Moscow didn’t interfere in the UK election last year, and has no idea who tried to hack British pharma companies for Covid-19 vaccine data, the Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said.
“We have no information on who could’ve hacked the pharma companies and research centers in the UK. We can only say one thing – Russia has nothing to do with those attempts,” Peskov said.
“We reject these kind of accusations,” he added, referring to both the hacking and election meddling claims as “unsubstantiated.”
On Thursday, Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre said that hackers, who were allegedly backed by the Russian government, were trying to obtain Covid-19 vaccine data from academic and pharmaceutical institutions in the UK and around the globe.
Earlier in the day British Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab claimed that “it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 General Election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents.”
The leaked documents that surfaced online ahead of the December vote showed several rounds of trade talks between British and American representatives, during which the US side supposedly pushed for access to the National Health Service for high-priced American pharmaceutical companies, and to lower health and safety standards in the British food industry.
Raab didn’t mention any proof of how Russians were involved in spreading the word about the leak that embarrassed the government at the time, but he acknowledged that “there is no evidence of a broad-spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election.”
Contradictions in the words of the UK’s top diplomat were pointed out by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova. Raab’s statement “was so ambiguous and inconsistent that it was practically impossible to understand,” she said.
With London confirming that it has no proof against Russia, but still threatening retaliatory measures, “there’s a feeling that we have a new loop of the ‘highly likely’ tactics.”
“Highly likely” was the phrase used by then-UK Prime Minister Theresa May to blame Russia for the chemical poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury back in 2018. Two years later, London hasn’t provided any convincing evidence to back the claim.
Raab’s “almost certain” will apparently become the new go-to formula for the UK authorities, but the tactics of blaming Russia for internal problems in Britain will remain the same, Zakharova said.
The Russian Embassy in London called it a purely propagandist step, noting that it never received any notes of protest from the British parties regarding the hacking claims. As for Raab’s threats of retaliation, an embassy spokesman said that “any unfriendly steps towards Russia won’t be left without a proper and adequate response.”
The hacking claims were an attempt to “tarnish the reputation of the Russian vaccine” against the coronavirus, CEO of Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev said. Those behind the slur are “scared of [the vaccine’s] success because the Russian vaccine could potentially be the first on the market and it potentially could be the most effective,” he explained.
It’s no coincidence that those accusations were made just after the announcement that the state regulators will be approving the Russian vaccine in August, Dmitriev added. Besides, stealing data from the UK would have made no sense for Moscow, as a Russian firm, R-Pharm, will be producing the British vaccine made by Oxford-based AstraZeneca.
“No secrets are needed. Everything is already given to R-Pharm,” Dmitriev said.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
مشهد ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان في قمة العشرين في أوساكا اليابانية بدا مفبركاً، ومنفوخاً بآليات أميركية غربية ويابانية… دفعت بالإعلام الى التعامل «المتعمّد» معه، على شكل «زعيم محوري» يتناثر الذهب من عباءته. ولا يهتمّ إلا بأوضاع المرأة السعودية ونشر القيم والازدهار في العالم.
هكذا هي الدول الاستعمارية والصناعية على مدار التاريخ لا تتغيّر قيد أنملة.. وما يثير شبقها هو تراكم المال والثروات التي تنسف العلاقات الإنسانية والحق والخير والجمال، لمصلحة الاحتكار الاقتصادي الحصري…
لعل قضية إبن سلمان هي واحدة من عشرات آلاف الأدلة التي لا تحتاج الى تنقيب بحثي عميق يثبت إهمال الغرب أي علاقة حقيقية باستثناء بعض انحاء العالم الشمالي الذي يمارس ديموقراطية داخل بلدانه واستعماراً بغيضاً في ثلاثة أرباع الأرض.. وهذا بحد ذاته، مثيرٌ للدهشة والتعجب..
لقد بدت قمة اوساكا وكأنها منعقدة لسببين: تأمين قرارات بين قواها الكبرى تؤمن الفوز للرئيس الأميركي ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة في العام المقبل… وإعادة الاعتبار لإبن سلمان.
لجهة ترامب، يكفي أنه اتفق مع الرئيس الصيني على إعادة السماح للشركات الأميركية والعالمية بالشراء والتعامل مع شركة هواوي الصينية الضخمة مقابل شراء الصين منتجات زراعية أميركية حصرية، لا يجد أصحابها اسواق تصريف لها حتى أن ترامب بدا مزهواً وهو يقول إن هذا الاتفاق ينقذ الآلاف من صغار المزارعين الأميركيين الذين يشكون من كساد منتجاتهم… بما يندرج في إطار البحث الهادف عن أصوات الناخبين الأميركيين، وذوي الأصول الصينية في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية.
الطريف في هذا الاتفاق أنه قابل للنقض بآلاف الحجج والذرائع بعد انتهاء الانتخابات مباشرة، هذا بالإضافة الى أن مجمل المباحثات الأميركية مع روسيا واليابان واوروبا وبلدان أخرى التي انتهت كالعادة الى «استكمالها في أوقات أخرى»، إنما رمت إلى إثارة مناخ تهدئة على خلافات عميقة بهدف استثمار ترامب لها في الانتخابات المقبلة.
لكن السياسة الأميركية ـ الترامبية تجلّت على حقيقتها في قمة العشرين في اليابان بطريقة التعامل مع ولي العهد السعودي، فكان هناك تعمدٌ مقصودٌ بمنحه حيزاً كبيراً من الاهتمام الأميركي ـ الأوروبي الياباني الذي استتبع عناية روسية صينية مصرية به جذبت كامل البلدان الحاضرة.
حتى ظهر إبن سلمان نجماً ويسعى الحاضرون لكسب رضاه أم ذهبه، فالأمر سيان.
للتوضيح فقط، فإن ولي العهد متهم بقتل الصحافي جمال الخاشقجي في قنصلية بلاده السعودية في مدينة اسطنبول التركية وذلك بتقطيعه بالمناشير من قبل جهاز أمني سعودي تابع لولي العهد مباشرة.
أما السبب فهو معارضة الخاشقجي لسياسات إبن سلمان، فاستفاد من هذا الاغتيال فريقان: المعارضات الأميركية لترامب التي تبنّت اتهام ابن سلمان وطالبت بمحاكمته، إلى جانب بعض السياسات الأوروبية المتناقضة مع ترامب أيضاً، التي أرادت النيل من الرئيس الأميركي من خلال إدانة صديقه ابن سلمان بقتل الخاشقجي.
الأتراك بدورهم اعتبروا الاغتيال على أراضيهم فرصة للنيل من مكانة السعودية في العالمين العربي والأسلامي.. فبدأوا يحلمون بتدهور الموقع السعودي لمصلحة صعود دور تركي على متن الاخوان المسلمين… وهم مستمرون على هذه الخطة التي تتراجع مع أحلام الرئيس التركي اردوغان الذي خسر الانتخابات البلدية في أربع مدن تركية كبرى بينها اسطنبول.
هذه التداعيات جعلت محمد بن سلمان يحضر قمة العشرين السابقة في 2018 بشكل هزيل جداً، ظهر المشاركون فيها وكأنهم ينفرون منه متجنّبين التخاطب معه، حتى أنه وجد مكاناً منعزلاً في آخر القاعة ليأخذ مع بقية أعضاء القمة الصورة الختامية التذكارية، وكان ولي العهد معزولاً في المدة الأخيرة ومتهماً من الجميع تقريباً بالقتل باستثناء ترامب وإدارته، ما استتبع تراجعاً كبيراً في الدور السعودي عموماً.
وفجأة عاود بن سلمان احتلال موقع قوي في قمة العشرين الحالية، عاقداً عشرات اللقاءات الجانبية مع رؤساء الدول الكبرى في أميركا والصين وروسيا واليابان ودول أوروبا وغيرها وسط اهتمام إعلامي مسبوق. وبدت تركيا وحيدة شبه منعزلة في الاستمرار باتهامه.
ماذا يجري؟
إن إعادة نفخ إبن سلمان تواكبت مع اتهامات جديدة ودقيقة قدّمتها المحققة الأممية كالامارد، اتهمت فيه ابن سلمان بمقتل الخاشقجي، ما أعاد القضية إلى دائرة الضوء الشديد فرجعت الاتهامات كما كانت قبل عام… وهنا تكمن الحنكة، فبدلاً من أن يعود إبن سلمان الى التواري والانسحاب التمويهي من دائرة السياسة الدولية، كما فعل سابقاً فإذا به يسفر عن كامل وجهه متألقاً أكثر من حجم بلاده في قمة العشرين.
وهذا يؤكد أن هناك مشروعاً أميركياً أوروبياً لتبرئته بوسائل فنية ترتدي اللبوس القانوني، وذلك لا يكون إلا بالتغاضي الروسي ـ الصيني عن الفبركات القانونية الجديدة، مع مزيد من الانفتاح السياسي المملوء برائحة الصفقات الاقتصادية والتسويات النفطية.
لقد تحوّل ترامب في قمة العشرين ومعه رئيسة وزراء بريطانيا تريزا ماي الى فقيهين في الشؤون القانونية وعلم الجريمة…
فبعد إلحاح الإعلاميين قال الرئيس الأميركي إنه لا يمكن للقضاء أن يبني على اشاعات الرأي العام لأنه لا يستند إلا إلى ادلة دامغة، وهذه، حسب رأيه، لا تؤدي إلى اتهام ابن سلمان الذي يحاكم 13 متهماً قاموا بالجريمة من دون معرفته.
وأيّدته تريزا ماي التي أكدت أن بلادها مهتمة، بالكشف عن جريمة الخاشقجي، وأضافت «من دون أن تقهقه» أن إبن سلمان قال لها إنه حريص على محاكمة المتهمين الـ13 رجل أمن للكشف عن الجريمة.
وبذلك يتبين أن هناك صفقة، أميركية ـ غربية بلامبالاة صينية ـ روسية، تذهب نحو تبرئة القاتل ومعاقبة 13 رجل أمن تابعين لمكتب محمد بن سلمان وبتهمة قتل الخاشقجي. وبما أن عدد القتلة كبير، فالأحكام قابلة للتوزيع على شاكلة عشر سنوات لكل منهم، أما مكان السجن، فعلمه عند أصحاب العلم والإخفاء.
