not safe in France due to 6-9 million French Muslims. According to Israeli media, less than a thousand French Jews adopted Occupied Palestine as their ‘second home’ last year.

Now, Josh Jackman, claims (Jewish Chronicle, May 23, 2015) Jews (6000) are leaving Scotland due to “huge rise” in antisemitism as result of Israeli war on Gaza last year and the recent pro-Palestine SNP victory in the recent elections.

Jackman listed the following anti-Jew events for Jews’ decision to leave Scotland:

1. During the Gaza conflict pro-Palestinian protesters forced the closure of a stall owned by the Israeli Kedem company in a Glasgow shopping mall.

2. Both Edinburgh and Glasgow councils raised the Palestinian flag over their city chambers.

3. Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond was an early supporter of an arms embargo on Israel during Operation Protective Edge.

For the record – there have been 39 motions censoring the Zionist regime in the Scottish Parliament during the last three years. Last month, MP Sandra White (SNP-Glasgow) put a motion in the parliament for the recognition of a Palestinian State based on pre-1967 Israel-PA borders. The motion was condemned by David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu governments.

Former Pakistan TV actress, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, is a new SNP face at the UK’s Parliament.

Last year, UK’s chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis  slammed Church of Scotland for publishing a report critical of Israel’s policies.

With all the four British political parties controlled by the Jewish Lobby, only a very stupid Jew would like to leave UK for Israel. Read here and here.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Scotland Ousts “Friends of Israel”

Scotland Ousts “Friends of Israel

By Yvonne Ridley | MEMO | May 9, 2015

The Scottish lions’ roar will be heard and felt in Tel Aviv

Nicola SturgeonNicola Sturgeon’s SNP won an unprecedented 56 out of the 59 Scottish seats in the British Parliament

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was labelled “Britain’s most dangerous woman” by some sections of the tabloid media during the run up to the General Election. Some people fear that she’s on a mission to break up the United Kingdom in a bid to fulfil her independence ambitions. That may well be the case, but that soubriquet was also used by some of Britain’s most committed members of the pro-Israel lobby whose main national interests lie well beyond these shores. They saw some of their biggest political supporters fall in an astonishing electoral performance by Sturgeon’s Scottish National Party (SNP).

When the polls closed, the dramatic count that followed saw the emergence of a new political landscape. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and Israel’s biggest cheerleader next to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, lost his seat by 3,000 votes. A former chair of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), Jim Murphy was ousted by the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald in Renfrewshire East.

As the polling dust settled, the SNP had won an unprecedented 56 of the 59 constituencies across Scotland, turning them into Zionist lobby-free zones for the first time in decades. Indeed, the Westminster lobby groups of various political Friends of Israel were heavily depleted following high profile departures from the ranks of MPs which left the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats with just one representative in Scotland each. To add to their woes, none of those left standing from the political blitz in Scotland are active supporters of the State of Israel.

A 20-year-old student, Mhairi Black, toppled Labour’s campaign chief Douglas Alexander in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to become the youngest British MP since 1667. Alexander, who has visited Israel with the LFI, was first elected in 1997 in Tony Blair’s landslide victory. He went on to become Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs in 2004, until promoted to International Development Secretary by Gordon Brown in 2007 and ending up as Shadow Foreign Secretary under Ed Miliband.

Back in January 2011, LFI chair David Cairns MP said of Alexander’s appointment: “We look forward to working with him and engaging with him on supporting the UK’s close relationship with Israel, promoting a negotiated two state solution, and confronting the threats to regional stability posed by Iran’s illegal nuclear programme and Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s violent militias.”

Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy, who has also addressed Friends of Israel meetings, lost his seat to the SNP in Ross, Skye and Lochaber after representing the constituency for 32 years. Under pressure from the pro-Israel lobby 10 years ago he moved to sack one of his own frontbench MPs, Jenny Tonge, for saying that she could understand why some Palestinians became suicide bombers.

Dr Tonge had said repeatedly that she understood why militant Palestinians were driven to carry out the attacks in the face of the brutality of the Israeli occupation. And she insisted that living in the Middle East might have driven her to do the same. Kennedy “asked” her to stand down as the party’s spokeswoman for children.

“I was just trying to say how, having seen the violence, humiliation and provocation Palestinians live under every day, and have done now for decades,” explained the now Baroness Tonge. “I could understand, I was trying to understand, where they come from. If I had been a mother and a grandmother in Palestine living for decades in that situation, I don’t know, I may very well have become one myself.”

Kennedy had been under predictable and mounting pressure from pro-Israel groups in 2004 to act and his attempts to distance the Lib Dems from her views did not pacify the Zionist groups. Lord Greville Janner, who now faces accusations that he abused children when he was an MP, was at that time a vice-chair of the British-Israel parliamentary group. “The decision of the Liberal Democrats to sack Jenny Tonge is admirable and appropriate,” he said.

Other big hitters who lost their seats in the election included the President of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, Sir Alan Beith, MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He was the longest-serving Liberal Democrat in the House of Commons, and while Berwick is perched on the English side of the border it was affected directly by the seismic changes in neighbouring Scotland, bringing an end to his 40-year political career in Westminster.

The SNP’s results, which saw the party win 1,454,436 votes, and the perception that there will be calls for a second independence referendum are set to cause David Cameron a major headache as a second term prime minister. Moreover, the arrival of the new Scottish MPs is ringing alarm bells among some of the pro-Israel lobby groups in Westminster and Tel Aviv.

To add to the woes of the lobbyists, just hours after her party’s victory, Nicola Sturgeon’s office sent a message of goodwill to the organisers of a landmark conference in Glasgow this weekend. The “Ending the Scottish Arms Trade with Israel” conference received not only the first minister’s “best wishes” but also heard that although she is “understandably unavailable to speak”, she “hopes that the event will be a success.” That wasn’t all. “As you may be aware,” added Sturgeon, “during the recent conflict in Gaza the Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government urging an embargo on arms sales to Israel. The Scottish Government is a firm friend of Palestine and we will continue to press this issue after the election.”

The Scottish lions’ roar will continue to be heard, and felt, from Westminster to Tel Aviv. With the most pro-Israel British prime minister of all time back in 10 Downing Street, the SNP’s presence in such numbers has got to be positive for the people of Palestine.

Yet another reason for Scottish independence, Hammond blocks Yousaf’s visit to Gaza

Anger as Foreign Office ‘blocks’ Scottish Minister’s visit to Gaza

Yousaf has written to his Westminster counterpart, foreign secretary Philip Hammond, in protest after the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) withdrew its support for the trip to the Palestinian territory.

Humza Yousaf (Photo:Hhuffingtonpost)

He said that foreign office officials, who had previously been happy to facilitate the trip, made a u-turn after deciding that security could not be guaranteed and that the foreign policy agenda towards Gaza was reserved to Westminster.

 

A number of UK officials have made the trip in recent months, including Baroness Morris of Bolton, the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to the Palestinian Territories, and Tobias Ellwood, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the FCO with special responsibility for the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Yousaf however has been unable to secure support for a visit to see first-hand the work being done with £500k of funding that the Scottish Government made to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Gaza Flash Appeal in July 2014.

