Archive | October 10th, 2011

Nazi Harry’s Place Anthony Cooper allegation’s have no Truth

Chair of West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign runs neo-Nazi revisionist site [see update]

Lucy Lips, September 1st 2011

This is Sammi Ibrahem, Unity FM deejay:

He is the chair of the West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

See here:

and here:

He attended the branch forum of the PSC last year in Oxford, representing the West Midlands. He also runs a website called The Jewish Chronicle reported last year:

A post on the Shoah website, entitled Happy New Year from Shoah, is signed by Sammi Ibrahem Sr, who describes himself as chair.

Ibrahim cross-posts an article (which also features on former KKK leader David Duke’s website) in which we read:

The following is the text of a presentation exploring the effects of Christian Zionism on Palestinian Christians from a 2010 conference titled, Christ at the Checkpoint. Dr. David Duke addressed the very related issue to Zionist Christians in his video, The Insanity of Christian Zionism. In his video, he described Jewish Zionists’ hatred of Christ. The following presentation by Rev. Alex Awad speaks to the tragic ignorance Christian Zionists have about Christ’s followers who still live in the land of his birth, and have for 2,000 years.

What else has Ibrahim published?

Ibrahim posts a letter from David Duke, and writes:

i’m aware that d. Duke is Ex-kkk klan member but this is not something i wary about if Duck or any one else want to write to Shoah he is welcome we are open for debate between people’s.

He has published two articles entitled: “Nuremberg – The Crime That Will Not Die” – Part i and Part ii, by the Holocaust denier and Hitler apologist Ernst Zundel. The articles contain nuggets such as:

In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them Jews – as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, even in radio broadcasts and news reels.


Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal stand certain words: “Genocide” “Gas chamber” “Six million.” These words, and the embedded moral judgment, were derived largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, [not to be confused with Rudolf Hess!] the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

and (sick-bag at the ready):

I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at Nuremberg. They were the world’s martyrs, not villains. Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial – not one! They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform – and by theconspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern Europe.

There’s this piece by Zundel, about modern Germany:

The German government boasts of being “democratic” when in effect it is despotic. It brags it is the legal successor to the last democratically and properly elected regime, namely the government of Adolf Hitler – when it is plain illegal, a device imposed by the victors on the defeated German nation. It keeps its people genuflecting before its tyrants and defrauders.

Ibrahem posts an interview with David Duke on Russia Today, with thecomment:

Obviously, this was a very biased interviewer, but Dr. Duke has received an overwhelming positive response from the appearance!

The PSC counts one current Labour MP among its patrons – Jeremy Corbyn.

Many self-styled anti-racists think that the PSC is anti-racist and anti-Nazi. Here is clear evidence that a PSC organiser is pro-Nazi.

Update: Naeem Malik writes in the comments:

I as, Chair of West Midlands Palestine Solidarity campaign would like to correct the facts of this article.

Sammi Ibrahim is no longer the Chair of the West Midlands PSC. In fact I am the Chair of the West Midlands PSC.

In March the West Midlands PSC discovered some of the postings on the Shoah website were racist and anti-Semitic. The West Midlands PSC, at a specially convened meeting on the 21st of March 2011 removed Sammi from the post of the Chair and I was appointed in his place.

West Midlands PSC is committed to fight racism in all its form. West Midlands PSC’s commitment to Palestinian rights is part and parcel of our commitment to anti-racism and anti-Semitism.

The West Midlands PSC issued the following statement on 24th March 2011.

It has come to our notice that West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign material has been appearing on websites which contain anti-Semitic material. We completely dissociate ourselves from these sites and the material they contain and do not want our material posted on them. PSC nationally, and we as the West Midlands Branch of PSC, have a stated commitment to oppose all forms of racism including anti-Semitism.

Some points in response:

1. I can find no announcement from the PSC that Ibrahem had been replaced as Chair of the WMPSC for his antisemitism. This statement appears to be the first acknowledgement by the PSC.

2. The announcement reproduced above does not identity the website carrying the PSC material was Shoah. Nor does it state that Shoah was run by the Chair of the WMPSC

3. The original PSC statement continued:

Postings on this site sometimes claim to be placed by an officer of WMPSC. We categorically state that no posting is being placed by an officer of WMPSC and our policy is not to collaborate with any site that contains anti-Semitic or other racist material.

That was a lie. The posting was being made by the Chair of WMPSC.

Why did the PSC imply that the postings had not been made by an officer of WMPSC, when in fact they had been made by Ibrahem, who was replaced as Chair of WMPSC for this very reason?

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Harry’s Place Anthony Cooper allegation’s have no Truth


Interpal and Hamas: Prayers, ceremonies, and home

habibi, October 6th 2011

Ibrahim Hewitt is chairman and a trustee of the British charity Interpal. He’s the man on the left in the picture below. In the middle is Interpal’s Birmingham representative Zaid Hassan, also know as Zaid Yemeni. To Hassan’s left is Mohamed Ali Harrath, the CEO of Islam Channel.

They are praying in Gaza at the tomb of Hamas founder and leader Ahmed Yassin. He was a vicious man who said he and his terrorist band were “proud” of Hamas murders of Israeli civilians.

The Movement within two months [after the intifada broke] was able to launch qualitative operations that shook the world… there are qualitative Jihad operations such as those in Natanya and Khadera. We are proud of such operations and the next days will witness better and bigger ones

The Netanya attack was a suicide bombing of a Passover seder in a hotel. Thirty people were killed. The Hadera attack was a car bombing on the town’s main street. It killed two people on a passing bus.

While he was in the cemetery, Zaid Hassan also found time to pray at the nearby tomb of another Hamas leader, Abdel Aziz Rantissi.

Rantissi too was a horrible hater:

By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews.

Who thought God was on his side:

We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God, and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon.