فهل هذه صفقة مجانية؟ اسألوا ترامب الذي يواصل الإشادة بالسعودية التي أمنت اعمالاً لملايين الأميركيين وتشغل مصانع الاسلحة والبضائع.. وتواصل الدفع للتغطية بمفهوم «الكاوبوي» واخيراً عرجوا على البريطانيين لاستصراحهم عن حصتهم.
فيتبين أن الغرب ينتهز جريمة ولي العهد لاستنزاف كامل ثروات جزيرة العرب وليس قسماً منها، مضيفاً إليها مبدأ «الترهيب من إيران» الأمر الذي يضع حاضر سكان الجزيرة ومستقبلهم تحت رحمة السياسات الاقتصادية الغريبة التي تسطو على العالم منذ قرون عدة.
Britain is in a state of political turmoil. The government and the main opposition party have both lost their way and, together, they have completely lost the trust of the people. In the last few weeks we have witnessed a landslide exodus from both the Tory and Labour parties to the slightly more rational, principled and patriotic alternatives: the truly conservative wandered to the Brexit Party and the remainers, who previously voted Labour, migrated to the more humane Liberal Democrats.
Brits are critically divided over Brexit. It is fair to say that most do not fully grasp what Brexit is anymore. They were deliberately not informed of the political discussion over Brexit and what it would mean for the future. Brits feel betrayed by the political class and in truth, they have been subjected to gross and treacherous treatment by their politicians and media. Brits are not aware of the centrality of Israel and its interests that is at the core of the Brexit debate.
In February, I published a translation of a Ynet article which reported that Israel had located itself as post-Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first,” Ynet wrote. Just to remove any confusion, it added “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.” Britain under Theresa May has been reduced into a colony of Israel’s. Brits have become increasingly aware that 80% of their Tory MPs are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, which is a foreign pressure group dedicated to the interests of another state.
Those who have been puzzled by the insane institutional Israel lobby campaign against Corbyn and the Labour party (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) can now figure out what the motivation behind it was: Corbyn in 10 Downing Street might well interfere with Israel’s plans for post-Brexit Britain.
The truth is starting to unveil itself. Theresa May, a staunch Zionist, has been working tirelessly to bring about a Brexit ‘deal.’ The Ynet article suggests that such a deal could work for Israel. Brexit enthusiasts smelled a rat, they could see that May’s Brexit offering didn’t fit with what they had in mind. But they couldn’t see the full picture since the prominence of Israel in post-Brexit plans was never discussed in the British press.
In September, 2018 Barry Grossman, the Tel Aviv British embassy’s Director of International Trade, used the Ynet platform to explain to Israelis why Brexit is good for Israel. “Israel and Israelis can reap huge benefits from Brexit,” Grossman wrote. “Since the Brexit referendum, the British government has declared that Israel is one of its priority markets. The UK is already Israel’s second largest trading partner in the world, and annual trade between the two countries is worth well over $7 billion.” No one in the British media cared to delve into the significance of Israeli-British relations to Brexit. The topic has never been mentioned in the British national media.
But remainers are in no better position. They are also clueless about the actual corrosive elements that divide their Kingdom and pull it into chaos. Corbyn and his dysfunctional party did nothing to clarify the situation. How is it possible that no one in the Labour Party has been brave enough to touch upon the centrality of Israel in the current Brexit debate? How is it that, despite the revelation in Israel’s biggest news outlet that Brexit was designed to make Israel great again, not one brave Labour MP, including the so-called ‘leader,’ could say so out loud? The answer is obvious: like the Conservative party, Labour is an occupied zone. It is dominated by fear of the Israel lobby, Jewish pressure groups and the compromised and Zionised British media.
This alone is devastating, but unfortunately, the centrality of Israel in the current Brexit crisis goes much deeper.
Though it is clear to most Brits that Brexit exposes a clear rift between an emerging nationalist ideology and progressive philosophy: not many realise that both contemporary nationalism and progressive philosophy are deeply inspired by two rival Jewish political schools of thought.
For Right-wing agitators, the Alt Right, anti-Muslims and anti-immigration activists, Israel and its current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have become a major source of inspiration. Similarly, it is Jewish progressive ideology that arouses pro-immigration campaigners, open-borders enthusiasts and multi culturalists globally and especially in the UK and USA. It is the pervasiveness of Jewish ideologies within both Right-wing nationalist and New Left discourses that sustains the dominance of the Israel lobby and Jewish pressure groups within British political parties, media and academia.
My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that as in America, Britain isn’t just influenced by one Jewish lobby or another, rather the entire British political, cultural and spiritual spectrum has been reduced into an internal Jewish debate. Brits struggle to see it because their media and academia work tirelessly to conceal this development. I guess that some must believe that it is safer (for reason to do with public safety and community relations) to keep nations in the dark.
Tommy Robinson, who managed to excite and mobilise thousands of Brits in the run-up to the European Parliament election by spreading an anti-Islam message, is an ardent Zionist who supports Israel and is openly supported by pro-Israel right-wing elements and members of the British Jewish community. The British media is hostile to Robinson and never misses any opportunity to paint him as a vile racist, but his connections with the Jewish State are kept hidden from the public.
However, Robinson is just an example. The many Brits who support a hard Brexit are inspired by the desire to reinstate rootedness, to close borders, to revive past British glory. It is inspired by Netanyahu’s policies. Like Donald Trump’s unoriginal promise to erect a wall on the Mexican border, many Brits would like to see their kingdom protected by an Israeli-style anti-migrant barrier.
In my recent book, Being in Time – A Post-Political Manifesto, I stress that while the old, good Left promised to unite us in a fight against capitalism, regardless of our gender, religion, skin colour or ethnicity, it was the New Left that taught us to speak ‘as a’: as a Jew, as Gay, as Black, and so on. Instead of being one people united in the struggle for justice and equality, within the post-political realm the so-called ‘left’ is pushing us toward endless identity battles. This has practically managed to turn societies into the twelve tribes of Israel. The Identitarian revolution was inspired by a few Jewish ideological and philosophical schools including, most importantly, the Frankfurt School. It is actually Jewish Identitarian philosophy and the success of Jewish Identitarianism that inspires most, if not all, contemporary Identitarian politics. It is not surprising that it also motivates the contemporary Labour party and dominates the US Democratic Party.
It has been established that a chief funder of the Identitarian revolution is financier George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. Soros may genuinely believe in the Identitarian future: It is cosmopolitan, it is global, it defies borders and states, but far more significantly, it also functions to divert attention from Wall Street, the City of London and capitalist crimes: as long as Identitarians fight each other, no one bothers to fight Wall Street and corporate tyranny. Soros didn’t invent this strategy. It has long been named ‘divide and conquer.’
British people certainly remember that it was Soros who used the pages of The Guardian to warn Brits of the inevitable implications of Brexit. They may find themselves wondering why a Hungarian-American globalist financier interfered in their national affairs. Brits may have been puzzled when the same Guardian castigated Nigel Farage as an ‘anti-Semite’ for referring to Soros as “the biggest danger to the Western World.” But much more shocking is that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, known for his blunt opposition to banking and capitalism, endorsed a video that attributed ‘antisemitism’ to critics of Soros.
Jeremy Corbyn
✔@jeremycorbyn
Really important video which spells out the vile and destructive nature of antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The above shows the depth of the spiritual, cultural and ideological influence of Jewish politics in Britain and in Brexit in particular. While Israel is the prototype of a nationalist and patriotic system for Brexiters, the remainers who support globalisation, immigration and multiculturalism are emulating the Jewish Diaspora’s rival progressive position. These two contradictory Jewish schools of thought are deeply entrenched within each of the two opposing ideologies tearing Britain apart.
Soon Brits will have to choose whether they prefer to be nationalists and xenophobes like the Israelis or as cosmopolitan, multicultural and assimilated as the Jewish progressive Diaspora. Or Britain could choose a third route. The Kingdom can liberate itself by looking inward and deciding what is it about Britain, about its history, culture and heritage that they like and want to reinstate.
My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.
Five British Prime Ministers, some of them renowned war criminals, united yesterday in a call to build a Holocaust Memorial in proximity to Parliament. “A sacred, national mission,” is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally agree with this tragic, sad woman. I would take it further: don’t just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don’t really need a House of Commons; as things stand, we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.
But there is a deeper ethical rationale that justifies the erection of a holocaust memorial instead of our dysfunctional parliament. Every political commentator in Britain knows by now that the more that Jewish pressure groups terrorise the kingdom, its human rights campaigners, its artists, writers and poets, the more Brits become aware of the crimes of Zionism, Israel and their ruthless Lobby. The more British politicians join Parliamentary friends of Israel clubs, the less Brits trust their political system. The more Holocaust indoctrination is shoved down our throats, the more suspicious Brits become of the manner in which history is told.
Mrs May said: “By putting our National Holocaust Memorial and Education Centre next to our Parliament, we make a solemn and eternal promise that Britain will never forget what happened in the Holocaust.” Is that true Mrs. May? Do you really mean what you say? Will our Holocaust memorial bring to light the embarrassing fact that Britain made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to seek a safe haven in the Kingdom or in other parts of the empire? In 1937, as the rate of Jewish refugees looking to immigrate to Britain increased, the British government created stricter standards for those whom they would admit. One was that refugees had to have ₤50 deposited in an overseas bank, but in Germany it was against the law to possess foreign currency. If this was not enough to stop Jewish immigration from Germany, the British government limited the number of immigrants in 1938 and 1939. Practically speaking, the British Government turned its back on German and Austrian Jews.
The PM vowed that “in the face of despicable Holocaust denial, this memorial will stand to preserve the truth forever.
” I am here to tell you with confidence that the British Holocaust memorial will act intensively to conceal British complicity in the destruction of European Jewry.
Mrs May was joined by all the living former prime ministers: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Sir John Major. With the exception of Sir John Major, all our living PMs are involved in a lot of death and carnage. While Blair and Brown led this kingdom to a disastrous criminal war in Iraq that led to millions of casualties, it was Cameron who managed to pull this country into a chain of disasters in Libya, Syria and beyond.
