Archive | October 12th, 2010



Yes, Australia imprisons children

12 Oct 2010

This is how Australia treats refugees, including children, when they come seeking asylum; under lock and key for months and longer:


Because Ahmadinejad fits a necessary hole in the enemy gallery

12 Oct 2010

Roger Cohen writes in the New York Times that the world (and Israel especially) needs to not frame Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the devil incarnate but that’s exactly what the Zionists must do; the new “Hitler” has arrived:

Ahmadinejad is a one-trick pony. His thing is double standards. Ask about the Iranian nuclear program, he’ll retort with Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. Ask about Iran’s economic difficulties, he’ll see you with September 2008. Ask about rampant capital punishment, he’ll raise you a Texas. Ask about Iranian lying, he’ll counter with human rights and Abu Ghraib.

Ahmadinejad is odious but I don’t think he’s dangerous. Some people do of course find him dangerous, especially in the Israel he gratuitously insults and threatens, and yet others — many more I’d say — find it convenient to find him dangerous.

Yes, Ahmadinejad is the bogeyman from Central Casting. One of the things there’s time for, if you’re not playing games with the Iran specter, is a serious push for an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough that would further undermine the Iranian president.

I don’t expect that, however. And here are two more predictions: Obama won’t attack Iran and nor will Israel, not by next July or ever. Iran is a paper tiger, a postmodern threat: It has many uses but a third Western war against a Muslim country is a bridge too far.


Speak in hushed tones around the Great Leader

12 Oct 2010

Yet another example of the lack of bravery in the Murdoch press in Australia, so keen to dish out dirt but afraid to listen to criticism.

It’s an empire built on Rupert’s largesse and when he goes…


The right of return can never be given up

12 Oct 2010

Akiva Eldar in Haaretz:

Netanyahu knows full well that any Palestinian leader who recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people also acknowledges that the Palestinians do not have any rightful place there. In other words, it is tantamount to an up-front concession on the right of return.


What next, Rajapaksa wins Nobel Peace Prize?

11 Oct 2010

This just proves that massacring Tamil civilians isn’t a bar to participating in front of the world:

Mahinda Rajapaksa to join Prince Edward at ceremony despite allegations of human rights abuses by Colombo governmentMahinda Rajapaksa, the controversial president of Sri Lanka, is locate to be the guest of honour at the closing ceremony of the Commonwealth Games in India, on Thursday night.Diplomatic sources and protocol officials in Delhi today confirmed that Rajapaksa had accepted a “joint” invitation from the Indian administration and the event organisers, and would be flying to India on Wednesday.His presence following to Prince Edward, who will close the games on behalf of the Queen, will spark rage from campaigners who have accused Rajapaksa of failing to protect many thousands of civilians who died in battles which finished the extended civil war against Tamil separatists at the end year, and of flouting international human rights code.


Posted in Middle EastComments Off on A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER



Pat Finucan Centre 12/10/10

Declassified Documents

Declassified official documents shed an interesting light on British government attitudes towards loyalist infiltration of the security forces and loyalist violence in the 1970s. The British Government has sought to portray its role here as that of the neutral broker, the peacekeeper caught between two warring factions. The secret memos and letters, marked UK Eyes Only, tell a different story.

Literally hundreds of mostly Catholic civilians were murdered before the British Government even contemplated the possible extension of internment to loyalists. Clearly the very existence of internment meant that the north was not a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Added to this was the complete denial by the authorities of the loyalist assassination campaign as evidenced by the failure to intern loyalists until 1973. This was tantamount to the state condoning such violence. In December 1971 15 civilians were murdered when loyalists bombed Mc Gurks Bar in Belfast. The RUC and the British Army attempted to blame the IRA. How do we know? Declassified documents.

The failure, until 1992, to ban the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the UDA, together with the toleration of widespread infiltration of the UDR, the locally recruited regiment of the British Army, is clear evidence of a counterinsurgency policy that viewed loyalist paramilitaries as allies in the war against the IRA. It is worth remembering that the UDA was still legal when the organisation murdered Pat Finucane at the behest of RUC Special Branch, MI5 and the FRU. In effect the relationship between loyalist paramilitaries and the British state was similar to the relationship between the Contras and the US administration of Ronald Reagan. The fact that many civilians were murdered as part of these counter insurgency policies was regarded as mere collateral damage by those in London who prosecuted this war.

Other official documents demonstrate a shocking disregard for civilian lives in respect of the actions of the British Army – when the Attorney General asserted in 1971 that soldiers were incapable of committing murder since they were ‘on duty’ this gave a de facto ‘license to kill’ to members of the security forces. Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy Massacre was the inevitable result. It would be foolish to believe that this is of historical interest only. The interrogation methods used here in the seventies were used again in Iraq. The Labour government claimed it had ‘forgotten’ that these methods were ruled illegal by the European court. Even today, in the year 2010, a soldier is still serving in the British Army despite his conviction for the murder of Peter Mc Bride in Belfast in 1992.