 

Yousaf’s letter to the FCO, shown exclusively to the Sunday Herald, states:

“Although FCO officials initially said that they were in principle able to provide support for such a visit, I have since been informed that the FCO view has changed and that the FCO would not support a visit to Gaza for two reasons: firstly that the security situation in the region presents a greater than usual risk and that officials are advising against all ministerial travel; and secondly an assertion that the UK works exclusively to a reserved foreign affairs agenda in Gaza.”

It adds:

“Given the focus of UK Ministers’ visits, I must challenge the proposition that the UK Government works exclusively to a foreign affairs agenda in Gaza: clearly the UK Government is also, and quite rightly, concerned with humanitarian relief and economic development.

“A Scottish Ministerial visit to Gaza would be similarly concerned with humanitarian issues, and would serve to highlight the Scottish Government’s international development agenda and the support that it has given in this area.

“I note the FCO offer for the British Consul General in Jerusalem to provide an update on the use of the funding and would welcome this information.

“However, I find it disappointing and frustrating that the FCO is effectively blocking Scottish Ministers from visiting Humanitarian projects in Gaza.

“I would therefore seek your agreement that the FCO will support a visit by a Scottish minister to Gaza once the security situation allows for ministerial travel to Gaza to resume.”

 

Scottish Government funding was supplied to the UNRWA in July last year, following a flare up in the Israel- Gaza conflict during which the Israeli military launched an offensive involving extensive bombardment of the coastal strip.

 

This action, dubbed Operation Protective Edge by the Israelis, was they claimed aimed at stopping Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. More than 2,100 Gazans and 66 Israeli soldiers died and there was widespread damage to civilian infrastructure.

 

Massive numbers of Palestinians were driven from their homes in Gaza during the fighting, with many seeking safety in UNRWA Designated Emergency Shelters (DES).

 

In response to the humanitarian crisis, UNRWA expanded its emergency response and launched an appeal for £36 million in addition to the original £40 million set aside.

 

The fighting came to an end in August with a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas.

 

Yousaf had previously called for an end to the blockade of Gaza, which the Scottish Government along with other bodies and human rights organisations have described as “collective punishment”.

 

A spokeswoman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: “The safety of British nationals is of paramount importance and the FCO’s travel advice for British nationals is clear; we advise against all travel to Gaza.”

This article was originally published in Herald Scotland and can be accessed here.

British Politicians To Face Criminal Investigation Over Scottish Referendum

Global Research, October 06, 2014
Scottish independence globalresearch.ca

by Mark Hirst

Police in Scotland will formally investigate allegations that anti-Scottish independence campaigners breached electoral law during the referendum held on September 18.

“We can confirm that Crown counsel has instructed Police Scotland to commence an investigation into alleged breaches of Schedule 7, Paragraph 7, of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013,” a statement issued on Saturday by the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecution service reads.

The allegations relate to comments made by Ruth Davidson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament and leader of the Scottish Conservatives, in which she appeared to know the general results of postal votes arising from “sample opening” of ballot boxes.

Postal vote opening sessions are permitted before the formal poll is conducted to verify signatures and dates of birth against records held by the local Returning Officer. Agents for the two campaigns were allowed to monitor these sessions, but it is a criminal offense, punishable with up to a year’s imprisonment if found guilty, to communicate any information witnessed during the sample opening sessions.

In a television interview with the BBC shortly after the formal poll closed Davidson said “we’ve been incredibly encouraged by the results [of the postal vote],” implying the Scottish Conservative leader knew the outcome of the postal votes before the first formal results had been announced.

In another BBC interview just four days before the referendum John McTernan, a former adviser to Tony Blair said, “It’s important to remember that about a fifth of the electorate, that will be about a quarter of the total turn-out, have voted already. They have voted by postal vote. Those postal votes are running very strongly towards ‘no’. There is a whole bank of votes in.”

McTernan told RIA Novosti he had not been contacted by Police adding, “No reason to believe free speech is a crime.”

According to The Herald newspaper, Davidson has been contacted by Police with the paper quoting a Conservative Party source who said there was, “no suggestion she was accused of doing anything wrong at this stage.”

The independence referendum, which took place on September 18, saw a turnout of 84.59 percent. Scotland has chosen to stay in the United Kingdom with 44.7 percent of Scots having voted in support of independence and 55.3 percent having voted against.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Scots defeated by the Jewish power

Rehmat’s world

We’re bought and sold for English gold,” wrote Robert Burns, Scotland’s poet laureate. And who owns English gold more than the Jew Rothschild family.

Britain’s powerful organized Jewry ran a vicious campaign against the Scottish aspirations to free their ancestral homeland of the modern-day Shylocks.

The freedom-loving Scots lost the September 18 referendum 45 to 55% vote. I feel sorry for the Scots, both Muslims and Christians, who always supported Palestinians against the neo-Nazi Israeli Jews.

British Jewish and Zionist Christian establishments including the leaders of the three major political parties are celebrating their victory over Scottish people.

In Glasgow, the great majority of Scots voted YES to Scotland independence. Paul Morron, president of Glasgow Jewish Representative Council showed his pleasure at the results of the referendum but warned his sheep to be ready to face increase in so-called anti-Semitism (criticism of Israel). Jewish leaders have also announced the establishment of a Scottish Israel support group. During the referendum campaign, the British organized Jewry had accused Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond comparing Israel with the terrorist militia ISIS. Salmond denied the allegation.

The referendum result is the loss of a chance to dispute the hegemony of the neo-con corporate elite in the international world. My heart is still bursting with pride that 45% of Scots – a people devoid of political autonomy for three hundred years – had the nerve, intellect and will to see through the avalanche of propaganda from the entire mainstream media, political establishment, banking sector and corporate world. I met numerous voters who had received letters from their employers – including Diageo, BP, RNS and many others – telling them to vote No or their job was in danger. I met the old lady in Dundee who was told by the Labour Party that independent Scotland would flood the country with immigrants, and a Romanian building worker in Edinburgh who had been told by the Labour Party that Independent Scotland would deport all East Europeans,” Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan posted on September 19, 2014.

My good-old Zionist friend, Rixon Stewart of The Truth Seeker blog also reported on September 19, of his meeting “a beautiful young woman” (Diana) in Edinburgh on her way to vote NO. She told Stewart that a YES vote would be a disaster. So, Stewart decided to follow her lead.

I say that as someone who lives in Scotland and my impression is that the official result does indeed reflect popular opinion…. I sense that the majority of Scots don’t actually want to separate from England,” says Stewart.

United Kingdom is reaping the fruits it sowed during it colonization of Muslim world – ‘divide and rule’. Scots may have lost now but they, I’m sure, will win the next referendum five years down the road. The breakup of the western colonial borders in Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, India, Spain, France, Ireland and Belgium are making the ways.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nasser Kandil: On Scotland, Australia, and US Terror War on Syria and Lebanon

ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل | توب نيوز 19 09 2014

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Scots Independents Lose Vote but Win the Fight

Finian CUNNINGHAM 20.09.2014 00:01

The Scottish independents may have lost the vote in this week’s historic referendum on secession, but they have won a decisive fight – with the winning argument that the United Kingdom is a broken-down entity in drastic need of democratic overhaul.