Tony Blair whom third of the British people see as a war criminal said in his message that “Antisemitism and hate did not end in 1945. Unfortunately today some of this poison is back from the political fringe to parts of the political mainstream.” Blair was probably referring to his own party that struggles to disown the criminal past he himself inflicted on it. But the truth of the matter is that Antisemitism didn’t die in 1945, certainly not in Britain. The post-war Labour Government went out of its way to make the lives of Jewish holocaust survivors impossible. In Zionist history, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (Labour) is remembered as one of the bitterest enemies of the Jewish people. This senior Labour politician had opposed removing the limiting of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Is this Zionist chronicle of Labour anti-Jewish politics going to be explored in the Holocaust monument?
It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Blair and Brown are so enthusiastic about a museum that Chronicles Nazi crimes rather than a proper and timely institute that would explore their own crimes in Iraq. It is pretty clear why David Cameron prefers to divert attention from his own blunders in Syria and Libya. But it goes further. Britain and the Empire have a long list of crimes against humanity to account for: slavery, concentration camps in the Boer war, the partitioning of India, the destruction of Palestine, famines in Ireland and Bengal. Millions of innocent people lost their lives due to the crimes of the empire, yet our ethically compromised Prime Ministers are committed to the commemoration of crimes that were committed by another people. Is this the ethical message we are supposed to pass to the next generations? Is zero self-reflection a new British value?
I have learned that Jeremy Corbyn, the person who according to the polls is destined to become our next PM, is not at all different from his predecessors. Corbyn, who at a certain point claimed to care for the many, is now subscribing to the primacy of Jewish suffering. Corbyn was quick to announce that he also would “strongly support permanent commemoration, including a national memorial, alongside extra investment in educational programmes.” I guess that supporting a Holocaust memorial is an entry ticket to 10 Downing Street.
There is a good reason to believe that our entire political class has migrated to Egypt by now, without exception they all live in a state of denial.
–
My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.
In an exclusive interview with al-Ahed, Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos, London-based Publisher and Editor of Politics First magazine, and commentator on Syria and British politics, spoke about UK military involvement in Yemen, the decision of the British Government to blacklist Hezbollah, and why the British UN special envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, failed to condemn the Saudi onslaught against Yemenis.
The following part of the interview took place on April 1:
The Daily Mail has revealed that the elite Special Boat Service (SBS) troops, whose presence in the war-ravaged country is shrouded in secrecy, suffered gunshot injuries in fierce clashes with Yemeni fighters while fighting at the ranks of Saudi forces on borders. How do you see the presence of UK forces in Yemen’s Saada province to train Saudis to attack Yemenis while the Theresa May government publicly is trying to appear doing the role of an independent broker that is trying to put an end to the war peacefully?
If the report in the Daily Mail is accurate, then Theresa May’s government has a lot to answer for because only the House of Commons can authorize the deployment of British military personnel to conflict zones abroad. However, I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if British soldiers, specifically Special Forces, are on the ground in Yemen not just training Saudi forces but also fighting alongside them.
After all, Britain, together with America, are indispensable cogs in Saudi Arabia’s war against the people of Yemen; London and Washington provide the missiles and bombs to the Saudi air force that are then used by the Saudis to massacre Yemeni civilians, including infants, and the UK and the US service and provide spare parts to Saudi fighter aircraft.
So it is plausible, therefore, to believe that Britain would also commit British soldiers to assist the Saudi campaign on the ground in Yemen, which must be won if Riyadh is to achieve a complete victory in its onslaught against the Yemeni people.
Furthermore, the British establishment is extremely contrived and often presents itself publicly as a mediator in conflicts, whereas in reality it has either instigated the fighting or is fueling it. The British elite are far more astute than their American counterparts; the British will pretend to be your friend – citing your human rights and independence – while at the same time they will do everything possible to deprive you of these necessities.
The foreign office minister, Mark Field, has promised to get to the bottom of “very serious and well sourced” allegations that British SBS soldiers have been injured in a firefight with whom it called “Houthis”, in an answer on Tuesday to a question by the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, who suggested the Britons may have been witnesses to war crimes. What measures could be taken, if these allegations are true?
In short, nothing will happen. Investigations are routinely promised by the British establishment but nothing ever comes of them. It is a tactic long employed by the British authorities to ‘assure’ Britons that they are being governed with all due care and with their welfare afforded the very highest priority. And that tactic is then spun to the British public by British mainstream media as ‘good governance’ – and lest we forget that UK mainstream media is part of the British establishment. So ‘investigations’ by the British elite is an art of deception, aimed at deceiving the British public and to maintain the facade that Britain is a defender of the rule of law.
What’s your take on another allegation that the UK special forces were training child soldiers in the Saudi-led coalition with Emily Thornberry’s claims as many as 40% of the soldiers in the coalition were children?
Once again, if that allegation is true, then Prime Minister Theresa May must stand before the House of Commons and explain herself. The sad reality is that given Britain got away scot-free in helping to bomb Serbia for 78 days, causing large civilian casualties, and in helping to invade Iraq, causing vast numbers of civilian deaths, then the British establishment will easily get away with the crimes it is committing in Yemen.
And one of the key reasons for why the British elite always avoid being exposed for who they really are – namely, war criminals – is because they control the media in Britain and so, alas, the ordinary British man and woman will never learn about the true nature of those who govern them. He who controls the media is able to mold public opinion to however he wants it to be.
The SE for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, during a special event, Wednesday, has depressed on Twitter his hope to see increased Yemeni women representation at the formal level in future consultations. However, In response to this, Health ministry’s spokesman in Sana’a has hit back at this remark saying Yemeni women need to be protected from airstrikes after latest massacre by Saudi-led coalition that killed over 22 women along with their children in Kosher district of Hajjah province, stressing that the blockade need to be lifted so the wounded women can be transported for treatment abroad before attending consultations. Has he failed the Yemeni women to condemn crimes in them and act as if there is no war or blockade?
If you want to understand why Martin Griffiths fails to condemn Saudi Arabia’s onslaught against the people of Yemen, then look no further than his background. He is a former senior British diplomat, and it should be said that diplomats like Mr. Griffiths are never truly “former” diplomats – they continue to lobby for British foreign policy objectives in whatever new roles they take on. So do not let the “former” bit deceive you. Furthermore, as I said earlier on, the British establishment is highly crafted in presenting itself as a neutral party with the aim of bringing about an end to conflicts; in reality however, the British provide cover at the United Nations for their allies, such as Saudi Arabia, to get away with committing crimes against humanity, while simultaneously providing weapons to governments likes the Saudi one to murder civilians with. So in essence, Saudi Arabia partly acts with impunity in Yemen because of so-called British mediators.
How do you see the latest decree of Trump that recognized “Israel” sovereignty over Syria’s Golan Heights?
Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Syria’s occupied Golan as part of “Israel” is a grave violation of the United Nations Charter. That said however, since when has America ever cared for the UN Charter and international law in general? For Washington, might is right. And legality is of no concern to American presidents. Furthermore, Mr. Trump is repaying “Israel”, and in particular Benjamin Netanyahu, for having supported his presidential campaign in 2016. So first of all, Trump bombed Syria on two occasions, then he recognized Jerusalem [al-Quds] as the “capital of ‘Israel’”, and now he has recognized the occupied Golan as “Israeli” territory. American foreign policy is morally wicked, and the US is the biggest and most dangerous rogue state in the world.
Do you think UK has decided to blacklist Hezbollah because this party has defeated terrorists across Syria along with Arab Syrian Army and Russia?
No, I do not. I believe, rather, that the UK Government has moved to proscribe the whole of Hezbollah as a way of asphyxiating criticism in Britain of how “Israel” behaves, specifically its abominable treatment of the Palestinians and how it regularly violates both Lebanese and Syrian sovereignty.
And I also believe that the British Government has taken the decision to ban Hezbollah, in its entirety, as a way of putting pressure on the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, knowing that British mainstream media presents Hezbollah to the British public as a ‘terrorist, murderous’ organization and then adds in how Mr. Corbyn is historically sympathetic to Hezbollah. Of course, British national newspapers and news channels will never tell the British public that Hezbollah was formed in response to “Israel’s” illegal invasion of Lebanon, in 1982, and has existed, ever since then, to defend Lebanon from the clutches of “Israel”.
And neither will British mainstream media inform their viewers and readers that many Christians in Lebanon vote for Hezbollah in elections and serve in Hezbolla; and also how Hezbollah has helped to defend Christian towns and villages and churches and monasteries in Syria against Wahhabi terrorists, armed and trained by the British state.
Introduction by GA: After listing his telepathic and psychic credentials Uri Geller writes to his ‘Dear Theresa,’ “I love you very much but I will not allow you to lead Britain into Brexit… I will stop you telepathically from doing this – and believe me I am capable of executing it.”
The magician who lives currently in Israel is kind enough to give the British PM an ultimatum. “Before I take this drastic course of action, I appeal to you to stop the process immediately while you still have a chance.”
I guess that Brits could skip the current parliamentary debate and stop pushing for a 2nd referendum as Mr Geller has already decided upon their future.
My Dear Theresa,
We have known each other for over 21 years since you became our MP. You visited my home in Sonning, where you also lived. Three years before you became Prime Minister, I predicted your victory when I showed you Winston Churchill’s spoon on my Cadillac, which I asked you to touch.
Despite popular public opinion, I also predicted that Donald Trump would become the 45th President of the United States.
As you might have read, I am ensuring that Jeremy Corbyn never gets the keys to Number 10 Downing Street, with the power of my mind which I have proved over and again.
I will ensure that they bend out of all proportion to ensure that he never takes up residence there.
My power has been validated by the CIA, MI5 and Mossad.
The CIA concluded: “As a result of Geller’s success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner.”
It is easily verifiable. Just look at the official CIA website.
I have influenced many high ranking officials around the world.
On one occasion, Senator Clayborne Pell, then the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, directed me to bombard the mind of Yuli Vorontsov, the Soviet Union’s chief nuclear negotiator, to influence him telepathically to sign the Nuclear Arms Reduction treaty, which I did successfully.
Now to the point of my open letter to you.
I feel psychically and very strongly that most British people do not want Brexit.
I love you very much but I will not allow you to lead Britain into Brexit.
As much as I admire you, I will stop you telepathically from doing this – and believe me I am capable of executing it.
