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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Desmond Tutu

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

Fr. John Sheehan of the Jesuit Order

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

WATCH – George Galloway delivers bombastic blast on Sergei #Skripal

Source

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

IMPERIALISM ON TRIAL: WRITERS AND ACTIVISTS CONVENE IN DERRY, IRELAND

In Gaza

Last week I had the honour of joining a number of incredible writers and orators in Derry, Ireland, in a panel, “Imperialism on Trial”. The five speakers were: John Wight, writer and host of Hard Facts; the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford; author, journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark; former MP and host of Sputnik Orbiting the WorldGeorge Galloway; and myself.

Organized by Derry resident Gregory Sharkey, the panelists addressed a wide range of issues. As one of the speakers, author Neil Clark, wrote:

“Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed around the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies.

The full panel is online from RT’s livestream recording:

John Wight‘s talk was a poetic, searing condemnation of Imperialism and the corporate media, with literary and historical references included (much like Syria’s highly-educated Ambassador to the UN does in his speeches before the buffoons ala Haley, Power…).

His speech, fittingly, begins with a respectful acknowledgement of Resistance forces in Syria and around the world fighting against genocidal Imperialist forces. Excerpts include:

“Imperialism has run like a broken thread throughout human history, but so has Resistance to Imperialism. In this regard, I’d like to take a moment to pay tribute to the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, in short, all those whose efforts in combating this genocidal project of a latter day Khmer Rouge has prevented Syria from being pushed into an abyss in which its minorities—people who can trace their presence in that part of the world back over a millenia and more—would have been gone, extirpated, annihilated.

Everybody on this panel tonight has felt the lash of the mainstream media. They call us ‘cranks’, they call us ‘stooges’, they call us “Putin’s puppets’, they call us ‘Assadists’. But yet, why do they attack us if we’re so marginal, why take the time to attack what we do? It’s because we ask the question ‘why’….”

Peter Ford spoke with the conviction of a man with years of experience in Syria, with firsthand knowledge of that country and others in the region. Noting that “Imperialism did not end when the colonies became free”, Ford said (excerpts):

“We now have a new, more insidious, but more powerful form of Imperialism. And this Imperialism hides behind words. As an ex-diplomat, I’m very sensitive to the clever use of words, they are so manipulative. The new Imperialism hides behind expressions like “protecting our allies”. When we went to war in Iraq, we were protecting the Saudis, the Israelis…these are our allies. Another term the new Imperialists hide behind to extend their hegemony is “defeating terrorism”. That’s a more recent one.

Another one they love is “defending human rights”, and this applies to the Left as much as to the Right, or “humanitarianism”. This is liberal interventionalism, and we on the Left have to be particularly alert to this one. This is the new version of carrying the white man’s burden. In each case, we are intervening militarily, or certainly using some sort of coercive diplomacy. We’re intervening in less-developed parts of the world which are not able, by and large, to strike back.

Britain is a prominent member of the grandly called “Global Coalition to eliminate ISIS”, and there are about 50 countries which are members of this coalition but it’s by no means the global. It excludes Russia, which has done more against ISIS than any individual member of the global coalition. It excludes China and many, many other countries, but they like to pretend that it’s global. They tell us that the purpose is to eradicate ISIS. Well, ISIS has virtually been eradicated for the last three months, but the coalition goes on. And indeed, just two weeks ago an American general told us that the coalition was there to stay in northern Syria because their job was to stop ISIS coming back. Well that’s an open-ended promise isn’t it that could go on forever.”

Neil Clark, likewise spoke truth on many issues covered up or distorted by corporate media. Excerpts:

Libya in 2009 had the highest Human Development Index in Africa. Today it basically it is a hellhole run by various militias….The ultimate ignominy, the testament to the intervention launched by Sarkozy and Cameron & co, is the re-emergence of slave markets in Libya again. In fact, it’s a common pattern: every country where we’ve had these Western us-led interventions, the situation for ordinary people in those countries has actually worsened not got better.

We saw another classic example in Ukraine in 2014, a very similar scenario: the the US and its allies were supporting protesters against the government, and those protesters were led by the far right—by genuine far-right—people. …We’re talking about genuine ultra-nationalist borderline neo-nazis or bona fide neo-nazis at the forefront of these anti-government demonstrations. …We had a basic regime change in Ukraine against a democratically-elected government there.

I think they ought to be very aware of the language we use, …and one thing we ought to be careful of is this word “regime” because this is a very key term that’s used. …You don’t hear it about the US or Israel, you hear it about Syria, you hear it about Iran. It’s compulsory to say the Iranian “regime” not the Iranian government or the Syrian government.

We have spent billions billions of pounds on these illegal wars, billions of pounds on these interventions. …There’s nothing more important for us to do thanto change British foreign policy to have a British foreign policy based on respect for the sovereignty of countries around the world, a peaceful foreign policy, a non-interventionist foreign policy…”

George Galloway‘s speech was a detailed, animated, history lesson of Imperialist crimes, threats and lies, past and present. Excerpts:

“When I was born, the guns had only just stopped firing, from the British and American annihilation of the people of Korea. You heard the quotes from Eva, from Curtis Le May. ‘We burned down every town and village in North Korea,’ he said. ‘We killed 20% of the population of Korea. We threatened to launch thermo-nuclear warfare against them.’

We killed 1 million Chinese who had entered Korea to stop the advance of the British and American war machine, because they knew if they had conquered the north of Korea they would continued over the border to try to destroy the Chinese revolution.

And we wonder why North Korea is paranoid? Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Our people may have forgotten the Korean war. The Korean people never did forget it. 

They seek to induce us into a state of panic that something must be done about North Korea maybe having one nuclear rocket that can reach the United States, when the United States has 1000s of nuclear weapons that can reach and incinerate North Korea or anywhere else in the world.

How is it that the United States is somehow qualified to possess a nuclear arsenal that could end life on this planet for millennia to come, but other people, to defend themselves, may not produce one?”

My own talk at the Imperialism on Trial panel (also here) focused on media lies and war propaganda around Syria, and on the Imperialists’ fear-mongering rhetoric around, and blatant calls for the genocide of, Korea’s north, with reminders that the US and allies already destroyed the DPRK in the ’50s.

I also addressed the criminal sanctions on the DPRK, and some of the sensationalist stories put forth on the DPRK, sometimes even emanating from Washington. While I mentioned some of my August 2017 visit to the DPRK, I would here defer to the expertise of writers like historian Bruce Cumings, who wrote:

“The demonization of North Korea transcends party lines, drawing on a host of subliminal racist and Orientalist imagery; no one is willing to accept that North Koreans may have valid reasons for not accepting the American definition of reality.”

Researcher and writer Stephen Gowans offers a starkly different (aka factual) look at Korea’s north than that spewed by MSM hacks and politicians with no regard for the 25 million people at risk of annihilation thanks to American Exceptionalism. International criminal lawyer and writer Christopher Black also has vast knowledge about the DPRK, and has himself visited the country some years ago. Professor Tim Anderson wrote this article highlighting aspects of our August 2017 visit.

The bottom line, though, as Ajamu Baraka stated in our January 2018 interview:

“The US should not feel that it has the moral and political right to intervene, to determine who should be the head of any state, what kind of system they should organize. Those are questions and issues that should be left up to the people of any nation state on the planet. …No matter what the argument may be made by US authorities regarding the character of any state, we believe that allowing for those kinds of arguments to be used as a justification for intervention or waging war is morally unacceptable and politically has to be resisted.