Hamas replenishes its top ranks, of course. Since 2009 Interpal has staged several “Miles of Smiles” convoy visits to Gaza, where it goes to meet them at ceremonies.

Here, for example, is Interpal vice chairman and trustee Essam Mustafa (second from right). He is also known as Essam Yusuf. He is with Hamas leaders (from the left) Ahmed Al-Kurd, Ziad Al-Zaza, Ismail Haniyeh, and Khalil Al-Hayya.

Here’s Ahmed Al-Kurd (on the left) again, this time paying a visit to the opening ceremony of Interpal’s Gaza office. Seated behind the table are Essam Mustafa and Majdi Aqil. Aqil is Interpal’s Manchester representative. Before moving to the UK, he was a member of Hamas in Gaza. Among those standing in the background are Zaid Hassan andIbrahim Dar, Interpal’s Bradford representative and a fan of Al Qaeda preacher and recruiter Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Another “Miles of Smiles” convoy reached Gaza this week. It was greetedby Hamas MP Yunus Al-Astal.

Al-Astal has been banned from the UK. This is how the Home Office described him in 2009:

Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

He certainly does glorify terrorist violence. In fact, women too shouldcommit murder:

In the second Al-Aqsa Intifada, females martyrdom-seekers emerged. These are young women, in the prime of their life, at a time when girls like these think only about jewelry and preparing for marriage. Nevertheless, they went to their martyrdom, advancing head-on with a great fighting spirit. This Intifada of ours has recorded more than 15 exemplary cases of girls who were martyred for the sake of Allah. But not before making the Jews – the brothers of apes and pigs – taste the bitterness of death

The most important message is that our enemies should know that there is no place for them on the land of Palestine. Each and every boy and man, and each and every girl and woman, is a potential martyrdom-seeker. The enemy should know that we are prepared to wear explosive belts, and to throw ourselves in the midst of the enemy, in order to make them taste the evil consequences of their deeds. They should know that they have no other choice – either they leave or they will die, even if it takes a long time.

Actually, Jews deserve a Holocaust:

For example, in a column in the weekly Al Risalah, Sheik Yunus al-Astal, a Hamas legislator and imam, discussed a Koranic verse suggesting that “suffering by fire is the Jews’ destiny in this world and the next.”

“The reason for the punishment of burning is that it is fitting retribution for what they have done,” Mr. Astal wrote on March 13. “But the urgent question is, is it possible that they will have the punishment of burning in this world, before the great punishment” of hell? Many religious leaders believe so, he said, adding, “Therefore we are sure that the holocaust is still to come upon the Jews.”

While Hitler’s Holocaust was a “lie”:

A Hamas spiritual leader said Monday that teaching Palestinian children about the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews would be a “war crime.” The leader, Yunis al-Astal, lashed out after hearing that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was considering the introduction of Holocaust lessons in some of the 221 schools the United Nations runs in Gaza. Adding the Holocaust to the curriculum would amount to “marketing a lie and spreading it,” Dr. Astal wrote in a statement.

For Al-Astal, though, slaughtering Jews is not enough. He wants Rome too, and more:

Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam…”

The diatribe was aired on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV and predicted that Rome would become “an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread though Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, even Eastern Europe.”


Stop the War leaders are trying to stifle debate by illegally expelling those who criticise them

Statement by CPGB-ML,

8 October 2011


On 23 September, the CPGB-ML received an email from the Stop the War Coalition informing us of a decision by the “officers group” to “reject the affiliation” of our party. We were told that this was on the basis that the CPGB-ML had been “publicly attacking Stop the War Coalition” in its publications.

We responded as follows:

No basis for expulsion

First: we have been affiliated for many years to the coalition. Therefore it is not now possible to reject our affiliation. If it can be proved that we have failed to comply with StW’s constitution in some way, then we would have to be expelled.

Second: assuming for a moment that such a case can be made, what authority does the officers group have to make such a decision? We would be interested to see the rule that allows the officers to act without any kind of procedure and without any mandate from the membership via a national conference.

Third: it is perfectly clear that there is no such case to answer. You accuse us of “attacking Stop the War”. Comrades, the organisation belongs not to the officers but to the members. What we have done is to criticise the leadership of the coalition — not because we have failed to uphold the aims and objectives of the coalition but because it is our belief that they have done so.

We would be interested to see any proof that our organisation has stopped opposing imperialist war — including the concomitant racist backlash and erosion of civil liberties. According to StW’s founding statement, these are the only membership criteria and our party fulfils them amply.

No cooperation with war crimes

In 2009, StW national conference passed a resolution, proposed by our organisation, calling on the coalition “to do all in its power to promote a movement of industrial, political and military non-cooperation with all of imperialism’s aggressive war preparations and activities among British working people“.

In 2010, national conference passed a further motion on non-cooperation with war crimes by an overwhelming majority (our recollection is that just one person present voted against). It specifically drew attention to the propaganda aspect of imperialist war and called on the coalition to “draw in as many members and supporters as possible to an ongoing campaign to hold the media to account for their pivotal role in apologising for, covering up and normalising British, US and Israeli war crimes“.

Not only has the Stop the War leadership failed to implement these resolutions, it has actually been helping the propaganda effort in support of the criminal imperialist war against Libya.

StW leaders and the war against Libya

Stop the War leaders have accepted Nato propaganda that characterised its agents in Benghazi as a ‘popular’ movement and a part of the anti-imperialist ‘Arab spring’. They have even mobilised demonstrations in support of these agents, while characterising the popular Libyan government as a ‘brutal dictatorship’.