Before I take this drastic course of action, I appeal to you to stop the process immediately while you still have a chance.
Although I currently live in Israel I am still a British citizen and feel very passionately about the country and the people I came to love.
Much energy and love
Uri
The EU grants the United Kingdom an extension on leaving the union, France outlaws Yellow Vest protests on the Champs-Elysees, and US President Donald Trump wants to recognize Syria’s Golan Heights as Israeli territory. Former UK MP George Galloway tackles all three subjects in a discussion with RT America’s Manila Chan.
The UK failed to back a UN investigation into Israel’s shoot-to-kill-or-cripple policy against Gaza’s caged civilians. Will the Foreign Office also fail to adopt its findings?
Open letter to Alister Jack, MP for Dumfries and Galloway
cc: Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Dear Alister,
Here’s something to take your mind off Brexit.
You’ll have heard of Dr Swee Ang. She is the first female Orthopaedic Consultant appointed to St Bartholomew (‘Barts’) and the Royal London Hospitals.
In the 1980s and 1990s Dr Swee worked as trauma and orthopaedics consultant in the refugee camps of Lebanon and later for the United Nations in Gaza, and the World Health Organisation in the West Bank and Gaza. She is Founder and Patron of the British charity Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP).
She also treated the victims of the Pakistan (Kashmir) earthquake, and as consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeon operated on and looked after the victims of the 7 July 2005 suicide bombing at the Royal London Hospital.
Dr Swee is co-author of War Surgery and Acute Care of the War Wounded; she also wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem documenting her experience in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Gaza.
Last summer she was aboard the ship Al-Awdasailing to Gaza with urgently needed medical supplies when the vessel was violently assaulted and hijacked in international waters by our so-called friend and ally which, we’re repeatedly told, shares our values and whose enemies are our enemies. The Al-Awdawas dragged to an Israeli port and her passengers and crew were roughed up (some seriously injured) and abused, thrown in an Israeli jail and had their possessions and money stolen. The precious cargo, as far as we can ascertain, never reached the desperate wounded.
Dr Swee has just emailed:
The UN Commission for Human Rights will be concluding its investigation on the shooting of thousands of Palestinian civilians demonstrating within the borders of Gaza. At least 189 were killed (more now) and thousands shot with live ammunitions – with loss of limbs and still needing multiple surgeries if they were to keep their legs and arms. It is estimated that with conventional limb salvaging surgeries at least £39 million has to be found to prevent further amputations (figures put out by MAP).
Last year the UK abstained from supporting the UN conducting such an investigation. However, it went ahead and I was fortunate enough to attend the meeting at Amnesty International two days ago to hear the personal testimonies of Dr Tarek Loubani who was shot on 14 May 2018, and Dr Mahmoud Matar the head of the Limb Reconstruction Service in Gaza. They will be testifying to the UN Commissioner coming Monday in Geneva. There is an urgent request for us to write to Jeremy Hunt [UK foreign secretary] with copy to our local MP asking the UK government to adopt the findings and recommendations of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. In fact the concern is that UK might vote against it since last year we abstained.
Please do so urgently. This is something we all can do. Email for Jeremy Hunt is:
Even if you are not a UK national but are Palestinians you have the right to email him on behalf of your people. Please also ask your friends to support the UN Commissioner for Human Rights.
Thank you all and God bless, Swee.
Wounds “the size of a fist” causing lifelong disability
According to Medecins Sans Frontieres(MSF), which operates in Gaza, the Israelis have been using “dum-dum”- type rounds that cause wounds of “unusual severity”. This sort of ammunition is understood to be outlawed in warfare. Last year MSF surgeons in Gaza reported “devastating gunshot wounds” among hundreds of people injured during the protests, the huge majority – mainly young men, but also some women and children – having unusually severe wounds to the lower extremities.
MSF medical teams note the injuries include an extreme level of destruction to bones and soft tissue, and large exit wounds that can be the size of a fist. “Half of the more than 500 patients we have admitted in our clinics have injuries where the bullet has literally destroyed tissue after having pulverized the bone,” said Marie-Elisabeth Ingres, Head of Mission of MSF in Palestine. “These patients will need to have very complex surgical operations and most of them will have disabilities for life.”
She hadn’t seen these kind of injuries before. The wounds appeared to be caused by ammunition with an expanding “butterfly” effect. “Mass lifelong disability is now the prospect for young Gazans who merely gathered in unarmed protest”
Writing in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) the head of plastic and reconstructive surgery in Gaza, Dr Nafiz Abu-Shaban, said that the hundreds of high energy compound tibial fractures from Israeli live fire are the most difficult of all open fractures to treat. They may require between five and seven surgical procedures, each operation taking three to six hours. “Even with state-of-the-art reconstruction, healing takes one to two years. Most of these patients will develop osteomyelitis. A steadily increasing toll of secondary amputations is inevitable. They will also need intensive rehabilitation, but the only rehabilitation hospital in Gaza was destroyed by Israeli bombing in 2014…”
UK favours “whitewash toolkit” instead
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC ) in Geneva adopted a resolution to set up an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of humanitarian and international human rights law in the occupied Palestinian territory, with particular focus on recent events in Gaza. The resolution was passed with only two states opposing (the USA and another of Israel’s poodles, Australia), 29 in favour and 14 abstentions. The UK was among the abstainers.
Trying to explain its pathetic stance, the UK Mission in Geneva called the resolution “partial and unhelpfully unbalanced” for not explicitly demanding an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas. But why should it? Hamas is not the invader, illegal occupier, aggressor and blockader. It governs the besieged Gaza Strip as best it can after being democratically elected in 2006. The UK government then called on Israel to “make clear its intentions and carry out what must be a transparent inquiry into the IDF’s [Israel Defence Forces – a misnomer for the Israeli army] conduct at the border fence and to demonstrate how this will achieve a sufficient level of independence.” In other words, investigate itself.
However, Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem condemned the already-announced internal Israeli military probe as “part of the whitewashing toolkit”. The British government was criticised in parliament for its limp-wristed attitude and reminded of Israel’s self-exoneration over the killing of four boys playing on a beach during its 2014 military offensive on Gaza.
The preamble to the UNHRC resolution states the reasons for a proper investigation brilliantly. It’s worth repeating here:
Convinced that the lack of accountability for violations of international law reinforces a culture of impunity, leading to a recurrence of violations and seriously endangering international peace,
Noting the systematic failure by Israel to carry out genuine investigations in an impartial, independent, prompt and effective way, as required by international law, into the violence and offences against Palestinians by the occupying forces, and to establish judicial accountability for its actions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,
Emphasising the obligations of Israel as the occupying power to ensure the safety, well-being and protection of the Palestinian civilian population under its occupation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,
Emphasising also that the intentional targeting of civilians and other protected persons in situations of armed conflict, including foreign occupation, constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and poses a threat to international peace and security,
Recognising the importance of the right to life and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association to the full enjoyment of all human rights…<<
Despite all that, Theresa May and Boris Johnson (foreign secretary at the time) still couldn’t bring themselves to back the UN resolution.
In recent years this country has so abandoned it moral compass that failing to support a perfectly legitimate investigation into the Israeli military’s brutal behaviour towards the Palestinians they have robbed and abused and murdered for 70 years – a scenario we engineered — is unsurprising.
But many see no difference between the racist thugs who command the Israeli army and the degenerate responsible for the New Zealand mosque massacre. Let us hope Her Majesty’s Government eventually discovers its backbone and adopts the report and findings of the UN Human Rights Council lest we all die of shame.
By TruePublica: The rapidly declining living conditions in the Gaza Strip and occupied territories has endangered the most basic of internationally recognised of human rights, as children continue to be collateral damage in what can be boiled down to a political standoff. The difference to almost all modern countries is that Israel uses extreme force to break the deadlock.
It is now sadly a fact that more children than Palestinian fighters are being killed in the offensive on Gaza by the state of Israel. This in itself should be shocking until you see the numbers. 28 per cent killed are five years and under, 92 per cent are sixteen and under with 8 per cent aged 17 and 18 – but still classed as minors. More babies aged under 24 months die than those aged over 16 years.
Then there are the incarcerations. The Isreali Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories records them. It shows that in the ten years from 2008 to 2018 – a staggering 2,370 children have been sent to Israeli prisons. At the end of January 2019, 209 Palestinian children were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners.
In January this year, the General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions (PGFTU) warned that the poverty rate in the Gaza Strip has exceeded 80 per cent for the wider population. The numbers for mental health problems, access to health care or the basics such as access to clean water, electricity and sanitation are dire.
It shames Britain, that a country, ranked by the World Justice Project as the 8th most law-abiding country in the world actively supports a regime with weapons of death and destruction, described by organisations such as War on Want and the United Nations as an apartheid state. Others, including Human Rights Watch, accuse Israel of war crimes against defenceless Palestinians.
To enable that support, a media blackout is required in Britain. Here, Mark Curtis unravels the grizzly truth of Britain’s involvement in this ghastly and illegal aggression and what is really going on behind the scenes.
By Mark Curtis: Britain’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, recently visited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pledging to increase trade and investment between the two countries, which already stands at a record $9bn.
While more than 230 Palestinians have been killed and thousands more injured by Israeli forces since March, London’s ties with Tel Aviv are growing ever stronger.
Yet, I cannot find a single article in the British “mainstream” media noting the depth of supportive UK policies towards Israel. This media blackout is allowing Britain to continue backing Israeli aggression in the occupied territories with impunity.
Arms as usual
In the two years 2016 and 2017, when Theresa May has been prime minister, the UK sold £402m worth of military goods to Israel, including components for combat aircraft, tanks, drones and military communications. As Prince William visited Israel in late June, the UK approved export licences for 34 types of military-related equipment.
These arms exports have been authorised while Palestinians risk their lives in the Great March of Return demonstrations on the perimeter fence between Gaza and Israel. Some 33 children were among those killed, alongside more than 24,000 Palestinians injured. Dozens of people have had limbs amputated, including 15 children, while the UN reports that 1,200 patients will require long-term limb reconstruction.
But many services are unavailable in Gaza as the healthcare system grapples with the massive influx of casualties. By the end of October, only 74 of 335 exit-permit applications had been approved by Israeli authorities for injured Palestinians needing attention outside of Gaza.