Links Related to Syria Content:

-Sharmine Narwani’s “How narratives killed the Syrian people

-Sharmine Narwani’s “Syria: The Hidden Massacre

-on media lies and myths on Syria: Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria

-Writing of the late Father Frans van der Lugt on armed protesters

-Interview with Father Daniel in Syria: “There Never Was a Popular Uprising in Syria”

Homs: “We wanted to protect our house”

“Freedom”: Homs resident speaks of the early days of the “crisis” (June 2014)

Syria Dispatch: Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign ‘Revolution’

Vanessa Beeley videos, including testimonies of Syrians from eastern areas of Aleppo after liberation of the city.

-Mass Starvation & other anti-Syria propaganda:

The Children of Kafarya and Foua are Crying in the Dark

-Omran Daqneesh (the Boy in the Ambulance):

-White Helmets (al-Qaeda’s rescuers):

-Israel’s Use Of White Phosphorous on Palestinian Civilians:

 

Childish U.S claims of Russia interfering in election are dead and buried

Claims Of Russian Interference In US Election ‘Dead & Buried’ – George Galloway

Allegations of Russia exploiting internet giants to meddle with the 2016 US election are “dead and buried,” says former MP George Galloway. His comments follow a report by Google stating there is no evidence RT violated YouTube terms and conditions.

On Tuesday, Google published the findings of a probe into the potential of RT using the world’s biggest video platform for political purposes. It stated the investigation failed to find any substantive proof that the news channel manipulated videos or otherwise violated YouTube policies.

The US technology giant is due to testify, alongside Facebook and Twitter, before the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s panel on Crime and Terrorism on Wednesday over Russia’s alleged use of the media platforms to influence the US election.

The Google report found that two accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency, a Russian-based NGO, spent a total of £4,700 on the search and display ads.

Unsure whether “to laugh or cry” over the meagre sum, Galloway said: “They [internet giants] are all doing this, ironically, to please another state – not Russia, but the US.

“It is an attempt to be on their knees as they go before the Congress later today,”Galloway said.

He added the whole situation is “demeaning and degrading to the companies and the people who fell for the earlier propaganda.”

Back in October, Google-operated YouTube yanked RT from its premium program amid concerns over the network’s use of the service.

Although Google admitted it found no evidence of wrongdoing just a month later, it failed to give RT the privileged status it had held since 2010.

Galloway said, in light of the new findings, YouTube it should “reinstate RT as a matter of urgency” if the platform has “any sense of decency.”

He called for the creation of more social media platforms to rival Facebook and Twitter that cannot be “so easily beholden to any government,” be it the US or Russia.

Via RT.

غالاوي عن حماس: لم أحبها ولاأحبها .. وخطيئتها لاتغتفر وعصية على الفهم

 

 

نارام سرجون

ربما كان تعليق السيد جورج غالاوي بشأن حماس في برنامجه (ساعة حرة على الميادين) هو من اقوى التعليقات التي تدين هذه المنظمة التي نشأت فلسطينية ولكنها تحولت الى منظمة عثمانية نفطية ..

 لايخفى على المستمع المرارة التي ترافق كلمات السيد غالاوي وهو يتحدث عن طعنة جماس لحلف المقاومة .. ويبدو أنه لايكاد يصدق مارأى وماسمع من نكران هذه المنظمة وزعاماتها واظهارها سلوك الغدر والطعن بالاصدقاء .. والتخلي عن المبادئ والقيم الأصيلة بحفظ الجميل لمن وهبها الحياة والقوة والبقاء بل وكاد يخوض حربا مع جورج بوش من أجل أن تبقى .. فاذا بها تتنكر لكل ذلك بل شاركت في حرب تدمير سورية .. وفوق ذلك فانها عادت وخاصمت كل من امتنع عن تدمير سورية او لم يوافق عليه .. حتى جورج غالوي الذي حمل في غزة .. صار الحمساويون ينظرون اليه باحتقار ولايردون عليه السلام لانه يدافع عن سورية .. المقاومة .. وليس عن الرئيس بشار الأسد ..

ومنذ فترة نسبت تصريحات لمحمود الزهار قيل انه اعتذر فيها عن الخطيئة والاثم بحق الشعب السوري وانه يريد خوض الانتخابات للانقلاب على خط “السافل” خالد مشعل الذي تسبب قراراته بكوارث على القضية الفلسطينية .. ومن قرأ تلك التصريحات لاشك انه أحس انه شيء فوق القدرة على التحمل من شدة المبالغة في تصوير الندم الحمساوي .. ولكن الزهار لم يترك الناس في أحلامها الوردية واسرع في اليوم التالي وأنكر كل التصريحات التي لفقت لأنه اكد انه لم يقلها بتاتا وهناك من يريد الصيد في المياه العكرة .. والحقيقة انني عندما سمعت تصريحاته لم أحس باي عاطفة تجاهها وأدركت منذ اللحظة الاولى انها مفبركة لأن حماس لايمكن ان تكون بعد اليوم الا عثمانية ولاترى فلسطين الا بعيون تركية .. ولكن بفرض انه فعلا قال تلك التصريحات فانها لاتساوي شيئا لأنها تأخرت خمس سنوات قتل خلالها الالاف وتشرد الآلاف وصمتت حماس عن كل الاثم والجرائم بحق الشعب السوري التي كانت تدار من استانبول وقطر والرياض ولندن وباريس وتل ابيب أيضا .. وليس لهذه التصريحات المتأخرة الا طعم الكآبة والقيح والاهانة والغباء .. وأعتقد ان على قادة حماس أن يوفروا هذه التسريبات لجس النبض لأنها لن تغير من طعمهم العثماني ورائحتهم الوهابية .. ولن تغير من وضوح خيانتهم لفلسطين والقدس من أجل جنون الخلافة والخلفاء .. وأنصحهم سلفا ألا يفكروا في هذا الاتجاه .. لأنهم خرجوا من أرضنا ومن قلوبنا .. ولن يعودوا .. ولأننا مثل جورج غالاوي .. لانحبهم .. ولن نحبهم .. ونحن بالفعل كشعب سوري نادمون ان أحببناهم .. ولسنا نادمين على أننا سنحب فلسطين وسنبقى نعمل على تحريرها .. لأن فلسطين ليست ملكا لهم .. بل ملك جميع الأمة ..

اسمعوا الى صوت جورج غالاوي الذي كان صادقا جدا .. وكانت فيه غصة .. ولكن لايمكنك ان لاتحس بطعم العلقم في كلماته والشعور بالوجع من الطعنة التي تلقاها من هذه المنظمة العثمانية التي لم يبق فيها لفلسطين اي شيء ..

جورج غالاوي .. أحسنت

 

Related Videos

 

Related Posts

Treason and Plot: The Israel Scandal (subtitled)

January 11, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Goodbye Fidel

The Saker

November 27, 2016

by Jimmie Moglia 

“He was a man, take him for all in all,
I shall not look upon his like again.”

Hamlet, act 1, sc. 2

Goodbye FidelFor many across the world, the death of Fidel Castro strikes us with an obscure sensation, like that which would be felt from the sound of darkness. And though expected, there was an indistinct unuttered hope that this news could be postponed to a future yet undated and unnamed. But,

“… all that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity”
(1)

In some European countries, newspaper articles written before the death of some important figure, are called “crocodiles”, lumping together those lamenting or rejoicing at that death, whenever it may occur.