(The PFC and friends have produced a one hour drama based on information contained in official documents called ‘Weapons of Choice’. It was recently performed at the West Belfast Feile in August and to a packed hall in Lenadoon in September. Invitations to perform the drama welcome – contact the PFC.)

Click on links below – If they do not go directly to the documents, click on “Declassified Documents”

  • Policy on internment of loyalists
    Unless otherwise stated all of these documents are from November/ December 1972. Internment without trial had been introduced in August 1971. Despite a deadly loyalist assassination campaign in 1972 (with over 120 sectarian murders in that year alone) the authorities had not interned a single loyalist. By late 1972 memos began to circulate in the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office as to when and under what circumstances they ‘might’ arrest and intern ‘Protestants’.

  • The Security Forces and the UDA
    The obvious unwillingness of the British Government and British Army to deal with loyalist violence and the activities of the UDA in particular is evidenced in numerous documents from 1972.

  • Documents showing the extent to which the legal establishment colluded with the British Army in the early 70s to ensure that soldiers would not be prosecuted for murder.

  • British military assessment of Internment in 1971 which includes a fictional account of the “Battle for Belfast”. The memo from the CLF (Commander Land Forces) to the CGS (Chief of the General Staff) shows that the military command were preparing for direct rule nine months before Stormont was abolished

  • Subversion in the UDR & Annex E
    The original intelligence report prepared for the Joint Intelligence Committee and Downing St – see also series of articles on Collusion (Irish News)


Troops Out Movement

Campaigning for British Withdrawal from Ireland

PO Box 1032 Birmingham B12 8BZ  Tel: 0121 773 8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0121 773 8683      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Mob: 0797 017 4167 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0797 017 4167      end_of_the_skype_highlighting




The Guardian


‘Justice dies when the law is co-opted for political purposes.’

Gareth Peirce, one of our key human rights lawyers, talks to Stuart Jeffries

‘I don’t have any memories of my childhood now,” says Gerry Conlon, as he rolls a cigarette in the sun-dappled garden of a cafe in Camden Town, north London. “But everything that happened from Saturday 30 November 1974 is absolutely vivid.” That was the day the 20-year-old was arrested in Belfast for his supposed part in the Guildford pub bombings, in which five people died and 65 were injured. It was 15 years before Conlon was finally released from prison – thanks mostly to the human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.

Conlon became known as one of the Guildford Four, whose convictions, along with those of the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven, remain among the most grievous miscarriages of justice in British history. Here’s a typical vignette from Conlon’s 15 years in British jail: “When they put me in a cell in the police station, there was no mattress or anywhere to sit. There was no glass in the windows, so flurries of snow were coming in. I was shivering. To make myself small I rolled into the foetal position. A policeman came into the cell with an alsatian as I was lying on the floor naked. He loosened the lead and the dog leaped at me. Its teeth were not even an inch away from my face. He said, ‘Don’t lie down again or I’ll come back with the dog and take it off the leash.'”

In her new book, Dispatches from the Dark Side: On Torture and the Death of Justice, Peirce argues that these miscarriages catalysed conflict in Northern Ireland. “Central to the anger and despair that fuelled the conflict was the realisation that the British courts would offer neither protection nor justice,” she writes.

“This should be always in our minds as we analyse the experiences of our new suspect community.” Certainly, this thought has been in her mind a long time. Moazzam Begg, the one-time terror suspect whom Peirce represented before and during his imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay, says, “She said soon after I met her in 1998: ‘It was the Irish first and I can see now it’s the turn of the Muslims.'”

Peirce, who represented many wrongfully jailed Irish men and women in the 1980s and has spent much of the last decade working for Muslim terror suspects, adds: “Muslim men and women here and across the world are registering the ill-treatment of their community, and recognising the analogies with the experiences of the Irish.”

Conlon says that, after losing his 1977 appeal and learning of the death of his father Giuseppe Conlon (also wrongly convicted for terrorist crimes) in a British jail in 1980, he gave up all faith in British justice and British lawyers. Only in 1987 did a Catholic nun change his mind. Sister Sarah Clarke told him that she had a friend she’d like him to meet. That was Gareth Peirce.

It must have been some meeting in Long Lartin prison. Peirce looked and sounded like the a pillar of the British establishment; Conlon did not. She had been educated at one of Britain’s most exclusive schools for girls, Cheltenham Ladies, before studying at Oxford and the London School of Economics. And yet: “Within 20 minutes, I felt this is the person who’s going to get me out of prison,” Conlon now says. “She was so convincing in her belief that the system had the ability to own up to huge errors and mistakes. She spoke in a calm, intelligent way that gave me hope for the first time. She was so believable when she said: ‘My job is to get you out and I’m going to get you out.'”