And today, while those who continue to resist Nato’s assault are being carpet bombed in cities all over Libya, Stop the War leaders continue to prop up the imperialist propaganda effort by:

** accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that Gaddafi’s government has already fallen and that the stooges of the ‘NTC’ have formed a new government;

** accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that the ‘fall’ of the Gaddafi government is a cause for popular celebration in Libya;

** accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that the ‘rebels’ are expressing the popular will of the people and thereby bringing ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ to Libya;

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the resistance that is being mounted by the legitimate government of Libya, its armed forces and the armed citizens;

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the real character of the ‘rebels’, despite the wealth of evidence now available;

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the terrible crimes that have been and are being committed by Nato’s ‘rebels’ against the people of Libya (massacring of black people; massacring of pro-government supporters, raping of women, looting and burning of homes);

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the terrible crimes committed by Nato’s bombers and special forces, including the targeting of civilians, water and electricity supplies, schools, mosques, hospitals and libraries, the imposition of sanctions to prevent the import of medical supplies and food, the theft of Libya’s wealth and resources, the use of chemical and nuclear weapons, including depleted uranium-tipped missiles, and the carpet bombing of civilian populations that has resulted in a death toll of well over 50,000 so far;

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the gains made by ordinary Libyans since the Green revolution in 1969, which have brought them from being the poorest people in the world to the richest in Africa, with a standard of life for ordinary Libyans comparable to that in parts of western Europe;

** keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the critical support given by Libya to anti-imperialist movements all over the world, and especially its support to the African struggle to break free from the chains of the IMF and the World Bank and the diktat of imperialist corporations and governments.

In so doing, Stop the War’s leaders have proved themselves unfit for their positions. We call on them either to correct their line immediately, or to resign and allow a national conference to elect new, more suitable leaders who are prepared to carry out StW policy thoroughly and completely.

Hold the leaders to account

We call on the Stop the War Coalition’s members to hold their leaders to account. We need an organisation that is truly willing and able to work amongst the British people to promote a movement of industrial, political and military non-cooperation with all of imperialism’s aggressive war preparations and activities.

Only then will we be able to claim that we are not complicit in the war crimes of the British government, armed forces, media and corporations. And only then will we have the remotest chance of actually stopping the war.


Posted in LibyaComments Off on Stop the War leaders are trying to stifle debate by illegally expelling those who criticise them

Why the UN must abolish the ‘Quartet’


By Ali Abunimah

Quartet envoy Tony Blair has been the target of stinging criticism of late from officials close to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. There have even been murmurs that Abbas’ officials may formally request Blair’s removal.

While Blair’s Quartet role, which he took up the day he left office as UK prime minister in 2007, has undoubtedly been harmful to the Palestinian people and to any semblance of international law, it would not be enough to call for Blair to go.

It is the Quartet itself – an ad hoc committee of US, EU and Russian officials, and the UN Secretary General, that monopolises the so-called “peace process” – that has destroyed what little credibility the United Nations has left on the question of Palestine.

It functions as a front that launders Israeli and American demands of the UN as “international” positions, sidelining international law and countless resolutions declaring myriad Israeli actions to be grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

To begin to restore UN credibility, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon should end UN membership, funding and support for the Quartet. If he doesn’t, UN member states should demand that he do so.

A vehicle for Blair’s personal ambitions and enrichment

Nabil Shaath, a senior Abbas associate, has gone on record complaining that Blair was acting as Israel’s “defence attorney” in face of Abbas’ application for a Palestinian state to be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.

None of this is surprising for those who have been paying attention; what is new is the open criticism and level of scrutiny Blair is receiving.

A recent episode of the investigative documentary Dispatches, on the UK’s Channel 4, revealed the extent to which Blair has used the Quartet to advance his personal business interests and that of his clients.

Blair, according to the documentary, has used his Quartet role to gain introductions and proximity to Arab leaders, whom he then signed private consulting contracts with for his secretive private firm Tony Blair Associates (The name sounds strikingly like the infamous Kissinger Associates).

Blair obtained one such contract, worth $40m from the Emir of Kuwait, to advise on “reforms”, and another, also thought to be worth millions, from the rulers of the United Arab Emirates.

This kind of mixing of official and private roles also extends to Blair’s work in Palestine.

Blair was instrumental in lobbying Israel to release frequencies in November 2009 for mobile phone company Wataniya to operate in the occupied West Bank. Wataniya is owned by the Qatari telecoms giant Q-Tel which bought Wataniya in 2007 with a $2bn loan arranged by the bank JP Morgan, according to Dispatches.

Blair also works for JP Morgan, which pays him over $2m a year for providing “strategic” advice. JP Morgan stood to make “substantial profits” if the deal went through, the British documentary said. Israel, it is worth recalling, had tied approval of Wataniya’s frequencies to the PA dropping efforts to pursue the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes in Gaza, through the UN.

Another major deal Blair brokered with Israel was for British Gas to secure contracts to exploit natural gas fields worth up to $6bn in the territorial waters of the occupied Gaza Strip. While Blair publicly sold the deal as good for Palestinians in Gaza, no Palestinians in Gaza were ever consulted. Blair negotiated the deal directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which, according to Channel 4, “would likely see Israel control the gas supply and any surplus gas sold to Israel and not on the open market.”

Blair, in other words, is not only enriching himself and his clients (both he and JP Morgan denied to Channel 4 that there was any “conflict of interest”), but assisting Israeli colonialism, exploitation, plunder and profiteering from the occupied Palestinian territories under the cynical guise of “helping Palestinians”.

Lack of accountability

Part of the difficulty of ascertaining where official Quartet business ends and Tony Blair’s personal interests begin is a complete lack of accountability and transparency. Blair is apparently not bound by any of the strict conflict of interest and disclosure regulations governing UN employees, or British officials even though it appears that UN and British government funds support his Jerusalem office to the tune of millions of dollars per year even though he spends barely days a month there.

In 2007, the UN Development Programme’s “Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People” spent over $400,000 on three armoured cars for Blair. The largest share of ongoing running costs of Blair’s office are borne by the British taxpayer.

No one knows who can hire or fire Blair. Blair, however, has only exploited this situation and is a symptom of the larger problem: The Quartet itself.