And it is not just within Britain that the essence of this argument is resonating. The Scots’ push for independence, or at the very least for acquiring more democratic powers, is serving to fuel separatist sentiments across Europe, in Spain’s Catalonia region, Belgium, Italy and elsewhere.

Indeed, it could be said, the issues raised by the Scots of democratic accountability, more equitable economic policies, and more independence in international relations as opposed to subservience for example to NATO group think, all such issues resonate not just with “separatists” but to many ordinary citizens right across the EU.

The Spanish government in Madrid even threatened to veto an application to the European Union from an independent Scotland. That’s a measure of how concerned Madrid was taking the Scottish “contagion” spreading to its own borders.

So, for now, the Spanish central government, like the London government, may be feeling relieved over the Scottish referendum and its apparent vote for the status quo. But they would be foolish to rest on their laurels. They should know that at a deeper level the popular ground is shifting beneath them.

The issue of Scottish independence, and the underlying debate about democracy functioning for people instead of elite power, is not going to go away merely with this week’s referendum result. Once an idea catches on, it becomes irreversible.

Far from celebrating its apparent victory, the British status quo is on the retreat after the result. The constitutional flaws and democratic deficit of the existing United Kingdom have been demonstrably exposed; and a clamour for radical change is now in the air even among those voters who apparently supported the Union.

Across the UK, regional media greeted the Scottish vote not with crowing over a pro-Union victory but rather with further questions on how greater devolution is needed and must be delivered throughout Britain. That call for devolution will undermine the traditional London seat of British government, which is seen as one of the most centralised and undemocratic in Europe. Brussels better take note.

The high turnout of the Scottish electorate this week is less about a positive endorsement of the existing UK, and more about a groundswell for substantive political change.

The largely English establishment that has resided cozily up to now in London is seen as dead wood that needs to be torn up and jettisoned. This is because the Scottish referendum has set off a dynamic for greater decentralisation of powers from London, not just to Scotland, but to all the other regions that make up the United Kingdom.

The centuries-old UK may have been spared for now from imminent dissolution – at least on paper – but sweeping changes are nevertheless on the way, thanks to Scotland’s pro-independence movement.

In its vibrant campaigning – and despite a hostile London-based media bias – the Scots separatists have blown open long-overdue public debate about Britain’s highly centralised and undemocratic power structure. This debate resonates not just with Scots, but also with the peripheral English regions, the Welsh and Northern Irish. The Westminster establishment – whether Conservative, Labor or Liberal Democrat – is seen as discredited, redundant and incapable of addressing the needs of the wider public on fundamental issues of representation, economy, public services and foreign policies.

When final votes came through early Friday morning, there was palpable relief in the pro-unionist British media. The BBC was almost ecstatic in its breaking news alerts: “Scotlandhas voted to stay in the United Kingdom after voters decisively rejected independence,” it reported with fanfare.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the No campaign against secession, could hardly contain himself: “Like million of others, I am delighted,” he gulped.

Cameron was facing the sack from his own Conservative Party benches if Scotland had voted for independence. And over the past weeks, the British media have shown shameless bias in promoting the No campaign while doing everything to undermine the Yes vote. The Scots independence movement was accused of leading Scotland into economic disaster, and of using bullyboy intimidation tactics towards would-be voters. Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond was labelled “a liar” and described as “unscrupulous”. One article in the staunchly Conservative Daily Telegraph even referred to Salmond as being “less popular than Ebola”.

Ironically, it was the pro-unionist establishment that was deploying the dirty politics of smear and intimidation in order to rig the referendum result. Moreover, into the poison was mixed a blatant attempt to bribe the electorate. Cameron and his Westminster cohorts clinched the vote by a last-gasp offer days before the referendum of “more powers and public funds” to Scotland if it stayed within the UK.

But that ploy turns out to be a double-edged sword. By promising more democracy, the Westminster establishment is self-indicting its own traditional abuse of power, which came at the expense of Scotland and the other regions. Promises of more powers to Scotland, unleashes a genie from the bottle for other parts of the UK, which will also push for likewise increased governance at the regional level.

In the end, 55 per cent of Scotland’s electorate voted No to the question of separation from the UK. The pro-independence movement won 45 per cent. The turnout was a remarkably high 84.5 per cent of nearly 4.2 million voters.

The margin of victory for the pro-unionists came as a surprise after polls leading up to the referendum were showing a neck-and-neck race, with a late surge in the Yes vote for independence. The Yes vote was campaigning to sever the 307-year-old political union between England and Scotland. That axis serves as the bedrock for the United Kingdom, comprising Wales and Northern Ireland.

Nevertheless, the pro-independence Scots have shaken the constitutional foundation of Great Britain to its foundation. “There will be no business-as-usual,” declared Salmond as the result came through. The nationalist leader accepted defeat with magnanimity, but he called on the London government to deliver on its belated promises of devolving more political powers to Scotland.

Salmond defiantly told supporters: “The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these [vows] to be honoured in rapid course. Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed.”

The final-hour offer, or should we say bribe, of greater devolved powers to Scotland from the Westminster establishment effectively changed the central question of the referendum. Instead of a choice between independence and the British union as it exists, the voters were now being asked to choose between independence and a Britain with ramped up devolution – or “devo max” as it was described in hyped rhetoric.

Given the British media and No campaign’s relentless exaggeration of risks and dangers from Scotland going independent, the belated devolution promises obviously appealed to a crucial number of uncertain voters as a safer option.

That’s why Salmond has fair reasoning on his side when he says “all Scots who participated in the referendum” are demanding major political change in the existing status quo of the United Kingdom. He added that the political debate has now shifted inexorably to a whole new terrain.

The London government knows this too. Celebrations of victory have been tempered by a nervous recognition that deep-going changes are needed if the United Kingdom is to survive into the future. It will be a tricky balancing act. Speaking from Downing Street, Cameron said: “Just as Scotland will have more power over their affairs, it follows England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs. We will ensure that those commitments are honoured in full,”the prime minister added.

Those powers refer to regional governments being able to determine economic policies on taxation and public spending. In Scotland’s case it may even result in the removal of British nuclear-armed submarines from its sea territory, as the pro-independence people have long demanded. That will have major repercussions for Britain’s role within NATO.

This dynamic of devolution across Britain signals a radical break-out from the straitjacket of austerity and neoliberal largesse for the rich that has been the doctrine of successive London governments, whether Conservative, Labor or the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

It’s not that the Westminster establishment is offering up these concessions out of beneficent volition. The establishment knows that the Scottish referendum has exposed its London-centric autocracy in the eyes of all the electorate across Britain. It is being forced to make long-overdue concessions towards greater democratic representation – or face a real separatist threat. No doubt the autocrats in Brussels and other EU states are also reading the memo.