Peirce found a suppressed police statement from Charles Burke, who had been living in the same Kilburn hostel as Conlon, which gave Conlon an alibi. In 1989, mostly as a result of the overwhelming doubt Peirce’s work cast on his conviction, Conlon was freed.

His ordeal isn’t over. In 2005, he had a month’s worth of state-funded therapy: “Until then, I’d never thought about my father’s death and what happened to his body, but it haunts me now.” The story of the treatment of Giuseppe Conlon’s corpse, when staff at Belfast Airport refused to handle the coffin, is told on the final page of Peirce’s book: “His body was flown back to England three times. A British army officer, after Conlon’s body was flown to Belfast a fourth time, informed the undertaker, ‘It is on that plane but it is not coming off. The problem is the press have been notified and we can’t be seen to be handling the body of an IRA man.'”

Peirce relates this incident not just to show how a lie can pursue an innocent man after his death, but to draw a parallel between the treatment of Giuseppe Conlon and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan jailed for the Lockerbie plane bomb in 1988 in which 243 passengers and 16 crew were killed. Giuseppe, she writes, was wrongly convicted on disputed forensic scientific evidence, as later was al-Megrahi.

Peirce has no doubts that the Libyan, like the Conlons, was fitted up for a crime he did not commit by a British state prioritising its own supposed interests over justice. She writes: “Only a simpleton could believe that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi . . . was not recently returned to his home in Libya because it suited Britain considerably to have him do so. The political furore has been very obviously contrived, since both the British and American governments know perfectly well the history of how and for what reasons he came to be prosecuted.”

There is, Peirce argues, “clear and compelling evidence” linking the bombing to a Palestinian splinter group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, which at the time hired itself out to regimes known to sponsor terrorism, notably Syria and Iran. On this account, Lockerbie was a tit-for-tat response to the US shooting down an Iranian plane and killing 290 passengers, including pilgrims flying to Mecca, in July that year. For two years, the Lockerbie investigation focused on that link. Then something changed, and the Palestinian splinter group was no longer in the frame for Lockerbie.

Peirce argues that Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, threatening 10% of US oil supplies, drove the US and Britain to change geopolitical tack. She writes: “A sudden shift of alliances was essential: if Iraq were to be confronted, then Iran had to be treated differently and the Syrian regime needed to be brought on board.” And one way of cosying up to Iran and Syria was to change the Lockerbie investigation’s focus, so that these countries were no longer suspected of harbouring the terrorists or commissioning them. By this stage, the CIA rather than Scottish police led the Lockerbie investigation, and the finger of suspicion moved from the Iranian state’s hired terrorists to Libya. The result? The wrong man wound up in a British jail, Peirce claims.

This is the great theme of her book and, arguably, her professional life too: that justice dies when the law is co-opted for political purposes. “Justice has been subverted many times in this country for political ends that seem hard to credit,” Peirce tells me when we meet at Birnberg Peirce & Partners, the law firm in Camden where she trained and is now a partner.

“She thinks this is a good country and that justice will eventually be done,” Conlon tells me, adding that in the 1960s, before Peirce became a lawyer, she spent time as a journalist in the US. “She followed Martin Luther King around on his campaign and embraced his struggle for human rights for black people. She saw there that the system had the capacity for change and she sees that here too.” But when I put this to Peirce, she is sceptical. “We’re very apathetic politically and morally in this country. We take it on trust that if the government suspects people of terrorism and locks them up, or puts them on control orders without charge, they must be terrorists.”

After 9/11, the Bush administration introduced the Patriot Act, which, Peirce says, legitimised the detention of so-called “enemy combatants” by presidential order, the abolition of habeas corpus, and the subjection of detainees to torture in Afghanistan or Guantánamo, or their outsourcing via rendition flights to countries specialising in what she calls “even more grotesque interrogative practices”.

“In Britain, Blair bulldozed through parliament a new brand of internment claiming that Britain faced a similar emergency,” Peirce says. “This resulted in the arrest on 17 December 2001 of 12 foreign nationals living in Britain who were all sent to Belmarsh prison. These men have been locked up indefinitely without trial, never told the accusations against them, never questioned, never spoken to by the police, the detainee’s lawyer not permitted to see the evidence against him. Nothing this bad happened during the Irish conflict.”

But wasn’t Blair right to say that the rules have changed – that Britain has to respond to an unprecedented terrorist threat by any means necessary? “No. What has to be done is that the cases against these men have to be made in public, evidence needs to presented in court, the accused should be questioned by the police, and they must know why they are in jail. None of this has happened in the cases of the men I represent.”

The men she means are the 12 so-called Belmarsh detainees. Peirce fought against their detention for three years until the 2005 House of Lords ruling that holding the men without trial was illegal. Soon after that ruling, these men and others were subjected to control orders involving curfews, tagging, communication bans and restrictions on internet access. Some tags, she says, have voice-recognition systems that don’t work for Arabic accents.

