Archive | January 24th, 2012

Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York


Just remember as you watch this–


Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York

Stop Britain’s pro-Zio-Nazi lobby


The “consultation” on a statutory lobby register may be a window of opportunity

By Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood calls on British readers to demand that the UK government’s proposed statutory register of lobbyists cover in-house lobbyists, such as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel lobby groups which comprise Members of Parliament, and not just lobby firms.

The Queen needs a new royal yacht. But the British government says it can’t afford to buy her one. The GBP 80 million for the project must come from private sources.

“Leading British companies will … be asked to donate funds in exchange for naming rights to various decks and facilities on board,” says the Guardian newspaper. Does this mean Her Majesty will be seen entertaining in the Goldman Sachs stateroom and sipping daiquiris on the Starbucks sun-deck? Will she shelter from squalls in the Murdoch salon and arrive and depart via the Revlon helipad?

The last royal yacht, Britannia, was a highly successful tool for promoting Great Britain Limited. That being the case, such an important national asset ought to be government funded, not sponsored by tacky brand names.

GBP 80 million is chickenfeed in the great scheme of things. Why, are we so hard up that there’s not enough in the public purse to pay for a new boat for our beloved sovereign? One reason, of course, is because for years we’ve been suckered into joining the United States in fighting Israel’s wars of aggression. Given our huge debts it beggars belief that we’re gearing up for another one, this time against Iran, and pushing the oil markets to the edge of panic.

Haven’t we had our fill of warmongering idiocy?

“Why do we get dragged into … illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s.”

War fever was magnified at the weekend with an announcement that the Ministry of Defence had splashed out another GBP 14 million on building a replica Middle East village in Thetford Forest for training our troops. It’s complete with shops, fully furnished homes, the stench of rotting meat and a bomb survivor with limbs blown off.

The site was originally a replica Nazi village built in 1942, but that was training for a war of a very different kind, a war in defence of our realm and for our very survival.

Why do we get dragged into these illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s. They have taken command and control of our country by infiltrating the highest levels of government. For example, they hold the key jobs in the Foreign Office.

Our watchdogs ought to have booted them out for violating the sacred principles of conduct in public life, but these leeches are now permanently attached while the dogs are de-fanged and petted.

I can imagine just how robustly the criminal regime in Israel is reprimanded by Prime Minister David Cameron, a self-declared Zionist, by Foreign Secretary William Hague, an avid fan of Israel since his teenage years, by Alistair Burt, a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel and now minister for Middle East affairs, and by Ambassador Matthew Gould in Tel Aviv who I’m told is the first Jew appointed to that post.

The proposed lobby register

Our coalition government has just provided a glimmer of hope for a solution – an unintended consequence no doubt – by releasing a woolly discussion document on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. This is part of a promise to clean up politics and provide greater transparency in the wake of scandals that destroyed the last shred of public confidence in our political system.

The government defines lobbyists as “those who seek to influence or change government policy on behalf of a third party”. The document itself says that a register should include information about the names of individual lobbyists and lobbying firms and the names of their clients. “In addition, we propose that the register should include whether a lobbyist was previously a government minister or a senior civil servant. The government does not propose that any information on meetings should be included in a register.”

“We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”

Tamasin Cave, Alliance for Lobbying Transparency

However, only third-party lobbying firms will have to declare their clients and record former ministers and government officials they have on their books. Firms employing in-house lobbyists needn’t register at all.

The register should also offer the same transparency as provided for ministers, special advisers and senior officials. The recent Fox-Werrity outrage showed how unreliable that is. It took determined digging by a retired former ambassador to shine light into the dark and sinister corners of that affair.

Tamasin Cave from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, an organization representing a number of charities, unions and campaign groups, said the proposals “are fundamentally flawed and have the lobbyists’ fingerprints all over them. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”

The Independent newspaper has already blasted the government for attempting a ‘”whitewash” while campaigners say the move does nothing to clean up the lobby industry’s reputation for forging unhealthy relationships between senior politicians and leading lobbying firms.

Will ministers be required to declare why they are meeting lobbyists or which firms or groups they are representing? Apparently not, says the Independent.

Now’s your chance!

What about those who lobby on behalf of a lawless foreign power? It is vitally important to halt lobby groups like Friends of Israel in their tracks. Consultation closes on 13 April, so now’s your chance.

Members of the public can make their views known to:
Statutory Register of Lobbyists, Cabinet Office, Fourth Floor, 1 Horseguards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Alternatively, email marking your response with “Statutory Register of Lobbyists” in the subject field of your email.



Make sure you let the government know that you know what a rotten, treacherous game they are playing. The three main political parties in the UK each have a Friends of Israel group to ensure pro-Israel members are embedded at all levels in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government, no matter who is in power.

Campaigners argue that these placemen inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on foreign affairs issues and especially on matters relating to Israel’s criminal acts.

Or the unjustified ganging up against Iran.

The aim of Friends of Israel is to promote the interests of Israel within the British Parliament. The Israeli regime is racist in its treatment of the Arab population and criminal in its territorial ambitions. The manifestos of Israel’s political parties are horrific. MPs who align themselves with Israel and endorse its practices are contradicting our own anti-racist laws and international and human rights laws.
Should MPs and ministers be acting on behalf of a foreign military power at the expense of our own interests and security? Of course not. They are expressly forbidden to let outside influence cloud their judgment. To do so would breach the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity: “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”
Yet Friends of Israel lobby groups go to great lengths to influence those in power. Some say that Friends of Israel membership is a necessary passport to high office.

But the man in the street is entitled to look at the Seven Principles of Public Life and say that the activities of lobbies like Friends of Israel are against the intentions, both in word and spirit, of those principles. Disgraced Defence Secretary Liam Fox was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.” This was when his party was in opposition. Fox presumably spoke for all Friends of Israel in his party (that’s 80 per cent of Conservative MPs, according to some claims) who were hoping to form the next government. He would have Parliament and the country believe that Israel’s enemy, Iran, must become Britain’s enemy – the sort of dangerous nonsense that could lead our nation to disaster and once again cause hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be shredded and incinerated. Don’t his sort ever learn?

And seldom do Friends of Israel members declare an interest when speaking or writing about the Middle East. That is unacceptable in the “Mother of Parliaments”.

In the United States there are growing calls for the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is so super-powerful that it calls the shots in Congress and has presidential candidates grovelling to Israel’s agenda, to be classified as an agent of a foreign power and treated accordingly.

Double standards prevail

The British government ordered a warship to join the US flotilla steaming through the Strait of Hormuz “to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law”. It’s a response to Iran’s threat to close that seaway if the West imposes an oil embargo.

Royal Navy ships have been patrolling there continuously since the 1980s, but brave Britain hasn’t lifted a finger to keep the sea lanes to Gaza open in response to Israel’s endless illegal blockade and brutal assaults on Gaza’s fishermen and peaceful humanitarian vessels trying to reach the besieged population with aid.

And yesterday the European Union announced an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which Britain had been pressing for. It is horribly reminiscent of the bully-boy tactics of the early 1950s, when Britain and America engineered a similar embargo and brought Iran to its knees in order to overthrow the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstate the hated Shah and his secret police. Why? Because Iran wanted to control its own oil and Britain and the US didn’t like that.

This latest move amounts to another direct attack on Iran’s economic lifeline and smacks of collective punishment and economic terrorism. It will cause hardship to ordinary citizens and further hostility throughout the Islamic world. Nothing pleases Israel more, but why are we so eager to dance to Israel’s tune and damage ourselves in the eyes of world opinion?

Hague said: “Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation…” But he and the EU are not in the least serious about nuke-bristling Israel’s refusal to sign up to, or even discuss, non-proliferation. No sanctions there.

Meanwhile hard-pressed British and European motorists are likely to pay a heavy price for this tomfoolery when oil prices rocket. And we are still waiting for proof that Iran has actually done something wrong, are we not? Where does Hague think he’s leading us?

Notice too how the British government’s broadcast regulator has chosen this moment to silence Press TV, Iran’s English-language broadcaster in the UK, by revoking its licence and thus suppressing the other side of the story. Press TV was an inconvenient voice that ruffled too many fine feathers among Britain’s bloodthirsty elite. Truth and free speech, as usual, are the first casualties in softening up the public for war.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Stop Britain’s pro-Zio-Nazi lobby

On applause and Palestinian Soidarity


I have been reading a range of articles about the events at the PSC AGM on Saturday. I am still trying to find what, if anything, had come out of the meeting that could cause it to be described as <a href=””>“a very good day”</a> for the Palestinians.


And I came across a <a href=””>post by Anthony Cooper</a>, in which he is trying to understand the reaction of the meeting to Francis Clark-Lowe’s appeal speech.


He notes that Tony Greenstein said that the room gasped when Francis mentioned the “Holocaust Myth”, that Paul Eisen referred to “modest applause” when Francis had finished speaking, and that Asa Winstanley said there were <a href=”!/AsaWinstanley/status/160701949040279554”> loud cheers</a> when it was announced that Occupy London had taken over another bank building.


Loud cheers at a previous PSC event are, as it happens, the reason I have never joined, nor had much time for the PSC. Those cheers erupted at a rally inTrafalgar Square, anytime a speaker mentioned Rachel Corrie, who had died so tragically in Rafah earlier that year. I was listening to the speeches with two ISMers who had days before been deported fromIsrael, and who had both been eye witnesses to Rachel’s death. One of them was keen to address the crowd and I asked if this was possible. The answer was negative, although to this day I am convinced that the people cheering the usual suspects that address PSC rallies (ie Trade Unionists, clerics and politicians) would have been interested to hear from people newly returned fromgaza, who had been at the very scene being described so dramatically from the stage.


The refusal (on the grounds of limited time) I found callous, and indicative of an intransigent approach. Saturday’s AGM shenanigans suggest to me that that assessment  was pretty sound. The loud cheers at PSC events for an ISMer in 2003, and the Occupy movement in 2011 also suggest that people attending the events are looking for a much more dynamic approach than the formulaic events laid on by the PSC Exec at their events.


Occupy London is part of a movement of people who are tired of the old way of doing things, and who have come together to try and find new and dynamic ways of  expressing their dissent. By coincidence they use many of the same tools for organising that the ISM uses. They try to be as inclusive as possible, and aim to be as non hierarchical as they can be, in many ways therefore they are antithetical to the PSC.


Directly under the Cooper post on the AGM was another PSC related post from earlier this month, which I read with amazement. Entitled <a href=””> Did the PSC Lie to Caroline Lucas MP?”</a>, it contains some disturbing hints at how bad things are in the PSC. I learnt that Green Party MP Caroline Lucas had received assurances from the PSC that “the organisation does indeed recogniseIsrael’s right to exist ….and that it remains committed to a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict”.


I stared at my screen in disbelief. The PSC had, it seemed, adopted the Zionist narrative and was now in favour of what I can only see as a ‘bantustan solution’. Furthermore, Cooper then pointed to an article in the Morning Star which portrays PSC Chair Hugh Lanning  thus:


He stressed the need for two states based on the 1967 borders – a demand recently backed byUSPresident Barack Obama but consistently rejected byIsrael.


“At the moment there is only one state -Israel,” he said.


 “A two-state solution objectively means the creation of a free, independent Palestinian state which does not exist right now.”


I have Palestinian friends who would see this as totally unacceptable because for them it means eternal banishment to overcrowded refugee camps, from which they they have spent their entire lives waiting to go back to the homes that their families were pushed out of in 1948. And somehow, in the name of solidarity with them, this Mr. Lanning is advocating an end to their dreams.


Now I wanted to find out more about this Lanning character, and after  an amusing description of him as <a href=””>“a fake-left rightwing bureaucrat”</a> I came across an <a href=””>article</a> which seems to help explain why the PSC is so useless as a vehicle for solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine.


Here, Hugh tells us that:


“The Palestinian solidarity movement will always stick to anti-racist principles, for reasons that include but extend beyond the moral dimensions”


Furthermore he goes on to claim that:


“All of the arguments we want and need to make, can and should be made without reference to race and religion. The strongest arguments are those based on justice, human rights and international law. There is no need to stray beyond these core principles -indeed it weakens us to do so.”


Good grief!!. He wants us to tackle what South African victims of Apartheid have described as an Apartheid State, without referring to the very causes of that Apartheid, and furthermore he wants to make the arguments based on “justice, human rights and international law” yet he himself is advocating a two state solution which fits into not a single one of those categories!!!

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on On applause and Palestinian Soidarity



Did the PSC Lie to Caroline Lucas MP?

In June last year Caroline Lucas MP released the following statement to the Jewish Chronicle:

It has been brought to my attention that the PSC logo appears to reflect 1917, pre-creation of Israel, borders and as such could be open to interpretation by some as implying non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist. I am following this up with the director of the PSC since I am quite sure that PSC does indeed recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is unhelpful and damaging if any other impression is given.

I did not see any update to this so emailed Ms Lucas in October and was told that she had given a follow-up statement to the JC:

After raising the issue directly with PSC, I am satisfied with the assurances I have received that the organisation does indeed recognise Israel’s right to exist – as I had expected – and that it remains committed to a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

According to an article in the Morning Star also from June, the PSC was criticised at a TUC meeting for not supporting the two-state solution and Hugh Lanning (Chair of the PSC) responded.

He stressed the need for two states based on the 1967 borders – a demand recently backed by US President Barack Obama but consistently rejected by Israel.

However, in November Lauren Booth launched an attack on the PSC in which she quoted Sammi Ibrahem as saying:

I feel they (the PSC) have no right to represent the Palestinians’ he says, ‘Their policies are pro the ‘two state’ solution.

Obviously concerned by this, a member of the Bristol branch emailed the head office for clarification and received a reply from Betty Hunter, the President of the PSC. In her email she said:

We do not take a position on the 2 state/ one state solution as that decision must be for all Palestinians. 

One possibility is that there is a real split in the PSC between those who support Israel’s right to exist and therefore support the two-state solution; and those who aren’t fussed and think it’s up to the Palestinians (not the Israelis) to decide whether Israel can continue to exist or not. If this is true then it would be difficult to claim that the organisation is committed to a two-state solution.

Another, more worrying possibility, is that the PSC doesn’t, in fact, take any stance on the issue as their President affirms. However, in order to gain support from trade union officials and Members of Parliament, they are willing to lie and tell them that they are fully committed to a two-state solution.

So did they lie to Caroline Lucas MP? Or is the PSC lying to its members?


Posted in CampaignsComments Off on PALESTINE SOLI-DIRTY CAMPAIGN BIG LIE

Shoah’s pages