“When ancient theologies are used for modern political ends…”


(Gospel according to Rabbi Lord Sacks)

In a House of Lords debate on the Middle East the other day Lord Risby, who opened proceedings, set the tone and spoke of moving to “a final acceptance of the Palestinian reality”. He reminded the House that he and other Members had written an open letter calling for the formal recognition of Palestine by the United Kingdom.

The former Chief Rabbi in the UK, Lord Sacks, got up and made a speech I found so preposterous that I reproduce it here in full.
30 Oct 2014 : Column 1332

Lord Sacks: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this important debate. At the outset I declare an interest: I am a Jew. Israel is therefore for me the place where my people were born almost 4,000 years ago; the place to which Abraham and Sarah travelled; where Amos voiced his vision of social justice and Isaiah dreamt of a world at peace; where David composed the Psalms and Solomon built the Temple. This had consequences not only for Jews but also for Christians and Muslims, who claim Abraham as their ancestor in faith, and whose God they take as their own.

This had tragic repercussions throughout the Middle Ages, because Christians and Muslims claimed, each in their own way, to have replaced Jews as the people of God and thus as heirs to the Holy Land. The otherwise saintly Augustine declared that Jews were cursed with the fate of Cain, destined to be restless wanderers on earth without a home. Islam held that any land that ever came under Muslim rule was henceforth and forever Dar Al Islam: that is, land that rightly belongs to the Umma, the Muslim people, with any other rule being illegitimate. On both of these theologies, Jews had no right to their ancestral home.

A half-century ago, these theologies would have been considered irrelevant. The West had moved on. After a century of religious wars following the Reformation, it recognised the need for the secularisation of power. This allowed the United Nations, in the partition vote of 1947, to grant Jews the right to a nation state of their own after 2,000 years of exile and persecution. Eventually, there were peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and an intensive process with the Palestinians. When power is secularised, peace is possible.

Today, though, throughout the Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa, a seismic shift is taking place in the opposite direction. People are desecularising. They feel betrayed by secular nationalist Governments who failed to deliver prosperity and national pride. They consider the national boundaries imposed by colonial powers to be artificial and obsolete. They are uninspired by the secular culture of the West, with its maximum of choice and minimum of meaning. They have come to believe that salvation lies in a return to the Islam that bestrode the narrow world like a colossus for the better part of 1,000 years.

Although their faith is hostile to modernity, they sometimes understand modernity better than its own creators in the West. They know that because of the internet, YouTube and the social media, communication —indeed politics—has gone global; they also know that the great monotheisms are the most powerful global communities in the world, far broader and deeper in their reach than any nation state. The religious radicals are offering young people the chance to fight and die for their faith, winning glory on earth and immortality in heaven. They have started recruiting in the West and they have only just begun.

When ancient theologies are used for modern political ends, they speak a very dangerous language indeed. So, for example, Hamas and Hezbollah, both self-defined as religious movements, refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel within any boundaries whatever and seek only its complete destruction.

The Islamists also know that the only way they can win the sympathy of the West is by demonising Israel. They know that you cannot win support for ISIS, Boko Haram or Islamic Jihad, but if you can blame Israel you will gain the support of academics, unions and parts of the media, and you will distract attention from the massacres in Syria and Iraq, the slow descent of other countries into chaos and the ethnic cleansing of Christians throughout the region. They are thus repeating the very failure of the regimes they have risen against, which for 50 years suppressed dissent by demonising Israel as the cause of everything wrong in the Arab or Islamic world. When you blame others for your failures you harm not only those others but yourself and your people. To be free, you have to let go of hate. If you let hate speech infect the West, as has already happened in some of our campuses, prisons and schools, then our freedom, too, will be at risk.

I and the vast majority of the Jewish community care deeply about the future of the Palestinians. We want Palestinian children, no less than Israeli children, to have a future of peace, prosperity, freedom and hope. That is why we oppose those who teach Palestinian children to hate those with whom they will one day have to live. We oppose those who take money given for humanitarian aid and use it to buy weapons and dig tunnels to take the region back to a dark age of barbarism.

More generally, we say in the name of the God of Abraham—the almighty, merciful and compassionate God—that the religion in whose name atrocities are being carried out, innocent people butchered and beheaded, children treated as slaves, civilians turned into human shields and young people into weapons of self-destruction, is not the Islam that once earned the admiration of the world: nor is its God the God of Abraham. It was Nietzsche, not the prophets, who worshipped the will to power. It was Machiavelli, not sacred scripture, who taught that it is better to be feared than to be loved.