A smokescreen for the Americans and Israelis

The Quartet, although often referred to as if it were an official body, was founded in 2002 as an informal committee. There is no UN resolution giving it a mandate, although it has taken on an air of permanence and precendence over every other international institution.

From the start, the Quartet served not so much as a forum for international involvement in addressing the question of Palestine, but rather a substitute for real international involvement and a cover for American control.

Anis Nacrour, a French diplomat who served as a senior advisor to Tony Blair in the Quartet office in Jerusalem told Channel 4 that from its inception, the Quartet was “a smokescreen for the action of the Americans and the tandem between Americans and Israelis. At the end of the day, all this was for buying time for allowing the Israeli government to do whatever they wanted to do.”

Enforcing demands only on the Palestinians

The Quartet’s famous “Road Map” of 2002, for example, imposed strict duties on both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The Palestinians had to crack down on any resistance to the occupation and resume “security coordination” with the occupation army as well as undertaking externally-dictated “reforms” to prepare for “statehood”. Israel, meanwhile, was obligated to “freeze all settlement activity” and bring “an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere.”

Almost a decade later, the PA had dutifully jumped through all the hoops set up for it, to the point where negotiator Saeb Erekat bragged to US officials in 2009 that in fulfilling their Road Map duties, he and his PA colleagues had “even killed our own people to maintain order and the rule of law”.

Yet in the same period, Israel killed thousands of Palestinians in atrocities described as war crimes, and it continues to steal and colonise Palestinian land with impunity. The latest Quartet statement did not even dare mention the word “settlements” but called on the PA to return to the same treadmill of negotiations while Israel carries on building on Palestinian land.

Quartet legitimises Gaza siege and UN obeys

In September 2010, the international fact-finding mission commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate Israel’s attack on the flotilla found that Israel’s siege and blockade of Gaza is illegal, a position previously affirmed by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

That ought to be the position taken and defended by the UN Secretary General. But instead the current incumbent Ban Ki-moon takes his orders from the Quartet, ignoring the international law he is sworn to uphold.

Shockingly, last May, as another flotilla was planning to set sail for Gaza, Ban wrote to goverments of Mediterranean states urging them to “use their influence” to halt any ships leaving for Gaza.

The letter termed the flotillas “not helpful” and expressed the Secretary General’s “belief that assistance and goods destined to Gaza should be channelled through legitimate crossings and established channels.” Ban based this position on a previous Quartet statement.

Of course the “legitimate crossings and established channels” Ban referred to are the ones that Israel has unilaterally imposed, amid a deliberate effort to collectively punish Gaza and restrict the food intake of its population – half of whom are children – according to “mathematical formulas”, as the Israeli human rights group Gisha discovered.

In other words, the UN Secretary General was advocating, based on a Quartet position, that Israel had the right to do whatever it pleased, no matter how illegal and harmful to the population of Gaza.

Moreoever, the Secretary General became a recruit, like the Greek government later, in the American-Israeli campaign to stop the flotilla while sparing Israel the embarassment of sending armed thugs once again to board ships carrying civilian peace workers.

In the interests of maintaining a Quartet consensus dictated by Israel and the United States, the UN Secretary General has thrown out international law and silenced the voices of all other UN member states.

Member states must take back the UN and end the Quartet

It is true that more recently the Quartet has been split with Russia holding up some of the worse American initiatives including, say some reports, an effort to write Israel’s demand to be recognised as a “Jewish state” into the most recent statement. These divisions however reflect not any genuine debate or process, but merely the extremism of the American-Israeli position.

One hundred and ninety one other UN member states should not tolerate that their role be reduced to one member – represented through consistently weak and pliant Secretaries General – in an ad hoc committee that has effectively been controlled by the Americans in the interests of Israel.

The Arab League states, at least, should demand that the UN Secetary General withdraw from the Quartet and halt funding Tony Blair’s office from money that is supposed to assist Palestinians whose lives have been devastated by the very Israeli policies Blair facilitates.

If the UN is to begin to play any useful role in restoring the Palestinians’ usurped rights, it must begin by abolishing the obstructionist and irredeemably corrupted Quartet.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Why the UN must abolish the ‘Quartet’

Labour, Tory, same old story; fight ALL capitalist cuts! –


Leaflet issued by CPGB-ML,


In the year since Chancellor Osborne’s landmark spending review was announced, the imposition of austerity measures has crept ahead like a car crash in slow motion. This concerted attack on the living standards of the majority, so necessary for the tiny minority whose wealth, power and status depend on exploiting the labour of others, threatens to heap ever more intolerable burdens onto the backs of working people.

Everything is coming under the hammer: jobs, pensions, benefits, the NHS. Yet most unions – organisations that are supposed to defend the rights of workers against capitalist exploitation – have stood by as if mesmerised. Whilst the TUC talked of coordinating a fight-back, the only concrete action has been a demo – six months after the cuts were announced!

Fight ALL the cuts

When the National Shop Stewards’ Network organised a militant demo outside the 2010 TUC congress, the political tone was marked by the readiness of many grass-roots activists to put not only the new coalition government, but also the Labour party and the capitalist system itself in the dock. But this healthier approach, reflecting a mood of disgust with Labour in the most militant ranks of the working class, has not proved to the taste of those on the ‘left’ who prefer to forget the last 13 years, join a nostalgic chorus of “Tories out”, and set their sights on the ‘next Labour victory’.

The decision of the NSSN’s January conference to establish a national anti-cuts campaign aimed at opposing ALL cuts, emphatically including those being implemented by Labour councils all over the country, was a small step forward. But in order to build on this progress, and shift the focus to that of real class struggle, the unions need to break the shackles that keep them bound to the Labour party and social democracy.

When the promised 26 March demo finally rolled around, the TUC was as disturbed as the government by its scale, realising that the head of steam building up in favour of a real fight against the cuts could not much longer be vented harmlessly in once-in-a-blue-moon symbolic parades. TUC nerves were further jangled on 30 June, when its failure to organise coordinated strikes was shown up by the huge nationwide response to a one-day strike in defence of public-service pensions.