And as we know, the European historical left has disappeared, replaced by an assembly of sycophants, buttock-lickers of transatlantic masters, muddled applauders of neo-liberal philosophy and regurgitators of grotesque distortions.

In one of which distortions, for example, the inimical, colonial role of the US towards Cuba is not even mentioned. Instead, Castro is labeled as a doctrinarian, bent on absolute dictatorship, who became a Marxist and eliminated all his opponents. Even clashing with the ideas of Che Guevara who was forced to try his luck at a revolution somewhere else.

Nor is it mentioned that in some fields Cuba is the most advanced country in Latin America, notably medicine. Including, for example, Cuba’s critical contribution to the defeat of the Ebola virus. And other unique pharmaceutical innovations, such as the only available treatment that prevents the amputation of the so-called “diabetic foot.” Medication until recently unavailable in the US due to the siege of Cuba, usually referred to as “embargo.”

Therefore, the European “crocodiles” reflect the crass negation of factual reality, or rather an Orwellian reality inspired by the tenets of post-democracy, post-truth, post-mathematics and even post-statistics, as the recent, uniform and unanimous Clinton-the-winner polls by mainstream media and academia demonstrate.

Yet, by an unexpected turn of history, the Cuban revolution has meanings as relevant today as in the late 1950s. For the revolution aimed both at social reforms and national independence. Nor the reforms could have been possible without independence. For the presence of “the few who had all” and “the all who had nought” was inherently linked to the neo-colonial (today re-baptized neo-liberal) policy of the effective, de-facto imperial ruler, 90 miles away.

Just as today, allowing for a change in times and circumstances, we can consider the so-called “European Union” as a kind of pre-Castro territory ruled by the United States, via its perennial proxies, much as Latin America had always been, barring recent exceptions. Meaning that there can be no reforms without returning to national independence.

The US elites assumed that Castro’s revolution would result in a minimal restructure of the Cuban administration, leaving untouched the massive inequalities, the immense private land-holdings, the state of servitude and the bordello-economy (even portrayed by Hollywood). In other words, an orange-revolution to strengthen a banana republic – a structure held together by American interests, and by the military, when necessary, as in all other Latin American countries.

But “in the reproof of chance lies the true proof of men.” (2) Incredulous, bewildered and amazed with wonder at the turn of Cuban events, the US leadership developed the thesis that the Cuban revolution would die if they killed Fidel. And following his death, the hated socialism would collapse like a house of cards. As a keen commentator noted, the thesis was also a way to exorcize the unthinkable idea that a socially-inspired government could exist at a short distance from the imperial coast, and in the conditions created and imposed by the embargo.

The US elite could not accept, let alone explain the popular consensus of the Cuban people for and towards Fidel Castro. Who can forget the images of Revolution Square in Havana, filled to the brim by people intently listening to Fidel’s extended, eloquent and at times even amusing oratory?

Unable to create an ISIS before its times, the US engaged into a series of assassination attempts, that would even be laughable, were it not for the many people who died in the process.

“That he should die is worthy policy;
But yet we want a colour for his death”
(3)

Or so they thought, when they staged the Bay of Pigs invasion, supposedly attempted by “revolutionaries” in the payroll of the CIA. Invasion that also showed, after the fact, the lengths to which the parties responsible for the fiasco went, to cover their asses.

Nor we should forget Operation Northwood, intended to sink an American ship, kill American citizens on the mainland, and accuse Castro of the crimes. As we know, Kennedy rejected the program and it may have contributed to his assassination. Which, by extension, should also tell us some something about who did 9/11 and about the elephant in the room, that apparently no one in charge can see.

Much has been made by the Western media and governments that Castro stifled dissent. I remember clearly the words of Castro on the subject. We do not mind – he said – do not condemn or regret people who complain about this or that aspect of the government, because it is their government after all. But we cannot accept those people who are paid and financed by our enemies to work against our government.

After the experience of Ukraine (“We spent 5 billion $ to turn Ukraine into a “democracy” – said Victoria, f…k-the-Europeans, Nuland), who could still criticize Castro for his position on the issue?

He was accused of being a communist and a Russian ally. He actually wasn’t until the empire tried the Bay of Pigs invasion. The missile crisis, as we know, was both a result of the Bay of Pigs attempted invasion and of the US installation in Turkey of nuclear missiles aimed at the USSR.

Besides, the most recent historical developments have amply proven that communism was a convenient flag under which to conceal an inherent US-Western Russophobia, as evident in the current posture, political and military towards Russia, by the US and its minions. For a review of this subject see http://thesaker.is/the-ancient-spiritual-roots-of-russophobia/

Against Castro the US cabal tried it all and all was unsuccessfull. Eventually, they hoped that the fall of the USSR would lead to the fall of Cuba. They even had Pope Woytila visiting Havana, hoping that he would create there another Poland. Instead, he almost obtained the opposite effect. Contrary to relentless propaganda, Castro did not repress religion. But, as he expressed publicly to the Pope, the Catholic hierarchy, notably at the onset of the revolution sided with the oppressors, with the bordello keepers and the casino holders. Opposition to certain religious leaders does not mean opposition to religion, said Castro. Woytila was forced to declare, however platonically, against the embargo.

Still unable to explain the success of the Cuban revolution, some mainstream media pundits have now produced another theory. It was the very embargo that kept alive the Cuban regime.

Yet, these late hour explanations, the pleasure displayed at Castro’s death or the reflections on his regime are anachronistic. The system that for 60 years lay siege on Cuba and tried to kill her leader, seems to be sinking in its own contradictions, after the millions it killed worldwide and the commission of seemingly endless unspeakable crimes. A system so much depraved that the best it could produce for the world was a Clinton and a Trump. Along with the promise of new brothels, new oligarchs, new monopolists of consumerism and new XXI century Batistas. Which should be sufficient evidence that “something is rotten in the state of imperialism and neo-liberal economics.” (4)

While in Europe, a massively parasitic European parliament wants to censure (read ‘block’) politically unpalatable Internet channels. Perhaps it has not yet sunk into the minds of these people that the official media is but a sewer of lies and deception. And that for one censored site, uncounted more are ready to take over.

It was historically only yesterday when there was, effectively, only one media, with one message and one ideology. Other voices were unheard, for they were inaudible. And criticism was confined to metaphorically saying, “It is not nor it cannot come to good: but break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.’ (5)

Nevertheless, it is still true that,

“…. Nor stony tower, nor walls of beaten brass,
Nor airless dungeon, nor strong links of iron,
Can be retentive to the strength of spirit”
(6)

… the spirit that now is heard at large through the miracle of expanded electronic communications.

I will close by citing verbatim the homage to Fidel by George Galloway.

“Fidel Castro did not die. He is not dead, he lives-on in all of us and in the lives of our children, even though as yet unborn. And that is why these gold-tooth, scar faces are dancing in Miami today, because they think that they will be going be back to business as it was before.
The greatest legacy of Fidel Castro is that Cuba will never ever again be anybody’s casino, anybody’s bordello. It is a free country, thanks to the Cuban revolution and its leader Fidel Castro, one of the greatest human beings who ever lived, who ever walked this earth.
We were privileged to live in his era. Some of us were privileged to be his comrade and friend and to spend many hours with him.
He is not gone. Hasta la victoria siempre, Comandante Fidel Castro! Presente!”