After the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, says Peirce, diplomatic agreements were established so that some detainees could be deported to their countries of origin, although the government knew the use of torture was still routine in several of these states. “Many of the detainees came here precisely because they sought asylum here thinking this is a home of justice,” she says. “That’s proved to be a sick joke.” She cites the case of an Algerian asylum seeker who decided his control order made life so miserable that he would risk torture by returning to his native Algeria. Benaissa Taleb was tortured, and charged on the basis of a false confession obtained from torture. Worse yet, says Peirce, his interrogation in Algeria was based on information supplied from the UK.

Peirce looks what she isn’t – a timid figure. She is in her early 60s, married and with grown-up children, but has a fringe that dangles over her eyes like a gauche schoolgirl’s response to the intolerableness of being looked at. She will not talk about herself, not even to tell me why she decided to be known not by her birth name Jean, but as Gareth. Yet this is the woman who has represented some of the highest-profile human rights cases in recent British legal history.

“For over 30 years, she has worked in an area where the most vulnerable are often facing the full might of the state,” says her colleague, Dame Helena Kennedy QC. Among her clients have been the Tipton Three, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, former spy David Shayler, and Jean Charles de Menezes’s family. “She specialises in representing pariahs of society,” says Moazzam Begg. “I know because I’m one of them.”

Begg tells me that some of the Arabic-speaking detainees she has represented in the last nine years call her al-Umm. “In Arabic, ‘al-Umm’, which means mother, can signify the greatest. She’s organised rotas with people in her office for babysitting so men on control orders can go to hospital. Sympathy is the word that comes to mind. She genuinely cares.”

Why does Peirce represent people whom Begg calls pariahs? “It’s because the minority has to be protected from what the majority thinks – otherwise the Benthamite thing, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, prevails. Most think secret trials, torture, rendition flights and all the rest – that these things are the right thing to do. But secrecy kills justice: it has the effect of burying understanding.”

But didn’t some of her clients train at al-Qaida camps? “Those men were thinking of fighting for the Chechens or for the Taliban before the allies invaded Afghanistan. I’ve represented these men for a very long time, men who are stigmatised as a threat to national security when they’re not. I know that they are intelligent, thoughtful men.”

How long these men will suffer from their treatment by British authorities is depressing to contemplate. Conlon, now 56, says: “It’s 20 years since I got out. In those years I’ve been addicted to drugs and alcohol, I’ve had breakdowns, I’ve tried to kill myself twice. I wake up crying. It’s better sometimes not to go to sleep, because the memories are waiting for me.”

Attached is Gareth’s piece from the London Review of Books 04/04/08 Was it Like This for the Irish? On the position of Muslims in Britain.


Troops Out Movement

Campaigning for British Withdrawal from Ireland

PO Box 1032 Birmingham B12 8BZ  Tel: 0121 773 8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0121 773 8683      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Mob: 0797 017 4167 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0797 017 4167      end_of_the_skype_highlighting







I keep on forgetting that it’s happening because nothing ever happens. It is what’s in the news though. The peace process has no chance whatsoever of creating a just peace in cis-Jordan. No one should have the slightest illusion about that. What we should be watching for in the peace process is not its failure but what its architects will cast as its potential “success.” In those terms, the peace process is an acute danger to Palestinian nationalism, Nadia Hijab reminds us:

Such a scenario could sound a death-knell for Palestinian human rights. The Palestinian people have shown a remarkable capacity to regenerate resistance and evolve new strategies after suffering harsh setbacks over the past century. But there may be no recovery this time around. A “peace agreement” would end the applicability of international law to the resolution of the conflict; permanently fragment the Palestinian people; and demobilize Arab and international solidarity.

What can Palestinians do to forestall abrogation of their fundamental rights and to ensure just peace? In a contribution to the debate around this question, this brief examines five areas that are key to Palestinians determined to persevere until rights are realized: Unifying the Palestinian body politic; espousing common goals; applying international law; using appropriate tactics; and strengthening the Arab and international movement of solidarity.

Ominously, the Israeli military is already planning mass repression procedures for fear that a Third Intifada will break out if it starts “transferring” its Palestinian minority in the near future. +972 Magazine’s Yossi Gurvitz reports:

On Friday, the influential radio journalist Carmela Menashe – who has excellent sources in the security establishment – reported (Hebrew) that the police has finished a large exercise, supported by other services (such as the IDF’s Home Front Command and the Prison Service). The exercise was supposed to deal with “extreme scenarios of violent demonstrations in the Arab sector, as a result of a population-transfer agreement with the [Palestinian – YZG] Authority. In order to process the detainees, a detainment camp for Israeli Arabs will be built near the Golani Junction”. In less bowdlerized language than usually that of the Voice of Israel, the security forces are getting ready for the riots which will follow a transfer decision.