It was no accident that the unions leading this action (PCS and NUT) are not hobbled by affiliation to Labour – a fact that was surely noted by the many members of Unison, Unite and other Labour-led unions whom nobody had seen fit to ballot but who doggedly turned up with their branch banners anyway.

Meanwhile, in the absence of a serious lead from the supposed general staff of the labour movement, other forms of resistance have carved their own way, including the revolt over student funding and the picketing and occupation tactics of UK Uncut and others.

Yet these semi-spontaneous movements, whilst possessed of a resourcefulness and courage that put to shame the do-nothing TUC, can make little progress in isolation from the working class. Conversely, the working class will be immeasurably strengthened when ‘organised labour’ no longer means just the small minority of employed workers currently organised in trade unions but ALL workers, be they employed or unemployed, active or retired, ‘indigenous’ or migrant, in or out of the TUC.

TUC lobby

The NSSN has called on workers to lobby the TUC in London on 11 September. We support this call, but it should be clear that no amount of well-intentioned rank-and-file democratic pressure from below is in itself going to uproot the opportunism that infests the trade-union movement, debilitating unions and preventing them from serving the real interests of the working class.

Opportunism does not pop up from nowhere: it is founded in the bribes paid to the layer of relatively privileged workers who Lenin called the “labour aristocracy“. These better-off workers, whose pay and conditions depend upon the continued flow of imperialist loot from abroad, infect our whole movement with a spirit of class collaboration. It is only through a root-and-branch ideological struggle against social democracy, and especially against its main outlet in the Labour party (‘New’ and ‘Old’ alike), that a new leadership can be built behind which the working class can take on capitalism and win.

Nobody should doubt the scale of the crisis we are entering, or believe that it is just being ‘talked up’ by the Tories to scare us. Behind the debt crisis that is undermining the US economy and tearing Europe apart lies a deep-seatedoverproduction crisis that has been brewing for over three decades. More commodities have been produced globally than can be sold at a profit on the market – not because the world’s needs have been met, but because people just cannot afford to buy them.

The problem is further aggravated when capitalists, desperate to beat the competition, slash wages and reduce the workforce, thereby further reducing the masses’ spending power and adding another twist to the spiralling crisis.

Break the link

The good news is that the same capitalist crisis is also chipping away at the material basis for opportunism, since the ruling class can no longer afford to spend so much on buying off its opponents. The time is ripe for the working class to move from cynical mistrust of the Labour traitors to a confident assault upon their stranglehold over organised labour.

While our unions are tied to the imperialist-affiliated Labour party, we will not be able even to fight the cuts, never mind organising to overthrow the whole rotten system that brings poverty and war in its train. Therefore, there is one abiding slogan that should be embraced by every class-conscious worker:

Break the link with Labour!


See also:
The crisis of overproduction deepens (Lalkar, September 2011)
Youth uprising: rage against capitalism (Proletarian, August 2011)
Cuts and lay-offs as the crisis rolls on (Proletarian, August 2011)
Combat Labour influence in the union movement and follow the Greek example (Proletarian, August 2011)
Worsening economic crisis sees violent repression escalate (Proletarian, June 2011)
Fuel poverty on the rise as poverty bites (Proletarian, February 2011)
Students lead the way with Millbank occupation (Proletarian, December 2010)

Posted in UKComments Off on Labour, Tory, same old story; fight ALL capitalist cuts! –

Getting the vote could herald real change for Saudi women

Women in Saudi Arabia have put up with many broken promises, but this announcement by King Abdullah brings fresh hope.

by: Nadya Khalife
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011
  • Nadya Khalife

Despite this promising step, we won’t know for sure whether this is indeed the beginning of the “Arab Spring” for Saudi women. We will have to wait at least another four years to see whether Saudi women can actually cast their ballots.
Nadya Khalife, Middle East women’s rights researcher

In a surprise move, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz has announced that women will be able to participate in municipal elections in 2015. He also announced that women may become full voting members of the consultative Shura council. While this is extraordinary news for Saudi women, their participation in the country’s public life is long overdue.

The Saudi government has a long history of breaking promises to women. This year has been no different. When Saudi Arabia held its first municipal elections in 2005, women were excluded from voting and running as candidates. The government promised that women would be able to participate in the next elections, which were scheduled for 2009. The government reneged on this promise and again excluded women from the elections, which, after a two-year postponement, are to take place next week. A woman from Jeddah who attempted to register to vote was arrested for her trouble.

The Shura council, which women may now join as full voting members, is an appointed body that has the authority to review legislation and question ministers, but whose powers remain consultative. In 2006, the Shura council appointed six women as members, but they were not allowed to vote. The number has now risen to 12. Now these women will at least be able to participate fully as the Shura council scrutinises proposed legislation and formulates recommendations.

Women are still not allowed to drive despite bold opposition by some women, which included posting pictures of themselves driving on YouTube and Facebook. The male guardianship system, which deprives women of the right to make decisions about almost all aspects of their lives, is still in place although the government promised the UN human rights council in 2009 that it would abolish the system.

Many women are sceptical about whether King Abdullah’s announcement will translate into real change for Saudi women. But this time, I suspect, might be different.

The king is 87 and is not in the best health. He may be thinking about his legacy, and likening it to that of King Faisal, who introduced mandatory schooling for girls in the 1960s. King Abdullah’s legacy could be that he gave Saudi women some of the basic rights and freedoms that have long been enjoyed by other women around the world. King Abdullah has a patchy history when it comes to women’s rights, but he has encouraged education for women and their entry into the workforce. Women in Saudi Arabia can become teachers, doctors and engineers. The Saudi king has also made special provisions for women entrepreneurs so that they no longer need a male agent to facilitate registration of new businesses.