The United Kingdom may still be intact for a few years to come. But it’s shaping up to be a very different place thanks to the Scots. Less kingdom and more a federation of regions, with an imperious London cut down to size.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Democracy triumphs in Scotland: Scots kiss goodbye to independence

Democracy triumphs in Scotland

Scots kiss goodbye to independence

Wallace and the Bruce left spinning in their graves

As voting day neared, the “Yes” to Independence campaign was seriously threatening the unity of the realm by arguing that the only guarantee of self-governing powers for Scotland was to vote for independence. Successive polls showed the matter was too close to call.
In a panicky move just 3 days before the Referendum the main party leaders in Westminster published a pledge on the front page of the Daily Record, a high-circulation Scottish tabloid based in Glasgow, in a last-throw bid to persuade Scots to vote ‘No’.

This “vow” was signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

It promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament delivered by a process starting immediately, i.e. today, and “opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably”. The trio “categorically” promised that Scotland would have the final say on funding for the National Health Service, and the Barnett allocation for resources would continue.

The Barnett formula, devised 40 years ago as a temporary fix, is a method for determining the distribution of public spending to the various regions of the UK in proportion to their population.

The full text reads:

“We are agreed that: The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September.

“And it is our hope that the people of Scotland will be engaged directly as each party works to improve the way we are governed in the UK in the years ahead.

“We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.

“And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS [National Health Service] will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

“We believe that the arguments that so powerfully make the case for staying together in the UK should underpin our future as a country. We will honour those principles and values not only before the referendum but after.

“People want to see change. A ‘No’ vote will deliver faster, safer and better change than separation.”

Did the sweetener work?

In the end the Scots voted 55% to 45% to stay in the Union. But what do those vague promises of better things to come actually mean? The wording is cleverly crafted to leave plenty of wriggle-room. Besides, the three signatories might not be in leadership positions this time next year (a general election intervening). So how will they be held to their promise? Will English and Welsh MPs who want the same devolved powers feel bound by the trio’s pledge just to Scotland?

Cameron has just issued a bulletin: “We have heard the voice of Scotland – and now the millions of voices of England must not go ignored.

“So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues – and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.”

He’s saying that nothing will happen for Scotland unless it happens for England, Wales and Northern Ireland simultaneously. But such extensive constitutional changes could take years to achieve. In the meantime would a grumpy British Parliament agree to enhanced powers for Scotland only, as per the Cameron-Clegg-Miliband deal, assuming anyone can work out what it actually means?

So was the pledge worth the parchment it was written on? Indeed, was the ballot rigged? (see this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbJif7vISQg&app=desktop now doing the rounds). Anyway, the powers-that-be would never allow the United Kingdom to break up… just like that. All and any steps would be taken to prevent it.

My guess is that any change will be illusory; the status quo will be maintained. A second referendum – with no last-minute ambush or other hokey-pokey – will be needed.

Those legendary freedom-fighters William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, who achieved true Scottish independence through a long campaign of broken heads and hacked limbs in the 14th century, must be spinning in their graves at Scotland’s comfy capitulation in the 21st.

Stuart Littlewood
19 September 2014

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

ISIS, SCOTLAND AND THE POLITICS OF MIMICRY 

By Gilad Atzmon 

Is the fact that half of the Scots want to split from Britain and the news that hundreds of young Muslim Brits are fighting with Jihadi militant groups in Syria connected?

Of course they are. These two social phenomena are intrinsically linked, yet in the intellectual desert in which we live, no one dares to address the subject. The boundaries of our curiosity are limited by our deference to political correctness and Zionist sensitivities.

From a political perspective, Jihadi enthusiasm amongst young Western Muslims is an outcome of the emergence of tribalism in the West; but isn’t the call for Scottish independence driven by a similar tribal urge? From both a philosophical and dialectic perspective, Jihadi identification and the Scottish call for independence are the antithesis of the New Left and its corrosive Identity (ID) politics that have been spread in our midst for too long.

In the last five decades we have witnessed a relentless attack on nationalism and patriotic values. These attacks are commonly associated with the ‘New Left’ and have been led in large part by the Jewish intelligencia. It was the Frankfurt School’s thesis on Authoritarian Personality (Adorno & co) and Wilhelm Reich’s take on ‘Mass Conservatism’ that suggested that there was something wrong, dangerous and even vile to be found among the masses and their ‘reactionist’ political orientation.  Contemporary Left cosmopolitan icon Noam Chomsky has been calling for the abolishment of borders and states (except, of course, the Jewish State* for many years. Chomsky is proudly hostile to patriotism and nationalism. Yet we must examine the alternative offered by Chomsky, The Frankfurt School, The New Left and The Guardian – the media outlet that enthusiastically disseminates these ideas.

For reasons that I have discussed numerous times, the New ‘Left’ and the Jewish intelligencia have vigorously advocated the replacement of the national patriotic discourse with ID politics. In practice, this was intended to break the cohesiveness of the working class and the national bond and replace it with a score of marginal and sectarian discourses. The Left that once claimed to be a universal voice for the working people was hijacked. It became the mouthpiece of ID groups, most of them defined by biology (gender, skin color and race), sexual preferences (LGBT) and even religion (Jews only).

The outcome has been devastating. ID politics that initially purported to promote authentic thinking ended up promoting the opposite. It dismantled authenticity and replaced it with  ‘Identification.’ Instead of being who we really are (John, Sue, Nahida or Abraham) we’ve been trained to identify with group ideology. We adopted a new manner of speech. We convey our thoughts ‘as a’; ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a woman,’ ‘as a gay,’ ‘as a black,’ instead of expressing our own and very personal authentic feelings and beliefs as we experience them in an unmediated existential mode.

In practice, we have replaced authenticity with detachment, alienation and mimicry.  Instead of celebrating Being in the most existential manner we learned to pre-mediate what being a ‘woman’, ‘Jew’, ‘black’, ‘gay’ should sound like. We learned to envisage what our identification ‘may entail’ and to react as our identification demands.  What I describe above is the practical result of the ‘forgetfulness of Being,’ a term coined by the great German philosopher Martin Heidegger. But it is at this point that tribal awareness; nationalism and patriotism are reinvigorated and seem to be gaining ground.

In order to explain this shift, l would like first to examine the case presented by Zionism, Israel and Jewish progressive politics.

Those who attend progressive meetings become accustomed to the righteous Jewish manner of speech. Many Jews launch their speeches with the ‘as a Jew’ cliché. Needless to mention, neither I nor any other scholar of Jewish ID politics have ever managed to figure out what this cliché means. The reason is that it doesn’t mean a thing.

For years I have asked many Jews to address this question and haven’t received a sound reply. The ‘as a Jew’ seems to convey a meaningful logos, but in practice it is used to block critical discussion of the emptiness of the notion of Jewish progressive ID. In truth, there is no Jewish value system and as the great Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz observed in the 1970s, there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish ethics.’ The Jew is expected to follow Mitzvoth and laws (halakha) instead of acting upon his ethical judgment. The conclusion is devastating – ‘as a Jew’ is an empty expression. It is a deceptive mode used to convey an image of a Jewish ethical heritage that doesn’t exist.