Every religion must wrestle with its dark angels, and so today must we: Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. For we are all children of Abraham, and only when we make space for one another as brothers and sisters will we redeem the world from darkness and walk together in the light of God.

Israel, said Rabbi Sacks, is the place where his people were born almost 4,000 years ago. I read somewhere that Sacks himself is an Askenazi. Can he demonstrate direct blood ties to the ancient Holy Land? Most Palestinians can, I believe. Zionists distort the scriptures to claim Jerusalem is theirs by Divine right, but it was already 2000 years old and an established, fortified city when King David captured it. Its name is derived from Uru-Shalem, meaning “founded by Shalem (the Canaanite God of Dusk)”.

The Jews lost Jerusalem to the Babylonians, recaptured it, then lost it again to the Roman Empire in 63BC. When they rebelled Hadrian threw them out in 135. Until the present illegal occupation the Jews had only controlled Jerusalem for some 500 years, small beer compared to the 1,277 years it was subsequently ruled by Muslims and the 2000 years, or thereabouts, it originally belonged to the Canaanites.

Jerusalem was also a Christian city. The 4th century saw the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Persians came and went. Then, after the Islamic conquest in 690, two major shrines were constructed over the ruins of the earlier temples — the Dome of the Rock, from which Muhammed is said to have ascended to Heaven, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Crusaders re-took Jerusalem in 1099 and The Temple Mount became the headquarters of the Knights Templar. In 1187 Saladin ended the Crusader Kingdom and restored the city to Islam while allowing Jews and Christians to remain if they wished.

As the saying goes, “None has claim. All have claim!”

Lord Sacks, an ardent promoter of the Jewish religion, the Jewish state and the idea that God gave Jews exclusive title to Jerusalem, seemed oblivious to the irony of his speech especially where he said: “When ancient theologies are used for modern political ends, they speak a very dangerous language indeed.”

In answer to the babble put out by Zio-propagandists, including Christians, church leaders in the Holy Land issued their 2006 Jerusalem Declaration saying:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

“We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine… We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation.”

Sacks also complained that Hamas and Hezbollah, self-defined as religious movements, “refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel within any boundaries whatever and seek only its complete destruction”. This demonisation of Hamas and Hezbollah is wrong-headed and all the more so when Israel’s hands are unclean. The world and his dog know that Hamas has agreed to a long-term truce with Israel provided it ends the illegal occupation, gets back behind its 1967 borders and accepts the refugees’ right of return – all as per UN resolutions and subject to a Palestinian referendum. Hezbollah, as Sacks knows perfectly well, was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon after the 1982 war.

Was he trying to be funny when he said the Islamists know that “the only way they can win the sympathy of the West is by demonising Israel”? The Israeli regime does a first-rate job of demonising itself by its lawless, brutal conduct…. by taking billions of American taxpayers’ dollars and purchasing weapons of horrific destruction to inflict death and misery on its neighbours. Israelis may not behead innocent Palestinians but they sure as hell butcher them in huge numbers with high-tech weaponry paid for by America, then whine when their victims hit back with whatever unsophisticated devices they can lay hands on, probably paid for by Iran.

And Sacks said we must “make space for one another as brothers and sisters” just as his own brethren were shutting down the Al-Aqsa Mosque. How does his remark square with the vast majority of Palestinian Muslims and Christians having been prevented for decades from visiting their holy places in the Old City?

He even said his people “care deeply” about the future of the Palestinians and their children and oppose those who teach the children to hate. To show how much they care, they have kept the Palestinians under brutal military occupation for decades, blockaded them, obstructed every aspect of their lives, thieved their property, imprisoned them without trial and, in the case of Gaza particularly, half starved them and created mass homelessness.

As Amnesty International’s new report Families under the Rubble states in the very first paragraph, “Israeli air strikes during Israel’s recent military operation in the Gaza Strip, Operation Protective Edge, targeted inhabited multi-storey family homes. Whole families, including many women and children, were killed or injured by these targeted strikes and, in addition, there was extensive destruction of civilian property.” What was that about teaching to hate?

AI provides this timely reminder:

“As regards the destruction of entire homes, including apartment buildings, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regulates Israel’s actions as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Article 53 provides that: ‘Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.’

“According to Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ‘extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly’ is a grave breach of the Convention, and thus a war crime.”

Among its recommendations the AI reports calls on the international community to support the International Criminal Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Palestinian territory. “The UN Security Council should refer the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate crimes under international law by all parties to the conflict.”