  1. Hamlet
  2. Troilus and Cressida
  3. King Henry VI, part 2
  4. after Hamlet
  5. Hamlet
  6. Julius Caesar

In the play (opening quote). Hamlet’s comment on his father, slain by Hamlet’s uncle Claudius.

Comment – Politicizing human sufferings in Syria

Related Posts

 

‘The Killing$ of Tony Blair’ – A movie

Rehmat

077d7960[1]On the weekend, at the premier of The Killing$ of Tony Blair – George Gallowy, former British MP and producer-director of the film was joined by former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, and Tony Blair’s Muslim sister-in-law Lauren Booth. The movie, which cost little over two million dollars, is based on the political career of former British prime minister Tony Blair’s (1997-2007).

George Galloway called Tony Blair a mere symptom of the West’s wider malaise – an economic system run by and for the super-rich during his narration of the movie.

The movie exposes Tony Blair as one of the greatest ‘Merchants of Death’ of the last century as prime minister of United Kingdom and later as consultant to butchers who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kosova, Bosnia, Somalia and the occupied Palestine. He allegedly makes $5 million per year for running war campaigns around the world. Blair’s ‘Vision 2035’ received $42.6 million fee from Kuwait royal family as PR fee.

The movie (watch a short slide below) comes in the wake of the Chilcot report into the Iraq war, which condemned Blair’s invasion of the country. The report found Blair’s government presented evidence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction “with a certainty that was not justified” and troops were sent in before all peaceful options had been exhausted. The report also found that Blair urged his US counterpart George Bush to “act now and explain and justify later”.

As expected, the Jewish-controlled British media instead of discussing the contents of the movie – used most of its ink in demonizing George Galloway and Lauren Booth for their support for Palestinian rights, and their appearance on Iran’s Press TV.

Last year, the European Organized Jewry in appreciation for Tony Blair helping United States to destroy Israel’s Arab enemy, appointed Tony Blair as a Watchdog to fight the “rising” antisemitism in Europe.

In 2011, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found both Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals for their part in waging war on Iraq in 2003.

Read six reviews of the 95-minutes movie here.

Interestingly Jewish professor Norman Pollack (Michigan State University) compared Sen. Bernie Sanders with Tony Blair.

Like Blair, Sanders is a pathetic lapdog, settling cozily into the lap of Clinton, Harridan of War and Militarism, Whoremonger of Wall Street, Ambition-Driven Power-Seeker,” Pollack posted at Counterpunch on July 27, 2016.

The Killings of Tony Blair

Watch the trailer for George Galloway’s film about the former Bitish  PM

 

Galloway: Antisemitism and Islamophobia

Antisemitism And Zionism are Two Faces of the Same Coin

Anti-Zionism is NOT Antisemitism

 

Comment – Britain & EU: A separation

Britons have headed to the polls in a much-anticipated referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union (EU) or leave the 28-member bloc.

Separately, Bahrain’s interior ministry has accused the country’s most prominent Shia cleric of seeking the “creation of a sectarian environment” through alleged connections with foreign powers.

Tony Blair: Arabs are ready to recognize Israel

Rehmat

On May 24, UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair spoke to Bronwen Maddox, editor-in-chief London-based Jewish monthly Prospect magazine. He said that Arab regimes are ready to establish diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv if Israeli regime accept the “2002 Saudi Initiative” – proposing that if Israel withdraw its occupation forces from the West Bank and Gaza, and recognize ‘Palestinians Right of Return’ – 22 member states of the Arab League wouldn’t mind foreign Jews occupying more than 80% of the historic Palestine.

With the new leadership in the region, today that is possible,” Blair said, citing Egyptian President Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Crypto-Jew.

Things have changed a lot since 2002. Saudi ‘royals’ have been spotted sleeping inside Israeli bed lately from being scared of rising Iranian influence in the region. Egypt and Jordan have already established diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity. However, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq have stuck in Riyadh throat as they have joined Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’ against Israel and its allies.

Interestingly, in August 2015, former US president Jimmy Carter told  Bronwen Maddox that there was ZERO chance of the so-called Two-state solution as long as Netanyahu is in power.

Last week, Gen. al-Sisi called on Israeli officials and the Palestinians to groups what he termed a “real opportunity” for peace, since Netanyahu appointed Russian-born extremist Jew Avigdor Lieberman as entity’s new defense minister to replace Gen. Moshe ‘Bogie’ Ya’alon.

Blair was referring to latest France Jewish government’s proposed “Peace Talks” between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas whose mandate as president of Palestinian Authority expired in January 2009. None of the so-called “Peace Talks” arranged by the US or EU in the past involved Palestinians’ elected government of Hamas in Gaza. The French offer to attend the meeting in Paris was rejected by Netanyahu on Monday for the second time.

Tony Blair also touched on US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, saying it’s because of “misunderstanding”, which resulted in the failure of “Mission Accomplished”. The Shi’ite regimes installed by the US occupation forces to replace Saddam Hussein have turned out to be more pro-Iran, and anti-Israel.

Democrat presidential hopeful, Bernie Sanders, has acknowledged that he was against removal of Saddam Hussein because he feared that his removal would bring Iranian threat closer to Israeli borders.

Blair also predicted that under Jeremy Corbyn leadership, Labour party has a very slim chance to win majority in 2020.

Tony Blair who has made tens of millions of dollars by lobbying for dictators and foreign butchers was convicted of ‘War Crimes’ by an International Court on War Crimes in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) in 2013. Former MP George Galloway has called Tony Blair a “War Criminal”, (Listen to him below).

Now, Jeremy Corbyn is planning to investigate Tony Blair for ‘War Crimes’ based on the Chilcot Report. The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will publish a 2.6 million-word report on July 6, following seven years of analyzing evidence about how the British government acted before the invasion of Iraq and during the war.

Tony Blair’s Israeli-butts-licking has paid off in a new field. He is the new chairman of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a watchdog to monitor antisemitism and delegitimization of Israel.

The Prospect magazine was founded by British Jewish journalist and author Sir David Goodhart, who acted magazine’s first editor-in-chief also.

George Galloway says Ken Livingstone should not be suspended over ‘historic facts’ about Hitler and Zionism

George Galloway says Ken Livingstone should not be suspended over ‘historic facts’ about Hitler and Zionism

‘They’re trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there’s a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn’

George Galloway has defended Ken Livingstone’s comments that Hitler supported Zionism as “historical fact” but criticised them as poorly judged.

The former Labour MP said scholars are agreed that Zionist leaders in Germany and the Nazi Chancellor signed an agreement to send German Jews to Palestine.

While Mr Galloway admitted the statement was poorly timed and worded, he added that Jeremy Corbyn should not have been pushed to suspend Mr Livingstone from Labour – and accused a core of its members of orchestrating a “coup” against their leader.

This is an entirely synthetic crisis,” he said. “Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong, everything he said was the truth, historic fact, proven.

“There was an agreement between the Nazi filth of Hitler and the Zionist leaders in Germany to send Germany’s Jews to Palestine, because both of them believed that German Jews were not Germans […]

“So in that sense, Nazism and Zionism were two sides of the same coin.”

Mr Galloway said this Havaara agreement between Hitler and the German Zionists was well-documented by German, Israeli and Jewish scholars.

Yet while Mr Livingstone’s delivery was “ill-judged” he could not be accused of anti-semitism, said Mr Galloway.