This is where Zionism and Israel intervene. They offer the Jew an opportunity to rid himself of the sham of clichés and offer a glimpse of authentic redemption. Zionism and Israel say to the young Diaspora Jew – instead of speaking ‘as a Jew’ why don’t you just ‘Be a Jew?’ – take the first El Al flight, come to Israel, join the IDF, learn how to drive a tank. By the time your transformation is complete you will be able ‘to pour your wrath on the Goyim’ in the name of the Jewish people and in accordance with Jewish heritage (as the Zionist interpret this heritage).

Whether we like it or not, Israel and Zionism give meaning to Jewishness.

The Zionist call is very appealing to young Diaspora Jews (American, British, French, Australian). The IDF is saturated with lone soldiers who arrived in the ‘promised land’ just to wear the uniform and serve their people.

Israel and Zionism provide an authentic patriotic answer to the anti-patriotic mode that has become the voice of the New Left.

ISIS and other Jihadi groups offer the young Muslim a similar product. Instead of talking ‘as a Muslim,’ a statement that means very little within a consumerist, materialist, multi cultural society, the Islamic State and other Jihadi organizations offer their young Western followers the opportunity to Be a proper Muslim. Instead of participating in the inauthentic ‘as a’ game, ISIS calls on its followers to participate in a holy war, the ultimate form of true spiritual fulfillment.

It would be foolish to tag ISIS Western combatants as “bad Muslims” or ‘evil fundamentalists’ while turning a blind eye to the rising popularity of Jihadi culture within Muslim communities in the region and in the West. I recommend that we examine the popularity of ISIS amongst young Muslims in the light of the popularity of the Zionist cause within Western Jewish communities. I can’t see why a young British Muslim fighting in Iraq is worse than a Jewish British citizen serving in the IDF and ruining the lives of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The rise of nationalism and tribalism is prevalent throughout Europe and much of the world. This week Britain is on the verge of breaking up. Half of the Scots prefer to split from the Kingdom. What is going on in Scotland is a repetition of the same pattern. Instead of subscribing to a watery meaningless British ‘collectivism;’ Scotland, as a unifying symbolic bond has much more to offer its people.

To sum up, it seems that the attempt by the New Left to weaken the Nation state by promoting ID politics has backfired. It has led toward a sharp rise of tribal orientation and local patriotism. This reading may also help us to grasp the historical failures of the New Left and its mentors at the Frankfurt School. As we know, the masses never joined the Left. The promised revolution never occurred either.  And the reason is plain: real working people didn’t have cause to impersonate working people – they were the working people.

The Left’s advocacy of mimicry was not without its benefits. It brought itself some popularity amongst middle class Guardian readers and progressive Jews.  But the current outburst of tribalism suggests that our society is changing direction. Society may never be the same, and this may be a very positive occurrence.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  &Amazon.co.uk

Was Scotland’s referendum vote rigged?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2761711/Police-investigating-alleged-electoral-fraud-polling-stations-Glasgow-Scotland-people-votes-cast.html#ixzz3Dip1OFoQ

Police investigating alleged electoral fraud at polling stations in Glasgow after people find their votes had already been cast

  • Police investigating 10 cases of suspected electoral fraud at referendum
  • Allegations relate to possible cases of impersonation of voters
  • Ballot papers were taken out of circulation and are to be fingerprinted

 

When Scots ruled chunks of England

As Scotland decides peacefully whether to quit the Union – a lesson to all — let’s remember

When Scots ruled chunks of England

The polling booths have opened on Scotland’s Big Day and the world is watching, mesmerised, to see which way they jump. It’s too close to call, we’re told.

But the Scots weren’t always so evenly split over their desire for freedom. I’m staring at my breakfast tray which commemorates the Battle of Bannockburn, 1314 — the date indelibly etched on every Scotsman’s memory when Robert the Bruce trashed the English army of Edward II and won independence the hard way.

destination plate

In my younger days when I lived and worked in Scotland, I was intrigued by an old iron plate fixed to the Midsteeple in Dumfries: “Edinburgh 72, Glasgow 74, London 330… Huntingdon 272”. Why Huntingdon, of all destinations in the south? No-one seemed to know.

Years later I found myself living in ancient Huntingdonshire, now incorporated into Cambridgeshire. Local memory only goes back to the 17th century and the exploits of Cromwell, who went to school in Huntingdon, became its MP and later represented Cambridge. He was perhaps the greatest of all freedom-fighters in these islands.

But my breakfast tray points to another extraordinary story about the road to freedom from much earlier in our history. It shows the Bruce’s family tree back to King Malcolm and Saint Margaret, and the lineage includes the name ‘David, Earl of Huntingdon’. Who was he, and who were all the other earls of Huntingdon? The good folks of Huntingdon don’t seems to know.

download

It turns out to be an astonishing list… a rebellious teenager, a Norman crusader, two kings of Scotland and several other members of the royal House of Atholl including, some say, the legendary outlaw Robin Hood.

Waltheof, the Saxon earl of Huntingdon, was beheaded in 1076 for (allegedly) getting mixed up in the Rebellion of the Earls against William the Conqueror. A spooky account tells how the executioner took his swing while Waltheof was still offering up a last prayer. “Lead us not into temptation…” was as far as he got, but onlookers swore they heard the severed head continue: “…and deliver us from evil, amen.”

The son of Earl Siward of Northumbria, Waltheof should have inherited his father’s earldom in 1065, but being only 10 years old he was made earl of just the Middle Anglia part – Huntingdon and Northampton. Northumbria in those days extended a very long way south. A mere kid, he probably skipped the Battle of Hastings, which could explain why he escaped the ethnic cleansing that followed as Norman warlords spread across the country. He later became a resistance leader along with Hereward the Wake, but in the end had to surrender. After behaving himself for a while he was rewarded in 1072 with the whole of Northumbria, although his good fortune was due in large part to having married the Conqueror’s niece Judith. Then came the rebellion. Some say Judith betrayed him, others insist it was a royal ‘stitch-up’ to eliminate the last of the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Anyhow, Judith afterwards controlled the earldom.

The story took a more respectable turn when their daughter Maud married one of the Conqueror’s henchmen, Simon de Senlis, son of Ranulf the Rich. When Simon died on crusade in 1111 Maud, although 36 and a single mom, was a very fine catch for somebody. That lucky man was King David I of Scotland in a match arranged by the then King of England, Henry I. Their marriage, in 1113, brought David the earldom of Huntingdon.

David at that time “shared” the throne of Scotland with his elder brother Alexander “the Fierce” but was unable to claim his inheritance, the southern half of Scotland. However the brothers were close friends with King Henry, who had married their sister Edith, and young David stayed at the English court learning Norman ways.

He became a travelling justice in Henry’s administration, and his retinue included a group of Norman knights who acted as his enforcers. In 1113, with Henry’s backing, David finally made his claim in Scotland stick. But he continued to spend most of his time in England until brother Alexander died in 1124.

As the new ruler of a united Scotland plus Cumbria, David took his enforcers north with him. They included de Brus (Bruce) and others whose family names would become famous. With the earldoms of Northumbria, Northampton and Huntingdon also in his pocket he remained immensely influential in England.