Nowhere in his speech did Lord Sacks, described by the Prince of Wales as a “light unto this nation”, address and illuminate the main question of British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nowhere did he recommend the jackboot of oppression be immediately removed and the Palestinians granted their human rights and their freedom. That would surely have been the Christian position and, I imagine, the true Jewish one. It is certainly the British position (although our Zionist Prime Minister and the weaklings he has surrounded himself with are still dragging their feet). It is what the Rabbi failed to say on this important occasion that makes me wonder whether he’s an instrument of God or just another preacher of Israeli ‘hasbara’.

Meanwhile, as the Jerusalem Declaration points out, “discriminative actions [by the Occupation] are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region”. Nothing has changed for the better since 2006; it has got steadily worse.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

George Galloway calls Katie Hopkins a “rat faced b***h”, asks why she isn’t on trial for anti-Muslim tweets



The Respect MP wasn’t pulling any punches with his scathing response to Katie’s latest controversial tweets.

George Galloway has slammed Katie Hopkins after her anti-Muslim rant calling Palestinians “filthy rodents”.

The controversial columnist sparked calls for her arrest earlier this week when she posted a series of anti-Muslim messages on Twitter, including one that labelled Palestinians “filthy rodents”.

It after reports of the stabbings in Tel Aviv apparently carried out by an Arab man on two Israelis.

One tweet read: “Palestinians busy knifing Israelis. 2 stage solution my arse. Filthy rodents burrowing beneath Israel. Time to restart the bombing campaign.”

And the latest person to express their outrage is the 59-year-old MP - who was interviewed by police under caution over a speech where he said Bradford should be an “Israel-free zone” in August.

During his weekly ‘Ask Galloway Q&A’ session on Press TV, he was asked: “If you could beam one person to permanently join Philae aboard the comet – who?”

And Galloway doesn’t pull any punches with his reply.

“Well I agonised about some of my political enemies, but I came down to someone who not everyone will know and they’re the lucky ones – her name is Katie Hopkins.”

He continued: “This week she tweeted that it was time for Israel to start the bombing of the Palestinian people again, and she described the Palestinian people as rodents borrowing away underneath Israel – two state solution my a**e, she said.

“Now it was a very odd choice of words, quite apart from how offensive it was, to describe the Palestinian people as rodents when she’s a rat faced b**** herself, was really very strange.

“In fact, she’s the lowest of the low.”

Katie Hopkins

Katie HopkinsThe Respect MP added: “Because of her political, views which run the range of right to extreme right – righter than Genghis Khan.

“Now I’m asking a question here. If a Muslim personality, say a cricketer or a famous Muslim footballer, had called for people to start bombing Israel… if that personality had described Israelis as rodents borrowing away underneath Palestine, I hazard a guess they’d already be under arrest.

“There would certainly be a clamour in parliament in the media to put that person under arrest because we have laws against hate speech against deliberately seeking to incite hatred, which is usually followed by violence against any group of people.

“So, in answering your question, I’m asking another one – why isn’t Katie Hopkins on trial and when will television companies stop inviting her to her sofa?”

Over the summer, Galloway was interviewed by police under caution over a speech where he said Bradford should be an “Israel-free zone”.

The MP was questioned by officers on suspicion of inciting racial hatred following complaints after the speech.

The 59-year-old spoke to detectives voluntarily, West Yorkshire Police said.

He had said in the speech : “We don’t want any Israeli goods, we don’t want any Israeli services, we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or the college, we don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, even if any of them had thought of doing so.”


Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

The Presumption of Guilt: David Cameron and “Islamic Radicalization”

Global Research

The British Prime Minister was evidently enjoying the backslapping as he strode into the Australian parliament. David Cameron felt at home before members he could count on, so much so the weak jokes seemed to have effect.  The UK-Australian relationship was discussed.  Like a long union, it had gathered some dust, losing its frisson perhaps, but never its presumption of friendship.  “It is extraordinary to think that no British Foreign Secretary had visited Australia in nearly 20 years.  I was determined to change that.”

Rocky times were still times when the couple stuck it through.  “Our ties have been woven not only in the best of times, but in the worst of times.  Never more so than in each other’s – and in humanity’s – bleakest hours.”[1]  Then come the security elements to the relationship, the Five Power Defence Arrangement and the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership.