In 2010, the king permitted himself to be photographed with 35 women participants in the seventh National Dialogue Forum in Najran, which brought participants together to discuss healthcare services in the kingdom. The photograph, the first of its kind, was published on the front page of Okaz, a prominent local newspaper.

In the same year, the king also fired a cleric who had criticised gender mixing at a Saudi university and reinstated the chief of the religious police in Mekka, who had declared certain forms of gender mixing permissible. The prohibition of gender mixing has been a fundamental feature of Saudi society. Critics of the king continue to claim that allowing men and women to mix will lead to immoral or corrupt behaviour.

This latest announcement may be the clearest indication yet that the king is willing to take steps to eliminate at least some of the discrimination that Saudi women face in their daily lives. The king’s abrupt announcement is also a signal to those who oppose women’s participation in public life. If he makes good on his promises, they will have to get used to the sight of women voting, alongside men.

Despite this promising step, we won’t know for sure whether this is indeed the beginning of the “Arab spring” for Saudi women. We will have to wait at least another four years to see whether Saudi women can actually cast their ballots. For Saudi Arabia to be taken seriously on the world stage with regard to women’s rights, the government should keep its promise to let women vote. It should make other important changes to eliminate discrimination against women. At the top of the list should be ending the repressive guardianship system and the ban on women driving.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Getting the vote could herald real change for Saudi women

Pakistan and “The Haqqani Network” : The Latest Orchestrated Threat to America and The End of History


By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research,

Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.

President Obama’s claim that he had Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden exterminated deflated the threat from that long-serving bogyman. A terror organization that left its leader, unarmed and undefended, a sitting duck for assassination no longer seemed formidable. Time for a new, more threatening, bogyman, the pursuit of which will keep the “war on terror” going.

Now America’s “worst enemy” is the Haqqanis. Moreover, unlike Al Qaeda, which was never tied to a country, the Haqqani Network, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani government’s intelligence service, ISI. Washington claims that the ISI ordered its Haggani Network to attack the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 13 along with the US military base in Wadak province.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services committee and one of the main Republican warmongers, declared that “all options are on the table” and gave the Pentagon his assurance that in Congress there was broad bipartisan support for a US military attack on Pakistan.

As Washington has been killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians with drones and has forced the Pakistani army to hunt for Al Qaeda throughout most of Pakistan, producing tens of thousands or more of dislocated Pakistanis in the process, Sen. Graham must have something larger in mind.

The Pakistani government thinks so, too. The Pakistani prime minister,Yousuf Raza Gilani, called his foreign minister home from talks in Washington and ordered an emergency meeting of the government to assess the prospect of an American invasion.

Meanwhile, Washington is rounding up additional reasons to add to the new threat from the Haqqanis to justify making war on Pakistan: Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable and the nukes could fall into the wrong hands; the US can’t win in Afghanistan until it has eliminated sanctuaries in Pakistan; blah-blah.

Washington has been trying to bully Pakistan into launching a military operation against its own people in North Waziristan. Pakistan has good reasons for resisting this demand. Washington’s use of the new “Haqqani threat” as an invasion excuse could be Washington’s way of overcoming Pakistan’s resistance to attacking its North Waziristan provence, or it could be, as some Pakistani political leaders say, and the Pakistani government fears, a “drama” created by Washington to justify a military assault on yet another Muslim country.

Over the years of its servitude as an American puppet, the Pakistan government has brought this on itself. Pakistanis let the US purchase the Pakistan government, train and equip its military, and establish CIA interface with Pakistani intelligence. A government so dependent on Washington could say little when Washington began violating its sovereignty, sending in drones and special forces teams to kill alleged Al Qaeda, but usually women, children, and farmers. Unable to subdue after a decade a small number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, Washington has placed the blame for its military failure on Pakistan, just as Washington blamed the long drawn-out war on the Iraqi people on Iran’s alleged support for the Iraqi resistance to American occupation.

Some knowledgeable analysts’ about whom you will never hear in the “mainstream media,” say that the US military/security complex and their neoconservative whores are orchestrating World War III before Russia and China can get prepared. As a result of the communist oppression, a signifiant percentage of the Russian population is in the American orbit. These Russians trust Washington more than they trust Putin. The Chinese are too occupied dealing with the perils of rapid economic growth to prepare for war and are far behind the threat.

War, however, is the lifeblood of the profits of the military/security complex, and war is the chosen method of the neoconservatives for achieving their goal of American hegemony.

Pakistan borders China and former constituent parts of the Soviet Union in which the US now has military bases on Russia’s borders. US war upon and occupation of Pakistan is likely to awaken the somnolent Russians and Chinese. As both possess nuclear ICBMs, the outcome of the military/security complex’s greed for profits and the neoconservatives’ greed for empire could be the extinction of life on earth.

The patriots and super-patriots who fall in with the agendas of the military-security complex and the flag-waving neoconservatives are furthering the “end-times” outcome so fervently desired by the rapture evangelicals, who will waft up to heaven while the rest of us die on earth.

This is not President Reagan’s hoped for outcome from ending the cold war.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan and “The Haqqani Network” : The Latest Orchestrated Threat to America and The End of History



Gilad Atzmon probes the dilemmas Zionism has created for its adherents

A fervent friend of the State of Israel, Britain’s Education Secretary Michael Gove last week wrote to primary schools in the north London boroughs of Haringey and Islington strongly urging them not to participate in human rights workshops that were to form part of the first Tottenham Palestine Literary Festival.

Reacting to concerns raised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Gove evidently concluded that participants in the festival, organized by the Haringey branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, were liable to subject children to anti-Israel propaganda. That the festival’s participants included the Jewish fugitive from Nazi Germany, Hanna Braun, and the respected British Jewish poet and broadcaster, Michael Rosen, apparently weighed with him not at all.

