THE ZIONIST HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DAVID ICKE

NOVANEWS

Gilad Atzmon

The Zionist Hate Campaign Against David Icke
THE ZIONIST HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DAVID ICKE

Campaign Against Antisemitism was desperate to cancel David Icke’s talk in Manchester last night.  Labour MP, Kate Green, worked hard on behalf of the Lobby. They failed,  Icke’s talk, so i hear, was a great success. I looked into the ‘evidence’ levelled against Icke by the Zionist hate groups. There is nothing there as I prove in the following video..

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on THE ZIONIST HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DAVID ICKE

Zionist puppet May screams ‘Russia’ as her domestic support collapses

NOVANEWS

Image result for Zionist Theresa May CARTOON

Theresa May screams ‘Russia’ as her domestic support collapses

The British PM has decided to play the Putin card as an excuse for her declining poll numbers

(Facing mounting pressure at home, UK Prime Minister Theresa May took aim at Russia, accusing it of the tried and trusted sins of endangering global security, election meddling, hacking attacks and spreading fake news, in what seems a desperate lunge for support.

Russia has emerged as the top threat to European democracy and security, May claimed as she delivered her remarks at the Lord Mayor’s banquet Monday. The embattled PM chose to focus her speech on international challenges rather than domestic issues, which she is struggling to deliver on. The apparent diversion comes amid reports of a potential no-confidence vote in Parliament Tuesday and in light of scant progress at the Brexit negotiations, which is increasingly being blamed on May’s lack of leadership skills.

Instead of asserting herself as a leader capable of guiding Britain through Brexit, May fell in line with the US mainstream narrative on Russia, repeating the by now worn out allegations of interference in other nations’ internal affairs, which Moscow firmly denies.

Russia is “threatening the international order on which we all depend,” May claimed, alleging that Moscow has been doing so by“meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish ministry of defense and the Bundestag [the German parliament] among many others.”

Russia is responsible for a range of hostile actions, such as its“sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption,” to its military jets routinely crossing into foreign airspaces and it is to blame for fueling military conflict in the Eastern Ukraine, according to May.

Falling short of providing examples, May accused the Kremlin for using Russian media “to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the west and undermine our institutions.”

As the UK is seeking to leave the EU while inflicting as little damage on its economy as possible, May pointed to the need to resist the perceived “Russian threat” as an argument in favor of maintaining strong economic ties between the UK and the rest of the bloc.

“The comprehensive new economic partnership we seek will underpin our shared commitment to open economies and free societies in the face of those who seek to undermine them. Chief among those today, of course, is Russia,” she said.

Speaking directly to the Russian government, she warned of repercussions, without providing any details on what potential countermeasures would entail.

“We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed,” she said, again without specifying. She added that Russia should not underestimate the stability and what she branded as “the enduring attraction” of western society.

After urging all western countries to build a united front to confront an omnipotent Russia, effectively echoing Cold War rhetoric, May then took a more conciliatory tone, saying that “we do not want to return to the Cold War, or to be in state of perpetual confrontation” with Russia. To this end, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will travel to Moscow in the coming months, she noted.

The ball, according to May, is in Russia’s court. The PM said as long as Moscow does not change its ‘behavior,’ Europe will “act together to protect our interests and the international order on which they depend.”

Scapegoat Russia

Theresa May, who is facing “an almost certain end to her brief career” in politics, is now bringing out the old scapegoat that is Russia, Managing Editor at The Duran.com Adam Garrie told RT. According to Garrie, whenever a politician is about to lose or in the process of actually losing, he or she points the finger at Russia.

“The little sister of America has truly spoken. Her [May’s] popularity among [the] parliamentary class is very low and her popularity among the general public is even lower,” he said.

Garrie believes May’s statement about Russia is not only inaccurate, but also doesn’t have “any logical sense at all.” “It’s just blind accusations from the US. Britain generally follows the US, its big brother,” he added.

Russia, is being blamed so often it seems, for everything, that it has almost become a joke, political commentator Adrian Yalland told RT, arguing that while Russia “needs to answer some questions” the West needs to come to terms with the fact that Russia has reemerged as a great power and will continue to reassert itself.

“The West needs to actually take a step back and have a listen to what is going on, to understand that Russia is coming off back from seventy years of communism, quite right to reassert its sense of national identity and to project it strongly on the global stage,” he said.

If the West seeks a “fresh beginning” with Russia, it should acknowledge that ”Russia has its place in the world and the West has to respect this.”

Posted in Russia, UKComments Off on Zionist puppet May screams ‘Russia’ as her domestic support collapses

Nazi lobby is slowly being dragged into the light

NOVANEWS
Israel lobby is slowly being dragged into the light
Priti Patel and Conservative Friends of Israel

Zionist puppet Priti Patel ‘Shoah’
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

The scandal surrounding Priti Patel, who was forced to resign as Britain’s international aid minister last week after secret meetings with Israeli officials during a “family holiday”, offers a small, opaque window on the UK’s powerful Israel lobby.

Patel’s off-the-books meetings with 12 Israelis, including prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, were organised by a British lobbyist in violation of government rules requiring careful documentation of official meetings. That is to prevent conflicts of interest and illicit lobbying by foreign powers.

Government protocol was flouted again when Patel headed to the Golan Heights, occupied Syrian territory, escorted by the Israeli army. There she was shown an Israeli military field hospital that patches up Syrians, including Al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters, wounded in Syria’s civil war.

The honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel, Lord Polak [who accompanied Patel on her visit to Israel] has recruited four-fifths of Conservative MPs, and almost every government minister, to a group whose explicit goal is to advance Israeli interests in Britain.

Afterwards, Patel pressed for the Israeli army, one of the most powerful in the world, to receive a chunk of Britain’s overseas aid. Meanwhile, she has sought to cut aid to the Palestinians, including to vital projects in Gaza. A clue as to how she reached such absurd “humanitarian” priorities is provided in the figure of Stuart Polak, mentor on her Israel “holiday”.

The honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel, Lord Polak has recruited four-fifths of Conservative MPs, and almost every government minister, to a group whose explicit goal is to advance Israeli interests in Britain. The prime minister, Theresa May, is regarded as one of Israel’s most fervent supporters in Europe.

That should be a cause for public indignation – no other foreign state enjoys such unabashed, high-level political support.

Another window on Israel’s meddling opened briefly last week. The BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, took to Twitter to relay a damning comment from an unnamed “senior” member of Patel’s party. In a clear reference to Israel, the source observed: “The entire apparatus has turned a blind eye to a corrupt relationship that allows a country to buy access.”

A short time later, presumably under pressure, Kuenssberg deleted the tweet. The BBC has not reported the comment elsewhere and the senior Conservative has not dared go public. Such, it seems, is the intimidating and corrupting influence of the lobby.

Simply to talk about the [Israel] lobby risks being accused of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish cabals.

More than a decade ago, two leading American academics wrote a study of the Israel lobby’s role in the United States, Israel’s chief patron for half a century. It was a sign of the lobby’s influence that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt could not find a publisher at home. They had to turn to a British journal instead.

The Israel lobby’s strength in Western capitals has depended precisely on its ability to remain out of view. Simply to talk about the lobby risks being accused of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish cabals.

But Mearsheimer and Walt described a type of pressure group familiar in the US – and increasingly in European capitals. Everyone from Cuba to health insurers and arms manufacturers operate aggressive lobbyists in Washington to secure their interests.

What is special about the Israel lobby in the US – an amalgam of hawkish Jewish leadership organisations and messianic Christian evangelicals – is the fear it exploits to silence critics. No one wants to be labelled an anti-Semite.

Rarely identified or held to account, the lobby has entrenched its power.

Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose! (Prince Charles, 1986)

That is what Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles, was talking about three decades ago – even if he misidentified it as a “Jewish” rather Israel lobby – in a forgotten letter found in the public archives and publicised at the weekend.

“Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” he wrote to a family friend in 1986.

Today, as recent events illustrate, the lobby is struggling to stay in the shadows. Social media and Palestinians with camera phones have exposed a global audience to systematic abuses by the Israeli army the Western media largely ignored. For the first time, Israel supporters sound evasive and dissembling.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s strident efforts in the US Congress during 2014 and 2015 to prevent a nuclear accord with Iran dragged the lobby even farther into the light.

The Israel lobby’s dirty tricks in the UK were exposed earlier this year too. An Aljazeera TV documentary showed Conservative Party officials colluding with the Israeli embassy to “take down” Alan Duncan, a Foreign Office minister who supports the Palestinian cause.

Israeli police minister Gilad Erdan, one of Patel’s hosts, “is a key player in the lobby, running a ‘smear unit’ to target overseas critics of Israel”.

It is noteworthy that Priti Patel’s downfall came about because of social media. Israeli officials like police minister Gilad Erdan were so unused to scrutiny or accountability themselves that they happily tweeted photos with Patel. Erdan is a key player in the lobby, running a “smear unit” to target overseas critics of Israel.

We may never know why Patel so grossly flouted ministerial rules or what she quietly promised in those meetings in Israel. Colleagues have hinted that, in a pattern familiar from US politics, she hoped to win over the lobby and its wealthy donors for a future leadership bid.

There is no way to know, given the lobby’s penchant for secrecy, whether Patel simply proved less adept at treading a path marked out by former Conservative and Labour party leadership hopefuls. But it is also possible that the lobby is discovering changes to the political and cultural environment are making its work much harder.

There is growing hysteria about foreign interference in US and European politics. Is it not time for Western states to show as much concern about the malign influence of Israel’s lobbyists as they do about Russian hackers?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Nazi lobby is slowly being dragged into the light

Balfour mentality has no place in civilised society

NOVANEWS

Israel's Conservative pimps

By Stuart Littlewood

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was hatched by Zionist schemers and foisted upon a gullible and desperate British government in time of war. Those dark forces then worked hard to ensure that the first part of the pledge (and much more) was implemented while the second part, which promised to safeguard the rights and interests of the existing non-Jewish population of Palestine, was permanently suppressed.

This betrayal has shamed and angered right-thinking British people for decades. The government could apologise and make amends but lacks the moral fibre. In the meantime, the spectacle of sick-minded elements of the British Establishment celebrating 100 years of Balfour is beyond all bounds of decency. It was met with such strong counter-demonstrations that supporters of Israeli apartheid will hopefully feel more isolated from now on. They are relatively few, corralled in their Westminster bubble. We are many, and growing.

Pimps in uproar

But we still have an ignorant, biased mainstream media to contend with. During his visit to join the jollifications Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was given a platform on the BBC’s flagship Andrew Marr Show where he spouted his propaganda lies without serious challenge from the usually forensic Marr. A pity George Galloway wasn’t on hand for the occasion.

The Daily Mail, meanwhile, accused Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn of snubbing an invitation to the gala dinner with Netanyahu to honour Balfour and the birth of Israel, and slammed him for speaking at a MEND (stands for Muslim Engagement Development) event instead. MEND in turn was accused of being a hardline Islamist organisation masquerading as civil libertarians, and extremist with it.

Former communities secretary Sir Eric Pickles called Corbyn’s snub “a slap in the face of Israel, and of all British Jewish citizens of the United Kingdom”. He said: “To not make a dinner is perhaps excusable but to attend a meeting of extremists who are vowed to destroy Israel is contemptible.”

It’s high time all party leaders shut down the pro-Israel meddlers in their ranks, just as they’d crush interference on behalf of any other rogue state.

The unswerving devotion by Tory grandees like Pickles to the real extremists, chief among them Her Majesty’s Government’s guest of honour Netanyahu, is nauseating. This hardline nutter, with his repulsive gang, continues to expropriate Palestinian land and property and ethnically cleanse Palestinian citizens from their homeland at gunpoint and with armoured bulldozers. And Pickles calls Corbyn contemptible?

Jennifer Gerber, of Labour Friends of Israel, declared that it was “utterly unacceptable” for the Labour leader to attend an event organised by a group that has repeatedly peddled myths about the Israel lobby. So uncomfortable truths are relegated to myth? In any case, what are agents of a foreign military power doing in the Labour Party and using it to influence the work of the British parliament? It’s high time all party leaders shut down the pro-Israel meddlers in their ranks, just as they’d crush interference on behalf of any other rogue state.

Personally I don’t believe Israel has a friend in the whole world apart from those it has bought and the sad folk who have allowed themselves to be perverted by Christian-Zionist pastors and the Scofield bible.

Then Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, was criticised for “disgraceful” Balfour comments and accused of having “reflected Corbyn’s view that the Labour party has no place as a mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict”. Professor Colin Shindler, Senior Research Fellow in Israel Studies and an advisory board member of the Israel Institute, said: “Corbyn over the last 30 years has never been a mediator between Israel and Palestine but a propagandist for one side and one side only. This goes against all the talk about peace and reconciliation – it doesn’t make any sense at all.”

I wonder, has Shindler tried saying the same to the Conservative Party, with 80 per cent if its MPs signed up to Friends of Israel?

Thornberry argued that the Balfour Declaration should not have been celebrated “because I think it was a turning point in the history of that area, and I think probably the most important way of marking it is to recognise Palestine”. This will strike most people as a perfectly reasonable position, given that successive British governments over the last 40 years have fielded prime ministers and foreign secretaries who were eager stooges for Israel, happy to turn a blind eye to its crimes and only too pleased to help thwart attempts to win justice for those it has cruelly oppressed in the Holy Land.

Rogue pimps

The latest fiasco is the crazy adventures of Conservative glamour-girl Priti Patel, the international development secretary who had 14 meetings with Israeli politicians (including Netanyahu and his security minister) during a family holiday in Israel without telling the Foreign Office, her civil servants or her boss Theresa May, and without government officials present. This was not only a two-finger salute to the ministerial code of conduct but a gross breach of security.

She’s accused of freelancing in foreign policy and is said to have tried persuading colleagues to send British taxpayers’ money as aid for an Israeli forces project in the Golan Heights. Like we don’t need the money here, with 300,000 homeless and sleeping rough. Furthermore she actually visited the Golan. Everyone and his dog knows – except Patel, apparently – that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory stolen in 1967 by the Israelis who have illegally occupied it ever since. Touring it with the thieving occupation army was a monumental diplomatic blunder.

Patel’s meetings are said to have been arranged by Lord Polak. This individual was an official of the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1980s, joined the Conservative Friends of Israel in 1989, and served as its director for 26 years until appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for political service and made a life peer. It’s hard to see what political service Polak performed for anyone except the Israeli regime.

[Priti Patel] is said to have tried persuading colleagues to send British taxpayers’ money as aid for an Israeli forces project in the Golan Heights. Like we don’t need the money here, with 300,000 homeless and sleeping rough.

The Patel-Polak shambles is a distubing echo of the Fox-Werrity affair back in 2011. The then shadow Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox had been quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “In the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies.” The Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Fox has continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, is no enemy of Britain but regarded by Israel as an obstacle to its craving for supremacy in the region. So, it was well advertised where Fox was coming from. No surprise, then, when he became the centre of an unsavoury scandal involving him, his “close friend” Adam Werrity, the UK’s ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould (who had previously served at senior level in the embassy in Iran) and Israeli intelligence figures allegedly involved in plotting sanctions against Iran. The Foreign Office and civil servants knew little or nothing about these meetings.

Fox jumped before he was pushed, so did Patel. Pimping for Israel is never seriously punished in the corridors of British power and Fox was speedily rehabilitated in the bosom of the Conservative Party and is now secretary of state for international trade. We can expect to see Patel back onboard quite soon.

She is replaced by Penny Mordaunt, also a good looking woman but with a much more impressive CV – and she’s a Royal Navy reservist.

Another pimp for Israel, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, was giving evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee the other day. He said of Hamas: “If they want to enter the democratic process, then it’s very clear what they have to do. They have to renounce terror, they have to recognise the state of Israel, and they’ve got to stop spewing out anti-Semitic propaganda.” I wonder, has he tried saying the same to Netanyahu about the Israelis’ behaviour towards the Palestinians?

In the debate on the Balfour Declaration earlier Johnson said of Israel: “It is a pluralist society, a society that protects the rights of those who live within it. It is a democracy. It is, in my view, a country to be saluted and celebrated.” Completely taken in.

Zero tolerance of bigots

A few months ago Theresa May, if you remember, attacked the successful BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, warning that her government would “have no truck with those who subscribe to it”. Two hundred legal scholars and practising lawyers from all over Europe promptly pointed out that BDS is lawful freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right protected by international convention. But May is so infatuated with Israel that she never misses a chance to tell everyone how she adores the Zionist entity. It’s time civil society made it clear that we’ll have no truck with her or any other supporter of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. In other words, the Balfour mindset has no place in our society.

This may be a good time to remember George Washington’s wise words: “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave… a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Balfour mentality has no place in civilised society

Syria Has Shown That Stop the War UK is Not Fit for Purpose

NOVANEWS

The looming war in Lebanon

Stop the War            Coalition 

Following the defeat of Isis in Syria and Iraq, the war machine in the Middle East is rapidly shifting its focus onto a new flashpoint. Having forced a resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister, the Saudis and Israel appear to be preparing for war against Iran’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This partial shift of focus does not mean that the war in Syria is over. But the failure of the intervention in Syria to defeat Assad is increasing the resolve of the Saudis and of Israel to strengthen their grip on the region by defeating Iran’s other ally Hezbollah. Donald Trump’s backing is encouraging these belligerent moves.

Israel’s military leadership has been talking of huge aerial bombardment against Hezbollah, which would lead to great casualties. This could also lead to the intervention of Russia and Iran, which could result in a war of immense proportions. The British government would no doubt try to persuade the public that the intervention in Lebanon is justified, and would probably offer some form of support to it.

——————————————

Syria Has Shown That Stop the War UK is Not Fit for Purpose

Jeremy-CorbynSTWISIS

Barbara McKenzie

21st Century Wire

This is a sequel to Stop the War, Libya and the CPGB-ML, which considered the response of the UK’s Stop the War Coalition to NATO’s plans for regime change in Libya.

The war on Syria began in much the same way as that for Libya: romantic talk of the Arab Spring, and claims of peaceful protests ruthlessly put down by a dictator with hitherto unsuspected genocidal tendencies. However the non-NATO aligned members of the Security Council, on the one hand, and a high proportion of the general public on the other, had learned from the disastrous consequences of Russia and China’s acquiescence to a no fly zone in Libya, and thus moves to introduce one for Syria, either with or without the agreement of the Security Council, have so far failed.

The purpose of the Libyan war, i.e. the overthrowing of Gaddafi, was achieved within a few months thanks to NATO’s bombing campaign; the lack of such action on the part of NATO and its allies has enabled the Syrian to withstand the terrorist onslaught, with the Russian participation a game-changer. The protracted nature of the conflict has enabled and encouraged research into the facts of the war, with extensive evidence available on essential points, in particular:

1: Forced regime change in Syria had been planned for years by US and allies (see Wesley Clarkon US intentions in 2001, the Clinton emails from 2006 and the revelation by French Minister Dumas relating to NATO plans for Syria in 2009).

2: Syrians had little taste for a revolution in Syria: no-one in Damascus turned out for a pan-Arab Day of Rage on 4 February 2011, while in those early days there were huge demonstrations in favour of the government and Bashar al Assad in Damascus and Aleppo.

3: The early protests, notably in the provincial town of Dara’a, were violent from the outset, with a stiffening of foreign terrorists imported from Libya. There is extensive eyewitness testimony to that violence, including that of Jesuit priest Father Frans der Lugt (murdered in April 2014), of soldierscalled to the famous protest in Dara’a on 15 March 2011, and of civil defence workers.

4: The heavy involvement of outside governments in the war, with NATO powers such as the US, the UK and France, and Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar spending enormous sums on training, arming and funding militants and financing foreign mercenaries; the role of Turkey in the movement of prospective jihadis and trade with militant groups like ISIS cannot be overstated.

5: The barbaric nature of the extremists, native and foreign, who owned the insurrection.

YouTube Video Preview

In ‘The cause and instigation of the war on Syria, which references many essential primary sources, Angelis Dania concludes:

The fact that the US was plotting regime-change in Syria with the use of false propaganda should colour every report on events in Syria, subjecting them to the need for review in light of the now established pre-existing US regime-change campaign.’

Many who found the idea of overthrowing the extremely oppressive regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or at best undemocratic and unpopular government of Egypt were disillusioned when they realised that regime change was only meant to happen in countries not aligned with the West. The Stop the War leadership, however, whose remit somehow expanded from opposing war to active concern with the internal affairs of other countries, has continued to support in principle the concept of the Arab Spring.

Stop the War’s Position on Syria

Over the years Lindsay German has written a number of articles reiterating the organisation’s position, almost always with a note of apology for not supporting the war on Syria, e.g. There is no hypocrisy in our stance on Syria November 2012.   Stop the War’s official position on Syria, in simple terms, is that it is opposed to external intervention. The leadership have constantly opposed all proposals by the UK government for a no-fly zone or a bombing campaign in Syria, and occasionally objected to external intervention in more general terms.

Accordingly STW protests have been organised in response to any specific proposal that would entail bombing Syria, such as when it was claimed that the Syrian government had crossed Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons in East Ghouta in August 2013. (The sarin attack was a false flag by insurgents, probably Liwa al Islam, an earlier incarnation of Jaish al Islam , see for example the WhoGhouta investigation.)

PROTEST 15 JUNE 1PM US EMBASSY GROSVENOR SQ LONDON. Stop US and UK military intervention in http://bit.ly/16kbjpd 

Protests were held in December 2015 before and after the British government voted to ‘bomb ISIS’ in Syria.

After Russia joined the war, condemnation of Russia was emphasised, e.g. StWC Statement on Syria ‘We oppose all of these interventions, including the current Russian bombing of Aleppo’, and With or without UN agreement, bombing Syria by Russia or UK should be opposed.

‘Stop the War is against Russia’s attacks on Syria. We think they should stop immediately. And we would welcome less hypocrisy from those who have supported US and allied bombing over the last year.’

Stop the War’s record in terms of protest and publications shows that its primary focus is to oppose blatant warmongering such as invasion and bombing campaigns. However STW has on occasion acknowledged, condemned, and even protested against less overt interventions.

Britain secretly equipping  rebels and SAS teams understood to be “slipping into Syria on missions”: http://bit.ly/QyvgSB 

Britain secretly equipping Syrian rebels with latest satellite phones to help topple Assad

The supply of the handsets, designed to withstand rugged environments, is part of the Foreign Office’s mission to mould militias into a coalition capable of governing the country.

dailymail.co.uk

The first step to ending the war in  is stopping western intervention: http://bit.ly/10qDGmy  

The demonstration outside the US embassy on 15 June 2013 was directed against the ‘new’ Obama initiative to arm the rebels in Syria.

PROTEST 15 JUNE 1PM US EMBASSY GROSVENOR SQ LONDON. Stop US and UK military intervention in http://bit.ly/16kbjpd 

In November 2016, STW published Abigail Watson’s article on the role of the SAS in Syria, The UK’s Not So Secret War in Syria, and a few weeks later when action in Aleppo was being mooted by the British government, German acknowledged,

‘It is foolish in the extreme to believe that really the west and its Middle East allies are not doing anything to help the opposition. That simply flies in the face of the facts including money, arms, special forces.’

While Stop the War publicly opposes intervention in Syria, the organisation claims that it does not support ‘Assad’, and is extremely defensive in the face of accusations, real or imagined, that STW might be made up of ‘Assad apologists’. Lindsay German’s Does Opposing Western Intervention in Syria Make the Anti-war Movement “Assad Apologists”? ensures distance from the Syrian government by referring to it as the ‘regime’, ‘Assad’s regime’, and ‘Bashar al Assad’s regime’ – terms favoured by the Syrian government’s opponents.

Stop the War supports a political solution in Syria. The Syrian government have a policy of offering amnesty to insurgents who want to come in from the cold, and Russia has been administering a Centre for Reconciliation to facilitate this. This is not what Stop the War has in mind; rather it looks to negotiations in Geneva which attribute the status of legitimate opposition to groups allied with ISIS and al Nusra, such as Jaish al Islam and Ahrar al Sham.

Many STW officers openly support the ‘revolution’ in Syria, and gloss over the responsibility of the UK and other external governments for the insurgency. In December 2015 Stop the War published a statement drafted by John Rees, setting out the organisation’s official position on Syria. Once again, the statement starts out on the defensive.

For avoidance of doubt: the positions of Stop the War Coalition

The Stop the War Coalition is under unprecedented attack because of its opposition to the bombing of Syria and because attacks on it are perceived to weaken Jeremy Corbyn. Here in straight forward terms are our views on some issues now being routinely misrepresented by the Tory government, the right of the Labour Party and sections of the media.

1. The STWC has never supported the Assad regime. Just as we never supported the Taliban, Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi. Only in the minds of ‘them or us’ pretend patriots does the opposition to our own government’s wars mean support for dictators or terrorists. Our case has always been that war will worsen the problem and not solve it. We were right in that analysis in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

2. The STWC has never supported Russian intervention in Syria and issued a statement opposing the bombing as soon as it began.

3. The STWC does believe that it is the people of Syria who are the only ones who should decide the fate of their country free of all great power and regional power interference.

4. The STWC is utterly opposed to the IS as a totally reactionary and, in the Arab Spring, counter revolutionary force.

5. The STWC believes that the invasion and dismemberment of Iraq, and western support for Saudi Arabia, were and are instrumental in the creation of the IS.

6. The STWC does not support calls for western invention, including an air war to establish a no fly zone, whether those calls emanate from Syrian exiles or anyone else, just as we did not support such calls from anti-Taliban or anti Saddam Afghans or Iraqis. Syrians do not all speak with one voice but many are opposed to western bombing.

7. The STWC concentrates on campaigning against UK government policy because this is where we are citizens and voters. […]

STW priorities are only marginally different from Barak Obama’s [emphasis added]:

1: The first point, reiterated in the sixth, is to voice opposition to Bashar al Assad, comparing him, furthermore, to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

2: The second is to criticise Russia for its involvement in the war.

3: Rees twice mentions ISIS, the fall guy when it comes to jihadi barbarism, but does not mention al Nusra, Jaish al Islam, or any other of the vicious gangs operating in Syria.

4: In December 2015, by which time the character of the ‘moderate opposition’ was well known, he is still talking about the ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘revolution’.

5: The necessary condition for the Syrian war, i.e. the role of the UK and its allies, is only mentioned in the last two points, and then in relatively mild terms.

Lindsay German produced another position statement in October 2016, Stop all intervention in Syria and let the people decide their future, which was consistent with everything said over the previous years: the Coalition did not support ‘Assad’ (i.e. the legitimate government of Syria) or Russia, and was opposed to a no-fly zone and the sale of arms – other interventions by the Western powers are ignored here. German claims: We do not take a position on the internal politics of Syria, and believe that this is a question for the Syrian people alone. Much of the article was self-promotion and self-congratulation.

We did not stop the war in Iraq, but we have helped to shift opinion in this country against further wars. It could be argued that Chilcot would never have happened without an anti-war movement.’

Problems with Stop the War’s approach to Syria

Don’t bomb Syria‘ is a totally inadequate response to the war on Syria.

In August 2013, pursuant to the false flag chemical attack by extremists on Ghouta, the British government voted on the question of officially going to war with Syria. The Stop the War Coalition mobilised demonstrations against the proposal, which was lost. Lindsey German penned a  self-complacent article, A partial victory, but a victory, 30 August 2013:

British MPs’ arguments and information were influenced by a strong public opinion against such a war, itself a product of a mass movement which didn’t stop a war ten years ago but has prevented a further one now. […] Britain will play no part in any Syrian intervention.

German’s article totally disregards the role of Britain in the Syrian war.  The NATO countries and their allies have consciously endeavoured to carry out their plan to achieve regime change in Syria, contrary to the will of the Syrian people, by pouring billions into funding and arming terrorists. Turkey has funneled thousands, or more probably hundreds of thousands, of jihadists through to Syria and in return bought from ISIS stolen Syrian oilantiquities and Aleppo’s factories.

The United Kingdom, moreover, has a large budget for propaganda projects specifically designed to create support for a no fly zone, such as the fake humanitarian outfit the White Helmets, staffed by members of vicious gangs like al Zinki, seven year old Bana who tweeted in perfect English from Aleppo, calling for WWIII in order to ‘save Aeppo’, and fake research organisations like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, essentially one man in a house in Coventry, but cooperating with the British Foreign Office.

Stop the War’s protests against active intervention are clearly inadequate when it is turning a blind eye to the material and moral support given to the terrorist groups in Syria, and to the propaganda designed to achieve compliance with a no-fly zone.

‘Russian bombing’

Dreadful reports from Aleppo. @STWuk want to see an end to bombing and brutality on all sides in Syria.

Stop the War’s position is that with or without UN agreement, bombing Syria by Russia or UK should be opposedStop the War is against Russia’s attacks on Syria. We think they should stop immediately.

If there were no external intervention, no funding and arming of terrorists, including hundreds of thousands of foreign mercenaries, there would be no Syrian war. Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah are all militarily involved in the Syrian war, on the invitation of the Syrian government, as a response to external intervention. They are defending Syria against barbaric extremists who are loathed by the Syrian people. The involvement of Russia, Hezbollah and other Syrian allies is consistent with international law and has been absolutely vital for the country’s survival. To put the Russian contribution to defending Syria on a par with the illegal intervention and support for terrorism by NATO and its allies is the height of dishonesty.

Obama’s much vaunted campaign against Daesh in Syria only saw ISIS and associated groups grow and flourish. The presence of a US air force did nothing to prevent ISIS convoys cross the desert from Iraq and take Raqqa and Palmyra. On the other hand, the attack by NATO forces on Syrian troops protecting the besieged town of Deir ez Zor caused the loss of more than 60 Syrian lives and facilitated ISIS advancement. (Many people, including the Syrian government, believe NATO consciously provided ISIS with air cover according to a pre-arranged plan, though this is denied by NATO.)

Russian air-cover enabled the Syrian Arab Army and its allies to retake Palmyra in March 2016, though not before the museum curator was murdered as an ‘Assad stooge’ and extensive damage was done to the historic site.  Russian assistance helped liberate Aleppo from ISIS and al Qaeda affiliated gangs, who were terrorising eastern Aleppo and shelling western Aleppo, causing horrific casualties. Since then Russia has provided extensive humanitarian aid to Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, ranging from food aid and mobile hospitals to demining eastern Aleppo. Stop the War, however, wants to see an end to Russian involvement in Syria.

Stop the War accepts the NATO narrative on Syria without question

Stop the War’s leadership specialises in producing flabby articles devoid of content: there is no new information, no analysis, just NATO’s discredited mantras of popular revolution, moderate rebels and wicked despot Bashar al Assad. Much of the space is taken up in apologising for not supporting invasion or a no-fly zone, or claiming that STW is not pro-Assad. Given that Stop the War never addresses an alternative and more valid concern, i.e. whether the Syrian government is right to resist an externally sponsored insurgency, its protestations of not being pro-Assad have to be seen as a dishonest ploy.

While Lindsay German satisfies herself with referring disparagingly to the ‘Assad regime’ and becoming indignant if anyone suggests that STW should (heaven forbid) support Syria against an immoral and illegal war driven by, amongst others, the United Kingdom, other officers of Stop the War are openly hostile to the Syrian government, for example chairman Murad Qureshi:

Syria revolution four years on: Don’t bet against President Assad – a ruler willing to see his country destroyed http://ind.pn/1NPVYDg 

Syria revolution four years on: Don’t bet against President Assad – a ruler willing to see his…

How has Bashar Hafez al-Assad survived these past four years? Ever since the Syrian revolution of 2011, his overthrow has been predicted by the greatest statesmen of our day, by the finest journali…

independent.co.uk

You’ll find that you don’t have the National Socialists in Syria but you’ll find the Baath Party which Alawites like Assad belong too.

and John Rees:

@MsIntervention @STWuk Assad is a butcher responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. And Blair for over million Iraqi’s …do the maths

George Galloway: Assad must go. No place for dictatorship. But we are not swapping Assad for US dictatorship.  

Stop the War’s position is essentially the bogus ‘third way’: while it opposes direct bombing, and occasionally complains about the better publicised aspects of direct intervention, it assumes the validity of the regime change narrative. Despite the wealth of contrary evidence, at no point does STWC question the NATO narrative of a legitimate uprising and an illegitimate government.

There has been an enormous amount of research carried out on the subject of the Syrian war, by people alert to the inconsistencies in the NATO narrative, who have wanted to find out the truth. Some of these people have traveled to Syria more than once, and recently. 21st Century Wire alone has published over 100 articles on the Syrian war. The articles contain a wealth of references, photographic and video evidence, and testimony from Syrians.

STW has not published, promoted or referenced, either in its homepage or via social media, a single article that gives an assessment of the facts that differs from that of the corporate media.

Mother Agnes Mariam

Stop the War has continued to suppress alternative views on Syria as it did with Libya. Most notable was the shocking incident when STW, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, allowed the likes of Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill to bully Mother Agnes Mariam out of speaking at the 2013 Anti-War Conference in London.

Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, Syria, is a nun who has worked in Syria for over 20 years. She has spoken out about the Syrian ‘revolution’, warning of the danger that religious minorities in Syria face from Western-backed extremists. She also queried the charge that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin attack on Ghouta, having carried out her own research into the matter. Mother Agnes was interviewed by RTin September 2013.

Mother Agnes was invited by Stop the War to speak at the International Anti-War Conference held on 30 November 2013. A campaign was orchestrated by hardline proponent of the war on Syria Mohammed Idrees Ahmad and others to ‘deplatform’ Mother Agnes, with pressure applied on other invited speakers primarily via social media.

View image on Twitter

@jeremyscahill Please don’t share platform with leading Assad propagandist Mother Agnes at the @STWuk gathering.

 Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill eventually declared that they would not share a platform with Mother Agnes, and at that point Mother Agnes voluntarily withdrew.
 Owen Jones explained his actions on his own blog, Mother Agnes, Syria and free speech, relying on an article by an obscure pro-jihadist group, Syrian Christians for Peace.  His principle objection to Mother Agnes, aside from the fact of her being an ‘Assad supporter’ (read ‘opponent of the war on Syria’), is that she queried attribution of the Ghouta chemical attack to the Syrian government. According to Jones:

‘Mother Agnes is perhaps most infamous for publishing a 50-page report claiming that the video footage of the Ghoutta massacre was faked, that the children suffocating to death had been kidnapped by rebels and were actually sleeping or “under anaesthesia”’.

Owen Jones does not give a link to Mother Agnes’s report, and for good reason, as it gives the lie to his accusation.

 ‘The chemical attacks which took place in East Ghouta on August 21, 2013 could be the most horrific false flag operation in history.

‘To date, available evidence indicates that numerous children were killed by “opposition rebels”, their bodies manipulated and filmed with a view to blaming the Syrian government for the attacks, thus sparking outrage and galvanizing worldwide public opinion in favor of another bloody, imperial US-led war.’  Mother Agnes Mariam

The UN report on the Ghouta attack does not ascribe blame, and well before the conference doubts had been expressed on the likelihood of the culprits being the Syrian government, on both technical and political grounds. On 13 September Sharmine Narwani and Radwan Mortada analysed the weaknesses of the UN report Questions Plague UN Syria Report on Syria, while WhoGhouta published a Summary of Conclusions on 24 September, which pointed the finger at insurgents.  Any fair person would have applauded, rather than condemned, Mother Agnes for querying the claims of the corporate press that ‘Assad’ was responsible for the attack.

Owen Jones also relies on the Open Letter to Stop the War Coalition penned by Idrees Ahmad. The striking feature of this letter is that most or all of the signees, for example, including Peter Tatchell, Mary Rizzo, Louis Proyect and Ahmad himself, support active intervention in Syria against the government including a no-fly zone. Jones chooses to identify with active proponents of the war on Syria rather than those who oppose it.

@OwenJones84 the NCC is the “only group to have called for open dialogue with the Syrian government”, unlike you who won’t talk to a nun.

@theLemniscat Er – I entirely supported a negotiated peace. I just don’t want to make common cause with Mother Agnes at anti-war event

Owen Jones was not asked to ‘make common cause with Mother Agnes’, except insofar as they were both presumed to oppose imperialist wars. As the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), has pointed out:

Jones has shared platforms with Labour politicians who were key architects of the invasions and genocides in Iraq and Afghanistan – some of the worst crimes of the modern era.

Stop the War itself kept its response to Mother Agnes’s withdrawal to a minimum, though taking care to reassure Jones and Scahill:

UPDATE: Mother Agnes has withdrawn from 30 Nov International Anti-war Conference: http://bit.ly/1jcAqP6  @OwenJones84@jeremyscahill

brief statement was published that managed to be both bald and dishonest.

We have always provided a platform for a diversity of opinions within a broad anti-war perspective. We hope that we can now build the conference as a strong focus for opposition to war and imperialism.

This is patently false: once Mother Agnes was removed from the equation, there was no-one present to put forward the perspective of the legitimate Syrian government, and the conference was dominated by people who essentially support the war on Syria.

The implications of the deplatforming of Mother have been addressed by a number of commentators, including Neil Clark and the indefatigable Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

‘Mother Agnes has single-handedly demonstrated that Stop the War is not about stopping the war; it is about keeping the anti-war movement within limits that are acceptable to the imperialist warmongers. It is about the warmongers keeping the masses of anti-war activists under tight control.’ CPGB-ML

Is the Stop the War leadership genuinely opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria?

Although the official policy of STW is to oppose external intervention in Syria, the behaviour of its officers contradicts this. Counterfire, which was founded by Stop the War officers and is closely linked to STW, has promoted Syria Burning by Robin Yassin Kassab and Leila al Shami, both of whom seek a no-fly zone in Syria.

In January 2012, John Rees interviewed two guests on his show In Islam: Iman Mujahed, an Irish woman married to a Syrian and the British Moussab Azzawi. Thus neither of the guests were Syrian, both supported the ‘revolution’, and both wanted external intervention. Moussab Azzawi asked for a humanitarian corridor, buffer zone, and a no-fly zone, Mujahed’s priority was a buffer zone, but she has no objections to a no-fly zone. The purpose of the interview, in fact, was to promote a no-fly zone in Syria on the Libyan model.

YouTube Video Preview

The British Foreign Office has invested heavily in propaganda projects relating to Syria that are specifically designed to gain acceptance for a no-fly zone from the public, in particular the White Helmets.  Stop the War makes no attempt to expose these scams: their position on the White Helmets, for example, is simply that they have no position.

I really don’t want you to follow me, would just prefer if you’d answer my question about whether you condemn smear on white helmets @STWuk

@STW doesn’t take a position on the White Helmets.

That the Foreign Office is funding a supposed humanitarian organisation which blatantly supports Foreign Office policy should be a red flag. However, even if one naively assumes that the organisation’s primary purpose is humanitarian, any anti-war movement should condemn the White Helmets’ calls for a no-fly zone. Stop the War has not done this.

In September 2015 Stop the War was involved in the organisation of a march in support of refugees; Jeremy Corbyn was in attendance as the newly elected leader of the Labour Party. Primary responsibility for the march was claimed by Syrian Solidarity UK (SSUK). SSUK supports the ‘revolution’ in Syria and seeks a no-fly zone in Syria. FSA (Free Syrian Army) flags, anti-Assad slogans and demands for a no-fly zone featured prominently. Jeremy Corbyn appeared on the same platform as SSUK’s Clara Connolly, who used an event in support of refugees to plug the White Helmets and to demand a no-fly zone (which would inevitably mean more refugees), and he stood right alongside Abdulaziz Almashy, co-founder of SSUK, who was wearing an FSA scarf.

So while Owen Jones refused to appear on a platform with Mother Agnes Mariam, who never spoke anything but the truth about Syria, Jeremy Corbyn shared a platform with open supporters of a no-fly zone in Syria and of the FSA, which was already known to be associated with al Nusra, ISIS, the use of chemical weaponscannibalism and all manner of other atrocities (see also Eva Bartlett’s The Non-Useful Atrocities,  or even the Daily Mail).

CorbynFSABigger

Jeremy Corbyn may not have fully understood the implications of his presence on this platform, however SSUK and Stop the War officers like John Rees certainly would have.  Genuine opponents of the war, who should have objected strongly, are the very people who hope Corbyn will rescue the country from the Tories, the Blairites and austerity – thus they remain silent, not just about this incident, but about Stop the War’s shortcomings in general and the implications of Corbyn’s ties to the organisation.

Stop the War is not fit for purpose

A feature of the debate over the wars on Libya and Syria has been the participation of those who have claimed to oppose external military intervention in those countries but at the same time facilitate that intervention by expressing sympathy for the ‘revolutionaries’ and vilifying the respective governments. Common characteristics include:

  • Support for the long-discredited Western construct of a ‘popular revolution’ in Syria
  • Demonisation of Bashar al Assad (and before him Muammar Gaddafi)
  • Condemnation of Russian support for Syria
  • Positioning themselves as being the only anti-war alternative
  • Repeated apology for not supporting a no-fly zone
  • Total blanking of research which questions the NATO narrative
  • Neither confirming nor questioning the validity of scams such as the White Helmets.

Stop the War shares all these characteristics with other organisations and individuals who function as gatekeepers in the context of the Syrian war. Its leadership has ensured that the movement has been reduced to the role of controlled opposition, deflecting the rank and file by focusing on overt intervention and ignoring the realities of Western imperialism in Syria.

‘What we need to understand is that, whether accidentally or on purpose, StW’s leaders always manage to come down on the side of imperialism, helping to demonise the victims of imperialist aggression and to neutralise the opposition to imperialist war at home.’  CPGB-ML

See also:

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

Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria

Michel Chossudovsky:

Five Years Ago: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria. Who Was Behind The 2011 “Protest Movement”?

RT:
Syria: Hospitals Russia accused of bombing don’t exist

Vanessa Beeley and Steve Ezzedine:
The Syria White Helmets Exposed as US UK Agents Embedded with Al Nusra and ISIS

Vanessa Beeley:
Journey To Aleppo Part I: Exposing The Truth Buried Under NATO Propaganda.

… Part II here

 

 

 

 

Posted in Middle East, UKComments Off on Syria Has Shown That Stop the War UK is Not Fit for Purpose

The Oslo Accords are dead

NOVANEWS

Hamas’s Mousa Abu Marzouk declares Oslo Accords dead, says current arrangements have nothing to do with Oslo.

Mousa Abu Marzouk

Mousa Abu Marzouk

Mousa Abu Marzouk, a member of Hamas’s political bureau who is one of the most senior members of the organization, said on Sunday that the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993 are long dead and that all existing arrangements have nothing to do with those accords.

In an interview with the Arab21 website, Abu Marzouk rejected the claims against Hamas that under the reconciliation initiative with Fatah, the movement relinquished its basic principles.

“The claim that we agreed to a Palestinian state as a step towards national consensus, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the (West Bank) and the (Gaza) Strip with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, the return of the Palestinian refugees and the removal of the settlements from the West Bank – we agreed to all these things as a gradual program with a national consensus,” he said.

Abu Marzouk rejected the demand of Palestinian Authority chairman Zionist puppet Mahmoud Ab-A$$ that the armed militias in Gaza disarm, saying, “The resistance is the right of the Palestinian people and the right of all the resistance organizations, and on this basis we say that the weapon of the resistance will not be included in the issues (in the framework of the reconciliation talks with Fatah).”

Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, previously declared that the weapons held by the Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s “military wing”, will continue to serve as the spearhead in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine.

Hamas officials have previously claimed that Zionist puppet Ab-A$$ representatives never demanded that Hamas and other groups disarm as part of the reconciliation agreement.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Gaza, UKComments Off on The Oslo Accords are dead

Prince Charles Baffled no US President will Take on Zionist Lobby

NOVANEWS

Image result for Prince Charles WEARING YAMAKA

Writing to his friend Laurens van der Post, the Prince argued that the exodus of European Jews in the middle of the last century “helped to cause the great problems” in the Middle East.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Prince Charles Baffled no US President will Take on Zionist Lobby

BBC Deletes Tweet that Exposes Nazi regime Westminster Privileges

NOVANEWS

BBC Deletes Tweet that Exposes Israel’s Westminster Privileges

21st Century Wire says…

A BBC journalist has been exposed deleting a tweet in which a senior Tory MP expresses anger at Britain’s corrupt relationship with Israel that has permitted Israeli access to Westminster and the decision making process. This is not the first time that Laura Kuenssberg has been involved in controversy. She had previously complained of a stalking” campaign against her, following her coverage of Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Middle East Monitor: “A prominent BBC journalist has deleted a tweet in which a senior Conservative MP can be seen complaining about the British media turning a blind eye to the corrupt relationship that has allowed Israel to “buy access” in Westminster.

The tweet was posted by the BBC’s Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg on Wednesday while the Scottish journalist was covering the build up to the resignation of Priti Patel. The Secretary of State for International Development had taken part in undisclosed meetings in Israel organised by the powerful Conservative Friends of Israel lobby (CFI) last summer.

Kuenssberg’s Twitter posts on the day was full of posts on the Patel story including comments about Number 10 denying the allegation made by the Jewish Chronicle that Prime Minster Theresa May had been made aware of the 12 meetings Patel had had during her “family holiday” in Israel.

In her deleted tweet, which MEMO has been able to grab as a screenshot, Kuenssberg reported a comment made by a “senior” Tory MP who, enraged by the debacle, called for Lord Polak, honorary president of CFI and the person thought to be behind Patel’s Israel trip, to be sacked.

“Strong words,” tweeted Kuenssberg, “Senior Tory says Lord Polak should be chucked out of the party, claiming ‘the entire apparatus has turned a blind eye to a corrupt relationship that allows a country to buy access’.”

MEMO contacted Kuenssberg to ask why she had deleted the tweet but has not received a reply from the journalist.

The BBC has often been accused of pro-Israel bias and it would appear that this was yet another example of the broadcaster censoring criticism of Israel or senior BBC journalists enforcing self-censorship when it comes to Israel.

While it’s not absolutely clear what the senior Tory meant by the “entire apparatus”, it would appear that the concerns raised by the Conservative politician echo similar complaints made by Israel’s critics over the influence of CFI and other pro-Israeli lobby groups on the entire British establishment including the media.

Kuenssberg’s decision to delete the tweet it seems is further proof that the “entire apparatus” is reluctant to shed light on the “corrupt relationship” between the UK and Israel, which critics say is the reason why the BBC and other media corporations have turned a blind eye, and allowed Israel through the CFI and organisations like the Labour Friends of Israel to “buy access”.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on BBC Deletes Tweet that Exposes Nazi regime Westminster Privileges

Zionist Hindova Patel scandal: We need a fresh look at British politics and the Nazi regime

NOVANEWS
Priti Patel scandal: We need a fresh look at British politics and Israel

The activities of Priti Patel are a sign of a wider imbalance in Britain’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

Months before he became prime minister in 2010, David Cameron warned that the next major scandal to hit British politics would be caused by illicit pressure from big lobbying interests.

Lo and behold, here it is!

The resignation of international development secretary Priti Patel has been framed by commentators as a manifestation of the ongoing political crisis afflicting the Theresa May government.

It is about much more than that. The Patel episode draws attention to one of the most striking features of British politics in the 21st century: the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in Britain.

Israel’s improper influence

The agent of Priti Patel’s downfall was Stuart Polak, a Westminster fixer who has been the driving force behind the Conservative Friends of Israel for the last 30 years.

Polak told the BBC last week that he and Patel “met up for one or two things. It was the summer holidays. I just joined her for a couple of days, some drinks, some dinner, that kind of thing.”

In fact, he seems to have played a much bigger role. It was Polak who arranged and attended the bulk of Priti Patel’s meetings with Israeli businessmen and politicians during her so-called holiday in the Middle East in August.

We would all have been in the dark about this but for the diligent and praiseworthy reporting from the BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale.

View image on Twitter

Wonderful meeting my friend Sec. of State Priti @Patel4witham, a woman of great courage and leadership. We are taking concrete action 1/2

Above: Priti Patel also met the Israeli public security minister Gilad Erdan in Westminster in September without government officials being present

This is the second case of its kind in less than a year. Back in January, an Israeli officer called Shai Masot was filmed by Al Jazeera proposing to “take down” Alan Duncan, a Foreign Office minister, who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Foreign countries have a right to have their voices heard in Whitehall and Westminster. But there are legitimate and well-used channels to enable them to do so

Of course, foreign countries have a right to have their voices heard in Whitehall and Westminster. But there are legitimate and well-used channels to enable them to do so.

Probably no country in the world, barring perhaps the United States and former dominions such as Australia and New Zealand, is heard with such sympathy or finds such legitimate easy access as Israel does in the UK.

So it is particularly troubling that it should also exert improper influence. Patel’s undisclosed meetings and Masot’s clumsy manoeuvres fall well outside the legitimate bounds of diplomatic business.

The power of the Conservative Friends of Israel

I believe that it is time that a light was shone on this area. This is in part because it is essential that Britain should play the role of honest broker in the Middle East.

Of course, we should regard Israel as a friend, and stand up for its legitimate interests. But the Palestinians need to know that Britain is even-handed.

Eight years ago I presented a film for Channel 4 on the pro-Israel lobby at Westminster. I established that Polak, the then-director of Conservative Friends of Israel, had ready access to David Cameron. I reported how pro-Israel donors to the Conservative Party threatened to withdraw their funding when Tory policy in the Middle East displeased them.

There was a particularly explosive row after William Hague, then foreign secretary, criticised the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon as “disproportionate”. In the wake of this episode, Polak secured a meeting with Cameron in which the Tory leader promised the word “disproportionate” would never be used again.

Cameron’s readiness to give in to this kind of pressure contrasted with his predecessor, Conservative Party leader Michael Howard. Howard, I was told, had always been scrupulously careful to keep his distance and maintain formal and proper relations with the Conservative Friends of Israel.

There was an explosive row after William Hague, then foreign secretary, criticised the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon as ‘disproportionate’

The CFI has been an especially powerful presence in the Conservative Party ever since the Cameron years. It can whistle up the foreign secretary or the prime minister to speak at its annual lunches at Westminster, as well as at the Tory Party conference and other events.

For example, current prime minister Theresa May was the guest speaker at last year’s CFI lunch at the Plaza Hotel in central London. David Cameron, then still prime minister, gave the main address in 2015.

These annual lunches show the pulling power of Polak’s CFI. Typically, they are attended by at least 100 Tory MPs, as well as peers, special advisers and party figures.

There is no question that it has been, for many years, one of the most important lobbying organisations in this country. An article in Haaretz by the well-informed journalist Anshel Pfeffer reveals the kind of influence exercised by the CFI:

“In March 2014, when then-Prime Minister David Cameron visited Israel, Polak and Conservative Party treasurer Andrew Feldman prevailed on Cameron to cut paragraphs criticizing Israel’s settlement policy from the prime minister’s Knesset speech.”

Similarly, in an article in the Jerusalem Post in March 1995, historian and former Conservative MP Robert Rhodes James called it ” the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel.”

It is important to stress that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of this. Indeed, in the interests of transparency I should state that the CFI paid for me to visit Israel 10 years ago.

Undercover recordings revealed how Shai Masot sought to secretly influence British politics (scerengrab)

But the exercise of hidden influence is another matter. The meddling by Masot – an attempt by a foreign state to interfere directly in British politics – came close to espionage.

And I cannot for the life of me imagine what Stuart Polak – a man I know and like – was doing when he took Priti Patel on their private mission around Israel and the Golan Heights during the summer. For this little tour by Lord Polak – he was ennobled by Cameron in October 2015 – appears to have worked only too well.

We now know that Patel came back with a project to divert British aid to support an Israeli army project in the Golan Heights. If she is to have any future career at all, then Patel badly needs to come up with an explanation. So does Polak.

The need for balance

At the start of this year, Crispin Blunt, then chairman of the powerful backbench Foreign Affairs Committee, had the foresight to order an inquiry into British policy in the Middle East. He included in the remit of his investigation “how UK policy is influenced by other states and interests”.

It is a great pity then that the first act of Blunt’s successor, Tom Tugendhat, was to discontinue this investigation. Otherwise, both Patel and Polak could now be called before parliament to explain themselves. Blunt’s proposed investigation could hardly have been more timely in the wake of the Patel and Masot episodes.

Many people believe that British policy towards Israel has been unbalanced for many years. This was all too evident at the dinner between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and May on 2 November to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and UK Prime Minister Theresa May in London on 2 November 2017 (AFP)

It’s not merely that there was no discernable Palestinian presence but that the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah was not even consulted about it. Crucially, May did not attend, nor send one of her ministers to attend, the Palestinian attempts to mark Balfour at the same time. And it remains extraordinary – and damnably wrong –  that there is still no such body as the Conservative Friends of Palestine.

In the wake of Patel’s resignation this week, we urgently need a fresh look at British politics towards Israel. Tugendhat must re-open the inquiry he mistakenly closed two months ago.

In the conclusion to my study of the CFI, produced shortly before the Conservatives came to power, I called on the organisation to be “far more open about how it is funded and what it does”.

If Polak and the Conservatives had taken my advice then, they wouldn’t be in this pickle now – and hapless Patel would still be in a job

I pointed out that this very secrecy could give rise to false conspiracy theories. The Patel episode demonstrates how right I was.

If Polak and the Conservatives had taken my advice then, they wouldn’t be in this pickle now – and hapless Patel would still be in a job.

 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Zionist Hindova Patel scandal: We need a fresh look at British politics and the Nazi regime

The alliance between the Nazi regime and Britain is not miraculous. It is murky

NOVANEWS

The alliance between Israel and Britain is not miraculous. It is murky

There is ample evidence to suggest that May’s government has accommodated a pro-Israel lobby that keeps the true nature of its activities under wraps

The latest comments by Theresa May on Britain’s relations with Israel in the wake of Priti Patel’s resignation smack of duplicity.

Both states are “close allies and it is right that we work closely together” provided such work is done “formally and through official channels,” the prime minister has stated.

READ MORE ►

Meet Stuart Polak, the Israel lobbyist at centre of Priti Patel scandal

There are at least two problems with that remark. Constantly cosying up to the oppressor of the Palestinian people is not “right” even if all the required formalities are observed. And secondly, there is ample evidence to suggest that May’s government has accommodated a pro-Israel lobby that keeps the true nature of its activities under wraps.

The Israel connection

May was responding to a controversy which led Priti Patel to resign as Britain’s secretary for international development over undisclosed discussions with Israeli politicians.

Those discussions were arranged by Stuart Polak, a lobbyist whose “energy and tenacity” was praised by May less than a year ago. Since 2015, Polak has sat in the House of Lords.

Under a code of conduct for that institution’s members, he should “provide the openness and accountability” necessary to “reinforce public confidence” in his conduct.

Polak is clearly not respecting that rule. In particular, he has failed to clarify his precise links to Israel’s arms industry. As well as being in the House of Lords, Polak leads a consultancy named TWC Associates (previously The Westminster Connection).

In a real democracy, Polak’s role in such a pressure group would be scrutinised, rather than applauded

Although Elbit Systems is listed as a client on the consultancy’s website, Polak has not disclosed what work he and his colleagues do for that Israeli firm. Earlier this week, The Guardian depicted Elbit as relatively innocuous by reporting that it “specialises in defence electronics”.

The full picture is far more sinister. Elbit has made many of the weapons – including white phosphorous munitions and drones – that Israel has used in its major attacks on Gaza in the 2008-2009 war.

Contacted by telephone, Elbit spokesperson David Vaaknin confirmed that he was aware of the controversy involving Polak. Asked if Elbit would reassess its relationship with Polak’s consultancy, Vaaknin declined to comment.

Along with supplying weapons to the Israeli military, Elbit owns at least five firms in Britain. Ran Kril, a senior Elbit representative, said recently that the firm is treating Britain as “an actual home market” similar to the US and Israel.

Elbit is taking part in a £1.2bn programme called Watchkeeper, which is aimed at providing drones for the British Army. The firm has also signalled that it wishes to expand its cooperation with Britain’s weapons-producers.

Polak claims to have been on holiday at the same time as Patel (Conservative Friends of Israel)

Polak has never revealed if he or his business partners have assisted Elbit’s efforts to gain a stronger foothold in the British market. He did not respond to a request for comment. So far, Polak has withheld details about who paid for him to accompany the aforementioned Patel when she met Israeli politicians in August.

Yet a register of interests for the House of Lords reveals that he travelled to New York and Morocco the following month at the expense of the Israeli firm ISHRA Consulting. ISHRA’s website indicates that it is involved in lobbying for the arms industry and Morocco is known to have bought Israeli-designed drones.

Did Polak try to drum up any business for Israel during his travels?

Strong links

Earlier this month, he marked the Balfour Declaration’s centenary by signing an article which argued that Britain “must continue to explore avenues for further trade” with Israel.

For more than 25 years, Polak has been a key player in Conservative Friends of Israel. His appointment to the House of Lords was presented as a reward for his pro-Israel advocacy by David Cameron, then the prime minister.

In a real democracy, Polak’s role in such a pressure group would be scrutinised, rather than applauded. Conservative Friends of Israel is, by its own admission, among the most influentiallobbying outfits in the Tory party and British politics more generally.

Long before the controversy that triggered her resignation, Priti Patel had cultivated strong links with the pro-Israel lobby

The group has extremely close relations with the Israeli government. The trips it organises for public representatives to visit the Middle East are jointly financed with the Israeli foreign ministry.

Prominent Tories have enjoyed such junkets. Theresa Villiers MP took part in one not long after she ceased being the cabinet minister responsible for the north of Ireland. She used the trip to subtly raise criticisms of how Britain last year endorsed a UN Security Council resolution opposing Israel’s settlement activities.

That Conservative Friends of Israel was eager to promote her criticisms raises further questions. Is the group conniving with the Israeli government to try and tone down Britain’s stance on settlements? Such efforts – if successful – would make Theresa May’s government complicit in enabling violations of international law (all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights breach the Fourth Geneva Convention).

Long before the controversy that triggered her resignation, Priti Patel had cultivated strong links with the pro-Israel lobby.

Patel held a secret meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during her 12-day visit to Israel in August (AFP)

She had visited Washington to take part in a 2013 conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a group with considerable clout on Capitol Hill.

The bill for her trans-Atlantic journey was footed by the Henry Jackson Society, a neoconservative “think tank” dedicated to American and British imperialism.

READ MORE ►

REVEALED: Secret tapes expose Israeli influence over UK conservative party

The Henry Jackson Society can count on a number of supporters within the British cabinet. Among them are Michael Gove, Britain’s environment secretary, who has been involved both with the society and with Conservative Friends of Israel. Gove has rhapsodised lately about how “Israel is a truly miraculous nation and a light unto the world”.

The choice of words is unfortunate, to put it mildly. The alliance between Israel and Britain is not miraculous. It is murky.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on The alliance between the Nazi regime and Britain is not miraculous. It is murky

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031