Cameron said the right things for his audience.  Like a cabinet file, he had gone through the main folders.  Mention Gallipoli.  Mention that, “Those diggers were not just fighting for their country, they were shaping the identity of a new young nation.” Mention the permanent state of warring commitment between the two countries.  Note that Australian Aboriginals have managed to make it to the elite institutions of Cambridge and Oxford.  Appeal to the Australian pragmatism: “You are a ‘can do’ country.”  Speak about assertiveness in absence of thought.  “Typical Australia. Always there, with action not words.”

There was also another striking point.  Cameron had selected his audience, and moment, with good reason. Islamic radicalisation was on the script, and he was keen to push the message of how best to cope with it.  “In both our countries we have seen some of our young people radicalised, going off to fight in Iraq and Syria, and even appalling plots to murder innocent people back in our own countries.”  Given the Abbott government’s attempt at passing some of the most far reaching, and sinister national security legislation in decades, the British PM knew where he had landed.

For Cameron, British foreign policy, in alliance with the United States and Australia, does not explain radicalisation.  Muslims do not engage in foreign conflicts because of the actions of their host country.  This is the sentiment of obliviousness, one that takes refuge in the idea of exceptional values challenged by exceptional threats. We do no harm; only harm is done to us.  “There is no opt-out from dealing with this.  We have to confront this threat at its source.”

Cameron’s suggests the converse.  British foreign policy has been good for Islam.  “Now I can show you examples all over the world where British aid and British action have saved millions of Muslim lives, from Kosovo to Syria.” The fantasy of salvation is yet another way of branding acts of interference as acts of humanitarian benevolence.

Then come the avenues by which radicalisation can take place.  Local conditions such as poverty are irrelevant to Cameron, “though of course our nations are united in tackling deprivation wherever it exists.” The convenient dismissal of foreign policy and domestic social policy as causes enables Cameron to take free rein over targeting a specific group.  For anyone vaguely acquainted with such radicalisation notions, the processes, and the causes, vary dramatically between communities. In the comforts of a Parliamentary speech, complexity gives way to easy wrapping and simple summaries.

The true demon of radicalisation, argues Cameron, is the big bad space of the Internet, for “the root cause of the challenge we face is the extremist narrative.”  Like Don Quixote having a beef with the windmills, Cameron is concerned that government can engage in the task of removing “extremist material” from the Internet.  “There is a role for government in that.  We must not allow the Internet to be an ungoverned space.”

And if the government can’t do it, companies must.  “In the UK we are pushing them to do more, including strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material.”  Censorship, for Queen and country, is the suggested antidote.

It should be obvious that such ideas give way to undermining of the very “values” that animate the British system, be they the presumption of innocence, free speech, the innate wisdom of the common law, or the judgment of those good sages of Parliament.  The Counter-Terrorism Bill suggests a reversal of the onus of proof- that one returning from Syria or Iraq fighting for the various militias should well be detained for the very grounds of that travel.  This is institutional guilt rather than punishable conduct.  Australia’s foreign fighter legislation has the same slant.

The other point to note is that such laws are simply not clear about whether the foreign fighter prohibitions apply evenly.  If one had rewound the tape of history to examine how such laws would operate in the context of a conflict like the Spanish Civil War, we would find individuals such as George Orwell and Arthur Koestler doing time in the cells of Blighty. It would have equally applied to the pro-Fascist fighters who took sides with Generalissimo Franco. The practice of it is something else.

The problems have already been faced in the Australian context: do you punish a Syrian-Australian fighter who fights for the Assad regime?  What of Kurdish fighters of Australian or British origin who find themselves fighting in northern Iraq against ISIL forces?  Law, in a theoretical sense, should be of even application.  The practice, however, tends to see favouritism.  The narrative, in other words, is slanted towards punishing Islamic radicalism personified by the Islamic State. It does not single out the fighters sponsored by Western interests. Nor does it distinguish the range of militias that might fall into a prosecutable group as opposed to another.

So much for the wisdom of Parliament, which has gone off.  But irrespective of all that, the UK and Australia can be counted upon to do, not so much the right thing, as the predicable thing.  They have their own narratives to push, even if they end in being self-defeating ones.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Mistreatment of Asylum seekers in Ireland : Direct Provision, Human Dignity, Personal Autonomy and the ECHR

Global Research
Irish asylum seekers

Human dignity is the rock on which the superstructure of human rights law is built, and references to human dignity can be found throughout the major international human rights treaties. According to Kantian Philosophy, human dignity rests on autonomy which is inherent in each individual. The link between human dignity and autonomy is important when examining the plight of those affected by the Irish system of ‘Direct Provision’, which denies personal autonomy for extended periods (average of 4 years extended to 12 and 14 years in some cases), and has been described as an assault on human dignity and an assault on the Rule of law.