Documents revealed by Edward Snowden in 2014 showed that the US National Security Agency was providing to its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU, also known as Unit 8200) data used to monitor and target Palestinians.
A key partner of the NSA and ISNU was shown to be Britain’s spy centre, GCHQ, which was feeding the Israelis selected communications data it collected. In 2009, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza that left nearly 1,400 people dead, included 344 children, this involved sharing information on Palestinians.
A ‘strong partnership’
Is the UK doing this now? Last year, Robert Hannigan, the outgoing director of GCHQ, said that his organisation had a “strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence” and that “we are building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of Israeli bodies”.
Earlier this year, Hannigan became chair of BlueVoyant Europe, a global cybersecurity firm whose operations are managed by, among others, a former deputy commander of Unit 8200, and a former division head in the Israeli security agency Shin Bet. Another key player in the firm is former British minister Lord Mandelson, who chairs BlueVoyant’s European Advisory Group.
Cybersecurity has become a key area of UK-Israeli cooperation. A recent report by the British Israeli lobby group, Bicom, notes that “government-to-government cooperation between the UK and Israel in cybersecurity is strong and has been described by a senior UK official as a ‘first-order partnership’”.
It added that “there are close working relationships between the countries’ national cybersecurity agencies and acknowledged cross-fertilisation in the development of their national security strategies”.
Indeed, the report notes that “it is perhaps no coincidence” that the former UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, returned from his posting in Tel Aviv in 2015 to become director of cybersecurity at the UK Cabinet Office.
In striking evidence of Britain’s reliance on Israel’s cybersecurity sector is the report’s claim that since major British banks are clients of many Israeli cyber companies, “the vast majority of digital transactions and credit card e-commerce in the UK is essentially protected by Israeli technologies”.
Deepening military relations
As I documented in an article for Middle East Eye in June, the UK’s military relationship with Israel is extensive, covering areas such as naval cooperation and the provision of components for Israeli nuclear-armed submarines. But the lack of journalistic investigations means that few details have emerged on many programmes.
In September, the government revealed that it was providing military training to Israel. This followed news in 2016 that British military pilots were due to be trained by a company owned by Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
Training is longstanding: in 2011, it was revealed that British soldiers were being trained in Israel in the use of drones that had been “field-tested on Palestinians” during the 2009 war in Gaza.
The contracts keep coming. Earlier this year, the UK’s Ministry of Defence agreed to a contract worth up to $52m to purchase a battlefield management application from Elbit Systems UK, while Israel’s armour specialist, Plasan, was selected by the UK Ministry of Defence to design and produce armour protection for Britain’s new Type 26 frigates being built by BAE Systems in Glasgow.
At the Conservative Party conference in October, senior government figures queued up at an event hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel to defend Israeli actions in the occupied territories. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson stated: “In terms of defence, Britain and Israel are working increasingly closely together. There’s a real bond.”
Facilitating Israeli violence
Similarly, Liam Fox told Netanyahu last week: “I am looking forward to an enhanced and even more ambitious trade and investment relationship with Israel as we work closer together going forward into the future.” Netanyahu replied: “Britain is in fact our largest trade partner in Europe … we value the friendship, we value the prospects for the future.”
Fox and Williamson are continuing the strategy of their boss, Theresa May, who has said of Israel: “I want to build the strongest and deepest possible relationship between our two countries.”
Yet, the reality of what this means in practice – especially in terms of British military and intelligence support for Israel, and how this facilitates Israeli aggression – is simply not being reported in the British media. The longer that continues, the easier it will be for Israel to continue to act with impunity for its crimes
Lebanese president defends Hezbollah in meeting with official from Britain, which has banned it as terrorist group
Lebanon’s president says Hezbollah part of Lebanese people
Lebanese president defends Hezbollah in meeting with official from Britain, which has banned it as terrorist group
By The Associated PressBEIRUT — Mar 7, 2019 12:49 PM ET
(The Associated Press)In this photo released by Lebanon’s official government photographer, Dalati Nohra, Lebanese President Michel Aoun, right, shakes hands with Britain’s Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, at the presidential palace, in Beirut, Lebanon, Thursday, March 7, 2019. Aoun spoke up in defense of the country’s militant Hezbollah group, telling Burt that the group’s allegiances in the region do not affect internal Lebanese politics. (Dalati Nohra via AP)…
By The Associated PressBEIRUT — Mar 7, 2019 12:49 PM ET
Lebanon’s president has spoken up in defense of the country’s militant Hezbollah group, telling a visiting British official that the group’s allegiances in the region do not affect internal Lebanese politics.
President Michel Aoun’s office quoted him as saying that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese people and is represented in the Cabinet and parliament.
The comments by Aoun, a Hezbollah ally, came after his meeting with Britain’s Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt on Thursday.
Hezbollah is allied with the Syrian government and Iran.
Britain last week banned Hezbollah as a terrorist group, saying it’s destabilizing the Middle East. The U.S. also considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
Hezbollah said the decision was proof that the British government is “merely a puppet” that does the bidding of its American “masters.”
Attacks on Islam and muslims are the central organising principles of far-right movements across Europe argues Chris Nineham
“Really confronting Islamophobia, challenging the logic of the Prevent programme for example, or explaining the causes of terrorism, requires challenging the logic of the wars and foreign interventions so dear to the British establishment. There are too few in public life who are prepared to do that.”
It shouldn’t really need to be pointed out given the evidence, but it does. Islamophobia is the dominant form of racism in British society and across much of Europe.
According to a recent survey, 25% of people in England believe that Islam is a dangerous religion that incites violence. According to the same research a shocking 52% believe that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilisation.
Attacks on Islam and Muslims are the central organising principles of far-right movements across Europe. For Tommy Robinson for instance, Islam is the main enemy. His key mobilising issues are terrorism, grooming and the threat of sharia law. When he claims to be defending freedom of speech it is against a fantasy political correctness that he believes blocks discussion of these issues.
But the far-right are not the source of Islamophobia. They are feeding off the mainstream. Islamophobia is deeply embedded in the main political parties, central to media discourse and to the functioning of the key bodies of the state.
The Muslim Council of Britain have repeatedly pointed to the growing number of Islamophobic posts or comments by representatives of the Tory party – there were for example nine in just two months of last year. Despite this and the fact that 66% of Tory voters see Islam as a threat, the Tory leadership has consistently refused to launch the enquiry into Islamophobia that the MCB demands.
There is a problem in the Labour Party too – 22% of Labour voters also believe Islam is a danger to our lifestyle. Islamophobia is a far more prominent problem in British politics than anti-semitism, although this too is growing in society. Studies of the media show almost daily stereotyping and demonisation of Muslims and statistics of stop and search, arrest and imprisonment reveal systematic anti-Muslim attitudes in the police and the courts.
The so-called Prevent strategy attempts to mobilise workers in all sorts of other state institutions in an initiative that often assumes that Muslims are a danger to society. Meanwhile data shows that discrimination against Muslims extends across the economy. Muslims are half as likely as the rest of society to have permanent jobs for example.
So why is there no national debate about this scandalous situation? The first problem is denial. It’s not just that the issue is ignored, there are regular debates in the media as to whether Islamophobia actually exists. Worse still, Islamophobic attitudes are often dressed up as liberal critiques of aspects of some Muslim’s lifestyles or what is often, absurdly, regarded as a uniquely reactionary religion. Such attitudes adopted by liberals and sometimes by people who regard themselves as progressives only give confidence to the right. So when Boris Johnson made his disgraceful comments about women in Burqas looking like letterboxes he felt confident to justify them in terms of opposing women’s oppression, ‘if you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree’.
Racist attitudes are second nature to the British ruling class of course, and various forms of racism against people of Asian or African descent have a long and horrible history which continue to this day. But Islamophobia’s ability to present as cultural critique means that it is a racism that it is peculiarly convenient at a time when ‘biological’ racism is largely regarded as unacceptable.
It is a form of racism that can pretend not to be one. But this isn’t the only cause of the denial. Islamophobia is deeply structured into British society because it has played a central role in attempting to create the conditions in which the British elites can fight unpopular foreign wars, particularly in central Asia and the Middle East. A series of studies have mapped the rise of Islamophobia to geopolitics and Western foreign policy priorities, including the shock of the Iranian revolution, the US retreat from the Lebanon in 1984, and in a different way the end of Cold War.
Islamophobia went mainstream after the start of the War on Terror in 2001 when the US, Britain and its other allies turned towards massive military intervention against Afghanistan and then Iraq. The damage and bitterness caused by these invasions has predictably unleashed an intensifying cycle of violence that threatens to sustain racism against the people who we have murderously attacked in the first place. Really confronting Islamophobia, challenging the logic of the Prevent programme for example, or explaining the causes of terrorism, requires challenging the logic of the wars and foreign interventions so dear to the British establishment. There are too few in public life who are prepared to do that.
Islamophobia can be overcome. Social attitudes are very contradictory. Despite some popular prejudice, the vast majority want to see more measures to improve relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, including for example better access to language teaching. Overwhelming numbers of people oppose the foreign wars that successive governments have dragged us into and the fact that we have a leader the Labour Party who is anti-war, a principled and public anti-racist and takes Islamophobia very seriously is important in itself and a sign of widespread anti-racist attitudes in Britain.
One of the most inspirational and significant moments in recent British politics was during the 2017 election campaign when Jeremy Corbyn responded to the dreadful terrorist attacks in Manchester with a press conference in which he argued that the main cause of terrorism was our foreign policy. To the shock of the Tories and the right wing in Labour the next day opinion polls showed that 75% of the population agreed with him. This was a moment when it became clear how the Islamophobic narrative can be unravelled.
To do so will require concerted action. We have to insist on the cultural, economic and institutional importance of Islamophobia. We have to make the fight against Islamophobia as central to our movement as it is to the thought and actions of the establishment and the far right. But as well as calling it out and confronting it we have to tackle its causes. Muslims will not feel really safe and at home in Britain until we stop bombing and intervening in Muslim countries and start developing a foreign policy based peace and respect
Britain needs a full inquiry into the poison of Islamophobia inside the Conservative Party
By Peter Oborne
The annual Conservative Party conference held at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham (AFP)
On Tuesday, the Tory party suspended 14 party members for allegedly making anti-Muslim comments on social media. This should come as no surprise.
It’s further shocking evidence that the Tory party has a very deep problem with Islamophobia. The party has been in denial about the problem for years.
But let’s try a mental experiment.
A mental experiment
Let’s imagine that a Conservative leader had abused parliamentary privilege and falsely accused an innocent rabbi of supporting terrorism from the floor of the Commons.
Let’s imagine that Tory MPs were in the habit of tweeting out virulent anti-Semitic propaganda – and with impunity. Let’s imagine that the leading Conservative strategist had reportedly advised not to focus attention on the votes of “fucking Jews”.
Let’s imagine that the Tory party fought the London mayor campaign on the basis of stirring up hostility to Jews. Let’s imagine that many Tory voters were virulently anti-semitic, and that one of the most famous Tory politicians – Boris Johnson – had publicly mocked certain Jews on the way that they dressed.
And then been cleared of wrongdoing after an internal party investigation. And that all but a small minority of Jewish voters had turned their back on the Tories.
And finally, let’s imagine that the Conservative party was in flat denial that anything was wrong.
And that senior party figures insisted that anti-semitism was not an issue inside the Conservative Party, with some going to the lengths of insisting that it could not exist because Jews did indeed present a threat to mainstream British society.
Decent people would say that the Conservative Party was barbaric, sick and that there was a deep, dark problem not just in the Conservative Party but also in British politics as a whole.
Mercifully that is not the case as far as anti-semitism is concerned.
Hostility to Islam
But substitute the word Muslim for the word Jew, and it has become clear that something has indeed gone hideously wrong with the modern Conservative party.
Last week, a poll conducted by the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate found 49 percent of Tory voters felt that Islam was incompatible with the British way of life.
Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park, has never apologised for his mayoral campaign, which I am proud to have exposed in Middle East Eye almost three years ago.
Bob Blackman, Tory MP for Harrow East, received no punishment after sharing anti-Muslim social media posts by the former leader of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson. Nadine Dorries is another Tory MP who has endorsed Robinson with no comebacks from the Tory Party.
And only today we learn that Peter Lamb, a Tory councillor who was suspended from the Tory Party after issuing a series of foul Islamophobic tweets, is standing as a council candidate for the Conservatives in the local elections in May.
To his credit Lamb now says he deeply regrets his words and has resigned from the party. But the fact that the Tory Party allowed him back speaks eloquently of the depth of institutional Islamophobia.
Meanwhile just 11 percent of Muslims voted for the Tories at the last election.
The media’s role
No wonder that Sayeeda Warsi, the party’s most high-ranking Muslim politician, demanded a full independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.
On Tuesday, in an interview with the BBC, Warsi said Islamophobia has become “institutional” in the Conservative Party.
And how deeply depressing that she’s been ignored and shunned. Under pressure from critics, Tory MPs point to the presence of Sajid Javid, a Muslim, as home secretary.
This excuse is lame. Anti-semites down the ages have notoriously protested that “some of my best friends are Jewish”. The fact that Ed Milliband was leader of the Labour Party from 2010 to 2015 is certainly not evidence that there is not an anti-Semitism problem in Labour.
How does the Conservative Party continue to behave like this? I have to point a finger at my own trade and state that the British media has a role here.
Our newspapers have been running a campaign against anti-semitism, and rightly so. Anti-semitism is noxious and should be confronted wherever it occurs. But with the exception of the Guardian, there has been very little in the mainstream media about Tory Islamophobia.
Chillingly, some argue that it does not exist at all. Others even want more. Here’s Rod Liddle in the Conservative-supporting Spectator magazine: “My own view is that there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party.” He continued: “Phobia implies these misgivings are irrational, when they are anything but.”
A full inquiry
Imagine the reaction if Liddle had written that “there is not nearly enough anti-semitism within the Tory Party”. There would have been national outrage – after peddling that kind of filth, Liddle would never have worked again in mainstream media. And rightly so.
There’s a very ugly double standard at work here. It’s a double standard that the Conservative Party refuses to address.
Tory leader Theresa May is clearly incapable of dealing with this problem. That is why Britain now needs a full independent inquiry into the poison of Islamophobia inside the Conservative Party.
Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.
The UK’s currently febrile political climate is being dominated by Brexit, as the country’s politicians grapple with the uncertainty created by result of the referendum to leave the EU.
The result and its aftermath has also provoked some soul-searching about the UK’s place in the world and increased its dependency on some of its most questionable allies in the Middle East, as Britain grapples with the now very real prospect of life outside the world’s largest trading bloc.
Crass politicking
On Monday, Sajid Javid, the British home secretary, said in a statement that Britain would add Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party, in its entirety to its list of banned “terrorist organizations”.
Javid said that it was no longer tenable to maintain that there was a distinction between the political and military sides of the group.
This decision shines a light on some key developments in both the UK’s domestic politics and foreign policy.
Firstly, on the domestic front it represents a crass piece of politicking by ambitious Tory politicians, namely Javid and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who are both keen to show, in light of the insecurity surrounding Theresa May’s position, that they would make a plausible prime minister.
It is a move that seeks to take advantage of the current debate around anti-Semitism in the opposition Labor party.
The wrong-headed equating of support for resistance to “Israeli” government policies in the Middle East with anti-Semitism takes advantage of the lack of understanding amongst the UK public and politicians regarding the complexities of Lebanese politics and the wider politics and international relations of the Middle East.
Britain’s hypocrisy
That Hezbollah and its allies gained around 60 percent of the popular vote in last year’s parliamentary elections, are essential to Lebanon’s security and stability, and have acted as one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIS, has been lost on British decision makers.
Citing Hezbollah as a security threat, when the UK is struggling with the blow-back from its own ISIS recruits demonstrates just how far removed UK decision-makers are from reality.
Indeed, British armed forces, according to a Hezbollah official, sought out the movement’s assistance in fighting ISIS in 2015, thus showing the rank hypocrisy that taints almost every British move in the Middle East. The UK’s unwelcome intervention into Lebanese politics shows that any semblance of even-handedness, such as that demonstrated by the UK’s siding with Europe over continued adherence to the Iran nuclear deal in the face of US pressure against Tehran, is merely a charade.
The UK inked one of its first post-Brexit trade agreements with Israel, continues to support its Saudi and Emirati allies with lethal weaponry to pursue their brutal war in Yemen, and shores up odious dictatorships in an attempt to boost its virtually stagnant economy.
The specter of lobby groups
This also begs questions about the integrity of the British foreign office (FCO). One can acknowledge the perverse maneuverings of ambitious politicians as being a motivating factor, but the supposed expertise and impartiality of the foreign office has been severely compromised by allowing such a short-sighted move to see the light of day.
Attempts to influence UK foreign policy are sadly following the model that has long predominated over the other side of the pond in Washington D.C.
Now, in London we have the unwelcome specter of lobbying groups with links to overseas regimes, holding events to try and influence UK decision-makers.
This can be seen in the moves of organizations such as the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, an organization set up ostensibly to promote globalization for all.
A recent event hosted by the Tony Blair Institute at parliament, aimed squarely at proscribing Hezbollah and involving pro-“Israeli” politicians and lobbyists, shows that the pernicious motives of foreign regimes are finding a place, and potentially a receptive ear in the heart of UK-decision making.
A waning reach
It appears that the FCO has followed the politicians and lobbyists’ lead here, and the UK’s waning international reach has forced it into giving a sop to its allies in the Middle East as it desperately struggles to keep itself relevant.
What this shows us is that UK foreign policy is open to the highest bidder – something the government department has essentially admitted before – which has serious ramifications for the UK’s mission as a so-called force for good in international affairs.
An institution that prides itself on its mission to promote British “values”, through active promotion of democracy, security and regional stability in the Middle East, should not be complicit in a move that is a blatant attempt to secure political capital by key cabinet members.
In short it is a move that directly undermines the fragile Lebanese democratic process, thus showing scant regard for the UK’s purported values and will ultimately be counter-productive in terms of UK national security. Legitimate political actors such as Hezbollah need to be engaged, not ostracized.
Labor politicians, and indeed any with a modicum of knowledge about the Middle East and who aren’t in thrall to foreign interests, would do well to push back against such misguided politicking.
Britain can only be taken seriously if it looks anew at the Middle East and casts off the imperial baggage that continues to cloud its reputation.
Recent noises from Labor have focused on plans for moving away from the laser-like focus on interests back towards values.
In doing so, current shadow foreign minister Emily Thornberry cited the obfuscating effect that previous UK governments’ obsessions with arms deals had on their ability to comprehend regional developments, particularly in relation to the Shah of Iran.
The current government would do well to heed this advice.
UK’s opposition Labor Party stressed on Tuesday that Home Secretary Sajid Javid had to provide evidence to justify his decision to widen a ban on Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement.
Britain said on Monday it plans to ban what it referred to as ‘all wings of Hezbollah due to its destabilizing influence in the Middle East’, branding the resistance movement as a ‘terrorist organization.’
“The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions,” a Labor spokesman said.
Asked about the comments, British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said it was for Labor to explain their decision.
“Hezbollah itself has publicly denied a distinction between its military and political wings,” the spokesman said.
The British ban, which will come into force on Friday subject to parliament’s approval, means anyone who is a member of Hezbollah or invites support ‘will be committing a criminal offense with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in jail.’
Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn has previously been criticized for his approach to Hezbollah, whose members he once termed friends. The remark is regularly seized upon by opponents for criticism.
Hezbollah was already considered a ‘terrorist organization’ by ‘Israel,’ the US and members of the Arab League.
In 2013, the European Union placed Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’ on its ‘terror list,’ and London had proscribed the group’s external security unit and its military wing in 2001 and 2008 respectively. Now, the UK plans to add the ‘political arm’ to that list too.
The UK’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid tabled a draft resolution on Tuesday to include Hezbollah’s political wing on the terror list. The issue was debated within the British House of Commons amid a clear split between the conservatives supporting the resolution and some Labor MPs who asked Javid to explain the reasoning behind the move.
It is clear that the British minister of Pakistani origin, who has ties with a lobby of “Israel’s” friends, is seeking to appease Jewish voters in his quest to reach the premiership at Theresa May’s expense as she faces difficulties in the government and within the ruling Conservative Party. After he was appointed home secretary, Javid exclaimed that if he were to live with his children in any country other than Britain, he would choose “Israel”!
Meanwhile, the Labor Party’s position was weak. Its deputies discussed the decision but did not object to it. This comes in light of media campaigns against the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, which accuse him of anti-Semitism as well as efforts by the pro-“Israel” lobby within Labor itself to divide the party. Diplomatic sources familiar with the Labor Party’s stance described it as “cowardly”, pointing out that “Corbyn is now on the defensive after receiving several blows.”
In their questions posed to the home secretary regarding his decision, a number of Labor MPs relied on a letter sent to them by the Lebanese Embassy in London, which included clarifications. The letter was reportedly sent to more than 250 deputies. It included a detailed explanation that “the wrong decision limits the margin of British action in Lebanon and in the region. Hezbollah is a faction with wide popular representation and represented in parliament, government and municipalities. It is difficult to distinguish it from the general Lebanese public.”
“Hezbollah has never targeted British citizens or British territory, which should be considered as part of the decision making mechanism when it comes proscribing it to terrorist lists, which is supposed to be an objective and fact-based mechanism rather than an arbitrary political decision that does not serve Lebanon or Britain,” the letter added.
On the other hand, the interventions of the conservative MPs appeared to be completely hostile to Hezbollah, involving some false information and lies. One of the MPs claimed that “Hezbollah is attacking Christian refugees in Lebanon!”
The draft resolution will be presented to the House of Lords on Thursday, before returning Friday to the House of Commons for a final decision. In the absence of objections, it is likely to be passed without a vote. In the case that there is an objection, the decision will likely still be approved.
Aside from the activities of the Lebanese Embassy in London, the question is why has the Lebanese state not moved in recent months to communicate with the British government and to sway it from its decision? Lebanon’s foreign mission in London has been sending reports for the past six months regarding preparations for the draft resolution. Hence, the decision could have been avoided or delayed if the necessary efforts were made. All this as the Lebanese government holds the upper hand since the UK needs to sign a trade agreement that will ensure the continued flow of its products to Lebanon after its exit from the European Union.
Meanwhile, the EU High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini met with senior officials as well as former MP Walid Jumblatt as part of her visit to Lebanon to inaugurate the new EU headquarters in Beirut. Moghrini offered assurances that Lebanon’s relationship with the European Union remains intact.
إعلان وزير الداخلية البريطاني ساجيد جافيد عن مشروع قرار لإدراج «الجناح السياسي» لحزب الله على لائحة الإرهاب، كان أمس موضع نقاش داخل مجلس العموم البريطاني، وسط انقسام واضح بين حزب المحافظين الذي يؤيّد المشروع وبعض نواب حزب العمال الذين طالبوا جافيد بشرح الاسباب الموجبة له. وبات واضحاً أن الوزير البريطاني ذا الأصول الباكستانية، فضلاً عن ارتباطه بلوبي أصدقاء إسرائيل، يسعى إلى استرضاء الناخبين اليهود في سعيه للوصول إلى رئاسة الوزراء على حساب تيريزا ماي التي تواجه صعوبات في الحكومة وداخل حزب المحافظين الحاكم. علماً أنه صرح، غداة تعيينه وزيراً للداخلية، إنه لو قدّر له العيش مع أولاده في دولة اخرى غير بريطانيا، لاختار إسرائيل!
في المقابل، جاء موقف حزب العمال هزيلاً. إذ ناقش نوابه القرار لكنهم لم يعترضوا عليه، في ظل حملات إعلامية تخاض ضد رئيس الحزب جيريمي كوربين واتهامه بمعاداة السامية، وأيضاً في ظل حملة انشقاقات داخل «العمال» بتحريض من اللوبي المؤيد لإسرائيل داخل الحزب نفسه. ووصفت مصادر دبلوماسية مطلّعة موقف «العمّال» بـ«الجبان»، مشيرةً إلى أن «كوربين الآن في موقف الدفاع بعد تلقيه عدّة ضربات».
واستند عدد من نوّاب حزب العمّال في مداخلاتهم إلى رسالة وجهتها لهم السفارة اللبنانية في لندن أمس، تضمّنت توضيحات للاستفادة منها في مساءلة وزير الداخلية حول القرار. وبحسب المعلومات، فقد وُجّهت الرسالة الى أكثر من 250 نائباً، وتضمّنت شرحاً تفصيلياً عن أن «القرار الخاطئ يحدّ من هامش تحرك بريطانيا في لبنان والمنطقة، فحزب الله فصيل يتمتع بتمثيل شعبي واسع وممثل في البرلمان والحكومة والبلديات، ويصعب تمييزه عن عموم الشعب اللبناني». وأضافت رسالة السفارة أن «حزب الله لم يسبق أن استهدف مواطنين بريطانيين أو الأراضي البريطانية، مما يعزز الاعتبار السياسي في آلية اتخاذ قرار الإدراج على لوائح الإرهاب، والتي يفترض أن تكون آلية موضوعية ومستندة إلى وقائع، وليس إلى قرار اعتباطي سياسي لا يخدم لبنان ولا بريطانيا». وفي المقابل، بدت مداخلات النواب المحافظين معادية لحزب الله تماماً مع كمّ من المعلومات المغلوطة والأكاذيب، مثل قول أحد النّواب إن
«حزب الله يعتدي على اللاجئين المسيحيين في لبنان»!
المشروع سيطرح غداً على مجلس اللوردات، قبل أن يعود الجمعة إلى مجلس العموم لاتخاذ القرار النهائي. وفي ظلّ عدم الاعتراض عليه، من المرجّح أن يسلك طريقه إلى الإقرار من دون تصويت. أما
في حال الاعتراض، فإنه حكماً سيكون في صالح إقراره.
وبعيداً عن نشاط السفارة اللبنانية، فإن السّؤال هو حول سبب عدم تحرّك الدولة اللبنانية طوال الأشهر الماضية للتواصل مع الحكومة البريطانية وثنيها عن القرار، علماً بأن تقارير السفارة في لندن أفادت منذ ستة أشهر عن التحضيرات لمشروع القرار، وبالتالي كان بالإمكان تفاديه أو تأخيره لو بذلت الجهود اللازمة، مع إمساك الحكومة اللبنانية أوراق قوّة في ضوء حاجة بريطانيا إلى توقيع اتفاقية تجارية تضمن استمرار تدفّق منتجاتها إلى لبنان بعد خروجها من الاتحاد الأوروبي.
وفي السياق نفسه، جالت المفوضة العليا للسياسة الخارجية والامن في الاتحاد الاوروبي فيديريكا موغيريني على المسؤولين، والتقت الرؤساء الثلاثة والنائب السابق وليد جنبلاط، في إطار زيارتها إلى لبنان لافتتاح المقرّ الجديد للاتحاد الأوروبي في بيروت. وحملت تصريحات موغريني تأكيدات على أن علاقة لبنان بالاتحاد الأوروبي ثابتة.
Jeremy Corbyn has been targeted by Israel and its lobby for years.
Aaron ChownZUMA Press Sarah Leah Whitson, the head of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division, was fiercely attacked by anti-Palestinian groups and pundits this weekend.
Whitson commented, “Why is this #Israel interference in domestic UK politics acceptable? Is it only a problem when Russia does this?”
Both are pertinent questions.
But predictably, Israel’s propagandists attacked the article as “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”
What Whitson’s attackers refused to address was the substance of the report. Instead, they falsely accused her of spreading “anti-Semitism.”
This is a deliberate tactic to distract from how Israel interferes in domestic UK politics – and indeed around the world.
What I reported – and has still not been contested, let alone refuted – is the fact that in August last year, a well-funded group called Act.IL had used a troll army to spread anti-Corbyn and anti-Labour propaganda in the UK.
A “mission” on the app directed users to comment on Facebook in response to a Huffington Post UK story about Corbyn’s alleged “anti-Israel remarks,” which the Israel-backed app claimed are “often a way to hide anti-Semitism.”
Since that report, The Electronic Intifada has obtained further evidence that Act.IL’s budget is more than $1 million.
An internal report states that, based out of “media rooms” in Israel, the US and the UK, Act.IL can direct an army of more than than 15,000 propagandists via its app.
This is only one example of Israeli interference in the UK. Here are some recent examples that we have reported in detail.
That same month it was revealed that Joan Ryan – Israel’s top MP within the UK Labour Party – fabricated an allegation of anti-Semitism at Labour’s annual conference in order to smear a party member and Palestine solidarity campaigner.
At that same conference, undercover video taken by an Al Jazeera reporter shows Masot telling Ryan, who is chair of Labour Friends of Israel, that he had secured “more than one million pounds” in Israeli government funding to bring UK lawmakers on junkets to Israel.
But for anti-Palestinian propagandists, all these uncontested facts are ignored, or dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” or “anti-Semitic.”
The defamation against those who report factually about Israel and its campaigns to influence politics overseas as anti-Semitic is not only deeply dishonest, but actively damaging to genuine anti-racist efforts to fight anti-Semitism – which is rising globally in Israel-allied countries such as Ukraine and Hungary.
Those who have appointed themselves to speak in the name of British Jews are determined to use any means to stop Corbyn. And they are not alone. Now, we learn from the rabid Zionist Jewish Chronicle that Israeli born psychic and spoon bender Uri Geller is firmly committed to stopping the Labour leader from becoming our PM.
Geller spoke in Jerusalem on a panel with Roseanne Barr at an event chaired by American rabbi, Shmuley Boteach. In answer to a question about the Labour Party leader, Mr. Geller told the Jerusalem audience:
“I have no problem in saying he is an antisemite. God forbid if he takes control.”
Rabbi Boteach asked Geller if he thought his celebrity status might be harmed by speaking out and calling Mr. Corbyn an antisemite.
“With all my telepathic powers I am not going to let that happen,” Geller said. “I have charisma, if I said it, I would say it in the right way. I would have to say it live on TV in Britain and feel the Jewish people looking at me.”
Ms Barr, could not resist. She said she too would support Mr Geller with her own “telepathic powers.”