Didi Remez adds:

The drill is also disconcerting for other reasons. As described by Menashe, it seems to assume that there will be a strong violent response from the Arab population, which means the expulsion-and-denial of citizenship “population exchange” will be forced, rather than agreed on (through, say, referendum.)  The plan’s apparent concentration on population, rather than territory swaps, evokes the possibility of not only fencing out entire Israeli communities in a “redrawing of borders”, but of actual physical expulsion and removal.

But rather than seeing this drill as a conspiracy or a monstrous aberration, I propose seeing it as a natural outcome. When the Israeli Right took up the two-state solution it did so with every intention of living up to what this solution promises to the Israeli Jews: A secure and exclusive, ethnocratic nation-state for at least a few more generations. The presence of a large, rapidly politicizing Palestinian minority is a much bigger threat to this vision than either the West Bank or Gaza. The current developments are perfectly reasonable outcomes of a marriage between ultra-nationalist values and the two-state idea: The important thing about the two-state, the symbiosis goes, is to secure Israel’s Jewishness; how sovereign the Palestinian state is open to creative interpretation, but the important thing is that as many Palestinians are excluded from any influence and contact with Israel as possible.

And what would happen were this to occur? What would America and Europe do? The answer is simple. They would do nothing at all but remonstrate with with Netanyahu for his crassness, while the Zionist press would be utterly obeisant, focusing on the “peace deal” they’ve been excitedly and delusionally reporting on for the past month. In that sense, how to look at Hamas and PFLP attempts to shatter the smooth, collaborator-trod path to peace negotiations? Miftah reports on Palestinian attitudes towards those attempts, in a poll that deserves more attention that it has gotten:

Findings of the third quarter of 2010 show a clear majority of two thirds demanding a Palestinian pull out of the direct negotiations now that settlement construction has been resumed. Findings also show that a little over half of the public supports Hamas’s armed attack on Israeli settlers near Hebron, that attack took place on the eve of the Washington launching of the direct talks. It is worth noting that half of the Palestinians believe that Hamas’s goal was to derail these direct negotiations. 

Negotiations that Hijab warns could lead to effective Palestinian politicide and population transfer. Should they just wait complacently? What are their options? Those are the questions that those who wag their fingers at violence can not answer.

Technorati Tags: Abbas, Hamas, Lieberman, Nadia Hijab, Netanyahu, PA, Palestine, peace negotiations, peace process, PFLP

Related posts:

  1. there is no peace process It’s useful to remember from time-to-time that the peace process…

  2. A Dude Named Lumumba Said It Sudanese G77-chair Di-Aping Lumumba told IPS: Africa demands up to…

  3. J Street on “peace” Has J Street’s ridicu­lous reaction to the armed take-over of…

  4. after peace talks fail Everyone, except for the people running our most important paper,…

  5. Vinegar is a Known Security Threat Via Gisha, the IDF refuses to explain why some food…  

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.


Posted in PoliticsComments Off on PEACE PROCESS & THE THREAT OF TRANSFER




Today our campaign to stop Rupert Murdoch taking 100% control of BSkyB had another breakthrough. UK media chiefs – from the BBC to the Daily Mail – have printed a joint letter telling Vince Cable to block the power grab. [1]

Now we need to work together to show our MPs that it’s not just media chiefs against Murdoch getting more power. We need to make sure MPs tell Vince Cable that hundreds of their voters have been in touch speaking out against the BSkyB takeover.

Thousands of us emailing our MPs this week is the last thing Murdoch’s lobbyists want to happen. Murdoch’s henchmen claim that ordinary voters won’t care if the deal is waved through. If we all contact our MPs now, we can prove that’s not true.

Click here to email your MP in two minutes. Tell them you’re against Murdoch being given more power:

It’s not every day that 38 Degrees, The Guardian and The Daily Mail all agree. The media chiefs are rivals. For them to team up shows just how big a threat Murdoch’s takeover plans are. They’ve woken up to what we’ve been saying for months: if Murdoch gets full control of BSkyB, it’s another step towards his total domination of UK media and politics.

Media chiefs speaking out is the latest sign we’re turning the tide on Murdoch’s power grab.  Last week, we handed a huge 20,000 strong open letter to Vince telling him to stand firm against Murdoch. [2] We’ve got over 30,000 names on our petition. We are getting ready to launch adverts in Vince Cable’s constituency. Now let’s make sure MPs are hearing from us directly and adding to the pressure on Vince.

Make sure MPs know that the public doesn’t want Murdoch to be handed more power – email yours in 2 minutes now:
Thanks for being involved,
Hannah, David, Johnny and the 38 Degrees Team
[1] The Guardian:
[2] On Friday, we handed in an open letter to Vince from nearly 20,000, telling him we’ll support him if he stands up to Murdoch, you can check out how it went on our blog here:





October 12, 2010

I am reliably informed that English Defence League supporters believe that my posts are vicious anti-EDL rumours.