Not that Zionists are ever likely to view the Palestine Solidarity Campaign with equanimity, no matter how many Jews join its ranks or how impressive their moral credentials might appear. Indeed, in Zionist eyes, Jews who support to it are merely providing evidence that they belong to that basest of categories, the “self-hating Jew.”

What would have been the alarm of the Board of Deputies if the participants in the Tottenham Palestine Literary Festival had included Gilad Atzmon, the expatriate Israeli jazz musician and writer who positively flaunts his identity as a self-hating Jew and who has just published a powerful new book, The Wandering Who?, which anatomizes attitudes of Jews toward themselves and their fellow human beings.

Given his pariah status in British Jewish circles, it was predictable that the leading organ of British Zionism, the weekly paper, the Jewish Chronicle, would be less than welcoming toward Atzmon’s latest polemic. Stressing its author’s notoriety, the paper was quick to note that his book has been endorsed by the US political scientist John Mearsheimer, himself a prominent figure in Zionist demonology on account of his co-authorship (with Stephen Walt) of the book, The Israel Lobby, which became a best-seller in the US in 2007. Without pausing to consider the rationale for his endorsement, the Chronicle insinuated that Mearsheimer was manifesting afresh his own anti-Semitism.

If all this is worth spelling out, it is because Michael Gove’s intervention over Tottenham’s Palestine Literary Festival and the Jewish Chronicle’s smear tactics with regard to Atzmon and Mearsheimer are indicative of the belligerently unilateralist stance that is increasingly being struck by the Zionist establishment. Sparing themselves the effort of actually engaging with Israel’s critics, Zionists are simply branding them peddlers of poison, Jew-hating extremists civilized opinion cannot begin to countenance.

Subtitled A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Atzmon’s book probes the dilemmas Zionism has implanted in Jewish minds, with consequences injurious to Jews and non-Jews alike. Brought up to believe that Palestinians willingly left their homes when Israel was created in 1948, Atzmon evokes his own inner conflicts, his costly personal struggle to slough off his Zionist conditioning. Imbued with the Zionist faith that he belonged to the chosen race, he undertook military service in the Israeli Defense Force but was ultimately appalled to discover that he was involved in the merciless subjugation of Arab people. What liberated him from Zionism was music, his emergence as a jazz musician with human sympathies that far transcended his own tribe.

Atzmon’s argument is that Jewish tribalism and Judaism’s boasted concern with universal justice are irreconcilable; he is scathing about Jews — he instances “Jewish socialists” — who even when identifying with an inclusive cosmopolitan movement feel impelled to proclaim their moral and racial separateness. What has made him particularly reviled is his determination to lay bare the geopolitical ramifications of the vexed question of Jewish identity. He regards Zionism as a unique global movement founded on a spurious sense of racial solidarity among Jews who, despite being scattered across the world, obsessively prioritize their Jewishness and get drawn into an “obscure and dangerous ethical fellowship.’ Echoing Mearsheimer and Walt, he maintains that US foreign policy has been largely dictated by diaspora Zionists preoccupied with the security not of the US but of Israel.

Washington Zionists, he contends, advocated an aggressive US foreign policy in Muslim lands that may have benefited Israel but that has brought financial ruin to the nation whose interests they purport to serve. John Mearsheimer endorsed Atzmon’s book because he shares its author’s sense that world Zionism has exploited the identity crisis besetting many Western Jews at a time when secularism and assimilation are eroding old Jewish communities. From this point of view, strident championship of Israel and the quasi-religious cult of the Nazi Holocaust can be seen as cynical attempts by Zionism to turn to advantage Jewish anxieties about the threat of collective extinction. The trouble is that far from being a panacea for Jewish identity problems this concerted tribalism is serving only to exacerbate them — even as it contributes hugely to the perpetuation of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and to endless regional instability in the Middle East.

Relishing his reputation as a firebrand, Atzmon has made little effort to endear himself to bien pensant opinion, Jewish or otherwise. Yet fair-minded readers are bound to acknowledge that, for all its palpable eagerness to outrage conventional pieties, The Wandering Who? raises questions of signal importance. As it happens, in the very month that his book was published, the Jewish Chronicle carried a voluminous round-table discussion involving prominent British Jews and much concerned with the politics of Jewish identity. Touching upon the ethical and emotional challenges that Israel, a state that purports to act in the name of all Jews, poses for the Jewish diaspora, it was a discussion which will have been read by few outside Jewish circles yet which cried out for a wider audience.

Gilad Atzmon is often accused of reviving old anti-Semitic canards about international Jewish conspiracies. In truth, if there is a Jewish conspiracy, it is the conspiracy of silence the Zionist establishment seeks to enforce regarding Jewish issues that affect everyone.

 You can now order the book on


Atlantic Bridge, Liam Fox, Adam Werritty & Israel

by Jonathon Blakeley

Atlantic Bridge was set up as the name suggests to bridge across the Atlantic; as an Atlanticist think tank. To foster and maintain that “special relationship” between the US and UK.   Founded by Liam Fox in 1997 Atlantic Bridge was ostensibly a charity but failed to meet the basic guidelines for a charity and was booted off in September 2011 by the Charity commission. It was supposed to have an educational role but failed to do so and spent all its donated money on travel, accommodation and social events for its supporters. BICOM (The British Israel Communications and Research Centre) was one of its primary sources of donations.

BICOM lists its activities as:

  • Providing daily, expert news summary and analysis of events in Israel and the region through our online publications.

  • Taking British journalists, opinion formers and policy makers to Israel and the Palestinian territories to learn about the issues first-hand.

  • Bringing analysts, journalists and politicians from the region to Britain, to share their insights with their British counterparts.

  • Promoting a balanced discourse about Israel in the British media by creating opportunities for a wide range of voices to be heard.

  • Organising events and seminars in the UK aimed at deepening the discussion about Israel in Britain.

  • Engaging in dialogue with British opinion formers, policy makers and the media on issues of importance to Israel and the Britain-Israel relationship.

  • Providing resources to individuals and organisations in Britain who share BICOM’s agenda to promote a better understanding of Israel.

Bicom has been keen to foster close relationships with all media people as can be seen here by this interesting leaked email. As well as the media interests Bicom has close links and donates large amounts to all three political parties in the UK; but this is not directly. Bicom donates to CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) & the LFI (The Labour Friends of Israel) as well and many other Political organisations. It is through these mediator organisations that money is channeled to the politicians themselves.

Gifts are not Payments

The LFI and CFI are

– “Unincorporated associations” which are not required to open the books to the public or the UK Tax Man.

An unincorporated association:

  • not subject to Tax

  • is not a legal entity

  • is an organisation of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),

  • has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),

  • is an organisation where the form of association is not one which is recognised in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),

  • must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,

  • the tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.

Because an unincorporated association is not a legal entity, it can not be sued, taxed or subject to a criminal enquiry.Well that bit does have an exception, if one of the members breaks rule regarding donations and their ‘distribution’ and is grassed on to the police, then a criminal enquiry may begin. Nice…

Atlantic Bridge had links to various neo-con organizations in Washington most notably:

  1. Center for Security Policy

  2. The Heritage Foundation

  3. the Lehman Brothers

Atlantic Bridge was effectively an Anglo/American/Jewish think tank, or at least that was the cover story. What becomes clear is that Bicom , Liam Fox and Adam Werritty were are closely linked and often at the same conferences. One wonders whether Adam Werritty was employed by BICOM itself. There is no direct evidence that I can find, however Adam Werritty and Poju Zabludowicz (BICOM) were at the same conference together regarding Israel’s security.

Poju Zabludowicz is the billionaire chairman of BICOM; ranked 18th wealthiest man in the UK, with friends such as Madonna & collector of artist Tracy Emin. Zabludowicz is an avid art collector and has many contemporary pieces in his collection. It was also interesting to discover that Zabludowicz held secret talks with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas & Israeli President Shimon Peres in his Kitchen so the Jewish Chronical later reported. Well, it is nice that they popped round for a chat and a cup of tea.

So in a nutshell, Atlantic Bridge and many other people in power, including all the UK political parties are and have been receiving money as gifts through third party unincorporated associations. But the money  was and is not payments or bribes, because that would be illegal. What they purport to be is gifts… Perfectly plausible.

So back to Atlantic Bridge, well the story keeps on changing and this one really seems to have legs. Safe to say whether or not Liam Fox and Adam Werritty were ‘close’ or not is just irrelevant. What is relevant is that Adam Werritty had access to the inner corridors of power at the highest levels, We know that Atlantic Bridge had donations from BICOM, Bicom was representing Israel’s interests therefore Adam Werritty was – “Engaging in dialogue with British opinion formers, policy makers and the media on issues of importance to Israel and the Britain-Israel relationship.” at the highest levels of power.

Image Map

Posted in UKComments Off on Atlantic Bridge, Liam Fox, Adam Werritty & Israel

Congress Grills FBI Chief About Anti-Islam Training



At a congressional hearing on Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the Bureau was through with training sessions that equated “mainstream” Muslims with terrorists — and besides, briefings like those were mere “isolated incidents.” But Mueller’s description of the extent of the training doesn’t square  with a large body of evidence that Danger Room has reported.

“This was an unusual, very unusual occasion,” Mueller told Rep. Jan Schakowsky during a hearing of the House intelligence committee. “In this particular instance, the individual gave the training. Reports of what had been in that training came up from the students. And we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others. There have been other instances that may include what would be perceived as offensive content. We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training.”

It’s apparently true that FBI intelligence analyst William Gawthrop — who conducted the counterterrorism training Mueller apparently referred to — only held a particular three-day seminar at the FBI training academy on one occasion. But the FBI did not “take action to assure that that inappropriate offensive content was not provided to others.” At least, they didn’t do so in a timely manner. Two months later, Gawthrop gave a similar briefing to a New York City partnership between the FBI and private business. In that one, he analogized Islam to the Death Star and claimed al-Qaida was “irrelevant” compared to the broader threat of Islam itself.

And while that style of training may not have been he norm at the Bureau, it wasn’t all that an “unusual circumstance,” as Mueller put it.

The FBI’s library at Quantico — not a public lending library, but a private one designed to help agents close cases — hosts books by numerous anti-Islam authors, months after the FBI promised Danger Room similar material had been purged. Several different anti-Islam lecturers have briefed FBI field offices over the years. A 2006 FBI intelligence assessment lists increased religious fervor among Muslims as a potential indicator of terrorism. The FBI’s internal Internet hosted “subject matter expert” webpages that claimed Muslims incline toward committing “genocide” against non-Muslims. Or it did until Danger Room started running its series on counterterrorism training — after which that material abruptly disappeared.

And it’s also misleading for Mueller to suggest that the FBI began its scrub of the training unprompted, after “students” informed their superiors that Gawthrop’s lecture was inappropriate. The review only happened after Danger Room published story after story on the training, and puncturing the FBI’s line that it only happened once. After a week of those stories, the FBI announced it would review its counterterrorism pedagogy — although the anti-Islam training had festered for months and, in some cases, even years.

Mueller pledged that the bureau’s review of counterterrorism training would put the “isolated incidents” behind it. But downplaying the extent of its permeation raises questions about the review’s thoroughness. And Mueller, who characterized the briefings as “offensive,” suggested that he was also seized by the opposite concern — that the review might provide too deep of a scrub for FBI training.

“We have an obligation to try to identify future threats to the United States,” Mueller said. “It should not be based on religion. It should not be based on religious characteristics. But nonetheless, we have an obligation to identify those particular characteristics that might give us a warning as to a person who will undertake an attack against the United States.”

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Congress Grills FBI Chief About Anti-Islam Training

Shoah’s pages


October 2011
« Sep   Nov »