When Henry I died in 1135 David backed Henry’s daughter Matilda in the civil war against Stephen. She was, after all, his niece and the widow of the Emperor of Germany, whom she had married at the tender age of eight. Family loyalty, however, put David on the losing side and he was defeated at the Battle of the Standard in 1138. But with his army still intact he remained in control of Carlisle where in 1149 he knighted his great-nephew, the future Henry II of England. In return Henry acknowledged Scotland’s continued control over the northern counties of England.

King David, nicknamed “the Saint”, died in 1153 at Carlisle aged 72, a keen gardener to the end. He had outlived Maud who was 13 years his senior, but together they spawned a family that included a remarkable collection of characters. Of their four children one of the boys was strangled at birth by his great-uncle and the other, Henry of Huntingdon, produced 10 offspring including two future kings of Scotland, Malcolm IV and William I “the Lion”.

Was Robin Hood a ‘Huntingdon’?

Another of Henry of Huntingdon’s sons was David, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon, a younger brother to Malcolm IV and William I. He was also Earl of Northumbria, Carlisle, Doncaster and Cambridge. With his wife Matilda de Kevelioc he too produced a prodigious number of children. The eldest of these, Robert Huntingdon, was mysteriously airbrushed from official history and “died young”, leaving some historians to speculate that this was the disinherited outlaw Robin Hood.

Ripping yarns often refer to Robin as the Earl of Huntingdon, but the truth is still a puzzle. If it’s true that Robin was a resistance leader against Prince John during Richard the Lionheart’s absence on crusade – 1190 to 1194 – he must have been born no later than c1170. Earl David was 26 in 1170 so the timeline allows for Robin to have been his son, but not a product of the marriage bed. He didn’t wed Matilda until 1190.

The castle and southern powerbase demolished

Huntingdon Castle, rebuilt by William the Conqueror in 1068, was enlarged by David and Maud, who, we may suppose, were seen there from time to time until 1124 when David’s new responsibilities took them to Scotland. The castle was dismantled in 1174 by a furious Henry II after the revolt against him by his own family. Huntingdon had passed to David the 3rd Earl after William the Lion (his brother) ascended the Scottish throne in 1165, but the castle was still held at the time by William, who had unwisely sided with the rebels. William was already in dispute with Henry over the earldom of Northumbria and as one of the leaders of an armed rebellion he was made to pay dearly.

When David died in 1219 the earldom passed to his son John then reverted to the English crown in 1237. An important Scottish powerbase in the south was removed and with it the remarkable influence of Scottish kings. Earl David and other members of the family are said to be buried at Saltre Abbey (present-day Sawtry, just north of Huntingdon), founded in 1147 by Simon de Senlis the younger, Maud’s son from her earlier marriage.

But that’s only the start of the story. The Huntingdon brood continued to make history hundreds of miles to the north. In 1290, when the legitimate line of William the Lion petered out, Earl David’s descendants were prime candidates for the Scottish throne.

One of his girls, Isobel of Huntingdon, married the 4th Lord of Annandale. Their grandson became King Robert I (Robert the Bruce).

One of his grand-daughters, Devorguilla Princess of Galloway, married John Balliol, founder of Balliol College, Oxford. This Balliol is not to be confused with their son, the younger John Balliol, who became King of Scotland in 1292 after a contest with 12 other claimants. Balliol’s claim was through Devorguilla, the daughter of Margaret of Huntingdon, Earl David’s eldest daughter. The other leading contender, de Brus (Bruce), 6th Lord of Annandale, was the son of Isobel, the second daughter of Earl David. He was one generation older and therefore “closer”.

In tricky situations like this it was customary to invite a foreign king to choose. The notorious bully Edward “Longshanks”, King of England, was eager for supreme lordship over Scotland and seized his chance. He selected Balliol, then proceeded to make his life a misery… so much so that Balliol resigned the crown in 1296 and was locked in the Tower for his insolence. Scotland was again without a king and menaced by the English. The bloody struggle for independence began led by William Wallace, as “Braveheart” audiences will remember.

In 1306, to make absolutely certain of the crown that should have been his father’s, the 7th Lord of Annandale, aka Robert the Bruce, murdered his rival the Red Comyn, Guardian of Scotland, on the altar steps of Greyfriars Church in Dumfries, an offence for which he was excommunicated. But within weeks he was crowned King Robert I.

So enraged were Longshanks and Bruce’s enemies, the Comyns and the Balliols, that Bruce was forced into hiding in the wilds of Galloway and his family made to suffer. The men were executed and the ladies “caged”. Nearly every man’s hand was against him. How this great-great-grandson of David and Maud, with a small band of followers, turned the tables and ultimately triumphed at Bannockburn is the stuff of legend.

At least Scotland’s latest bid for freedom – or independence as some call it – is being made without battle-axe, longbow and schiltrom. If I were still living there my heart would say ‘Yes’ for independence and a total break from the political sewer that is Westminster, pinning all hopes on a cleaner, more focused government in Edinburgh. But I doubt if they can really afford to leave the rotten, cankered Union ‘family’ and pursue their dream. Today, as in the time of Wallace and Bruce, it is obvious that some powerful Scots still see it in their best interests to remain subservient to their southern neighbour.

What about that mysterious Midsteeple milepost? I came across a milestone on an ancient drovers’ road in the hills of Galloway, also pointing to Huntingdon 300-odd miles away. A possible explanation is that the mid-Anglian town was a major destination for cattle drives from the north, and Huntingdon might well have been the Dodge City of those days – a wide open, rip-roaring cow town.

We know that vast herds were rested and fattened on the lush meadows nearby before meeting buyers up from London. Whether the cattle trade was established in medieval times is impossible to say, but the earls of Huntingdon with their huge landholdings north and south of the border were in a good position to push northern beef into the rich markets of the south.

Things turned sour between England and Scotland after 1286 and drovers from the north would have found the journey difficult and dangerous. Later, in the period 1500 to 1603 (the union of the crowns), no herd was safe from the notorious Border Reivers who raided across the ‘debatable lands’ between Scotland and England. So the biggest cattle drives were probably seen after 1603 until the arrival of the railways in the mid-1800s. Unfortunately the cattle trade wasn’t a fixed and settled business with permanent buildings, so no records survive.

Stuart Littlewood
18 September 2014

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

World shares Scotland’s ‘freedom’ call

Scots go to a battle today to win their freedom.

 Scots go to a battle today to win their freedom.
Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:34AM GMT

Scots go to a battle today to win their freedom. Generations of Scottish people have waited for this day. Nearly three years ago, Scottish nationalists won the right to finally have a referendum to vote on their country’s independence from London.

But the right to freedom for the Scots has been an historic battle going back more than eight centuries to break from the dominance of English rulers.

Arrayed against Scots is a formidable army of opponents. The British monarch, the Bank of England, all of the Westminster political establishment, the oil companies, the London-centered, biased media, and even British military intelligence and its allies in Washington and NATO.

Former MI6 head Sir John Scarlett came out recently citing terrorist fears facing an independent Scotland if it should break the 307-year-old Union with London. And US President Barack Obama has also presumed to lecture the Scots on the “benefits” of fealty to “Great Britain”.