Which is rather peculiar, as I thought they were quite reasonable.

It is true that my posts only correlated freely available information from the Web, which show the linkage between BNPers, neo-Nazis and the English Defence League.

All of this is documented in numerous photos and videos, and can not be denied.

These are not rumours, just facts.

A few things that we shouldn’t forget:

1. The EDL *leadership* is stuffed full of BNPers, ex-BNPers, neo-Nazis and their allies.

2. The EDL always pick towns with high ethnic populations to hold their demonstrations. Their objective is to run amok, abuse and intimidate local people. That’s what they do.

3. The EDL want to start ethnic conflict and anyone that supports or excuses them is beyond the pale of reasoned debate, as they are aiding and abetting racial conflict.

The EDL’s latest stunt in Leicester is covered by Nick Lowles:

“As life is slowly returning to normal on the streets of Leicester it is perhaps an appropriate time to reflect on today’s events.

I would put the EDL numbers at 1,500, perhaps a few more, perhaps slightly fewer. The police I think have said 1,200 while the BBC said 2,000. Either way there were certainly a lot more than there were at Bradford.

The police were a lot harder on the EDL than their counterparts in Bradford. They were more aggressive towards them, boxed them in more quickly and stamped down on any misbehaviour instantly.

However, they let themselves down by letting the thugs leave the area without much supervision and so allowed the EDL to run around the streets and ultimately clash with locals.

The EDL once again showed their true selves by constantly fighting with police, including throwing smoke and stun grenades, bottles and full beer cans. They chanted racist abuse and given the chance, which they were after the demo ended, randomly attacked young Asian and black people.

One of the main positives of the day was that the overwhelming majority of locals heeded advice and stayed away. Yesterday 700 turned up at our HOPE not hate peace vigil and we are hoping for even greater numbers for our community event tomorrow. It would have been understandable for local people to take to the streets to demonstrate their anger but wisely people decided that this was precisely what the EDL wanted.

The most surreal moment of the day was the conversation I had with Tommy Robinson and also the one my colleague Matty had with the EDL’s number two, Kevin Carroll, when they were being held against a wall after they had been arrested.

This is EDLers attacking some peaceful people sitting in a restaurant, trying to smash the windows and racially abusing the diners:

Posted in UKComments Off on EDL TRU NAZI’S



please circulate

Dear supporters of EAPPI and former EAs, 

Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence has been nominated for a prestigious peace prize from the European Parliament. Breaking the Silence is run by a group of former Israeli soldiers who work to expose human rights abuses by the Israeli army in the period since 2000. 

Right wing Israeli groups are now attempting to coerce Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) not to let Breaking the Silence win the Andrei Sakharov prize for Freedom of Thought. 

Please consider writing to your MEP to encourage them to vote for the prize to be awarded to Breaking the Silence. Below is a template letter you may consider using as a guide.

You can read more about the nomination here:

See a short film about Breaking the Silence here:

If you are in the UK, you can find your MEP’s contact details here:

Here is a model letter you may wish to use:

Dear ….,

I am writing as your constituent to commend the work of the Israeli human rights organisation Breaking the Silence, which has been nominated by two groups of your fellow parliamentarians for for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO, was established by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and veterans who collect and provide testimonies about their military service in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem during the Second Intifada. It gives serving and discharged Israeli personnel and reservists a platform to describe confidentially their experiences in the Israeli-occupied territories.

The nomination was made by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE7NGL). 

You can read more about the nomination on the EU Parliament’s website:

I strongly urge you to vote in favour of giving this award to Breaking the Silence, in recognition of the excellent work the group does to promote awareness in Israeli society about what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Yours faithfully,

(Your name)


Thank you, and good luck.

EAPPI Communications Officer

Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (

For updates from EAPPI, please join our Facebook group 

Find EAPPI fact sheets on our website.

World Council of Churches

P.O. Box 741

91000 Jerusalem

Office: +972 2 6289402 (ext. 109)

Mobile: +972 54 7379766




USS LIBERTY Issue Proves to Be the Silver Bullet as Powerful Zionist Group Runs For Cover

In Uncategorized

October 12, 2010

 by crescentandcross


Like “Bruiser”, the bully who has been challenged to a fight after school but who turns out to be a no-show upon realizing he’s about to be turned into hamburger, one of the most powerful Zionist organizations in the world–the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith–has completely expunged all references to Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY from its internationally-read website. The ADL–contacted for this piece, gave no reasons for their decision.