In addition to the effects of direct provision on the dignity of the individual (asylum seeker) on one level one should also consider the effect direct provision has on the dignity of society itself in the broader sense. The Preamble of the European Convention of Human Rights affirms a commitment to the principles established in the Universal Declaration and therefore dignity is understood to be a central value inherent in the Convention.

Personal Autonomy

The term ‘personal autonomy’ may be described as an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. It has also been said that personal autonomy derives its significance from its character as ‘emanation of human dignity.’ This encompasses freedom of choice regarding one’s own life. It is clear from the case law of the EctHR, that personal autonomy should be regarded as a general principle of law, ( See Pretty v UK, para 61) and human dignity and human freedom are the ‘ very essence’ of the Convention. (See SW v UK, para 44.)

Conceptually, personal autonomy includes both the physical freedom to act as a free agent, as well as the ‘psychological sense’, which is the freedom ‘to know what we can do if we want to.’ To deny an individual this psychological sense of his or her liberty for an exasperated length of time, such as the amount of time asylum seekers are currently subjected to under the system of direct provision, is a ‘denial of the most fundamental aspiration of the person towards liberty and expansion’ and such infringements can not be good in the ‘moral sense.’ The right to personal autonomy does not mean one can simply do whatever he or she wishes in every circumstance. It is limited by law, and generally one must not interfere with the rights of others, and a balance must be found between the interests of the individual and the public.

The personal autonomy of asylum seekers under the direct provision system may be infringed in many ways. The limited choice of food provided, for example, the set meal times, curfews, decisions regarding who they share living space with, the outright ban on receiving visitors to accommodation centres. These concerns may negatively impact the individual on a daily basis for protracted periods of time and are likely to engage Article 8 of the Convention. Concerns regarding low levels of personal autonomy by asylum seekers living under direct provision have been repeatedly reported by the Commissioner for Human Rights Mr. Thomas Hammerberg following his visits to Ireland.

Article 8 of the ECHR, Right to Private and Family Life

Ireland is not only bound by Article 8 of ECHR on the issue of asylum procedures but there may be a positive obligation inherent in an effective respect for private and family life.’ ( see x,y,z v Netherlands.) The European Court previously held that ‘private life’ includes aspects of an individuals physical and social identity, including ‘the right to personal autonomy. ‘ (See Evan v UK, para 71.)

Infringements under Article 8 include harassment by others, noise nuisance, lack of privacy, continuous unlawful surveillance, and interference with the right to develop one’s own personality and to create and foster relationships with others. All of which may be applicable here. Thus, it may be argued direct provision denies the asylum seeker the opportunity to develop his/her personality and create relationships with others in the community, inter alia, the basic act of welcoming another into ones home. Infringements to human dignity, personal autonomy and the right to private and family life currently experienced by asylum seekers are not prescribed by law, are not proportionate, do not serve a legitimate aim and are not necessary in a democratic society. (See EU Directive 2003/9/EC.)

Posted in Human Rights, UK0 Comments

Serco bleeding but helped by Australian immigration contract

Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

By: Antony Loewenstein


British multinational Serco is in trouble. After years as the favoured outsourcer for public services in Britain and countless countries around the world, the latest figures show a financial crash of unprecedented proportions. The firm announced it is writing down its business value by nearly AU $3bn with no dividend for shareholders and a plea for an injection of a billion more dollars. This is a “bitter pill”, according to its chief executive Rupert Soames.

Revealingly, the corporation admitted that without its Australian detention network, its profit would have been even worse. In other words, imprisoning asylum seekers in poor conditions for extended periods of time in remote locations is good for business. Serco won the contract to manage all of Australia’s mainland facilities and Christmas Island in 2009 – I was part of a team that first published the contract between Serco and Canberra in 2011 – and the profits have soared ever since.

From a $370m contract in 2009 to well over $1bn today, surging refugee boats have been invaluable to Serco’s bottom line. Serco has benefitted from an opaque reporting process and desperate federal politicians and bureaucrats who needed corporate help with an immigration system that ran out of control when asylum seekers started arriving in large numbers from Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond. Neither the government nor Serco could handle the influx, and both detainees and guards suffered.