The No campaign has relied on a mixture of fear mongering and bribery to deter the Scots from voting Yes today. The last-ditch bribery attempts have promised the Scots extra public funding and devolution powers.

Prominent among the bribers are Scottish pro-Union politicians like former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who vow that the Scots will gain more freedom if they just vote No and stay within the United Kingdom. What these jesters don’t realize is that their condescending last-minute offers remind many Scots of the real freedoms that they have been denied all along.

This has unmistakable echoes from the past. The English rulers always undermined Scottish freedom by inveigling Scots with inducements of titles and land estates. Sadly, some Scots were bought off with the English shilling to forfeit freedom for themselves and their people. And then only to realize that the inducements and baubles were mere trifles for a select few, while painfully illusory for the rest.

Claims of North Sea oil running out, banks and businesses relocating from Scotland to England, pension funds collapsing, future financial currency woes and blocked access to European Union markets – are just some of the scare stories that the anti-independence army has flagged up in recent weeks.

The trouble with the No campaign is that it seems to be all based on negative warnings. What is there that is positive about Scotland remaining within the UK? The naysayers seem to think that everything can be reduced down to mundane questions of money and
penny-pinching self-interest.

Freedom is about much, much more. It is about the right for people to determine their own destiny – politically, economically, culturally and spiritually. Scots are voting Yes not just to avail of their economic resources, for better public services and finances, and a fairer society.

It’s about the fundamental right to govern for themselves, in a way that the Scottish people see fit for their own democratically decided needs, not as handed down to them like scraps thrown from a table by aloof rulers residing in London.

Scotland is endowed with many natural resources. It’s not just about the still-remaining abundant oil reserves under the North Sea – the largest known reserves in the whole of Europe. The Scots have a rich history of industriousness and intellectual ingenuity, and a prodigious capacity for commerce, science, the arts, new technologies and innovation.

They have the right to develop their own indisputable talents without the interference of a London-based elite that has all-too often treated Scotland as a fettered cash cow. North Sea oil is a real, precious resource; and it is also deeply symbolic of much more.

For more than four decades, the London government has milked billions-of-dollars-worth of oil for its own partial gain, tax-cuts for the rich and funding of imperialist wars, while Scotland has been deprived of its indigenous natural wealth. No wonder Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum are against Scottish independence, just as they are/were against people’s independence in every other country, including Iran.

For many Scots the Union with England is a tawdry euphemism for one-way exploitation of Scotland and its five million population.  As with other parts of that Union – incorporating Ireland and Wales – the central government in London has used the so-called United Kingdom as a lordly device to subjugate those nations and to deprive them of their right to self-determination, to govern their own societies and resources as they see fit to meet their needs.

But, above all the natural resources of Scotland, it is perhaps the historic Scottish heart for freedom and independence that is most redoubtable. That force is stronger than any army.

Scotland’s cry for freedom is shared by many other freedom-loving people around the world: in Africa, Palestine, Syria, Ukraine, Catalonia, Ireland, Bahrain, Iran, even we should say the mass of ordinary, common people in the United States of America and England. It is the call for freedom from elitist, foreign powers that want to impose their destructive vision of austerity and warmongering on the majority, and to deny the majority the right to live in peace, harmony and prosperity under their own self-determined governance.

Scottish freedom is not about a parochial, isolated nationalism. It is about a universal right to democratic freedom, where the majority of common people take control of their future, free from exploitation and oppression under a privileged class system.

William Wallace, the Scottish hero who inspired his fellow-Scots to fight for their freedom in the early 14th Century, was eventually hung, drawn and quartered – martyred – in London for daring to speak truth to power. Wallace did not bow down to the despotic, illegitimate would-be rulers of his day because he saw it as his birthright to live as a free human being. Not just his right, everyone’s right. We owe it to Wallace and the countless other martyrs down through history and around the world to continue striking a blow for freedom.

Scotland has the chance to strike that blow again today. If it succeeds, there will, for sure, be more challenges tomorrow and the days after tomorrow. But such freedom begins in the eternal now.

As the great Scottish poet Robbie Burns once wrote: ‘My love is like a red, red rose that’s newly sprung in June; my heart is like a melody that sweetly plays its tune.’

That sweet melody is the sound of human freedom calling.

So, Scotland the Brave, strike hard, strike true; for the good people of the world stand with you.

FC/AB

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The MirrorIrish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the Strategic Culture Foundation.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The REAL Reason Britain is Freaking Out About Scottish Independence. Scotland’s North Sea Oil Reserves

Global Research, September 17, 2014
Scottish independence globalresearch.ca
David Cameron and the British media have been freaking out about the potential Scottish independence.
They’ve blathered on about “history”, “common defense” and other red herrings.
But it’s really all about oil …
Specifically, if Scotland becomes independent, it gets to keep 90% of the revenues from its huge oil reserves.
The New York Times reports:
Scottish nationalists have long argued that being governed from London has deprived their country of its fair share of the wealth from Britain’s oil and natural gas fields, which mostly lie in North Sea waters off their shores.
“It’s Scotland’s oil” was the rallying cry in the 1970s that helped raise the profile of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which now leads the country and is pushing for a vote to secede in the referendum on Thursday. Alex Salmond, the politician leading the separatist movement, has pointed to North Sea energy as the treasure that would help finance an independent Scotland — ensuring that the country could continue the generous public spending, including free university tuition, that he is promising voters.
Al Jazeera notes:
Massive oil reserves in the North Sea are at the heart of the Scottish independence debate. Many are questioning whether the reserves are just for Scotland or if the rest of the United Kingodm should continue to benefit from their profits.
NBC writes:
The ‘Yes’ campaign … says Scots should have total control of their own affairs and that revenue from Scotland’s offshore oil fields would sustain the country’s economy
In addition, as Max Keiser explained:
(1) The UK can now borrow cheaply using the giant Scottish oil reserves as collateral
(2) If Scotland leaves, the collateral (oil reserves) is no longer available
(3) So the cost of borrowing money for Britain skyrockets
Scotland’s North Sea oil reserves are slowing running out, and so oil won’t be such a valuable resource forever.
But for now, it is still invaluable (especially as collateral for British borrowing) … and the key to Britain’s panic over potential Scottish independence.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

THE GUARDIAN OF BIG MONEY

By Gilad Atzmon

The Guardian is backing a “No” vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

“Nationalism is not the answer to social injustice,” the paper’s editorialsuggested yesterday.

Not that I want to enter this debate. I am an immigrant in the UK and I do not feel entitled to take part in this discussion. However, this tense political situation deserves our close intellectual attention.

Is it really a coincidence that Britain is on the verge of tribal and nationalist fragmentation at the time the Middle East is going through the exact same process? For the time being I’ll leave this question open.

The Guardian insists that ‘nationalism’ is not the ‘answer to social injustice,’ but can it support an argument to backup such a pompous statement? What is it in the love to one’s soil and people that contradicts social justice? Is belonging to an extended national collective necessarily a bad thing?

If the Guardian had the courage to self-reflect it may as well realised that it is the anti British ideology that has been spewed by the paper, as well as the New Left, that led to the rise of Scottish nationalism. The reason is simple – the ordinary Scot may say  ‘If Britain has nothing to offer as an extended nationalist collective, we the Scots have a lot to offer instead.’