“Now should Ken Livingstone have gone around the studio saying that? I think not. I wouldn’t have, neither on timing nor would I have used the words and imagery he used,” he said.

“But […] Ken Livingstone’s entire life has been spent fighting racism. In fact, he’d still be Labour mayor of London if he hadn’t gone so out on a limb to help ethnic minorities.”

ken-livingstone-rex.jpeg

Ken Livingstone campaigning to be Mayor of London, which he was from 2000 to 2008. He established anti-racism campaigns while in the capital (Rex Features)

While Mayor of London, Mr Livingstone launched anti-racism campaigns and spoke out against Islamophobia. He has been accused before of antisemitism.

Mr Galloway concluded that Sadiq Khan and John Mann were part of a “coup” to destabilise Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

“They’re trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there’s a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn […]

“They will say with all this chaos, we can’t go on like this, we need a new leader.”

Mr Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 over allegations of party disloyalty over the Iraq war, which he opposed.

Identity Politics, Racism and Confusion

April 17, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Ian Donovan seems to be the last thinking man in the Left. I occasionally disagree with some of his ideas. However, unlike most of the people who associate themselves with that political decaying club, Donovan seems to engage in a consistent and rigorous analysis. The following is a good review of the Jews/Left current state of affairs.

 

 

Source: https://socialistfight.com/2016/04/17/identity-politics-racism-and-confusion/

By Ian Donovan

The idea that Tony Greenstein, the Jewish leftist in Brighton recently suspended from the Labour Party apparently for ‘anti-semitism’, has to prove that he is not ‘anti-semitic’ should be just absurd. It is a sign of the irrationality and demented character of the political atmosphere in and around the Labour Party, with the party leadership under extreme pressure from Zionist witchhunters, that a long time Jewish left-wing activist like Greenstein should feel obliged to ‘prove’ he is not an anti-Jewish racist.

One wonders how many black members of the Labour Party face suspension expulsion for anti-black racism, or how many of Chinese heritage face suspension for anti-Chinese bigotry? If there were such, it would make the Labour Party into the butt of stand-up comedy, not of serious political controversy. The fact that this can even be conceived in Labour is only due to the irrational nonsense peddled by Zionist racists within and without the Labour Party, that those who fail to support the Zionist project are motivated by anti-semitism (anti-Jewish racism), and that those Jews who do this are ‘self-hating Jews’. But in the absence of oppression, allegations of ‘self-hatred’ (which if it existed would simply stem from internalised oppression) are themselves a racist slur, denying the right of people of Jewish origin to choose a non-Zionist form of Jewish identity, or even to reject Jewish identity altogether, as ways to oppose the virulently racist form of ‘Jewishness’ embodied in political Zionism.

The latter accusation shows the far right, racist character of Zionism even in the Labourite context, as the ‘self-hater’ epithet, also sometimes rendered as ‘Jewish anti-semite’, is identical to the epithet ‘race traitor’ used by the white far right in the main imperialist countries. It really shows that Zionists constitute a far-right fifth column in the Labour Party, as an agency of a racist state whose followers would be quite prepared to act as instigators of the same kind of fascist-like repression against workers organisations that Israel does against Palestinians in the Middle East if they felt it necessary.

We in Socialist Fight are ourselves facing blood libels from Zionists; our Marxist analysis of the Jewish question and Zionism today has been portrayed as akin to Nazism by bourgeois commentators and some on the so-called ‘far left’ have either joined in with this rubbish, or vacillated wildly in the face of the pressure from the bourgeoisie and the Zionists. We continue to demand all the socialist and Marxist left in and around the Labour Party engage in a principled United Front to defend each other from the right-wing and the Zionists, in which all tendencies stand together on the principle that ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’, while retaining full freedom of debate.

A Jewish supporter of Socialist Fight provided us with a pretty sharp commentary on the nonsense being thrown at SF and others by all kinds of Zionists and capitulators to it. She wrote

“It seems to me although you are not Anti-Semitic (not all Jews are Semitic although I am) most of your critics are whether in a blatant or covert way. Do they actually know that Israel is an artificial concept? I have been called a self-hating Jew many times on what evidence I do not know. However once again I would like to say you are defined a Jew if:

“1. You have a Jewish mother. This does not make you a Semite as a considerable amount of East Europeans converted to the Jewish religion.
2. If you convert this of course does not make you a Semite.

“As many Muslims are Semitic surely that makes the Zionists anti-Semitic. So using Zionist logic I, a Semite who supports my Palestinian cousins who are also Semite, am anti-Semitic. However Zionists of all stripes who may and often are not Semites but support the state of Israel in whatever they do legal or illegal cannot be anti-Semitic. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.”

 

If it is absurd for Tony Greenstein to have to prove he is not anti-semitic, it is just as absurd for the Israeli-Jewish-born Jazz Saxophonist Gilad Atzmon to have to prove such either. Neither of them would have to prove any such thing in a rational world, since both of them have similar ethnic origins – they are both Jewish by birth. Its only in the world of the Zionist-dominated body politic that we live under that people of Jewish origin have to prove that they are not anti-semitic, i.e. that they do not hate their own people purely for the ethnic origins that they share. In fact, by sleight of hand, the Zionists have expanded the definition of ‘anti-semitism’ so that you do not have to hate people of Jewish origin in general to be so accused. It’s enough to express disgust at Zionist crimes, or attempt to analyse the way Zionists organise politically to stamp on opposition to those crimes, to be accused of ‘anti-semitism’ today. This does have the effect of devaluing the meaning of the term.

Tony Greenstein, in trying to prove that he is not anti-semitic, i.e. that he is not a witch to the Labour Zionist witchhunters, has flip-flopped (not for the first time) over the long contentious issue of Gilad Atzmon, Previously, in the course of some uncharacteristically fraternal debates with Socialist Fight, where he repeated his usual nonsense about ‘anti-semitism’, he had in a sly but somewhat ‘soft’ tweet intimated that he did not consider either ourselves or Atzmon to be Jew-haters in a personal sense. At the time he was trying to reconcile the obvious fact that Socialist Fight comrades are active and militant anti-racists with the elements of genuine anti-Zionism that we share with Atzmon – the willingness to analyse, criticise and expose the international dimension of Zionism. He believes that to believe that Zionism is a Jewish bourgeois international movement is to be ‘anti-semitic’, yet we are obviously not racists at all; anyone who knows us or is not blinded by class or race prejudices can see that. So he looked for a way to resolve this contradiction in his own ideology and came up with this in the course of a Twitter exchange with me:

 

He was obviously getting carried away by the objective need in this situation for a United Front of those anti-Zionist socialists under the gun of the Zionists, feeling the pressure enough to deviate somewhat from his previously virulent hostility to Socialist Fight, and Gerry Downing and myself in particular. Which is why he tweeted this at me as part of a reasonably political exchange.

Unfortunately, this tangled him up in some pretty acute contradictions given his decade-long campaign to ostracise Atzmon from the left, but also to vilify anyone else in the left who did not join in his anathema. The sophistry involved with Enoch Powell in the above tweet is pretty transparent. Blacks and Asians who have suffered from racial abuse and violence from Powell supporters would probably regard the idea that Powell was not personally racist as absurd and somewhat offensive. Tony is not stupid, he knows that this is a fig-leaf that no-one honest will take seriously (see my deconstruction of this in my recent article Zionism’s International Dimension: Revolutionary Strategy).

But Greenstein does not have a settled position on Atzmon, just a gut antipathy that does not have a coherent theory behind it. This is why his writings are so full of bluster and contradiction when this comes up. He has now received help from the Zionist blogger BobFromBrockley, who helpfully provided him with a tweet Atzmon sent in 2014, in response to some Zionist twitter warrior.

 

According to Bob from Brockley, this tweet is suppposed to prove that Atzmon is a racial anti-semite, that he hates all Jews for racist reasons, which is really the implied meaning of any allegation of anti-semitism.

But though it looks bad at first sight, and is certainly a foolish and self-defamatory thing to tweet, something does not add up about the allegation that it represents ‘racist’ anti-semitism. The obvious point is the phrase ‘I am not a Jew anymore’. No ‘racial’ anti-semite could ever say that or believe that. It would as absurd as to say ‘I am not a black person’ any more. That is not the way the world works. You cannot change your ethnic origin any more than you can change your skin colour. Nor is there any suggestion that this is about the Jewish religion, Atzmon is not markedly either religious or anti-religious and is not hostile to anti-Zionist religious Jews. In fact, he has more regard for them than he does for many anti-Zionist secular Jews.

Twitter is a notoriously difficult medium to communicate nuance. It does appear that this tweet was simply a response in a heated exchange to a noxious Zionist troll who was subsequently suspended from Twitter for threatening violence against George Galloway. Who of course had been beaten badly by an ultra-Zionist thug only a few months earlier. I doubt that would bother Bob From Brockley much. But I am sure it would bother Tony Greenstein.

 

The tweets of OnePoundOne are no longer available, as his account was suspended as a result of these threats. But it seems obvious that if such a odious person as this had malevolently purported to appeal to Atzmon as a “fellow Jew”, he would likely have received a pungent response like this. All this really means is that Twitter is extraordinarily easy to quote out of context.

I commented on what is behind this kind of verbiage from Atzmon a while ago on the Socialist Unity blog, when I wrote:

“He divides Jews into three categories: religious Jews, people simply of Jewish origin, and people who regard their Jewishness as a political identity. These are not mutually exclusive, but they are separate and separable strands. He says his materials are actually only criticisms of the third strand or category.”

“He does tend to use ‘Jew’, ‘Jewish’ and ‘Jewishness’ too freely as shorthand for the third strand, which causes confusion and makes it easy to misunderstand him and/or quote him out of context. He seems to enjoy the heated arguments that result from such things, which is a flaw in my opinion, and sometimes generates more heat than light.”
(http://socialistunity.com/campaign-demonisation-george-galloway-constitutes-incitement/#comment-700318)

This was another example of the left’s inability to deal with Atzmon and people like him, and to get their heads around the fact that thanks to the sheer barbarism of Israel’s crimes, there are now people of Jewish origin who are so disgusted by being involuntarily associated with them that they express extreme disgust at being born and brought up Jewish. This thread was supposedly defending George Galloway from his Zionist tormentors on Question Time. I was excluded from SU by Socialist Unity’s erratic honcho Andy Newman for agreeing with Galloway’s defence of and sympathetic interview with Atzmon on Sputnik. The irony of this is incredible. If Galloway had posted comments defending his defence of Atzmon in a thread supposedly defending Galloway, he would logically have been excluded too!

One might wish Gilad Atzmon would be more careful in his use of language. But from his standpoint, since he is of Jewish origin anyway, he does not see the need.

Atzmon shares much with Shlomo Sand on the substance of this, though not in style. Sand wrote last year:

“How, in these conditions, can individuals who are not religious believers but simply humanists, democrats and liberals, and endowed with a minimum of honesty, continue to define themselves as Jews? In these conditions, can the descendants of the persecuted let themselves be embraced in the tribe of new secular Jews who see Israel as their exclusive property? Is not the very act of defining yourself as a Jew an act of affiliation to a privileged caste which creates intolerable injustices around itself?” (How I Stopped Being a Jew, 2015 p87)”

 

Atzmon’s version of this is somewhat similar, as revealed recently in an article criticising the politics of Michael Rosen, another leftist of Jewish origin who insists on ‘self-identifying’ as Jewish in a political, not merely an ethnic sense. Rosen produced a short posting on ‘anti-semitism’ in the Labour Party, demanding a ‘strong united left’ to ‘protect’ Jews from anti-semitism:

“Anti-semites would identify me as Jewish. (I self-identify that way too, but let’s leave that to one side for the moment).

“Given that’s what anti-semites do, on occasions I have to ask myself, who I would turn to for assistance in the case of unwarranted attacks, persecution, harassment or pogroms?” (cited athttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/9/michael-rosen-and-the-kosher-san)

Atzmon’s response is pungent, but it does clarify exactly what he rejects about “Jewishness” on the one hand, and what he does not and cannot reject:

“According to Rosen, anti Semites will identify him as Jewish, then in the same line, he writes that he “self-identif[ies] that way too.”  So according to Rosen, the anti Semites are actually correct in identifying Rosen as what he is, that is, a Jew

“But Rosen then claims that those who identify him as what he declares himself to be are anti Semites. I wonder, since Rosen identifies himself as a Jew, how does he know that he isn’t himself an anti Semite? Are there some criteria?

“Rosen’s Jewishness is an odd entitlement. He is entitled to identify as a Jew while the rest of us are advised that identifying him as such turns us into ‘hate mongers.’

“In my writing I delve into Jewish Pre TSD. Jews are often tormented by a phantasmic traumatic event set in the future. No one exemplifies this  mental condition better than the Jewish poet. ‘I have to ask myself, who would I turn to for assistance in the case of unwarranted attacks, persecution, harassment or pogroms?’ What persecution, what pogroms, Mr. Rosen? You are one of Britain most beloved children’s poets. You are not a Syrian refugee, no one calls to kick you out of the country.  You are not the oppressed. Why do you feel the need to prepare for a pogrom? Is it guilt on your part? Are you hiding something?

“Let me tell you, Mr. Rosen, none of my Jewish friends are afraid of pogroms or ‘unwarranted attacks.’ In the eyes of the so called ‘anti Semites’ I should be seen as a Jew, my kids are also ethnically Jewish and yet, the fear that you describe in your statement is totally foreign to us. We are free of fear. We enjoy our lives, we listen to music, we love each other and pray for peace. What we don’t do is imagine the next pogrom. Is it because we do not identify politically as Jews?” (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/9/michael-rosen-and-the-kosher-san)

 

rosen.jpg

This is very clarificatory about the substance of the debate between Atzmon and his left-wing, non-Zionist Jewish critics is about. It is not about ‘race’ or anything like it. It is rather about whether a progressive, non-Zionist non-religious Jewish identity is possible or even desirable. The heated conflict between Atzmon and his critics is mainly because he answers”No” to that question. It is a heresy hunt, in other words.

It is perfectly natural for those concerned with humanism and the like to find detestable something that ‘creates intolerable injustices around itself” in Sand’s words. Whether this is the correct political response is a subject for debate according to the norms of democracy that are part of the best traditions of the workers movement. What people like BobFromBrockley, who support the kind of ‘intolerable injustices’ Sand is talking about, have to say about this is less clear. Such people are hostile to workers democracy for opponents of Zionism. Greenstein, and people like him, who want to keep one foot in each camp over such democratic questions, are sooner or later going to have to make a choice.