Lest some think this decision on the part of the Mossad-affiliated ADL is minor in its scope, it should be noted that the website section dealing with Israel’s attack on the USS LIBERTY (leaving 34 American servicemen dead and almost 200 seriously wounded) was not just a simple 1-page belly-dance of Zionist disinformation. In the interests of intellectually-tranquilizing otherwise-interested persons wanting to know more about the infamous event that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., the ADL had compiled years’ worth of citations and notations and with regular relevant updates as they occurred.

Extensive in its disinformation and done in the interests of painting the deliberate act of war against America as a case of “mistaken identity” the section dealing with the LIBERTY was possibly as much as a half-dozen pages in length and brazen in its deception. The person(s) responsible for providing new information for the page’s updates noted what was written by so-and-so LIBERTY survivor in what article on what day, as well as regular updates concerning what Phil Tourney–clearly the most outspoken of all the LIBERTY survivors–would say on the various radio programs where he appeared as either host or guest.

Assuming that the removal of the entire LIBERTY section was not the result of a spilled cup of coffee on a computer keyboard but rather a conscious decision on the part of ADL’s strategists and planners, all those who note this development must scratch their heads in curiosity over why such actions would be taken.

The most likely explanation for this noteworthy development is the fact that in the last 2 years (and due almost entirely to the efforts of aforementioned USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney) public awareness of and interest in what took place on June 8 1967 has taken on renewed vim and vigor by a sizable number of persons around the world. First with the radio program “The Liberty Hour” (appearing for nearly 2 years on the Republic Broadcasting Network before being suddenly cancelled for reasons unclear) then with the publication of Tourney’s book What I Saw That Day…Israel’s June 8 1967 Holocaust of US Servicemen Aboard the USS LIBERTY and its Aftermath the LIBERTY issue–for years smoldering and barely alive–has now suddenly burst into flames, providing light for many who want to know exactly why the U.S. finds itself in the kind of mess it’s in these days viz-a-viz the Middle East quagmire and corruption of her politics.

And just as important as the renewed interest in the LIBERTY story in explaining the ADL’s hasty-and hurried decision to remove the LIBERTY section from its website stems from an event taking place in early August 2010, where Tourney–vacationing in California, was approached by someone claiming to be from Israel’s Mossad who threatened not only his life, but as well the life of Mark Glenn, co-author and publisher of Tourney’s explosive and fascinating book.

As a result of these threats, subsequent meetings with Special Agents of the FBI by both Tourney and Glenn took place that were then expanded to include interviews with other FBI offices in New York and California. Not one to shrink in the face of such threats, Tourney then went on every radio program available to discuss in detail what happened. Shortly thereafter, an article written by veteran CIA agent Phillip Giraldi detailing the event exploded across the internet, leading to a substantial amount of chatter and outrage in forums, chatrooms and blogs frequented by veterans of the U.S. military.

According to former law enforcement and intelligence personnel contacted for this piece, the “Mossad” agent in California was more likely than not an ADL operative assigned to harass and provoke Tourney in a public place with the desire of provoking Tourney to react loudly and violently. The obvious blackeye this would then bring to the LIBERTY issue as well as the unavoidable subsequent in-fighting amongst the other survivors would then result in them pressuring Tourney into maintaining a low profile, and then VOILA!–the desired result the ADL wanted–no more discussion of the USS LIBERTY.

Obviously then, Tourney’s decision to “go public” with details of his encounter out in California backfired against those Zionist interests who wanted him and the USS LIBERTY issue silenced and now as a result, they have decided to punk out from the after-school rendez-vous without so much as an explanation.

The obvious lesson to be learned from all this is that when it comes to doing battle with the Zionist interests bent on destroying America and the world at large, there are no victories to be had by retreating. As the ancient Latin proverb “Fortes fortuna adiuvat” (“fortune favors the brave”) intimates, timidity in the face of the enemy brings no rewards.

If indeed–as promised 2,000 years ago by the great Palestinian freedom fighter Jesus of Nazareth that “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”, then the truth–the greatest weapon available in the arsenal of freedom–must be used to the point of reckless abandon. The fact that “Bruiser” the schoolyard bully has decided to tuck tail and run as represented by the ADL’s decision to expunge all references to the USS LIBERTY from its website shows that indeed there is nothing to fear but fear itself and that victory will only be had by saying “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead”.

© 2010 Mark Glenn




The Guardian

12 October 2010

Can the OECD stand up to Israel?

The upcoming OECD tourism summit in Jerusalem will test its member countries’ commitment to international law

Sam Bahour and Charles Shamas.

Israel lists tourist sites in occupied territory, such as the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, as Israeli. Photograph: Michele Falzone/JAI/Corbis What can be said for the state of international law when international organisations such as the OECD find themselves unable to prevent a member country from bringing its unlawful practice into the life of the organisation itself? In such situations, how can law-abiding member countries avoid being drawn into acquiescence? Later this month, these questions may find answers when Israel hosts an OECD gathering in Jerusalem to discuss global tourism.

The OECD is an international economic organisation of 33 countries, with the latest controversial addition to this club being Israel. The OECD explains its mission as providing “a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and co-ordinate domestic and international policies”. At minimum, one would expect the co-ordination of these “international policies” to remain within the bounds of international law.

At Israel’s invitation, the 86th session of the OECD tourism committee will take place in Jerusalem on 20 and 21 October to discuss supporting a sustainable and competitive tourism industry for the benefit of the members’ economies. The session will be attended by senior government officials from OECD member countries and key emerging economies. This is only the second time that the meeting has been held outside Paris.

Israel will conduct itself as the host and as an OECD member based on the Israeli ministry of tourism’s unlawful unilateral extension of its jurisdiction to include occupied East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and touristic sites and businesses in those parts of the West Bank reserved for Israeli settlement.

Israel’s ministry of tourism website clearly lists tourist sites in occupied territory, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, as Israeli sites. The ministry’s websites also publicise settlement-based tourist services licensed by the ministry and receiving Israeli state financial support under the ministry’s auspices. They present maps that depict the entire territory of historic Palestine west of the Jordan river, as well as the Syrian Golan, as territory of Israel that falls under Israel’s national tourism-related and cultural heritage-related responsibility.

Despite OECD efforts to the contrary, photographs of touristic sites in occupied territory have been incorporated in a website that Israel has constructed under OECD auspices.

Last month, the Right to Enter campaign – a grassroots campaign for the freedom of movement to/from and within the occupied Palestinian territories, for which we volunteer – wrote to each OECD member to explain the situation and the harm that will be done by allowing such Israeli practice under OECD auspices, and by acquiescing to Israel’s insistence on basing its participation in the OECD on its illegal acts of annexation and settlement in occupied territory.

All OECD member countries refuse to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and have therefore insisted in keeping their embassies in Tel Aviv instead of Israel’s self-proclaimed “unified” capital. They presumably would not want to be drawn into acts or omissions that would imply that Israeli practice resulting from the very acts of annexation and settlement they condemn as internationally unlawful can be considered legitimate under the OECD’s auspices.

It remains to be seen how they will manage to avoid such missteps. It is hardly encouraging that during the runup to the tourism meeting web pages bearing the OECD emblem continue to advertise touristic and cultural heritage sites in the occupied Palestinian territories as Israeli.

It is difficult to overlook the fact that Israel has been permitted to base its performance of its obligations and conduct its participation in OECD activities on its own policies of settlement and annexation, notwithstanding the duty of the OECD and its member countries not to recognise these Israeli practices as lawful or give them effect within the OECD.

Countries planning to attend include Spain, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.

For those countries that decide to attend, the devil will be in the details. The proficiency of their delegates at identifying and preventing the importation of Israel’s violations of international law into the proceedings and surrounding events will be sorely tested.

It can make no sense for world leaders to allow themselves to be drawn progressively into acquiescing to Israel’s serious and persistent violations of international law while continuing to demand that Palestinians respect and place their confidence in international law after 62 years of dispossession and 43 years of military occupation.

Yet Israel has become a habitual violator and has also become highly proficient at dragging other states along with it. If the OECD and its member countries cannot be expected to effectively resist this pull, who can be expected to hold the line? Who is left to defend the normative foundations of the just and peaceful world order that states and international organisations like the OECD regularly proclaim their resolve to promote?


Posted in Politics2 Comments



Dear ,

These are hard but important days for us in Palestine. Just yesterday, my friend and coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, was sentenced to a year in prison by an Israeli military court. His sole crime was being an instrumental part in our village’s campaign against the construction of the wall on our lands.

However, we mustn’t allow our sadness about Abdallah’s incarceration to stop our work. While Abdallah worked to highlight the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, Israel also constructs illegal infrastructure in East Jerusalem.

Between the 20th and 22nd of October, almost a week from today, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) plans to hold its bi-annual tourism conference in Jerusalem – a city whose indigenous Palestinian residents suffer from systemic discrimination and expulsion. There is not a moment to lose if we want to change this decision.

Despite Israel’s persistent violations of human rights and disregard for International law, the OECD – whose member countries include the majority of the world richest countries – granted Israel membership on May 27th of this year.

Tourism plays an important role in Israel’s colonization of occupied East Jerusalem. The state and right wing settler organizations cooperate in expelling Palestinians residents from East Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah for the creation of colonies and biblically theme parks for tourists.

Join us in calling on the OECD to cancel its tourism conference in Jerusalem. Please follow this link to send an email to Angel Gurría, the Secretary General of the OECD, and demand that his organization respect International law by canceling the planned OECD tourism conference in Jerusalem.

Help us highlight this injustice and voice your concern.

In solidarity,
Mohammed Khatib



Shoah’s pages