The Guardian may as well want to ask itself, how did it end up in the same camp with the big businesses and global banks? The answer is simple. Globalisation and New Left’s anti patriotism are intermingled. The New Left is there to weaken the state and break the Working Class into ID groups and by doing so preparing the ground for the invasion of big money and Global forces.  The Guardian of Judea had a major role in facilitating this unfortunate social change.

Satire: Tony Blair Urges the “Ukraine Solution”: Air Strikes Against Scotland in Event of ‘Yes’ Vote

Global Research, September 16, 2014
Employees of Gordon diesel services prepare to erect Yes campaign placards on their workshop in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged the UK government to consider military action against Scotland in the event of a vote for independence.

Mr Blair, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, broke his silence in the debate over Scottish independence to urge air strikes – including the use of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent – against Scottish strategic targets in the event of a ‘Yes’ victory next Thursday.

Interviewed in Kiev, Mr Blair said on Saturday that he hoped Scots would vote against independence, but warned that if Scotland voted to break up the United Kingdom then military intervention would be inevitable: “Obviously I hope that Scotland votes to stay part of the United Kingdom. But Scotland should prepare itself for a full-scale invasion by ground forces if it doesn’t.”

Mr Blair’s comments came just weeks after the former PM called for NATO leaders to agree a joint campaign of targeted bombings and drone attacks against badgers in support of the UK government’s campaign to control the spread of TB in the British countryside.

Copyright Pride’s Purge 2014

THE YES ANNUAL MEETING IN KIEV

President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, former Prime Minister of Britain (1997-2007) Tony Blair and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk participated in the 11th Yalta European Strategy (YES) Annual Meeting in Kiev.

The YES consensus is to refuse regional autonomy for Donbass, deny the results of the referendum.

Meanwhile a new wave of airstrikes targets residential areas in Donesk.  The Yes War is On in Ukraine. And Tony Blair  is tacitly supportive of the Kiev regime’s airstrikes against civilians.

Tony Blair, former British prime minister, speaks at YES conference in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo: YES@2014

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Lobby: An independent Scotland is bad for Israel

Rehmat’t World

On September 18, 2014, every Scottish person over the age of 18 year and living in Scotland, United Kingdom, European Union or a Commonwealth member country is eligible to vote for the independence of his/her motherland.

Scotland is home to more than 40,000 Muslims, most of them second, third and fourth generation citizens. A great majority of them along with other Scottish Asians see an independent Scotland more tolerant toward Muslim community and less controlled by the powerful UK Jewish Lobby.

The most celebrated Muslim Scot has been Queen Victoria’s controversial teacher and confident Abdul Karim.

UK’s ‘Islamophobe’ prime minister David Cameron has warned the ‘Scots for Israel’ that an independent Scotland would be more pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel than United Kingdom.

As usual, the “gate keepers” of the West’s political affairs, are advising the Scots to vote “Yes” or “No” on independence referendum based on what’s good for Israel if they want to remain accepted by the so-called “civilized world”.

Last week, David Folkerts-Landau (Jewish) Chief Economist of German Deutsche Bank warned Scots that they will face a “Great Depression” within an independent Scotland.

Israel First Australian-born British media billionaire Rupert Murdoch, who is accused for bribing Tony Blair to join George Bush’s 2003 war on Iraq for Israel tweeted his support for a “No” vote to Scottish independence.

On March 21, 2014, Adam Ramsay wrote an article, entitled, Scotland isn’tdifferent, it’s Britain that’s bizarre in which he proved that an independent Scotland will be more prosperous, socialistic, family-oriented and human rights supportive than it’s now under English imperialism.

On September 8, 2014, Jerusalem-based The Times of Israel, a news website run by a British Zionist Jews published an Op-Ed by Brian Fink in which the writer claimed that since the Israel’s recent ‘Operation Protective Edge’, the Scottish Jewish community of 6000-7000 don’t feel safe in Scotland anymore as result of anti-Israel protesters have held rallies in front of several synagogues, rise in Boycott Israel (BDS) movement popularity, criticism of Israeli actions against Hamas at several universities, and some town halls displayed Palestinian flag.

Naturally, Fink has to pick some Muslim to blame for the centuries-old Jewish hatred even though England is the only country which had expelled its entire Jewish population for 350 years, from 1290 by King Edward I and were allowed to return in 1656 by Lord Oliver Cromwell, a Crypto Jew. Fink didn’t have to go far. He just missed a few Christian politicians who support Scotland’s independence like Craig Murray, Alistair Darling, Tommy Sheridan, Alex Salmond and others – and found a Muslim scapegoat, Yvonne Ridley, the British reporter who was captured by Taliban inside Afghanistan. Over a year after she was released by Taliban unconditionally, she converted to Islam.

British journalist Yvonne Ridley along with MP George Galloway and journalist Lauren Booth support Hamas against the Zionist regime which is an old-fashioned hatred toward Jews according to the organized Jewry.

Fink the ‘Zionist skunk’ believes that since George Galloway said last month thatBradford is Israel Free Zone, but wants Scots to say “No” to Scotland separation – Yvonne Ridley tweeted : “Zionist-free Scotland”, which shows her Muslim hatred toward Jews as Fink believes that the entire world Jewry of 12.7 million is Zionist.

Scotland and Wales have been occupied by the English crown since 1707. Scotland is the second largest country in the United Kingdom—smaller than England but larger in area and population than Wales and Northern Ireland combined. If revenues from oil and gas in Scotland’s waters are included, its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita would be significantly higher than that of the rest of the UK. If Scotland votes “yes” to a split, the U.K.’s population will drop by around 8 percent. There are just over five million Scots, according to the latest estimates. Two percent of Scotland’s population lives on its 93 inhabited islands

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A new Pro Paelstinian Website for Free Gaza Scotland

http://freegazascotland.wordpress.com/

Mahmoud Sarsak – Palestinian International Footballer

On Wednesday 23rd of January I with other members of our group had the pleasure and honour to meet Mahmoud Sarsak in our appartment. He is a slight, quietly spoken young man, with a gentle manner and his good humour and patience with our questioning betray none of the pain he has suffered over the last 3 and a half years. When he begins to speak about his experience of imprisonment he tells his story with a matter of fact, quiet sincerity that is striking and makes the horror of his experience all the more shocking.

Mahmoud was 21 years old, at the start of a playing career which had already seen him being recognised as one of the best young prospects in Palestine, already a regular for the Palestinian National side. He had an invitation to play for a football team in Nablus in the West Bank. This meant that he had to ask for permission from the Israelis to cross from Gaza through Erez crossing into Israel in order to travel on to the West Bank. This did not worry him as it was a trip he had already done twice before and when he recieved his permission he went to the crossing looking forward to the opportunity of playing in Nablus. However when he got to Erez at 9am on the 22nd July 2009 his whole world changed, instead of being allowed to cross he was arrested and taken to a Police Station, from here his family were called and informed that he was being taken to Ashkelon Jail.
 

To read more: http://freegazascotland.wordpress.com/
 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

%d bloggers like this: