Archive | June 27th, 2010



ZIONIST-LED SENATE COMMITTEE approved legislation that would “fundamentally reshape” the way the government ‘protects’ public AND private sector cyber networks.The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Joe Lieberman, a freedom-hating, Talmudic Jew, is the sponsor of this bill which would create a Cyberspace Policy Office within the White House.

The bill, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, maliciously crafted by Lieberman, would also create a new center within Homeland Security, (Talmudic Jew Lieberman at the head), which would implement cyber-security policies.

This new agency within the Department of Homeland Security will be named, The National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).

Any private company reliant on the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the US information infrastructure, will be “subject to command” by the NCCC and be required to engage in “information sharing” with the agency. AND a Zionist, that is, a Talmudic Jew, Joe Lieberman, will be the arbiter.

A provision of the legislation that will give the Zionist ultimate control of the Internet — given their rule over every sphere of US political life — is that which will give the president the power to “authorize emergency measures to protect the nation if a cyber vulnerability is about to be exploited.”

The language is obviously vague, thanks to the Zionist-intrigues of Lieberman, thus giving the president an “Internet kill switch” that would effectively allow him to turn off the Web (when Jews tell him to) in a so-called emergency.

Indeed, earlier this month, Lieberman was prepping the bill that would allow the government to take over civilian networks in a crisis. Thus, Internet advocacy groups are up in arms that the legislation would give the president the authority to conduct e-surveillance and monitor private networks.

In light of this vehement opposition, Lieberman was granted a spot on Bronfman’s CNN to refute the kill switch criticism. “If China can disconnect the Internet,” protested Lieberman, “we need to have that here too.”

Everything, my dear fellow Americans. Lieberman, a Zionist, FEARS Freedom of Speech, just like Communist China, in order to CENSURE all criticism of Zionism and their quest to take over the executive office.

And who controls the president of the United States? Zionist. Who then will control the Internet and e-mails? Your educated guess is as good as mine. JEWS. Do we really want Zionist police state? If your answer is no……then VOTE OUT THE ZIONIST!


Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on ZIONIST-LED SENATE




Invited speakers include Lauren Booth,

Survivors of Israel’s deadly assault on the Marvi Marmara, including PSC Director of Campaigns Sarah Colborne, Ismael Patel Friends of Al-Aqsa, and local campaigners for boycotting Israel

There will also be performances by local groups in support of the Palestinians and the campaign to boycott Israel.

The event will mark the launch of Boycott Israel 2010 before the start of Ramadan in the West Midlands

The event will remember the nine Turks killed by the Israeli navy on the Marvi Marmara

 25, OF JULY 2010 @ 6:30 PM


Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on BOYCOTT ZIONIST DATES



17 December 2009

Mahmoud Ab-Ass, the the Palestinian puppet , has refused to restart peace talks with Israel until all construction in the illegal settlements of the West Bank and East Jerusalem stops. This followed the public humiliation he suffered at the hands of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, on her visit to the Middle East at the end of October.

Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem on 31 October, standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton declared that stopping the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be considered as part of resumed peace talks, and not a precondition. Praising the Zionists for making ‘unprecedented concessions’ over the issue, she said that ‘There have never been preconditions.

It’s always been an issue within the negotiations’. Not even former President Bush went this far: in words he recognised that settlement activity had to stop if there were to be serious negotiations between the Zionists and the puppet PA.

What Netanyahu’s ‘unprecedented concessions’ amount to is only a moratorium on any new construction work in the settlements. It does not include work already started, work on infrastructure such as roads, or any work in East Jerusalem which Netanyahu considers to be an integral part of Israel. These ‘unprecedented concessions’ would still mean that work on over 3,000 housing units in the settlements would go ahead.

Then, on 17 November, the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee approved plans for 900 new housing units in the Gilo settlement in East Jerusalem. Other building plans in various stages of approval would mean around 4,000 new housing units being built in the Gilo area in the coming years. Expressing typical Zionist contempt for the Palestinians, a Gilo council member, responding to widespread outrage at the planned expansion, said: ‘I have never thought of Gilo as a settlement’.

In East Jerusalem there is a continuing process of driving out the Palestinian population. At least 600 Palestinians have been displaced by evictions and house demolitions since the beginning of 2009; a recent UN report showed that there are about 1,500 pending demolition orders against Palestinian homes which when implemented would expel around 9,000 people.

The pro-imperialist advocacy of participation in US-sponsored peace talks by Ab-Ass and his Fatah allies is becoming more and more untenable. The imprisoned Marwan Barghouthi, a member of Fatah’s central committee and the leader of the more militant wing of Fatah, has demanded that Ab-Ass stop depending on peace talks to achieve an independent Palestinian state,

‘Whoever thinks that the occupation will leave through unequal negotiations in seven-star hotels is completely wrong; it is always required to combine between negotiation and resistance on the ground’.

The settlement advance in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is completely undermining the position of Ab-Ass and his allies. That is why Ab-Ass has to talk ‘tough’ and demand a settlement freeze as a precondition to begin talks with Netanyahu again. On 17 November Ab-Ass launched a desperate appeal for international support to press the UN to recognise an independent Palestinian state. Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal criticised this, saying: ‘The proclamation of a Palestinian state should be the result of the resistance putting an end to the occupation…and not a decision taken by the PA to fill the void after the political option has failed.’

The combination of his humiliation by Clinton and his u-turns over the Goldstone Report has pushed Ab-Ass into declaring that he will not stand as a candidate in the next Palestinian Presidential election, due in January 2010. It remains to be seen whether he makes a u-turn on this as well.

Bob Shepherd

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on CLINTON HUMILIATES PUPPET AB-ASS


FRFI 207 February / March 2009

Labour friends of Zionism

Throughout the war Labour was determined to show that it supported Israel whatever the opinions of the majority of people in the country. Although on 29 December Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was ‘appalled’ by the violence, two days later he was clearly laying the blame on Hamas:

‘I call on Gazan militants to cease all rocket attacks on Israel immediately. These attacks are designed to cause random destruction and to undermine the prospects of peace talks led by President Abbas. I understand the Israeli government’s sense of obligation to its population.’

On 3 January, as Israel began its ground attack, Brown called for Israel to ‘scale back’ its attack, saying that ‘too many’ had died. On 4 January, with 480 Palestinians dead, Brown said: ‘What we’ve got to do almost immediately is to work harder than we’ve done for an immediate ceasefire.’ He set three goals, the top priority being an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, followed by an end to arms shipments into Gaza, and last of all the opening of Gaza’s border crossings.

In the first days of Israel’s attacks Britain openly blocked efforts in the UN to call for a ceasefire, on the basis that the proposed resolution did not place sufficient blame on the Palestinians. On 4 January former British ambassador Craig Murray stated on his blog that according to high level diplomatic contacts at the UN, British diplomats on the UN Security Council continued to be under direct instructions to offer ‘tacit support’ to the US’s efforts to block a ceasefire, even whilst Gordon Brown ‘appeased domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire’.

Meanwhile Labour ministers were expressing concern about the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. On 5 January, Communities’ Secretary Hazel Blears, who had argued on 10 December for the need to confront ‘non-violent extremism’ by Muslims, said she was ‘very concerned’ that the conflict in Gaza could foster extremism, whilst Justice Minister Shahid Malik suggested that the events were having a ‘profoundly acute and unhealthy’ effect on Muslim communities in Britain.

On 8 January 14 Muslims from the government’s panel of ‘counter-extremism’ advisors wrote to Brown warning that ‘For Muslims in the UK and abroad, we run the risk of potentially creating a loss of faith in the political process.’ This is the source of the government’s concern that ‘too many’ have died in Gaza – not that they are opposed to Israel’s barbaric actions, but that they are worried about the impact on the streets of Britain.

On 15 January Brown also offered assistance to Israel to monitor Gaza’s borders, including support from the British navy, supposedly to prevent Hamas re-arming. The prospect of the deployment of the British navy coincides with renewed talks between British Gas and Israel on the exploitation of gas reserves off the coast of Gaza.

These total one trillion cubic feet, equivalent to 150 million barrels of oil, for which British Gas has held a 90% licence since 1999 in partnership with the Palestinian Authority. A proposed deal whereby the gas would be exported to Israel collapsed in 2007. In June 2008, Israel approached British Gas to reopen negotiations which took place under the direction of Ehud Olmert in October 2008.

Thomas Vincent

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on OUR ZIONIST PRIME MINISTER


Wednesday, June 2, 2010, National Press Club, Washington, DC

Good afternoon,

My name is Gloria La Riva, I am coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five. We are here today at the National Press Club in Washington, along with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice, Heidi Boghosian of the National Lawyers Guild, and Brian Becker of the ANSWER Coalition, to present evidence of the U.S. government’s misconduct in relation to the Cuban Five’s case, and violation of the law banning domestic propaganda.

After our presentations, we will have a Question-and-Answer period. I will present first.

For the first time, we are revealing today the payments made to the Miami journalists by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, through Radio and TV Marti, during the time of the Cuban Five’s detention and trial. The dates of these payments are from November 1999 to December 31, 2001. We are also presenting today, the articles written during that time period, while the Cuban Five were in Miami detention or on trial, as well as commentary by these government-paid journalists. Although we have requested information as far back as 1996, the BBG has only given us data from November 1999.

What makes the secret payments so egregious is that they were made by the same government that was prosecuting the five Cubans. It is widely known that Radio and TV Martí are U.S. government propaganda. Their purpose is to try to influence the Cuban population against the Cuban government. It is also a thoroughly-documented fact that hardly anyone in Cuba sees TV Martí or hears Radio TV [Martí]. The largest audience by far of the U.S. State Department’s propaganda, is right inside the United States, in Miami, Florida, through means of the government-paid journalists.

For U.S. journalists to pose as independent, but receive payment from the government agency that transmits U.S. propaganda, in effect assures that this highly-inflammatory U.S. propaganda is illegally communicated to the very audience from which the jury for the Cuban Five trial was picked.

Thus, the Cuban Five were denied the most elemental right to due process in court. What we are disseminating today is a segment of the extremely prejudicial coverage that the Miami population was subjected to, including months before the trial began. There remains much more to be uncovered, and which we will divulge as we obtain the information. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard will detail more about our ongoing lawsuit and second FOIA to obtain more information, but first I would like to review just a sample of this highly prejudicial and false coverage, bought and paid for by Washington:

  • Wilfredo Cancio Isla was a reporter for El Nuevo Herald, the newspaper with the highest Spanish language distribution in Miami. He received $4,725 from Sept. 30, 2000 to December 3, 2001. One article in that period was published the day the Jury began its deliberations at the conclusion of the trial. Keep in mind that this jury was unsequestered. The jurors went home every day of the seven-month trial. And BEFORE the jury was selected, the future members of the jury, as part of the larger Miami community, were subjected to 26 months of inflammatory coverage about the Cuban Five.

  • On June 4, 2001, the very day that the jury began its deliberations on the question of guilt or innocence, Wilfredo Cancio’s article appeared in El Nuevo Herald, with the headline, “Cuba used hallucinogens to train its spies.” The article claims, from an unnamed source – a supposed Cuban spy defector — that Cuba gives its spies LSD and other hallucinogens, in order to train them for missions abroad. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. But that is not the real point of the story.

  • The objective of the article is to taint the Five’s case. In a very clever distortion, Wilfredo Cancio manages to link the Five to this outrageous charge, by quoting the anonymous man named Alex, as saying, “I can assure you that the Wasp Network is just a part of the espionage work that was conceived to infiltrate the United States on a long-term basis.” As if to imply by mentioning them in an article about hallucinogens, that the Five were given drugs to control their minds.

  • This supposed “news’ article had no evidence, just outrageous lies. Yet Wilfredo Cancio received government money. He also wrote an article that appeared in the same paper on April 19, 2001, in which a discussion between the judge, prosecution and defense took place with the jury removed. The defense team had requested permission from the judge to return for a second trip to Cuba to take testimony from additional witnesses.

  • The prosecution complained about the defense request, and in a statement that would not have been allowed in a courtroom with the jury present, said, “Cuba is constructing a fabricated version of the facts.” The jury may not have been present, but this article and the headline, “The prosecution fears Cuban control in spy trial” was available for all to see, including the jury, in El Nuevo Herald. Written by government-paid Wilfredo Cancio. 

  • Ariel Remos, who writes for Diario de las Américas, covertly received $11,700 during the period of November 1, 1999 to December 12, 2001, the period of the Cuban Five’s prosecution. He wrote extensively calling for Cuban President Fidel Castro’s arrest for the plane shootdown. But the part we will concern ourselves with today, is in the documented period of his payments, where Ariel Remos wrote biased and hostile articles, interviewing only members of the exile Cuban community who have a longstanding enmity with the Cuban leadership.

  • On the U.S. payroll he published in the U.S. press the demand for prosecuting Fidel Castro. In one article he also condemned Gerardo Hernández, whom the U.S. government was prosecuting. He refers to the charge against Hernández and then says that the chain of command begins with Fidel Castro. This theme was a steady drumbeat of hysteria from 1996 all the way through the conviction of the Five. He never disclosed that he was being paid by the U.S. It was a theme repeated continuously by the next writer, Pablo Alfonso.

  • Pablo Alfonso received $58,600.00 from November 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001, during the prosecution of the Cuban Five. He wrote quite a few prejudicial articles immediately after the Five’s arrest in 1998 through 2001 – which you can see from the documents here at the Press Club and on our website. Focusing on the documented period of payments, he gives voice to the rightwing Miami congress members, who lead a campaign to demand Fidel Castro’s arrest and indictment, during the Five’s prosecution, without disclosing covert payments from the United States government.

  • Enrique Encinosa is news director of Radio Mambí, one of the most biased and vitriolic radio stations, whose commentators have been known to openly welcome violence against people in Miami who advocate normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Encinosa secretly received at least $5,200 during the period of the Five’s prosecution, at the same time that he was a public commentator on the station.

  • Encinosa has a long terrorist past, and he has used the Miami and international airwaves to call for terrorist acts against the people of Cuba. Thus, the U.S. government was not only directly influencing the outcome of the Cuban Five’s case by paying Encinosa, Washington knowingly financed a terrorist.

  • Helen Ferre received $1,125 from February 21, 2001 to December 13, 2001, the period of the prosecution of the Five. She is editor of the opinion page of Diario Las Américas, which published Ariel Remos, and other biased articles against the Five, including an article by the notorious terrorist Orlando Bosch, who carries a veiled threat against at least one of the defense lawyers.

    The Cuban Five, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González, and René González were irreparably harmed by the sea of prejudice generated by the Miami media. The government’s role in financing much of the vitriolic media coverage means that the government has the obligation to immediately remedy this wrong. The Cuban Five must be freed.

    [Note: The background facts about our research is the following: The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in January 2009 for information on payments made to Miami journalists by the OCB and BBG, from the date of Jan. 1, 1996 to December 31, 2001.

  • We requested information from the date 1996, because in February 1996, the Brothers to the Rescue planes invaded Cuban airspace, and were shot down by Cuba as an act of state to protect its territory. Several months after the Cuban Five were arrested in 1998, one of the Five, Gerardo Hernández, was unjustifiably charged with murder conspiracy for the shootdown. Several months after our FOIA request, the OCB released some preliminary information, including the payments received by the journalists we are naming today.

  • But since then, the agency has denied our request for the contracts and other information. However, while we continue to conduct our research, the National Committee already has substantial information that shows a systematic policy of government manipulation of the media in Miami.]

Posted by RATB

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on AMERICA PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE CUBAN FIVE




So said women in Deptford in south east London interviewed by the BBC after the coalition government’s 22 June emergency budget. ‘An admirably tough-minded statement of intent,’ said The Economist, noting that sterling and gilts had strengthened, demonstrating the City’s approval of the attack on public spending and on the working class (26 June 2010).

‘Overall, everyone will pay something, but the people at the bottom of the income scale will pay proportionately less than the people at the top. It is a progressive budget,’ claimed Chancellor George Osborne.  This brazen lie was quickly exposed even by the ruling class’s own Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Financial Times.

The emergency budget will cost £113 billion by 2014-15, that is £4,300 a year on average for every household in the country. But the cost will not be borne equally; the incomes of the poorest fifth of the population will decline by approximately 8%, those of the middle fifth by 4% and the richest fifth by less than 3%. We are not all in this together: the poorest are being pushed into complete misery to try and maintain the capitalist system.

 From Latvia to Spain and Portugal, from Germany to Italy, France and Greece welfare benefits and services are being slashed to enhance profits and try and revive capital. Capitalism is in crisis – this is class war.

Osborne described the Child Tax Credit system as ‘unsustainable’. Child benefit is to be frozen for three years and payments to families earning collectively £40,000 and over will be restricted. Disability living allowance will be curbed, housing benefits will be cut. Public sector workers earning over £21,000 will have a two year pay freeze.

From 2011 a raft of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions will follow the Consumer Price Index and not the Retail Price Index. The Treasury forecasts the CPI for June 2010 to be 2.8% and the RPI to be 4%. By realigning the benefits and pensions the government expects to save £11 billion; that is £11 billion taken out of the pockets of people least able to go without it. This is the refined cruelty of the British bourgeoisie.

From January 2011 VAT will rise from 17.5% to 20% – this is the most regressive tax and hurts poorest people most. A levy on banks, presumably a crowd pleaser, will gather from £1.5 – £2.5 billion; small change to the trillion pound behemoths of the City. Corporation tax will be cut from 28% to 24%; the lowest tax on profits in any advanced capitalist country.

Labour had already planned to cut departmental spending by £52 billion by 2014-15. The coalition government intends to cut £84 billion. On 20 October 2010 the Treasury will produce a four-year spending review detailing where the cuts will be made. If the NHS and international aid are protected, as the government states, cuts will be from 25-33% across education, defence, transport, the environment, culture, energy and climate change, the Home Office, the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices etc. It will be year after year of cuts followed by cuts.

Osborne said this was ‘unavoidable’. It is sheer idolatry: devotion to the markets and mechanisms through which the vast accumulations of wealth of monopoly capitalism rule over us.

If the coalition government proceeds with these plans there will be resistance. Millions more people will be driven into poverty. The poorer sections of the working class will suffer most, the middle classes and better paid workers will see their life-styles become more pinched and mean; unemployment will soar in parts of the country and rise everywhere.

The coalition government says it wants to put a sign on the door of the country saying ‘Open for business’ – be assured, that sign will say ‘Closed’. Public sector workers, the poor and the dispossessed must form their own coalition to repulse this ruling class assault and break the government.

Trevor Rayne  

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on THIS IS CLASS WAR



The history of Britain’s biggest clothing retailer Marks and Spencer demonstrates how consumer habits in Britain are tied to the oppression of other peoples. Marks and Spencer has championed the state of Israel and thus connived in the dispossession and suppression of the Palestinians. Our comforts and pleasures, which Marks and Spencer so eagerly service, have been bought at an unacceptable price, as TREVOR RAYNE reveals.

Russian Tsar Alexander II was assassinated in 1881. Pogroms against the Russian Jews followed. Many Jewish people fled to the USA, some came to Britain and a trickle went to Palestine – a land they called Zion. Among those coming to Britain was Michael Marks, who was settled in Leeds by 1884.

Between 1870-1900 real incomes per head in Britain rose by up to 70%. As factory production of consumer goods increased so pedlars, fairs and markets gave way to fixed shops. By 1875 department stores catered for the middle classes. In the last twenty years of the nineteenth century the number of branches of multiple retail firms increased seven fold and some in the working class began to imitate middle class shopping habits.

Michael Marks’ early career reflected these changes as he went from being a pedlar to a chain store owner. By 1903 the firm had 40 branches and moved its headquarters to Manchester. Tom Spencer had joined Marks in 1894 and Marks and Spencer dates from 28 September 1894.

A dynasty is founded

From its foundation until today Marks and Spencer has retained the founding families and their heirs on its directorial board. Michael and Hannah Marks’ daughter Rebecca married Israel Sieff in 1910; her brother Simon married Israel’s sister Miriam in 1915. Israel was to become the first Lord Sieff, chair and president of the company. Another Marks’ daughter, Miriam, married Manchester Guardian journalist Harry Sacher.

Sacher became a director and historian of the company and also worked as a barrister in Palestine. Another daughter, Elaine, married Norman Laski, who later became a director. Together in their Zionist activities they became known as ‘The Family’.

Hovevi Zion (Love of Zion) was founded among Russian Jews in 1882. It wanted Jewish people to go to Palestine and establish a homeland there. Early Russian Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine depended on Baron Edmond de Rothschilds’ money and Arab labour. The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897.

Theodor Herzel, an early Zionist leader, explained, ‘For Europe we shall create there in Palestine an outpost against Asia, we shall be the vanguard of the civilised world against barbarism.’ Originally, the British government proposed that a Jewish homeland be established in Uganda – a suggestion later echoed by Nazi plans for settling Jews in Madagascar or Siberia.

However, British imperialism warmed to the idea of supplanting the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East and to that end Zionism soon found supporters among the British ruling class. Britain encouraged Zionism in Palestine during the early part of the First World War to encourage US Jews to ally the USA with Britain against the Turkish Ottomans.

With the 2 November 1917 Balfour Declaration the British government announced its intention to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. In 1920 Palestine became a British mandated territory and the Balfour Declaration was incorporated in that mandate. Prime Minister Balfour said, ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… (Zionism was) of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.’ The British Labour Party and Trade Union Congress swiftly endorsed the Balfour Declaration.

Chaim Weizmann was to become leader of Zionism and in 1949 Israel’s first president. Weizmann was a reader in biochemistry at Manchester University. During the First World War Weizmann worked for the British military extracting acetone from maize for use in cordite, an explosive. Weizmann used this contribution to the war effort to advance the Zionist cause.

He had supporters in CP Scott editor of the Manchester Guardian, the journalist Herbert Sidebotham, Simon Marks, Israel Sieff and Harry Sacher. Marks and Sieff had become convinced Zionists around 1913. Weizmann wrote, ‘Zionism became the lietmotif of their lives, and they brought it qualities of which we stood greatly in need.’

Between 1917-20 Sieff accompanied Weizmann abroad with the British Palestine Commission. Simon Marks was seconded by the British army to direct Weizmann’s London headquarters.

Marks recalled, ‘One day I was a signaller. The next day I was plunged into the mysteries of diplomacy and found myself representing Weizmann on equal terms as generals and admirals.’ In 1918 Weizmann enlisted the support of Emir Faisal, later the King of Iraq, for a Zionist state.

A super-store

As Marks and Spencer grew so it was better placed to support the Zionist movement. 1922 was a bad year for Germany as the German mark collapsed but a good year for Marks and Spencer. Goods bought in Germany for a few pounds were sold in Britain for thousands. Marks and Spencer’s profits for 1922 were five times those of 1921.

In 1924 the company’s head office moved from Manchester to Chiswell Street, London. Marks and Spencer became a public company in 1926 with the Prudential Assurance Company investing heavily in the business and appointing two directors. From this time on and until today the fusion of Prudential’s finance with Marks and Spencer was destined to create a super-store.

The number of Marks and Spencer’s shops grew from 126 in 1927 to 234 in 1939 – continuing to open stores throughout the Great Depression – and establishing a close relationship with the building company Bovis.

The Marble Arch Marks and Spencer opened in 1930 and the Pantheon, further along Oxford Street, in 1938. ‘Customers were intended to come there to enjoy themselves and not merely discharge a harassing and tiring chore; it tried to do for the mass of the people what the great department stores had done for the middle classes.’ (Goronwy Rees, St Michael: A history of Marks and Spencer).

 Sales of dress material gave way to sales of dresses and stockings as artificial fibres and the mass production of women’s clothes developed between the world wars. Food retailing was introduced with canned fruit and oranges produced by settlers in Palestine.

Marks and Spencer registered St Michael in 1928 as the trademark for goods produced to its orders. The archangel Michael is the patron and guardian angel of the Jewish people. In the Book of Daniel, Michael is described as the special protector of Israel. Saint Michael is also the patron saint of battle, of security forces and paratroopers, of banking, of the sick and those possessed by the devil. Saint Michael is also the Archangel of Death.

‘Making the desert bloom’

In 1918 Jews formed less than 10% of Palestine’s population. By 1929 the Jewish population had nearly trebled to 156,000. They had 4% of the land but 14% of the cultivable land. In 1939 there were approximately half a million Jewish people in Palestine. Zionist settlers expelled Arab peasants from the land.

Zionism opposed co-operation with the Arabs; Jews were to be separate and superior. Despite Arab riots in Jerusalem in 1929 the British Labour Prime Minister MacDonald encouraged increased Zionist settlement. Weizmann remarked that Labour ‘in their pro-Zionist enthusiasm, went far beyond our intentions’ in throwing Palestinian Arabs off the land.

Between 1936-39 Arabs rebelled against British rule in Palestine: over 5,000 Arabs were killed and 14,000 wounded as British forces put the revolt down.

Weizmann and his fellow Zionists had opened the Hebrew University in Rehovoth in 1926. In 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor in Germany, Weizmann wanted to provide a refuge for Jewish scientists forced out of Germany and apply science to the problems of a Jewish agricultural economy in Palestine.

That year Israel and Rebecca Sieff, together with Weizmann, opened the Daniel Sieff Research Institute in Rehovoth (named after the Sieffs’ recently deceased son). During the Second World War the Sieff Research Institute provided the Allied forces with pharmaceuticals and help in producing synthetic rubber.

When Weizmann became Israel’s president the Sieff Research Institute became part of the Weizmann Institute. Marks and Spencer’s directors wanted their firm to become a model for Zionist and Israeli commerce. As Arabs were killed and driven from their land so Zionist scientists worked to ‘make the desert bloom’.

Marcus Sieff, later Lord Sieff of Brimpton, brother of Daniel, first visited Palestine in 1939 at the age of 16. After the Second World War, Marcus Sieff heeded the call of David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister upon the foundation of Israel in 1948, to defend the new state.

Marks and Spencer and Marcus Sieff provided organisational and material support to Israel in this period. Marcus Sieff returned to Britain in 1951 and took over the expanding food department. Food sales grew from 14% of total sales in 1956 to over a quarter in 1968. Marks and Spencer supported Israeli agriculture and manufacture with both supplies and imports.

Marcus Sieff became chancellor of the Weizmann Institute of Science. In 1974 Labour Foreign Secretary James Callaghan asked Sieff to become British ambassador to Israel but Sieff declined. He was made director of Marks and Spencer in 1972 and served on the board until his death earlier this year. His son, Sir David, is currently a director.

The threat of global brands

Marks and Spencer suffered an over 50% drop in profits in 1999 as the threat from global brands and stores like Matalan, Next, Tesco and Gap bit into sales. Nevertheless, the Financial Times year 2000 rankings still had Marks and Spencer as the 36th biggest British firm if measured by market capitalisation value.

The company was worth about £9 billion and employed 51,306 people. As befits such a fortune, the directorship now represents a cross-section of British finance capital. Current and recent directors include the chairs of the Prudential, Centrica, Rolls Royce, Cable and Wireless, the Defence Industries Council, the deputy chair of Bass, directors of Schroders, Standard Chartered Bank, Philips, Cornhill Insurance, Rio Tinto and the Canary Wharf Group. Also on board is Dame Stella Rimington, former head of MI5 – no doubt appointed for her dress sense.

Marks and Spencer’s directors include the chair of the British-Israeli Chamber of Commerce and the governor of the Weizmann Institute of Science. According to Greenribbon and the Jewish Chronicle, Marks and Spencer sell approximately £240 million worth of Israeli goods each year. The Israeli ambassador to the Court of Saint James recently honoured Marks and Spencer for its support of Israel. This support has been unstinting.

Marks and Spencer has long been regarded as one of the better employers in Britain. Most of its produce was British made (99%, they used to boast) and the firm had a reputation for quality. Marks and Spencer served as a model of British commercial success, a shop that people would visit from Paris, New York, the former British colonies or wherever, whenever they were in London.

 Many shopping centres and high streets were propped up by the continuing presence of Marks and Spencer. The shoppers never saw the diabolical plot their search for value for money became part of. Good intentions, carefully packaged far away like Israel itself, built another tragedy in the Middle East.

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on MARKS & SPENCER: ZIONIST ALLY



Here’s a simpler, three-step, guide: Accept the existence of a connection between your government’s policies and the trouble you’re having; recognize that alternatives exist (hey, your PM just said that the blockade was a mistake); use your clout to force the government to adopt them.

Until they sober-up, however, Israeli businessmen will continue throwing money at consultants peddling the satirist’s treasure trove below.


Business in the flotilla’s shadow

Demonstrations were staged in the United States against unloading the cargo off a ZIM ship; Sweden declared nine days of Israel’s boycott; and the UK boycotted of Israeli companies — which proves that business and politics do mix.  How can we keep doing business in the atmosphere of incessant media onslaught against Israel?  Four international management experts explain

Anat Cohen, Globes, June 22 2010 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]


1.  Beware of local partners

Also: Consider working independently and stay away from France and Scandinavia

Attorney Amos Conforti, of the Shenhav, Conforti, Shavit & Co. Firm:

“In ordinary times, it is recommended that businessmen who work abroad cooperate with local partners who are familiar with the business and legal environment there.  Regardless of whether you intend to move a marketing center or establish a branch abroad, working with a local partner is convenient because he provides a kind of foothold and base of activity.  This is particularly advisable in countries where the legal system is not transparent (such as in East Europe), or where you are not certain that the legal system is not given to external and political pressures.

“Yet, in view of the flotilla affair and the anti-Israeli sentiment that followed it, I would recommend considering solo activity over joining a local partner in the country of destination.  In fact, Israeli businessmen can no longer trust local partners because they might be affected by the local politics and public opinion.

“Potentially, such a partner might steal ideas, goods, or even funds.  I therefore recommend that Israeli businessmen exercise caution when seeking foreign partners and consider going solo in their ventures in the country of destination.  This, however, may be risky because, being an Israeli, you typically lack a deep understanding of the local culture and market.  That could be compensated for by wisely choosing a venue for international arbitration.  With this in mind, I would suggest that for now, the Israelis stay away from France and Scandinavia.”

2.  Bring up the murky atmosphere

So that the other side could not manipulate the public opinion

Moti Crystal, Nest-Consulting Co.:

“Many Israeli firms that presently establish business ties with European, Asian, and US partners are praying that the Marmara affair would not surface during their negotiations.  They fear it might feature in the subtext and work against them while that the other side leverages the political situation in its favor.  They fear that the other side might take advantage of our weak standing as Israelis and of our desire to make deals, and seek negotiation benefits or, what is worse, renegotiate contracts.

“I would actually suggest that the Israelis take a preventive move; namely, neither wait for the other side to bring up the issue, nor play it down with a typical Israeli remark such as, ‘Forget politics; let’s talk business.’  My experience shows that this is a wrong strategy to employ in negotiations when you are at a disadvantage.  The right way to go about this would be to start by saying something like, ‘I assume that our mutual interests are stronger than political interests,’ as soon as the talks begin.

“This is important for several reasons.  First, you sort of disarm the other side and prevent it from making a manipulative use of the situation against you.  Also, when you bring up the issue at the beginning of the negotiations, you are actually gathering intelligence.  That is, you study the true intentions of the company you are dealing with and discover whether it has a problem with you as an Israeli (for example, it might lose Arab clients, receive conflicting instructions from above, or show some loaded emotions).  If this is the case, you should quit the deal at this stage, so as not to be exposed later to cynical leverages that may be used against you when you are in over your head.”

3.  Use political noise as a whip

The post-flotilla atmosphere actually helps establishing a tough tactical deadline for closing a deal

Crystal:  “Doing a double-negative on the situation, Israel’s current negative stance can help clever businessmen expedite deals.  For example, they can tell their foreign counterparts: ‘Let’s establish the terms of the deal now because reality in the Middle East is very volatile.’  The post-flotilla atmosphere can actually help you establish a tough tactical deadline for closing a deal because you will be making the other side believe that the current political noise is actually an opportunity for him to secure the deal with an x benefit (‘Better take advantage of my situation now because things might get worse,’ or ‘Buy now under the terms I am offering you because demand may soar tomorrow, and so will the price’).

“Such an attitude is particularly beneficial for businessmen who deal in products where the political reality may be good for business, such as products from the security industries, Hi-Tech firms that work for them, and so on.  This would be a clever way to use the atmosphere as a sword.”

4.  Go for economically distressed countries

Greece and Spain can sympathize with us as underdogs

Crystal:  “In view of the flotilla affair and the general onslaught against us, we should try doing business with countries whose economies are in distress, and employ a ‘mutual-aid psychology’ with them.  The relevant countries are such as Greece, Spain, and Italy, which currently experience economic distress and could sympathize with us as underdogs.

“You can tell your Greek counterpart: ‘Your economic situation sucks and my political situation sucks.  This could be the best time for us to join hands.’  I know from my experience that when two parties that are driven by distress join together, they can create tough and durable businesses that would be stronger than when dealing with the wealthy Western countries.  Businessmen from two hard-pressed countries can know better how to distinguish between business and political agendas and neutralize irrelevant noise.” Read more of this post

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on ZIONIST GUIDE TO POST-FLOTILLA


Obama demands end to blockade

Shimon Shiffer, Yediot, June 27 2010 [page 4; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]


The lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip and permission for Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip freely through Israeli border crossings. These are the unequivocal demands that President Barack Obama is expected to make during his meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the White House in two weeks.

If anyone thought that lifting the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip would satisfy the Americans, it is now clear to them that is only the beginning. Reliable sources who have been apprised of the preparations that the White House is making for the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu revealed that the demands are much more significant. While Obama voiced his satisfaction with the relief measures that Israel announced, he believes that the situation in which more than a million and a half inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are living is intolerable.

The American president is particularly angry that the inhabitants are not free to leave the Gaza Strip. He sees that as a kind of “collective punishment.” Political sources say that Netanyahu, who has chosen not to change the situation with the Gaza Strip, now finds himself under a great deal of international pressure and must act under pressure from the United States.

Obama also intends to examine the issue of extending the construction freeze with Netanyahu. It may be assumed that Netanyahu will make a continuation of the construction freeze conditional upon going over to direct talks with Abu Mazen.

But considering the firm demands to be made in the private meetings, White House officials are planning quite a warm reception for Netanyahu. Obama’s advisers are preparing quite a few “photo ops” in which the president and Netanyahu will be seen together in public. According to the plan, they will go out into the Rose Garden, which overlooks Obama’s office, where they will answer questions from the media.

Reliable sources say that one of the reasons for the special effort is requests from Jewish Democrats running in the interim Congressional elections this coming November, who are  urging the White House to provide them with “friendly pictures” of Obama and Netanyahu.

White House officials are even looking into the possibility that Obama will invite the Israeli prime minister to come with him to Camp David for talks that will go far into the night. The president’s advisers are examining the idea, the purpose of which, in essence, is to see first-hand which compromises Netanyahu is willing to strive for in a final status arrangement with the Palestinians and with Syria.

Sources in Washington explained that Obama expects to hear from Netanyahu “not only slogans about his willingness to enter negotiations with Abu Mazen and with Assad,” but to show clearly what he means when he talks about two states — Israel and Palestine — existing side by side. Another subject about which the American president expects an answer is Israel’s willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights as part of a peace treaty with Syria.

Perhaps the most sensitive issue that is going to be discussed in the talks between the two leaders is Obama’s view that the world must give up nuclear weapons. Since Netanyahu is very well aware that the opinions of American decision-makers on this matter have changed, he will try to receive guarantees that for now, there will be no change in American policy regarding Israel’s nuclear capability.




Targeting Israel’s Palestinians

 By Ben White
Palestinian Israelis watch as Sheikh Raed Salah is brought before magistrates for participating in the Gaza aid flotilla [GALLO/GETTY] 

Israel’s Palestinian minority has always been subject to discriminatory policies, but some now say that a more open conflict between the Israeli establishment and its Palestinian citizens appears to be brewing.

In May, Ameer Makhoul, the director of Ittijah, a network for Palestinian NGOs, was taken from his home in the middle of the night by the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service.

Once the media gag was lifted, it emerged that Makhoul and another Palestinian citizen, Omar Said, a natural medicine expert and Balad party activist, were facing serious security-related charges.

Both men were denied access to lawyers for approximately a fortnight.

Makhoul’s wife, Janan Abdu, says she feels that her husband is being made an example of.”He’s in a key position in within the community here, has a high profile internationally and he has been speaking clearly about discrimination and encouraging [a] boycott [of Israel].”

“They have done what they threatened to do,” she says, referring to a warning Shin Bet agents gave Ameer in January 2009 that the “next time” he would have to say goodbye to his family for a long time.

‘Political dead-end’

In 2007, Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, made it clear that the agency would “thwart” any activities that challenge the Jewish character of the state, regardless of whether those activities are legal.

Hussein Abu Hussein, a lawyer on the legal teams representing Makhoul and Said, says he feels that some within the Israeli establishment are looking for a confrontation with the Palestinians inside Israel.

“The state has reached a political dead-end, with worldwide condemnation of Israel’s actions, and calls for the prosecution of leaders in international courts.

“They don’t know what they want – with regards to the nature of the state, what to do with Palestinians in the West Bank, in Gaza. Attacking a minority is a way of avoiding the real issues.”

In recent weeks, it has been elected Arab members of the knesset (MKs) who have been subjected to such attacks – in particular, Haneen Zoubi, from the Balad party, after she returned from participating in the Gaza aid flotilla.

One knesset debate descended into farce, threats and the physical intimidation of Zoubi, with the chamber echoing to cries like “Go to Gaza, traitor”.

“The appalling behaviour of many Jewish MKs in the debate – including some from the so-called centrist Kadima – signals just how endangered this venue for debate and interaction between the Palestinian minority and Jewish majority has become,” says Israeli journalist and commentator Dmitry Reider.

‘Aggressive political punch’

Some Palestinian Israelis believe they are entering a difficult phase [GALLO/GETTY]

Across Israel, Zoubi has been the object of hate: Netanya’s mayor supported her expulsion from the country, while a Facebook group calling for her murder quickly gained hundreds of members. Zoubi is not alone – MKs Ahmad Tibi and Taleb el-Sana, have also received death threats.

Post-flotilla, the knesset’s house committee voted 7-1 in favour of revoking some of the privileges enjoyed by Zoubi as an MK – a decision which may well not be ratified.

That same morning, MK Michael Ben-Ari had sent an email to Arab MKs boasting that “after we take care of her [Zoubi], it will be your turn”. Ben-Ari would later describe the vote as “an aggressive political punch” and the “first step” toward “the expulsion of Israel’s enemies from the knesset”.

During the committee’s debate, the chairman MK Yariv Levin’s own ‘evidence’ included the fact that Zoubi identifies as a Palestinian.

Back in February, Levin expressed his belief that “a serious decision” must be made about “whether or not these parties [Arab MKs] can continue to sit in the Israeli parliament, even while they operate against the country”.

When the vote successfully passed, some of those present opened a bottle of wine in celebration.

There are also disturbing developments regarding proposed legislation, with the ministerial committee approving for consideration two bills targeting Arab MKs.

One is intended to more easily facilitate the dismissal of an MK for violating Article 7a of the ‘Basic Law: The Knesset’, whose prohibitions include opposing the Jewish character of the state.

The second would require MKs to swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish, Zionist and democratic state, to its values and symbols”.

Palestinians targeted

Meanwhile, Eli Yishai, the interior minister, has declared his support for a proposed bill that would mean stripping citizenship from anyone deemed to have taken actions that help a “state or terror organisation against the state of Israel”.

Post-flotilla, Yishai also announced that he approached Israel’s attorney general regarding removing Zoubi’s parliamentary immunity, in order to then revoke her citizenship.

Other Palestinian leaders continue to be targeted. The four Palestinian citizens (aside from Zoubi) who participated in the flotilla – including Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement – were detained and then subjected to house arrest.

Their detention was condemned as “illegal” and based on “political considerations” by Adalah, a legal centre for Arab minority rights in Israel.

Incitement against the Palestinian minority is an increasingly mainstream phenomenon. As finance minister in 2003, Binyamin Netanyahu, the current Israeli prime minister, described Palestinian citizens as a “demographic problem”.

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, used campaign slogans like “only Lieberman understands Arabic” and in 2006 advocated the execution of Arab MKs who “collaborated” with the “enemy”.

As a recent Haaretz editorial put it, this trend “is surfacing in most of the parties in the knesset, with the enthusiastic encouragement of most ministers”.

A new identity

Hillel Cohen noted in his book Good Arabs that historically the Israeli state has tried to “change the consciousness” of the Palestinian minority with the aim of creating a “new Israeli Arab identity”.

It is the failure of this effort – as evidenced by an assertion of Palestinian identity, solidarity with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and increasing links to the global solidarity movement – that has provoked the anger of the political and security establishment.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes the current attack as “a link in a long chain that goes back to the foundation of the state of Israel” and a result of “the consensual Zionist mindset” which “could never accept Palestinians as equal citizens”. 

As Zoubi remarked to The Guardian newspaper, this “is not something that started yesterday” but it has got “harder and harsher”.

This assessment is shared by Makhoul’s wife Janan.

“They are afraid of us, of our identity, and how the youth are proud to be Palestinian. I think we are entering a tough period and the people will pay the price.”

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on PALESTINIANS IN ZIO-NAZI COURT’S

Shoah’s pages