During the writing of my book Profits of Doom, I spoke to a senior Serco manager who told me how his superiors gamed the system to increase income. Staff are reduced to “keep profits high” and managers are routinely moved from the most difficult centres such as Darwin and Christmas Island because they’re told that “if they get abatements [fines from Canberra], they’ll be fired’’.

Another senior Serco source recently told me that his company had planned to turn the Australian centres into less prison-like environments. A spike in boats ruined that dream, he lamented.

It’s a sign of the times that a company like Serco, with murky financial statements masking its true economic shape, is continually rewarded for failure with new and larger contracts. Just this week, the Australian government announced a “cop on the beat” system within the immigration department to strengthen oversight. This is little more than window dressing after years of Serco and government obfuscation over assessing self-harm inside detention, profit margins, guard misbehaviour and a culture of secrecy that pervades everything the firm does in Australia and Britain (I recently witnessed this when visiting the notorious Yarl’s Wood facility in England).

Vulture capitalism has become the ideology of our age, with Serco just a symptom of wider economic failure. Outsourcing remains hugely appealing, with Mitie now becoming the UK Home Office’s largest provider of immigration detention. A clean-skin, without the troubles of G4S and Serco, proves that it’ll take more than a Serco collapse to arrest three decades of privatised failure.

Privatisation doesn’t deliver better and cheaper services for our society, or even shareholder democracy. The public knows it. It’s time to empower individuals who want to wrest power from the corporations and return it to the people.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Korean Ambassador brings greetings from the WPK to 7th Congress of the CPGB-ML



Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

On 8th November 2014, British workers, members and supporters of the CPGB-ML, with representatives from socialist Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, celebrated the 97th Anniversary of the Great Socialist October Revolution (1917 – 2014).

Harpal Brar introduces Jorge Luis Garcia, and Hyon Hak Bong. The DPR Korean ambassador then goes on to outline the current imperialist manoeuvres for isolating and strangling the DPR Korea under the guise of ‘protecting human rights’, by moving hostile resolutions through the UN, paving the way for further hostile diplomatic, political and ultimately military intervention and interference in the Korean peninsula.

Comrade Hyon points out the flagrant hypocrisy of the USA, that racist and oppressive prison of nations and hangman of progressive movements and revolutions, which arrogates to itself the right to exploit, police and oppress the entire globe, denouncing the free workers living under socialism – who have abolished economic and class exploitation, and whose entire social and economic policy is dedicated to serving the interests of their own people and the workers of all countries.

The CC of the Workers’ Party of Korea send greetings to the people of Britain on the occasion of the 6th congress of the CPGB-ML.

We say with Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, as outlined in their great work, The communist manifesto: “Workers of all countries unite! You have nothing to loose but your chains – you have a world to win!”

Posted in North Korea, UK0 Comments

7th Congress of the CPGB-ML a great success


The 7th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) was held over two days, 8-9 November in London. The Congress marked the occasion of the 97th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution with a public celebration in the evening which was addressed by the Ambassador of the DPR Korea, comrade Hyon Hak Bong, and comrade Jorge Luis Garcia from the Cuban Embassy. Joti Brar from the Proletarian editorial board spoke first and the evening finished with a rousing speech from comrade Harpal Brar.

The 7th Congress received the reports of the various party committee’s and discussed a number of significant issue’s such as rising nationalism, deepening crisis and the class composition of British society in the 21st century. Congress also endorsed a number of documents which will be made public in due course, and announced the publication of a new book on the history of the first imperialist World War. Congress noted the continuing growth and development of our party nationally, pledged to continue to support and promote our youth and cadres in their ongoing ideological development, and recognised the leading role young communists play in the leadership of our Party.

The 7th Congress was attended by many working class red youth’s, all of whom are active members of the party and youth section and many of which lead our party branches and organisations in their various cities and regions. All the comrades demonstrated their commitment to the Party, their class and the ideology of Marxism Leninism.

Here’s some photo’s for those comrades who were unable to attend (we missed you greatly) taken during the speeches, contributions and discussion and a couple from the evening celebration. Red Youth has pledged to continue the work in the regions, to build up the party branches and ensure we are able to hold even more Marxist Leninist educational classes, discussion groups, public meetings and events in all corners of Britain in 2015!

IMG_0088 (1) IMG_0258IMG_0253 IMG_0247 IMG_0246 IMG_0226 IMG_0225 IMG_0190 IMG_0100 IMG_0099 IMG_0083 IMG_0062 IMG_0205 IMG_0189

Posted in UK0 Comments

Will British Jewish funders’ blackmail backfire?

Ed Miliband and Labour's Jewish donors

By Alan Hart

Question: What’s the difference between the Zionist lobby in America and the Zionist lobby in Britain?

Answer: In America it gives money to politicians to make them. In Britain it denies them money to break them.

The headline in the Independent on Sunday was Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband (the son of Jewish holocaust refugees and the leader of the Labour Party). The headline over the same story in the newsletter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians was Rich Jews ditch Labour”.

What is Miliband’s crime in the eyes of wealthy British Jews who have been contributing to Labour Party funds?

He condemned Israel’s last war on the Gaza Strip which he described as “wrong and unjustifiable”. He also accused Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron of being wrong not to have condemned Israel; and he added that Israel was “losing friends in the international community day by day” (which is true).

… Miliband’s condemnation of Israel struck chords with very many British people, and politicians of all parties are beginning to understand that they have got to listen to those whose votes they seek.

Subsequently, Miliband further offended British Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong when he decided to whip the non-binding vote in parliament calling for the government to unilaterally recognise Palestine. On this he was opposed by a number of senior Labour MPs, including at least two shadow cabinet ministers. They said he was changing Labour policy that recognition should only be given when a two-state solution had been negotiated. And they warned that Miliband’s stance would haemorrhage Jewish support. They were right.

The story in the Independent on Sunday was not quite as explicit as its headline. Its message was not that very many Jewish funders had already pulled the plug on funding for the Labour Party but that they were intending to do so.

One previous donor who spoke to the newspaper on condition of anonymity said:

There aren’t that many donors to the Labour Party these days, and certainly not the same number of Jewish donors. There is a lot of worry. I have been a Labour supporter all my life and I would like to see a Labour government, but, on the other hand, I’m not entirely sure I want to see Ed Miliband in Downing Street or Douglas Alexander in the Foreign Office.

Another previous donor said that he and others had been asked by the Labour Party to arrange a fundraising dinner but had found no takers. He added:

Miliband won’t get money. I can tell you that now. I was going to do a couple of dinners and invite prominent members of the community, who are quite wealthy, to raise funds. They just wouldn’t touch it. It was too toxic for them to even consider. There is a lot of reluctance to support Miliband financially, unfortunately.

Wealthy British Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong are obviously hoping that by resorting to this kind of blackmail they can stop the rot of anti-Israelism spreading further in British politics. They might succeed but their efforts could also be counterproductive (as almost everything Zionism does is) because Miliband’s condemnation of Israel struck chords with very many British people, and politicians of all parties are beginning to understand that they have got to listen to those whose votes they seek.

If I was advising Miliband I would have him say two things.

The first, to previous Jewish contributors to Labour Party funds ,would be something like this.

If you really care about Jewish values and the wellbeing of Jews everywhere, you should use your influence to try to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law and be serious about peace on terms which would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice and security for all.

The second, to the general public, the voters, would be something like this.

The main problem for the Labour Party is not my leadership. The main problem is that our own neo-con, Tony Blair, destroyed the Labour Party. I am trying to rebuild it.

Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Foiled Plot by Alleged Islamic Terrorists to Kill Queen Elizabeth. It was not a False Flag!

Global Research
QUEEN ELIZABETH II: British Monarch Celebrates Coronation Jubilee with Gulf Despots and Dictators

 An alleged  plot to kill Her Majesty the Queen was uncovered barely 2 days before the Remembrance Day celebrations.

Four suspected Islamic terrorists were arrested by police for having put together a carefully designed plot to kill Queen Elizabeth II.

A scanty yet authoritative police report was made public in a timely fashion on Friday, two days before the Remembrance Day celebrations.

The British media is rife with fabrications and innuendoes. The police reports were distorted by the media. This carefully designed plot to stab Her Majesty with a knife hit the headlines of  the weekend editions of London’s major tabloids, coinciding with the Remembrance Day Event.

No substantive details regarding the terror plot were released. The stabbing of Queen Elizabeth was slated to take place at  the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday, according to the Sun.

How was the alleged killer equipped with a knife going to break through the security and police barriers and approach Her Majesty?  The British media did not take the trouble to investigate the circumstances of this alleged plot against the Queen.

The terror plot had apparently been foiled by London’s police force. According to the London Sun,  ”An alleged plot to kill the Queen of England was foiled by British police, it was reported Friday. Four Islamic terror suspects had hatched a murderous plan to stab the 88-year-old monarch”.
MI5 had provided relevant information. “The cops got wind of the alleged plot”  
While the plot consisted in killing Queen Elizabeth with a knife, police authorities also confirmed that the suspects had access to firearms. No evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” was  provided. 
According to the Daily Mail, the four suspects had been under observation for several months and were known to police investigators.  Yet they chose to undertake the arrests ahead of the Sunday commemorations.
According to Scotland Yard, the arrests were related  to “Islamist related terrorism”. Confirmed by the police reports, the alleged terrorists were supporters of the Islamic State (ISIL)  and had been called upon to extend the holy jihad to Western Europe.
 Lest we forget the Islamic State (ISIS) is a creation of US intelligence, supported and financed out of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Since the outset of the war in Syria in March 2011, US-NATO and their allies have been supporting the terror brigades. 
The Sun was the first paper to report that the Queen was the target, “claiming four jihadists hatched a plot to stab her to death at a ceremony marking Remembrance Day.”
Was the plot to kill the Queen fabricated by the Sun?  No quotations or statement by police authorities were mentioned to substantiate The Sun’s claims.  The lies of MI5 and Scotland Yard are amplified by the British media. And once The Sun had pointed to a plot to kill the Queen, the other British tabloids did not want to be left out;  with the exception of the BBC  they joined the bandwagon.

“The story of the alleged plot against her is growing despite no police mention of her as an intended victim. In fact, the Daily Mail reported that she was a target but in the same story wrote that “police would not discuss whether the suspects had a specific target.”  (Digital Journal, November 9, 2014)

On Sunday November 9, the London tabloids went into overdrive. It was not only the Queen who was the target, allegedly the lives of several members of the royal family including Kate Middleton were threatened by the Islamists:

Four men have been arrested in Britain, as they planned a knife attack on the United Kindom’s monarch. The police have admitted that four men were preparing for terrorist acts. The men were targeting any members of the royal family, in particular Queen Elizabeth II, with the thugs hoping to make a stand on UK’s ‘Remembrance Sunday’. Luckily they were stopped, and the Queen, and Prince WilliamPrince GeorgePrince Harry and Princess Kate Middleton are safe, and luckily, now the UK are likely to up their terror-threat level, too, protecting their beloved royal family. (emphasis in the original, Mstarz. November 9, 2014)

“Coming for the British”

Everybody in Great Britain is threatened: first they come for the Queen, then the Royal Family and then they “come for the British”. The objective of Her Majesty’s government with the support of Britain’s tabloids is to demonize British Muslims and justify a Middle East military agenda. It also purports to creating an atmosphere of generalized fear and intimidation throughout the United Kingdom.

And that Islamist threat, according to the British media, is not only real,  it is “evident”:

” For now the British have stopped one threat, but will they be able to eliminate the evident threat as quickly as possible, with tons of others touted as “coming for the British” in the near future?” (Ibid, emphasis added)


Posted in UK0 Comments

Britain’s Ed “Zigzag” Miliband is losing his Jewish donors


Gilad Atzmon

The Times of Israel reported on 9 November that British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband is losing the support of Jewish donors due to his party’s pro-Palestine stance.

The spineless Labour leader has been zigzagging for a while. He criticises Israel when he believes that such a “principled” move would be popular among Labour supporters. Yet, the same Ed too often describes himself as the son of Jewish refugees from the holocaust”. He then changes his spots and becomes the mouthpiece of the Israeli lobby. He would swear alliance to Israel’s security but also to the Jews and the primacy of their suffering.

Last June, “principled” Ed announced at a Jewish lobby gathering:

I want you to know that if I become prime minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.

Britain doesn’t need a “Friend of Israel” in Number 10 Downing Street. It needs a friend of the British people, an ally of truth and justice, not a Zionist merchant.

One would believe that Jewish donors shunning the Labour party may lead to a consciousness shift among the leaders of “red” Britain. They may grasp that for too long they were held hostage by a Jewish Zionist oligarchy.

Don’t hold your breath because this isn’t going to happen. A senior Labour party member told the UK’s Independent newspaper on 9 November that Ed Miliband now has a “huge if not insurmountable challenge to maintain support from part of the Jewish community that had both backed and helped fund Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s election campaigns.”

Our Labour leadership is clearly addicted to shekels. Evidently, the penny didn’t drop. Rather than British interests, it is Jewish interests the Labour party is seeking to be in tune with. The meaning of it is devastatingly simple: the British left is an occupied Zionist territory and voting labour means many more Zionist interventionist wars in the future.

Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments


Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field