This peculiar public exchange among three Jewish celebrities about Britain’s political future was reported by the Jewish Chronicle as a ‘news item.’ Apparently it was the most read article on the JC yesterday. Personally, I do not believe that Corbyn is on his way to 10 Downing Street nor do I think that his party, in its current state, is able to lead a country: it can’t even lead itself. I do wonder, however, whether the Brits are prepared for this crude supernatural interference with what is left of their crumbling democracy. Perhaps the MOD together with MI6 should begin immediate consideration of countermeasures. My guess is that saturating Britain with a high velocity magnetic field might suppress the powers of the spoon. Apparently no one has ever found an effective remedy for Barr’s ‘telepathic powers.’
Geller explained his support for Theresa May and the Tories to his Jerusalem audience. “It is important that she [Theresa May] stays in power because god forbid Corbyn should take her place,” Do I detect a hint of self-doubt in Geller’s statement? It sounds like the psychic doesn’t fully trust his own supernatural powers, nor does he seem assured by Roseanne Barr’s telepathic assistance. In the end, it is God that he asks to save the chosen people from the Amalekite Labour leader.
As an avid reader of Jewish history, I would advise Geller not to put his trust in his creator. For some peculiar reason the Jewish God tends to take a holiday when his favourite people are in desperate need of divine intervention.
My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.
British Prime Minister Theresa May lambasted Labor leader for his talks with Hamas and Hezbollah resistance movements, while he insists he ‘reached out’ to her last year and accuses her of showing ‘no flexibility.’
On Wednesday, May wondered why he was willing to meet with Hamas and Hezbollah but was not willing to meet with her to discuss Brexit.
“He has been willing to sit down with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA [Irish Republican Army] without preconditions, but he will not meet with me to talk about Brexit,” May said during a discussion in the House of Commons.
Corbyn, the head of the opposition in the British Parliament, said he had “reached out” to May in September to discuss Labor’s plans with her, but “It appears that, while the door to her office may well be open, the minds inside it are completely closed. She has shown no flexibility whatsoever on taking no-deal off the table.”
Throughout the crisis over Britain’s departure from the European Union—also known as Brexit—Corbyn refused to meet with May until she commits to not withdrawing Britain from the EU without a deal.
An investigation by The Electronic Intifada has documented 10 fake Twitter profiles posing as Corbyn supporters who have been posting virulent anti-Semitism.
The accounts share sufficient similarities to indicate that the same person – or group – is running them.
Without police involvement or a court case, it’s impossible to know for sure who is behind this troll network.
But whoever it is, they are clearly attempting to smear Labour as an anti-Semitic party.
All 10 posted their most violent and anti-Semitic content as replies to other tweets.
This means that many times, a cursory look at the accounts’ profile pages is unlikely to reveal anything immediately objectionable.
Most of the accounts’ more public-facing tweets are legitimate Labour Party or other political material. Two of the accounts have also postedlegitimate Palestine material.
Some of the legitimate Palestine solidarity material posted or retweeted by two of the accounts.
Because they are posted as replies, the anti-Semitic tweets would usually only be seen by those mentioned in them – or by enemies actively looking at those replies for evidence of “Labour anti-Semitism.”
All 10 accounts present themselves as belonging to Labour Party supporters, activists or even staffers.
Reverse Google Image searches confirm that seven of the 10 profile images are stolen photos – the other three are likely screen grabs from videos.
Six of the 10 profiles present as ostensibly Muslim – it is these profiles that have posted some of the most disturbing anti-Semitism, including direct calls for violence against Jews.
These accounts have Arabic names including “Abu Hussein” and “Abu Omar” while using stolenphotos, some of actual or alleged Islamists or Islamic extremists.
One such photo is of Muhammad Qutb, the late brother of influential Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
Surviving Twitter evidence shows the troll network dates back to at least November 2015.
The network
The 10 fake Labour accounts posting anti-Semitism analyzed by The Electronic Intifada are:
Two now-removed accounts which The Electronic Intifada was able to take first-hand screenshots of while still operational: @AbuHusseinLab and @CharlesBrownLab.
Three still operational accounts: @LabAbuHussein, @LabAbuYami and @dgrintz1. The latter was posting as recently as December.
Three of the 10 were first exposed by Labour news site The Skwawkbox in 2017 and 2018.
An example of how the troll network helped drive the crisis took place on the final day of Labour’s 2016 annual conference. At the time, there was a media uproar about supposed Labour anti-Semitism.
In this febrile atmosphere, the @dgrintz1 account tweeted that “A good Zionist is a dead one” at Tal Ofer – a British-Israeli member of the pro-Israel Jewish Labour Movement, a group that has driven the “Labour anti-Semitism” narrative from early on.
This reply-tweet was subsequently retweeted by Jeremy Newmark – then the JLM’s chairperson, though he was later forced to resign in disgrace.
In a reply targeting Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s official Twitter accounts, “Abu Hussein” threatened “Jihad” against “Jews,” alongside a bloody graphic of a knife.
But the account had stolen its profile photo from a dating site.
“Abu Hussein” was reported to Twitter for violent racism by this writer and other Twitter users.
But the troll network simply opened more accounts – at least four of its supposedly Muslim accounts began tweeting in April 2018.
And Israel’s ostensibly opposition Labor Party openly drove it, generating headlines by suspending relations with Corbyn’s office over his “hatred of the policies of the government of the state of Israel” and alleged anti-Semitism.
In October 2018, a new fake Labour account began tweeting: @DeanBrownLab.
“Dean Brown” claimed to be a “former Labour party staffer” and a member of Momentum – a group which emerged from the campaign to elect Corbyn as Labour leader.
On 27 October, the day of the Pittsburgh massacre in the US, the account tweeted to Israel’s prime minister: “YOU BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELVES.”
Neo-Nazi Robert Bowers has since been charged with the murder of 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue that day. He reportedly told police he wanted “all Jews to die.”
The account promptly disappeared. The goal of smearing Labour activists as anti-Semites had been achieved.
But as The Skwawkboxsoon revealed, Labour sources emphasized that no Dean Brown has ever worked for Jeremy Corbyn. Momentum also confirmed it had no membership record of any Dean Brown.
The profile photo the account used was of someone totally innocent and was stolen from a local press report.
Fabricated
This troll network shows how easy it is for an individual or small group of people to convey a false impression on social media.
Despite there being no evidence that “Wesley Brown,” “Abu Hussein” or any of the rest even existed – let alone that they were Labour members – the troll network fooled several high-profile politicians.
This was easy to do, since the fake profiles fit into a preconceived narrative that anti-Semitism is rife within Labour, especially in the pro-Corbyn left.
Those who created the fake accounts also exploited Islamophobic prejudice that anti-Semitism is endemic among Muslims, including activists within Labour.
When the dominant media narrative is so often based on fabricated evidence, a serious reappraisal and extreme caution about future claims are overdue.
Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and an associate editor with The Electronic Intifada.
Figures show that since 2008 Britain has sold weaponry worth £12bn to countries about which government has serious concerns
“Some campaigners expressed concern over the doubling of licence approvals to countries with human rights abuses since the Brexit referendum in 2016.”
Nearly a third of arms exports authorised by Britain over the past decade were to nations identified by the government as among the worst for human rights, new figures reveal.
Military arms deals worth an estimated £39bn were approved between 2008 and 2017, £12bn of which went to states included on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights “priority countries” list, according to analysis by Action on Armed Violence.
Over that period, the only country on the 30-strong watchlist to which Britain did not approve arms export deals was North Korea.
The analysis of the figures, collated by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade using export control data from the Department for International Trade, shows a clear upward trend in arms sales approved to watchlist countries, although individual years vary. The values are likely to be a “conservative estimate”, CAAT said, due to an opaque system of “open” licences that allow an unlimited number of consignments over a fixed period.
The DIT confirmed open licences are included among export licence figures, but has denied they are subject to less scrutiny.
The data shows a record number of arms export licences to nations on the watchlist in 2017, almost double the previous year. While 2018 was not included in the study, the British deal to supply 48 Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, reported earlier this year, is worth £5bn alone, a value that dwarfs previous agreements.
In total, 5,782 export licences for military items in countries of concern were approved last year, worth £1.5bn, up from 2,477, worth £820m, in 2016.
Some campaigners expressed concern over the doubling of licence approvals to countries with human rights abuses since the Brexit referendum in 2016.
In July, MPs from the committee on arms export control called on the government to adopt a default position of blocking arms sales to countries accused of abuses.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Colombia, all countries on the FCO watchlist, were among the DTI’s “core markets” for defence and security opportunities for 2017-18.
Britain is Saudi Arabia’s second largest arms dealer after the US, providing military exports worth £10.3bn over the past decade despite continued condemnation of the kingdom’s use of British weaponry in its bombing of Yemen. UN agencies allege that the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has violated international humanitarian standards, including widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets.
International pressure to halt arms to Riyadh has intensified following the death of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Last month, Denmark and Finland joined Germany in halting future arms sales to the kingdom, although their arms exports are relatively small.
British arms exports were also approved to many countries with weapon sales restrictions imposed by the UN, the EU or both. These include China, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Russia.
The DIT said it respects both EU and UN arms embargoes, but that it may send items not defined as weaponry to peacekeepers in such countries.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a member of the Commons committee on arms exports control and the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, said: “Approving sales of powerful surveillance equipment to regimes that hunt and kill journalists, or planes and bombs to dictators who use them on schools and hospitals, is a clear-cut violation of UK arms export control law. The government contempt for the law has inevitably resulted in UK arms exports enabling human rights abuses worldwide.”
Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, said: “There needs to be more attention focused on analysis of human rights reports before we sell arms to these countries. Even if there was now to be an arms embargo for Saudi Arabia, we have funded Saudi arsenals. There is no notion of pre-planning or forewarning.”
Andrew Smith, of CAAT, called on the prime minister to put human rights ahead of arms sales. There is “little control of how these weapons will be used or who they will be used against. Right now, UK arms are playing a central role in the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen. The arms sales that are being promoted today could be used to fuel atrocities for years to come.
“The policy of arming dictatorships and pouring weapons into warzones has been pursued by governments of all political colours. It is time for Theresa May and her colleagues to end the hypocrisy and finally put human rights ahead of arms sales.”
A DIT spokesman said:“The UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our export licensing assessment, which also takes into account our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and other relevant rules of international law.”
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