We as Marxists do not take a definitive position on this. In our view, there is nothing inherently either good or bad about Jewish identity. Just as there is nothing inherently good or bad about being gay or lesbian, or identifying with any national or ethnic group. What we are for is freedom to choose, and opposing all discrimination and oppression not only against those who embody or embrace a particular identity, but also against those who reject such, provided they do not seek to violate the rights of others. This is separate from the question of Zionism, which is a racist project that oppresses the Palestinians and must be opposed down the line. The heresy hunt against Atzmon and the attempt to bully the left into ostracising him and those who are influenced by him is something we oppose tooth and nail because of our commitment to workers democracy and the right to free inquiry into questions of identity and related matters.

Galloway: Who fights Daesh كلمة حرة | من يقاتل داعش ؟

كلمة حرة | من يقاتل داعش ؟

The Story of Hassan by George Galloway VS Arabiya Story

George Galloway: On Sayyed Hassan  and Nasrallah

 

The Story of Hassan: Arabiya

«حكاية حسن» على «العربيّة»: «أرادوا أن يذمّوه.. فمدحوه»

علاء حلبي 

على مدار أربعة أيام كثّفت قناة «العربيّة» عرض إعلان ترويجي لما قالت إنه وثائقي بعنوان «حكاية حسن». ذكر في الإعلان أن الوثائقي يروي حكاية الأمين العام لـ «حزب الله» السيد حسن نصرالله وتفاصيل «رحلة صنعت كيانًا خطف دولة». لاقى الترويج أصداء واسعة على مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي، وسرعان ما تحوّلت الضجّة إلى «نكسة»، بعد عرض الشريط مساء الخميس الماضي، فانهالت الشتائم على القناة حتّى من متابعيها ومؤيديها.

على امتداد 22 دقيقة، عرضت «العربيّة» مقتطفات من خطابات السيد نصرالله، وتعليقات مأخوذة من برامج عرضتها قنوات فضائية لا تقدم أي إضافة. فكان الوثائقي أشبه بعملية بحثٍ في موقع «يوتيوب»، مع مونتاج سريع يلصق أشرطة مصوّرة من دون تسلسل زمني أو توجّه واضح. يفصل بين الفيديوهات سردٌ تاريخي مطوّل ومشاهد من الحرب الأهلية في لبنان أو مقتطفات من برامج منوعة.

عرّفت القناة السعودية ما قدّمته على أنه «وثائقي يسرد سيرة الأمين العام لحزب الله حسن نصر الله من خلال سيرتيه الذاتية والسياسية وعبر الكلمات والخطب التي أطلقها على المنابر»، وتابعت في تعريفها «يأخذ الوثائقي المشاهد إلى مسقط عائلة نصرالله وولادة الابن البكر في حي «الكرنتينا»، شرق بيروت، وسفره إلى النجف للدراسة الدينية وعودته إلى لبنان. ثم كيف باشر حياته السياسية ضمن صفوف حركة «أمل» في منطقة البقاع، ومن ثم انشقاقه عن الحركة مع مجموعة من الكوادر والبدء في تأسيس «حزب الله» بدعم مباشر من إيران. كما يغطي الفيلم جميع المراحل والحروب التي خاضها حزب الله بقيادة نصر الله، من الانسحاب الإسرائيلي من لبنان إلى اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني رفيق الحريري، فدخول الحزب في حرب تموز وتدخله في الحرب السورية وسيطرته على مرافق السياسة العامة في لبنان».
من يقرأ تعريف القناة يخال له أنه سيشاهد وثائقيًا مدروسًا يستخلص سيرة نصرالله الذاتية من خلال خطابته، إلا أن ما عرض لا يمت للتعريف بصلة، ولا يمكن نقده فنيًا أو تاريخيًا، لأنه لم يقدم أي محتوى يمكن الاستناد إليه. ولا يمكن تصنيفه وثائقيًا حتى في معايير صناعة الافلام الوثائقية عند الهواة.

خلال السرد التاريخي في الشريط، تمرّ لقطات من الحرب الأهلية اللبنانيّة تمتدّ لأكثر من دقيقتين من دون أي مبرر. وفي جزء آخر، يستعان بلقطات من حلقة «لعبة الأمم»، التي عرضت في شهر آذار من العام 2015 على قناة «الميادين»، يروي خلالها مستشار الرئيس الراحل رفيق الحريري حكاية تعليق الحريري على حذاء نصرالله، حيث نصحه حينها بارتداء حذاء طبي.

كذلك أقحمت القناة لقطات للملاكم اللبناني محمد علي دياب عندما رفع علم حزب الله خلال إحدى البطولات في بريطانيا على وقع أغنية شعبية. واسترسلت في عرض لقطات لشابٍ يبكي فرحًا بعد ظهور نصرالله في خطاب جماهيري. إضافة إلى لقطة للمغنية هيفاء وهبي خلال مشاركتها في أحد البرامج الحوارية وهي تقول إنها تحب السيد نصرالله. كل هذه المقاطع وضعت من دون أي ترابط بين الفقرات أو حتى التمهيد. يبدو أن القناة السعودية حاولت أن تبحث عن تناقضات في خطابات نصرالله أو تسخر منه عبر اللقطات المنوّعة، إلا أنها استعاضت عن «التناقضات» بلقطات مقتطعة من الخطابات وركّبت اللقطات الساخرة بشكل سيء، فلم تنجح في المحاولتين.

فشل القناة في تحقيق آمال متابعيها المتشوّقين لكشف «خبايا حزب الله» قلب الطاولة عليها، فانهالت آلاف التعليقات الغاضبة من متابعي القناة على مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي مقرونة بوسم «حكاية حسن». اتّهم البعض القناة بـ «تلميع صورة نصرالله»، في حين كتب آخرون ان «سحر القناة انقلب عليها»، وتسائل أحد المغرّدين هل يطيح الفيلم بتركي الدخيل؟ (مدير القناة)»، فيما علّق آخر: «أرادوا أن يذمّوه فمدحوه».





George Galloway. Arabs need to unite. Differences being exploited by the west

George Galloway. Arabs need to unite

US in bed with Al Qaeda George Galloway

JVP, BDS and Jewish Liberal Terror

June 27, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

Following my expose of the JVP campaign against the great American patriot Alison Weir, I was approached by Berta Schwartz, an American JVP activist. Berta is obviously a pseudo name. As with Ned Rozenberg, our dissident Liberal Jews are fearful of their ‘progressive’ synagogues. Expressing their thoughts in the open may lead to their social exclusion and even excommunication. While orthodox Jews are fearful of God, our Liberal Jewish are actually terrorised by their friends.  Before publishing this interview Berta asked me to hide her name and disguise the location of her JVP chapter. I followed her request.

Berta Schwartz: What do you think the hypothetical Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza or the refugee camp you spoke about want and what do they want the world to do?

Gilad Atzmon: At present there are several different and sometimes contradictory Palestinian discourses of liberation, resistance and even collaboration. Hypothetically I would think that in Gaza they may want a day without drones, and the ability to move about free from fear of an Israeli sniper or missile; in the West Back they may wish to drive from A to B on a straight road. In Yarmuk they probably can’t even picture a different future. In Lod and Jaffa Palestinians demand civil rights. It is clear that Palestinians don’t necessarily agree amongst themselves on their goals. But far more interesting is that this division is sustained by Israeli policies and legislation.

Jewish domination of the Palestinian solidarity movement doesn’t help. Instead of fighting for the ‘Right of Return’ of the Palestinians that formerly united all Palestinians around a single ethos, the movement has been hobbled by convoluted terminology that is Judeo centric to the core. As I explain here, the new solidarity terminology (BDS, Colonialism, Apartheid, End of Occupation, etc.) is primarily concerned with the West Bank, because this is the only territory the liberal Jews directing the movement are interested in. In short, instead of a true solidarity movement concerned solely with Palestinian rights, the movement has devolved into an internal Jewish debate on ‘The Right to BDS’.

BS: If Palestinians put out a call for international BDS, why shouldn’t other people support this

 

GA: There is nothing wrong with the call to boycott or sanction Israel. My issues with the ‘BDS movement’ are simple. I differentiate between an artist and tomato. I believe in freedom of speech and I do not think that making the Palestinians into opponents of the 1st amendment is such a clever idea. As early as 2005, I predicted that BDS would become a thought policing apparatus and unfortunately, I was right. We have seen the BDS campaign against George Galloway, Norman Finkelstein, Ken O’Keefe, Silvia Cattori, Greta Berlin, Daniel Barenboim, Jacob Cohen, me, and other intellects. It has become clear that though the original principle of BDS is legitimate and may have helped the Palestinian cause, the movement is deeply corrupted. It now operates as a liberal Jewish thought policing apparatus. Norman Finkelstein was spot on describing it as a ‘cult.’

Another issue I have with BDS is that it changed its goal statement in a shameless clandestine manner. It compromised the most precious Palestinian principle – It developed into a proxy stamp for the Jewish State and I explain this transition here.

Other than that, I support all forms of sanctions and possible measures against Israel and its Jewish Lobby.

BS: Do you think BDS has any value at all? Political? Educational? Awareness? etc.?

GA: I am not an activist and not a great believer in activism. It is very clear that BDS has a tremendous ability to unite the Jews of both the so-called ‘pro’ and the ‘anti.’  It removes the debate concerning Palestine from the Palestinians and transforms it into an internal Jewish debate. Let me tell you… This is very good for the Jews. I suppose it is also good for the few Palestinians NGOs that are corrupted enough to accept money from liberal Zionist George Soros and his ilk.

BS: I read reports that Israeli officials and American Jewish organizations are fearful of the growing BDS movement and want to stop it. Do you think that is in an indication that it is a good strategy?

GA: As I say above, you are right, it proves beyond doubt that Israel and Hasbara are determined to make the ‘Right To BDS’ into its prime propaganda battle. So here we are again, instead of fighting for the ‘Palestinian’s Right of Return, we let a few Jews debate the ‘Right to BDS.’ Is that good for Palestine or is it good for the Jews?

 

My opinion is that the BDS marched into an Israeli ambush and its leadership was and is too naive to read the map and this is not surprising. Following the continuous BDS/JVP purge against intellectuals,  what remains of the solidarity movement  is a beheaded activist network that lacks the brain capacity to think strategically and tactically while being critical of itself. It is a recipe for a disaster.

BS: What activist or political strategy do you think would be effective to change things in the region?

GA: My job as a thinker is to refine the question rather than providing answers or agenda for ‘activists.’ I believe that when we are brave enough to face the meaning of the Jewishness of Israel and the power of Jewish politics, only then  we may be able to produce some different adequate answers. Rather than thinking  ‘activism’ we better stop and make sure we understand the ‘cause’. Is that such an outrageous suggestion? However, witnessing the current BDS/JVP’s purge  against Weir, Cohen, O’Keefe and myself, it is clear that our liberal  Jewish ‘allies’ are in a state of despair. They can’t conceal anymore their fear of the truth.

However, I believe that the Palestinians should liberate themselves, and our role is to back them up and support their resistance. At the moment we are doing the complete opposite. We invent some infantile ‘non violent’ imaginary tactics that only serve to make us to feel better at the expense of the Palestinians.

BS: Do you think that any activist organization with Jewish in their name is doomed to do only what is good for the Jews?

GA: It depends upon what we mean by the  ‘J word.’ Torah Jews see the Torah as the core of their humanist approach to the conflict. This is a legitimate call that I support and have praised through my entire career. However, the secular Jewish organizations such as IJAN, J-BIG and JVP are selling an ethno centric product. They celebrate Jewish exclusivism, their boards are purely Jewish and impervious to the notion of diversity they espouse. The Israeli Knesset, that has as its  3rd biggest party an Arab party, is far more diverse, pluralistic and tolerant than  JVP or any other Jewish progressive group.

BS: What about organizations in the US Civil Rights movement like Southern Christian Leadership Council or groups like Sabeel who are Christian – didn’t/don’t they do good work?

GA: We are tapping here into a big and crucial distinction between Jewishness that is a nationalist, ethno centric and is associated with a religion (Judaism) and Christianity that is merely a belief system. As I said above, there is no problem with Torah Jews applying their belief system to the conflict and its resolution. Similarly, there is no problem with Christians doing the same. However, I do have a problem with secular Jews who build an exclusive ideology that is centred around their imaginary racial broyjerhood. What would you think of Aryan Voice of Peace, or White Solidarity with Palestine? Will such groups be kosher in your eyes?

BS: Do you think that Jews in the US saying “Not in My Name” can provide any positive political change or be used strategically in any effective way to counter the Jews and others who support the large amounts US tax money going to Israel?

GA: ‘Not in my name’ is a banal escapist approach. It basically puts the blame on everyone else.  By saying not in my (Jewish) name you are conceding that the crimes in Israel are committed by the Jews and in their name. If this is what you want to achieve I can only congratulate you. I actually agree.

BS: I confess that I love Jewish food, music, literature, Yiddish, holidays, and I am so happy I have a culture as compared to so many Americans with Mc Donalds as their culture. Wouldn’t a world without cultures be just like one big Mc Donalds? Isn’t it good for people to be able to have different cultures?

GA: To start with, I respect your love for Jewish culture and food but you must accept that chicken soup is not exactly a political argument. Would you try to liberate the Palestinians with matzah balls?

I love to live in and to be a part of a multi cultural society. I certainly do not want to rob you of your culture and heritage. Perhaps the Jewish choosiness you celebrate in JVP is superior to ‘the culture of `McDonalds.’ So let me ask you, if it is ok for you to love your Jewish food, music, literature, and holidays, is it also kosher for Germans, Christians or even Wasps to love their food, music, literature and holidays? Would you be willing to accept that the love of your own culture could be a universal quality or is that a ‘Jew only domain’?  Can Whites love themselves? Can Dieudonne love himself being Black? I wonder, because the BDS movement excommunicated the prominent French writer Jacob Cohen for his association with Dieudonne.

I guess that by the time JVPs and liberal Jews are brave enough to address these questions they may be intellectually and morally mature to give up on Jewish exceptionalism and Join humanity for real.

Ziad and George Galloway – Why the US Wont Stop ISIS From Taking Over?

On May 17, ISIL ISIS Takfiri (US, Israeli, Saudi funded) terrorists took control of Ramadi after overrunning government troops.

Last week, the Iraqi army, backed by volunteer fighters known as the Popular Mobilization forces, launched a major offensive southwest of Samarra in an effort to retake Ramadi.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi says the advance of ISIL Takfiri terrorists in the region represents a “failure” for the whole world.

Anbar province is the major stronghold of the ISIL militants in Iraq. They also control parts of land in neighboring Syria.

Ziad Fadel from http://www.syrianperspective.com with George Galloway at 12:25


Read more  

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!

%d bloggers like this: