Archive for the ‘Stuart Littlewood’ Category

Who’ll mourn Maggie?

April 12, 2013

by Stuart Littlewood
Wednesday, April 10th, 2013

Thatcher-funeral
These last two days the airwaves have been awash with eye-dabbing tributes to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. She has been elevated almost to sainthood by commentators, political hacks and former colleagues. Such near-hysterical adoration, it seems to me, is a measure of the wretched scarcity of leadership talent in Britain over the last 50 years.
 
Yes, she demonstrated a few admirable virtues for which she is rightly remembered and which were sadly lacking in the wimps who surrounded her. But they are trumped by a catalogue of failings. When she took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975 she ominously declared:

I am not a consensus politician. I am a conviction politician.

This was a deeply scary opening gambit. It’s fine as long as your convictions are soundly based. But when they are grounded in barmy beliefs you become a menace to party and country.
Almost straightaway Thatcher turned Britain’s manufacturing heart, known as the Black Country, into an industrial wasteland. I was there, working for a major engineering group. I saw the devastation first-hand and felt the anguish and despair of the local people. Big organisations shed jobs by the hundreds and thousands. Many shut their doors for ever. Countless highly skilled small businesses – jobbing contractors to the large companies – were crippled by sky-high interest rates, the new ‘wisdom’ dispensed by the inventors of ‘Thatcherism’. Base interest rates climbed to 15%, which meant that business owners were paying as much as 22%.
As George Galloway says,

she destroyed more than a third of Britain’s manufacturing capacity, significantly more than Hitler’s Luftwaffe ever achieved.

Thatcher had become a disciple of ‘monetarism’, a school of thought claiming that by juggling the money supply you could determine economic activity, keep a lid on inflation and manage the economic cycles. Demand would be boosted or damped by turning the money tap. This new approach was just the medicine for reviving Britain’s ailing economy, according to her bestest political friend Keith Joseph, aka the ‘Mad Monk’.
 
Then came de-regulation and the privatisation of our utilities (many ending up in foreign hands). There was little attempt to re-start manufacturing. Instead the emphasis was on expanding financial services. A financial sector free-for-all and an explosion of personal and corporate greed followed. It fitted perfectly her sickening statement that “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families… people must look to themselves first.” The self-centred revolution had arrived.

A prisoner of the Zionists?

Margaret Thatcher was kept in parliament by the considerable Jewish vote in her Finchley constituency, which adjoins the North London Jewish quarter of Hendon and Golders Green. Unsurprisingly, she was a member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley and the Conservative Friends of Israel (of which, I believe, she was a founder).
 
David Frum, who was one of George Dubya Bush’s speechwriters and credited with the ‘axis of evil’ speech vilifying Iraq, Iran and North Korea, wrote of Thatcher  that she “was elected from a heavily Jewish north London constituency… Altogether, five Jews served in her cabinets, including her strongest Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, and her ideological mentor, Education Secretary Keith Joseph…  One of her favorite ministers, Malcolm Rifkind, went on to serve under her successor John Major as the first Jewish foreign secretary — voiding the taboo that had descended after the creation of the state of Israel against Jews in UK national security positions.

Thatcher’s sympathy for Israel especially worried and frightened British officials. When she became party leader in the mid-1970s, she succumbed to pressure and resigned from pro-Israel groups…

The fear was, of course, that Thatcher’s closeness with British Jews might suggest she was a ‘prisoner of the Zionists’. Charles C Johnson, writing in December 2011 , says that Thatcher reluctantly agreed to quit the Jewish groups she belonged to, but kept her relationships with pro-Israel parliamentarians. “In addition to Nigel Lawson, she appointed Victor Rothschild as her security adviser, Malcolm Rifkind to be secretary of state for Scotland, David Young as minister without portfolio, and Leon Brittan to be trade and industry secretary. David Wolfson, nephew of Sir Isaac Wolfson, president of Great Universal Stores, Europe’s biggest mail-order company, served as Thatcher’s chief of staff. Her policies were powered by two men — Keith Joseph, a member of Parliament many thought would one day be the first prime minister who was a practicing Jew, and Alfred Sherman, a former communist turned free-market thinker.”
Joseph and Sherman, with Thatcher, had set up the Centre for Policy Studies in 1974.  Joseph wanted to

fundamentally affect a political generation’s way of thinking.

Thatcher was generally supportive towards Israel but did not trust Begin and Shamir, whom she recognised for the shameless terrorists they were. In 1986, when Peres was prime minister, she became the first British premier to visit Israel, although she had previously been twice as a member of parliament – presumably on brainwashing trips organised by her party’s Friends of Israel.
During that landmark visit in 1986, reports Haaretz, she was asked why Queen Elizabeth had never found the time to tour the Holy Land. Thatcher replied: “But I’m here.”  And she didn’t seem to mind staying in the King David Hotel, the former British Army headquarters which was blown up by Jewish terrorists in 1946, killing 91 soldiers and civilians.
thatcher-netanyahu
Nevertheless she was occasionally critical and, for example, condemned Israel’s bombing of Osirak, Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, in 1981. It represented a grave breach of international law, she told The Jewish Chronicle. Bombing another country like that could lead to “international anarchy”.
All the same, under Thatcher’s eleven-and-a-half year watch important taboos were broken and Jews were appointed to such top Offices of State as chancellor of the exchequer and secretary for defence, foreign and home affairs. The floodgates opened for Zionist sympathisers or worse, such as Straw, Miliband and Hague to subsequently take up the crucial post of foreign secretary and make a toxic hash of our relations abroad.
 
At home she left a wide trail of social and industrial wreckage, sweeping away key industries and relying on the froth and fizz and corruption of a financial services boom. She all but switched off our engine of real wealth – manufacturing – making the prospect of real recovery a very distant one.
Those who’ll mourn for Maggie most will be the Old Etonians and other products of our public schools who make up our ruling ‘élite’ and whose tender upbringing fixated on Matron rather than the Laws of Cricket.
RIPMaggie
Stuart Littlewood
10 April 2013

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

DALET Zionism’s diabolical blueprint

March 13, 2013

DALET: The conspiracy to steal the land of Palestine

Plan D shows 'expulsion and transfer' were always a key part of the Zionists' scheme.
Plan D shows ‘expulsion and transfer’ were always a key part of the Zionists’ scheme.

by Stuart Littlewood, source

Israel - bloody handsI have to admit, I was only dimly aware of the Dalet Plan before reading Alan Hart’s latest article ’The green light for Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine’.

The Dalet Plan, or Plan D, was the Zionist terror mob’s diabolical blueprint for the violent and blood-spattered takeover of the Palestinian homeland – some call it the Palestinian holocaust – written 65 years ago and based on three earlier schemes drafted between 1945 and 1948. It was drawn up by the Jewish underground militia, the Haganah, at the behest of David Ben-Gurion, then boss of the Jewish Agency.

Plan D was a carefully thought-out, step-by-step plot choreographed in advance of the British mandate government’s withdrawal and the Zionists’ declaration of Israeli statehood. It correctly assumed that the British authorities would no longer be there. Indeed, the British had completed their departure by 15 May 1948.

(Palestinian Nakba- file photo)

The Plan’s intention, on the surface, was to gain control of the areas of the Jewish state and defend its borders. But it also aimed to do much more. It included measures to control the areas of Jewish settlements and concentrations located outside Jewish borders and ensure “freedom of military and economic activity” by occupying and controlling important high-ground positions on a number of transport routes.

This would be achieved by, amongst other things, “applying economic pressure on the enemy by besieging some of his cities”, “encirclement of enemy cities” and “blocking the main enemy transportation routes… Roads, bridges, main passes, important crossroads, paths, etc. must be blocked by means of: acts of sabotage, explosions, series of barricades, mine fields, as well as by controlling the elevations near roads and taking up positions there.”

Jewish forces would occupy the police stations, described as “fortresses”, fifty of which had been built by the British throughout Palestine after the Arab unrest of 1936-39.

The Plan discussed “operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force.” These operations included:

“Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

“Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

Villages emptied in this way were then fortified. “Outside the borders of the state” seems a curious thing to say since nobody was saying then where Israel’s borders ran, and nobody is saying now.
If they met no resistance, “garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control,” said the Plan. “The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices, and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals… In every region, a [Jewish] person will be appointed to be responsible for arranging the political and administrative affairs of all [Arab] villages and population centers which are occupied within that region.

And here are the chilling guidelines for besieging, occupying and controlling Arab cities:
“1. By isolating them from transportation arteries by laying mines, blowing up bridges, and a system of fixed ambushes.
2. If necessary, by occupying high points which overlook transportation arteries leading to enemy cities, and the fortification of our units in these positions.
3. By disrupting vital services, such as electricity, water, and fuel, or by using economic resources available to us, or by sabotage.
4. By launching a naval operation against the cities that can receive supplies by sea, in order to destroy the vessels carrying the provisions, as well as by carrying out acts of sabotage against harbor facilities.”

It is one of the sickest documents in history and shows why so many people question Israel’s legitimacy. Jewish terror gangs committed a massacre at Deir Yassin to set the tone and ‘soften up’ the Arabs for expulsion. More atrocities followed the declaration of Israeli statehood on 14 May 1948. 750,000 Palestinians were put to flight as Israel’s forces obliterated hundreds of Arab villages and towns. The village on which Sderot now stands was one such. To this day they have been denied the right to return and received no compensation. 34 massacres are said to have been committed in pursuit of the Jewish nation’s racist and territorial ambitions.

White Colonialist Club

The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 cannot stand close scrutiny. At that time, UN membership did not include African states, and most Arab and Asian states were still under colonial rule. It was pretty much a white colonialist club. The Palestinians themselves had no representation and they weren’t even consulted.

The first vote failed to reach the two-thirds majority required. To ensure success in the second vote a good deal of arm-twisting was applied to the smaller countries, but again it fell short. At the third attempt France was persuaded to come “on board” after the US threatened to withdraw desperately needed post-WW2 aid, and on 29 November the UN voted to partition Palestine into three parts: a Jewish state on 14,000 sq km with some 558,000 Jews and 405,000 Palestinian Arabs; and an Arab state on 11,500 sq km with about 804,000 Palestinian Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem, including major religious sites, was to be internationally administered.

No sooner had Britain packed her bags than Israel declared statehood on 14 May 1948 and immediately began expanding territorial control across all of Palestine to accommodate a new Jewish state expanding on all fronts. 15 May marks the dark day in 1948 remembered by Palestinians as al-Nakba (the Catastrophe) brought about by the military terror that forced them off their homeland.
Atrocities occurred at Deir Yassin, Lod and Ramle. The massacre at Deir Yassin was carried out by the two Zionist terror groups, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. On an April morning in 1948 (before the Israeli state declaration) 130 of their commandos made a dawn raid on this small Arab town with a population of 750, to the west of Jerusalem. The attack was initially beaten off, and only when a crack unit of the Haganah arrived with mortars were the Arab townsmen overwhelmed. The Irgun and the Stern Gang, smarting from the humiliation of having to summon help, embarked on a ‘clean-up’ in which they systematically murdered and executed at least 100 residents – mostly women, children and old people. The Irgun afterwards exaggerated the number, quoting 254, to frighten other Arab towns and villages.

The Haganah played down their part in the raid and afterwards said the massacre “disgraced the cause of Jewish fighters and dishonoured Jewish arms and the Jewish flag”.

Deir Yassin signaled the beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages – destroying churches and mosques – in order to make room for incoming Holocaust survivors and other Jews. In any language it was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, the knock-on effects of which have created an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees today.

In July 1948 Israeli terrorist troops seized Lydda, shot up the town and drove out the population. Donald Neff reported, as part of the ethnic cleansing, the Israelis massacred 426 men, women, and children. 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque.

The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way.

Of all the blood-baths they say this was the biggest. The great hero Moshe Dayan was responsible. Was he ever brought to book? Of course not.

By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 percent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash that still goes on.

Even if the UN Partition had been legitimate – which many people doubt – the Israeli state’s greedy ambition immediately overran the generous borders gifted to the Zionists. Few, if any, of the Jews imported into Palestine can trace ancestral connection with the Jews who were driven out by the Roman occupation. As Lord Sydenham warned when he opposed the Balfour Declaration, they are an alien population dumped on an Arab country. “What we have done,” he predicted, “by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Israel’s numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity, and its continual defiance of international law and the UN Charter, together forfeit all claim to legitimacy as far as Arabs and non-Arabs around the world are concerned – at least, those that haven’t been bribed to say otherwise.
UN Resolution 194 called on Israel to let the Palestinians back onto their land. It has been re-passed many times, but Israel still ignores it. The Israelis also stand accused of violating Article 42 of the Geneva Convention by moving settlers into the Palestinian territories it occupies, and of riding roughshod over international law with their occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

As Plan D shows, “expulsion and transfer” (i.e. ethnic cleansing) were always a key part of the Zionists’ scheme. According to historian Benny Morris no mainstream Zionist leader could conceive of future co-existence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples. Ben-Gurion, who became Israel’s first prime minister, is reported to have said in 1937: “New settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin…” The following year he declared: “With compulsory transfer we have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

On another occasion he remarked: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.” Ben-Gurion reminded his military commanders that the prime aim of Plan D was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. He was well aware of his own criminality.

It is high time the Palestine solidarity movement circulated Plan D/Plan Dalet far and wide and, in particular, brought it to the attention of political half-wits who stooge for and support the Israeli regime and turn a blind eye to its unbridled terrorism.                                              

DALET: another dirty word in the conspiracy to steal the land of Palestine

Zionist terror plan is still legitimized by political half-wits in the West 

By Stuart Littlewood
I have to admit, I was only dimly aware of the Dalet Plan before reading Alan Hart’s latest article, “The green light for Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine”.
The Dalet Plan, or Plan D, was the Zionist terror mob’s diabolical blueprint for the violent and blood-spattered takeover of the Palestinian homeland – some call it the Palestinian holocaust – written 65 years ago and based on three earlier schemes drafted between 1945 and 1948. It was drawn up by the Jewish underground militia, the Haganah, at the behest of David Ben-Gurion, then boss of the Jewish Agency.

Blood-splattered diabolical blueprint

Plan D was a carefully thought-out, step-by-step plot choreographed in advance of the British mandate government’s withdrawal and the Zionists’ declaration of Israeli statehood. It correctly assumed that the British authorities would no longer be there. Indeed, the British had completed their departure by 15 May 1948.
The Plan’s intention, on the surface, was to gain control of the areas of the Jewish state and defend its borders. But it also aimed to do much more. It included measures to control the areas of Jewish settlements and concentrations located outside Jewish borders and ensure “freedom of military and economic activity” by occupying and controlling important high-ground positions on a number of transport routes.
This would be achieved by, among other things, applying economic pressure on the enemy by besieging some of his cities”, “encirclement of enemy cities” and “blocking the main enemy transportation routes… Roads, bridges, main passes, important crossroads, paths, etc. must be blocked by means of: acts of sabotage, explosions, series of barricades, minefields, as well as by controlling the elevations near roads and taking up positions there.
Jewish forces would occupy the police stations, described as “fortresses”, fifty of which had been built by the British throughout Palestine after the Arab unrest of 1936-39.
The plan discussed “operations against enemy population centres located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force”. These operations included:

Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centres which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

Villages emptied in this way were then fortified. “Outside the borders of the state” seems a curious thing to say since nobody was saying then where Israel’s borders ran, and nobody is saying now.
If they met no resistance, “garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control”, said the plan.

The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals… In every region, a [Jewish] person will be appointed to be responsible for arranging the political and administrative affairs of all [Arab] villages and population centres which are occupied within that region.

And here are the chilling guidelines for besieging, occupying and controlling Arab cities…

  1. By isolating them from transportation arteries by laying mines, blowing up bridges, and a system of fixed ambushes.
  2. If necessary, by occupying high points which overlook transportation arteries leading to enemy cities, and the fortification of our units in these positions.
  3. By disrupting vital services, such as electricity, water and fuel, or by using economic resources available to us, or by sabotage.
  4. By launching a naval operation against the cities that can receive supplies by sea, in order to destroy the vessels carrying the provisions, as well as by carrying out acts of sabotage against harbour facilities.

It is one of the sickest documents in history and shows why so many people question Israel’s legitimacy. Jewish terror gangs committed a massacre at Deir Yassin to set the tone and “soften up” the Arabs for expulsion. More atrocities followed the declaration of Israeli statehood on 14 May 1948. Some 750,000 Palestinians were put to flight as Israel’s forces obliterated hundreds of Arab villages and towns. The village on which Sderot now stands was one such. To this day they have been denied the right to return and received no compensation. Thirty-four massacres are said to have been committed in pursuit of the Jewish nation’s racist and territorial ambitions.

Was Israel ever “legitimate”?

The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 cannot stand close scrutiny. At that time, UN membership did not include African states, and most Arab and Asian states were still under colonial rule. It was pretty much a white colonialist club. The Palestinians themselves had no representation and they weren’t even consulted.

…15 May marks the dark day in 1948 remembered by Palestinians as the Nakba (the Catastrophe) brought about by the military terror that forced them off their homeland.

The first vote failed to reach the two-thirds majority required. To ensure success in the second vote a good deal of arm-twisting was applied to the smaller countries, but again it fell short. At the third attempt France was persuaded to come “on board” after the US threatened to withdraw desperately needed post-World War II aid, and on 29 November the UN voted to partition Palestine into three parts: a Jewish state on 14,000 sq km with some 558,000 Jews and 405,000 Palestinian Arabs; and an Arab state on 11,500 sq km with about 804,000 Palestinian Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem, including major religious sites, was to be internationally administered.
No sooner had Britain packed its bags than Israel declared statehood on 14 May 1948 and immediately began expanding territorial control across all of Palestine to accommodate a new Jewish state expanding on all fronts. The date of 15 May marks the dark day in 1948 remembered by Palestinians as the Nakba (the Catastrophe) brought about by the military terror that forced them off their homeland.

Two of many massacres

Atrocities occurred at Deir Yassin, Lod and Ramle. The massacre at Deir Yassin was carried out by the two Zionist terror groups, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. On an April morning in 1948 (before the Israeli state declaration) 130 of their commandos made a dawn raid on this small Arab town with a population of 750, to the west of Jerusalem. The attack was initially beaten off, and only when a crack unit of the Haganah arrived with mortars were the Arab townsmen overwhelmed. The Irgun and the Stern Gang, smarting from the humiliation of having to summon help, embarked on a “clean-up” in which they systematically murdered and executed at least 100 residents – mostly women, children and old people. The Irgun afterwards exaggerated the number, quoting 254, to frighten other Arab towns and villages.

Deir Yassin signalled the beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages – destroying churches and mosques – in order to make room for incoming holocaust survivors and other Jews.

The Haganah played down their part in the raid and afterwards said the massacre “disgraced the cause of Jewish fighters and dishonoured Jewish arms and the Jewish flag”.
Deir Yassin signalled the beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages – destroying churches and mosques – in order to make room for incoming holocaust survivors and other Jews. In any language it was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, the knock-on effects of which have created an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees today.
In July 1948 Israeli terrorist troops seized Lydda, shot up the town and drove out the population. Donald Neff reported how, as part of the ethnic cleansing, the Israelis massacred 426 men, women and children. Some 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque. The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat, leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way.
Of all the blood-baths they say this was the biggest.The great hero Moshe Dayan was responsible. Was he ever brought to book? Of course not.
By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 per cent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash that still goes on.
Even if the UN Partition had been legitimate – which many people doubt – the Israeli state’s greedy ambition immediately overran the generous borders gifted to the Zionists. Few, if any, of the Jews imported into Palestine can trace ancestral connection with the Jews who were driven out by the Roman occupation. As Lord Sydenham warned when he opposed the Balfour Declaration, they are an alien population dumped on an Arab country. “What we have done,” he predicted, “by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

…as part of the ethnic cleansing, [in Lydda] the Israelis massacred 426 men, women and children. Some 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque.

Israel’s numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity, and its continual defiance of international law and the UN Charter, together forfeit all claim to legitimacy as far as Arabs and non-Arabs around the world are concerned – at least, those that haven’t been bribed to say otherwise.
UN Resolution 194 called on Israel to let the Palestinians back onto their land. It has been reiterated many times, but Israel still ignores it. The Israelis also stand accused of violating Article 42 of the Geneva Convention by moving settlers into the Palestinian territories it occupies, and of riding roughshod over international law with their occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
As Plan D shows, “expulsion and transfer” (i.e. ethnic cleansing) were always a key part of the Zionists’ scheme. According to historian Benny Morris, no mainstream Zionist leader could conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples. Ben-Gurion, who became Israel’s first prime minister, is reported to have said in 1937: “New settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fallahin [peasants]…” The following year he declared: “With compulsory transfer we have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”
On another occasion he remarked:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.

Ben-Gurion reminded his military commanders that the prime aim of Plan D was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. He was well aware of his own criminality.
It is high time the Palestine solidarity movement circulated Plan D/Plan Dalet far and wide and, in particular, brought it to the attention of political half-wits who stooge for and support the Israeli regime and turn a blind eye to its unbridled terrorism.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Toppling Iran: the Zionists’ craziest fantasy

February 12, 2013

But who will help them act it out?

by Stuart Littlewood 

“We put a lot of energy with France and Germany into agreeing at the end of July strong additional European Union sanctions on Iran which will begin to bite over the coming months…”
– UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, 5 October 2010


Getting two devoted fans of Israel like UK Foreign Secretary William Hague and his junior minister Alistair Burt to explain their hostility towards Iran was never going to be easy.
Mr Hague had said the ransacking of the British embassy in Tehran in November 2011 was carried out “with regime consent”. Orchestration by the Iranian authorities is automatically denied but the incident was obviously in retaliation to Britain’s ratcheting  up sanctions intended to cripple the Iranian economy, a repetition of our ‘dirty tricks’ of 60 years ago

Why, exactly, were we doing it again, I wanted to know. Had we so quickly forgotten the devastating effect of sanctions on civil society, especially children, not only in Iran in the 1950s but against the Iraqis in the 1990s before the brave “coalition of the willing” reduced their country to rubble and ruination? But never mind, they were just collateral damage in the West’s great scheme of things.
For more than a year I’ve been putting questions like these to the Foreign Secretary through my MP. What proof is there that Iran’s nuclear technology has a military dimension (and please spare us the usual faked intelligence and sexed-up dossiers)? Shouldn’t he be more concerned about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the deranged leadership in Tel Aviv and the threat the Zionist State poses to the region and beyond?

Doesn’t Israel’s refusal to sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD make it a leading candidate for sanctions, quite apart from its brutal oppression and occupation of the Holy Land?

In any case, what threat is Iran to Britain? And who gave Hague permission to wage economic warfare against a friendly people – in our name? We remember only too well how Cameron, Hague and Burt voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, an appalling lack of judgement based on a pack of lies that anyone exercising average diligence could see through. It should have disqualified them from holding high office ever again. The military adventure cost well over a million lives, caused utter misery, wrecked much of Iraq’s heritage and generated intense hatred worldwide.

Mr Hague’s job, I suggested to my MP Henry Bellingham, is to make friends not enemies.
“It is our Government that has played a decisive role in securing toughest ever EU sanctions on Iran including the embargo on their oil that we called for in opposition and that many said was well nigh impossible.” –UK Foreign Secretary William Hague to the Conservative Friends of Israel, October 2012

Has Iran wronged Britain? Quite the opposite.

It is illuminating to recall the depths to which “the allies” will stoop. The British Government has menaced Iran ever since it took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian Oil in 1914 and swindled the host country out of its fair share of the profits. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian Oil (as renamed in 1935) declared £40 million profit after tax but gave Iran only £7 million. At the same time Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Whereupon Iran, after many years of fruitless negotiation for a square deal, nationalised its oil to achieve longed-for economic and political independence and combat poverty.

Britain’s Tory government at the time responded with crippling oil sanctions and froze Iran’s sterling assets in order to bring the democratic administration of Dr Mossadegh to its knees, thus creating the cruel circumstances that eventually led to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The CIA, in cahoots with Britain’s MI5, played an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception.  The Shah was persuaded to sign two decrees, one dismissing Mossadegh and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees, in direct violation of the Iranian constitution, were written by the CIA. After the planned coup initially failed the Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned in 1953. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court and sentenced to death.

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh said

“My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… With God’s blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism.  I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”


The sentence was later commuted to three years’ solitary in a military prison, followed by house arrest until he died.  His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

Foreign oil companies were allowed to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, and the US and Britain were rewarded with the lion’s share (40% to Anglo-Iranian). The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books for inspection by Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954.

A grateful US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK. The whole sordid enterprise came unstuck with the 1979 Revolution. The US is still hated today for reinstating the Shah and his vicious SAVAK, and for snuffing out the Iranians’ democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn’t restore. Britain, as instigator and junior partner in the wretched affair is similarly despised.

On top of that, Iran is still resentful at the way the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons and armed forces, and how the international community failed to punish Iraq for using those chemical WMD against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. In that conflict the US, and eventually Britain, were in league with Saddam enabling him to more easily acquire or develop such weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim.

David Cameron (b. 1966) wasn’t even a twinkle in his father’s eye when Britain last crushed Iran’s economy, and he was probably carousing with his Bullingdon Club pals at Oxford while Iranians were dying in their thousands from Saddam’s poison gases. Hague (b. 1961) seems similarly oblivious to the dirty tricks previous British foreign secretaries pulled on Iran. Obama (b. 1961?) was a community organiser in Chicago while the Iranians were being gassed by chemicals his country supplied to Saddam. Amazing how all three so effortlessly assume the mantle and mindset of their twisted predecessors.

Britain’s present-day Tory dominated Government, instead of straining every sinew to develop trade and co-operation – the civilised way to influence other nations – is spoiling for another fight and seems eager to send our young men (and women) to die in Iran for… well, for what? Israel? America? Another Zionist fantasy?

There is no reason to suppose the evil of the 1950s isn’t still stalking the corridors of power. And just for the record, did Mr Hague make any effort to see Iranian leaders before inflicting his economic terror plan on their people and taking us all a fatal step nearer the war that Washington’s neo-cons have been cooking up for some time?

Questions but few answers

The Foreign Office maintained its silent routine so, in the end, I asked my MP to table written parliamentary questions (which require written answers). These were ’edited’ to conform with parliamentary rules and consequently lost some of their sting…

Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to re-establish direct diplomatic links with Iran at the highest level.

Alistair Burt: The UK has not broken off diplomatic relations with Iran, but they are at the lowest level. The UK will not establish direct diplomatic links at the highest level until it is satisfied that Iran will guarantee the security of its staff and property in line with Iran’s international obligations.

Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the UK to develop trade links with Iran for the purpose of fostering a better relationship between the two countries.

Alistair Burt: The UK believes that the dual track strategy of engagement through negotiations and pressure through sanctions is the best way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Until this happens, the UK has no plans to develop trade with Iran.

Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Ministers in his Department have made official visits to Iran in the last 30 years.

Alistair Burt: There have been a number of ministerial visits to Iran over the last 30 years including seven from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers. The last visit by a UK Minister was in 2005. There have been no ministerial visits since then because of the state of the bilateral relationship and Iran’s refusal to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear programme.
I was hoping to hear if any senior British minister has been to Iran since 1979 apart from Jack Straw. Burt doesn’t identify the minister who visited in 2005. The suspicion is that no top level face-to-face contact was made before 2001 or after 2003.

Burt admits that business-hungry Britain has no plans to develop trade with Iran, probably the most important country in the Middle East. Many British businesses that enjoyed good relations there in the past will be annoyed at this idiocy.

UK asked Israel to join the NPT “as a non-nuclear weapons state”?

As International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have yet to produce clear evidence that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military purpose the focus should be on Israel’s undeclared and unsafeguarded nukes. The racist regime demonstrates everyday contempt for its obligations under the UN Charter and other solemn agreements and is happy to launch air strikes and butcher women and children at the drop of a hat.

Henry Bellingham tabled my Israel question in this form:

Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage Israel to (a) sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and (b) open its nuclear programme to international inspection.

Alistair Burt: The British Government supports fully the universalisation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We have called on Israel and other non-signatories to join the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states. We have also called on them to agree a full scope Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 2009 the IAEA concluded that nuclear material, facilities or other items to which safeguards were applied in Israel remained in use for peaceful activities. The UK accepts these conclusions. We have a regular dialogue with the Israeli Government on civil nuclear and counter proliferation issues.

The answer is telling. Mr Burt includes Israel with the “non-nuclear weapons states” when most observers know it possesses 200 to 400. His pretence that Israel’s nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, is contradicted by the IAEA’s report ‘Israeli nuclear capabilities’ http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/GC54Documents/English/gc54-14_en.pdf. 

Apparently the safeguards for Israel relate to a 1955 agreement with the USA on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Israel has not concluded an Additional Protocol therefore the Agency’s assessment does not include nuclear facilities that would be covered by a comprehensive safeguards regime. In other words the IAEA can only check what Israel chooses to declare for peaceful purposes, and any military applications are unverifiable. This is far from satisfactory and in September 2009 the IAEA adopted a resolution expressing “concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities” and calling on Israel “to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards”.
Has anyone heard Hague, Cameron or Burt supporting the IAEA’s perfectly reasonable request in the same loud voice as they bully Iran?

Predictably the United States, in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton, rejected the Agency’s call because it “focused exclusively on Israel while disregarding non-compliance by Iran with its safeguards obligations”.

The EU (via Catherine Ashton) was also dismissive because it would “not be conducive to a good atmosphere” and “could only hamper the ability of the IAEA to contribute positively to the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East”.
You couldn’t make it up… and Israel’s off the hook again.

Deal with the real threat

The Foreign Office website insists that Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme “may also have a military purpose… We are particularly concerned about the enrichment of uranium to 20% without a credible civilian use for it…” They complain that Iran hasn’t cooperated fully and provided access for IAEA inspections. Iran also signed but then failed to implement an Additional Protocol, which would have given the IAEA authority to properly assess its nuclear activities. And the IAEA says this lack of cooperation means it can’t confirm that all Iran’s nuclear materials are for peaceful activities.

Sounds familiar? No Additional Protocol, no comprehensive safeguards, no proper assessment and no verification that it’s all for peaceful purposes… It’s the same problem the IAEA has with Israel.
At least 90% uranium enrichment is needed for nuclear weapons. 20% is required for research and medical purposes. The fear, of course, is that if Iran stockpiles enough 20% material it could convert this relatively quickly to weapons-grade. The IAEA stresses the need for Iran to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme and admits it is still wrestling with lack of information, lack of clarification, and suspicions about undisclosed nuclear activities that might be linked to military projects. There is considerable speculation, for instance, about Iran’s extensive activities at Parchin over the past year. The IAEA is still denied access.

“It is our assessment and that of our allies that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons…and is steadily developing the capability to produce such weapons should it choose to do so,” Mr Hague told the House of Commons a year ago. “A nuclear-armed Iran would have devastating consequences for the Middle East and could shatter the Non-Proliferation Treaty…”
If the British government truly supported the “universalisation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”, as Mr Burt claims, Hague would be just as busy organizing sanctions against the real and present danger posed by Israel, which has already driven a coach and horses through the NPT.
Western leaders believe that the Iranian regime will only satisfy every nuclear ‘obligation’ if it is made to fear for its survival. On the other hand, one can imagine how Iran is far more likely to toe the line if its Number 1 enemy, Israel, is made to do the same. So the ball is really in the West’s court… although that truth isn’t in the script.

The Foreign Office says the UK has held regular talks with Iran since 2012 and these are ongoing. How is this possible? The embassy in Tehran is now closed, all British diplomats have been withdrawn and all Iranian diplomats were expelled from the UK over a year ago. Sweden now represents British interests in Iran while Iran’s interests in the UK are represented by the Sultanate of Oman. Nation speaks unto nation through third parties.

By kicking the Iranian ambassador and his staff out of London Mr Hague slammed the door on diplomacy. His argument that “this does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety” is poppycock. Burt has said that right now there are no direct links at top level. Just how useful is this new-style diplomacy, conducted “at the lowest level” and through intermediaries, when economic war is being waged and we’re nearing the brink of shooting war? And how does he propose to re-build diplomatic trust when the time comes?

It seems unlikely that proper diplomatic relations were established in the first place. In 2001 Jack Straw was the first British foreign secretary to visit Tehran in the 22 years since the Revolution, a deplorable dereliction of duty not only to the British people but all who wished for peace. The Israelis made a big fuss, complaining that his trip was “sticking a knife in Israel’s back”.

So the big questions remain: what exactly is Britain’s quarrel with Iran? That country, like most of its neighbours, is nervous about Israel’s unsafeguarded nukes and other WMD.  The international community including Britain has failed to act. Why has Hague taken it upon himself to lead the charge and goad a once-friendly nation into becoming an implacable enemy? And why have our diplomatic efforts in Tehran over the last 33 years been so half-baked?

Are Hague’s actions in defence of our realm? Or is it a private quarrel pursued by Zionists and their stooges?

“Take Iran. All the evidence points in the same direction: that country’s leadership is intent on developing a nuclear weapons capability. There are no ifs, buts, maybes, I’ve read the reports, I have had the briefings: they are stockpiling enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon over time. Of course, that’s a huge threat to the world but it’s a particular threat to Israel. We support tough engagement with Iran, but it is time to ratchet up the pressure. And time is, frankly, short.
“That’s why since we came into power we have wasted no time in securing tougher sanctions. We backed tough sanctions in the United Nations  – and we championed and led, at meeting after meeting, even tougher sanctions at the European level. Iran needs to know if they continue on this course they will feel international pressure and international isolation.” – David Cameron, UK prime minister, 2010.

The people of the West helped them act out their fantasies in the Holy Land, Iraq and Syria with tragic consequences. Will they help again – i.e. provide more cannon-fodder and treasure – against Iran? I’ll wager that common sense, common decency and weariness with unjust, never-ending wars won’t allow it this time. 

                     Armageddon is cancelled. Sorry.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Are Zionists now calling the shots in the Anglican Church?

January 28, 2013
by Stuart Littlewood

Thursday, January 24th, 2013

rowan williams
Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, has stepped down from his post (sigh of relief).
Williams’s role as a figure of unity in the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is represented in over 130 countries, meant that he was in a position to “bring the needs and voices of those fighting poverty, disease and the effects of conflict, to the attention of national and international policy makers and donor agencies.” Or so we were told.
In 2010, when the Archbishop announced he was planning a visit to Gaza just a year after the slaughter and devastation of Operation Cast Lead, I asked his Lambeth Palace office for more information. Whom would he meet? Would he see the health minister? Would he sit down and talk with the elected prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, man of God to man of God (for Mr Haniyeh is an imam)?  Would he do Gaza (and all of us) proud by spending a generous amount of his time with senior members of the Islamic faith?
 
His office didn’t reply.
According to the Archbishop’s website he did none of those things. At least, he didn’t mention them if he did. Unless I’m mistaken he said nothing about Gaza in the House of Lords, where he had the ear of Parliament and the support of 25 other Church of England bishops.
Yet he began his Ecumenical letter that Easter by declaring: “Christians need to witness boldly and clearly”.
A lady wrote to me saying she had emailed Lambeth Palace 18 times asking if the Archbishop’s party could please bring back some deaf children’s art, which should have been picked up by members of a recent Gaza blockade-busting convoy. The Palace eventually declined saying the Israelis wouldn’t allow it.
If he’d been ‘witnessing boldly’ as he exhorted other Christians to do, the Archbishop would surely have instructed his staff to pick up the children’s art and dare the Israelis to confiscate it.
She complained that by not using his position in the House of Lords and elsewhere the Archbishop was failing to improve the situation for Palestinians, quoting the words of Desmond Tutu: “Where there is oppression, those who do nothing side with the oppressor.”
It was later revealed that the Israelis severely restricted the Archbishop’s time inside Gaza.  I asked why such interference with the Church’s pastoral business in the Holy Land, of all places, wasn’t broadcast on the website, in mainstream media and in Parliament.
His office confirmed that the Archbishop had initially been refused access to Gaza but was eventually permitted one-and-a-half hours. This was just enough for a hurried visit to the Ahli hospital and no more. When my questions were forwarded to the Archbishop’s public affairs spokesman, the reply was headed “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”. Suffice to say the Israelis from the start blocked the Archbishop’s visit to Gaza and only at the last minute granted him a piddling 90 minutes.
Was this his idea of ‘witnessing boldly’?
The Archbishop’s website joyfully reported how he hobnobbed with the Chief Rabbinate, paid his respects to Yad Vashem and the Holocaust, and talked with the President of Israel – the latter no doubt sniggering up his sleeve at his guest’s frustration at being prevented by Israel’s thugs from seeing what horrors they had inflicted on the Gazans.
Why did he agree to fraternise with Jewish political and religious leaders when his wish to carry out his Christian duty in Gaza was so rudely obstructed? Did Lambeth Palace not realise that meekly accepting such insults only served to legitimise the Israelis’ illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and gave a stamp of approval to the vicious siege of Gaza, the ongoing air strikes against civilians, the persecution of Muslim and Christian communities and the regime’s utter contempt for international law and human rights?
 
There was no mention of a get-together with senior Islamic figures, leaving a question-mark over Williams’s real commitment to inter-faith engagement.
Earlier, while the Jewish State was putting its finishing touches to Operation Cast Lead (the infamous blitzkrieg launched over Christmas-New Year 2008/9 against Gaza’s civilians including the Christian community there), the Archbishop joined Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in a visit to the former Nazi camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland to demonstrate their joint solidarity against the extremes of hostility and genocide.
“This is a pilgrimage not to a holy place but to a place of utter profanity – a place where the name of God was profaned because the image of God in human beings was abused and disfigured,” said the Archbishop. “How shall we be able to read the signs of the times, the indications that evil is gathering force once again and societies are slipping towards the same collective corruption and moral sickness that made the Shoah possible?”
Read the signs? Surely they were plain to see. The forces of evil had already pushed some societies into the moral cesspit. He needed to look no further than the hell-hole that the Holy Land had been turned into by the Israeli occupation, with good old England’s blessing. If ever there was a place where “the name of God was profaned” this is it.
Who will step forward and save it? The Holy Land is the well-spring of the Christian faith, but you wouldn’t think so from the don’t-give-a-damn attitude among senior churchmen.
Open door for the bully-boys
The multitude of inter-faith committees and Christian-Jewish councils has opened the door to the Zionist lobby and made it easy for them to meddle in Church business and bully Christians into submission. There’s even a propaganda outlet calling itself Anglican Friends of Israel. A few weeks ago Zionists, no doubt emboldened by the Church’s appeasement policy, put the squeeze on the Bishop of Newcastle, Martin Wharton. The Representative Council of North-East Jewry wrote to him complaining that he voted for a motion at the General Synod which supported the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) despite their “grave concerns… that it would encourage anti-Semitism”. His action, said the letter, “makes any further contact with the Jewish community in the North-East impossible”.
So be it, would seem an appropriate response. But oh no. What brought this on, according to the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2012/2-november/news/uk/bishop-avoids-conference-after-jewish-complaints, was Bishop Wharton’s agreement to speak at a conference, ‘Peace & Justice in the Holy Land’, organised by a group of people who had taken part in the EAPPI programme. Its sponsors included Christian Aid, CAFOD, and Friends of Sabeel UK.
The chief executive of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), the Revd David Gifford, said that the conference had “the potential of becoming yet another anti-Jewish meeting, creating more anxiety and distrust between the north-east Jewish community and the Church”. Then the Board of Deputies of British Jews chimed in saying that the EAPPI was “partisan” and “anti-Israel”.
Let’s be clear what the EAPPI is actually about:
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) brings internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation. Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) provide protective presence to vulnerable communities, monitor and report human rights abuses and support Palestinians and Israelis working together for peace. When they return home, EAs campaign for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through an end to the occupation, respect for international law and implementation of UN resolutions.http://www.eappi.org/  
 The EAPPI programme was set up by the World Council of Churches in response to a call by the churches of Jerusalem. Its mission includes engaging in public policy advocacy and standing in solidarity with the churches and all those struggling against the illegal occupation. Few people except those who support the brutal Israeli regime would disagree with the programme’s principles and objectives. And few, surely, would condemn the humanitarian work the EAPPI carries out with great courage in the face of criminal hostility. Nevertheless its success has whipped the usual suspects into an orchestrated frenzy.
As reported in the Jewish Chronicle, John Dinnen whose motion sparked the Synod debate pointed out that well-known Jewish groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestine and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition [ICAHD] are entirely supportive of EAPPI, and that five per cent of EAPPI volunteers are Jewish “which is a higher ratio than the number of Jews in England”.
But despite having the moral high ground Wharton caved in and decided not to attend the conference “for the sake of good relations between all the faith communities in Newcastle”. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Hexham & Newcastle, Seamus Cunningham, also decided not to attend. He told the Jewish Chronicle that he had become aware “that many Jewish people in the north-east were angry and upset”. Perhaps the angry and upset should go themselves to the West Bank and experience the behaviour of their brethren towards Palestinian women and children and the EAPPI volunteers.
Throughout his time on the Archbishop’s throne Williams was mad-keen on inter-faith dialogue, for what good it has done, and spent an inordinate amount of time with Chief Rabbi Sacks. At one point the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=297844 suggested that the chief rabbi had “in some respects eclipsed the archbishop as the religious voice of the country”.
This is the UK, remember, where Jews comprise just 0.5% of the population and Muslims are 8 times greater in number.
Nor was the Archbis
hop the best-known Christian according to a survey 3 years ago. Harry Webb (aka Cliff Richard) beat him into second place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/552504.stm. The survey made Cliff even “bigger than the Pope”, who trailed in seventh place.
Now we hear that the squeaky-clean, born-again-Christian megastar is to perform in Israel in July, and the Israeli media are making a meal of it. Does none of these pious dudes understand the appalling, inhuman situation out there?
I’m not sorry to see the back of Rowan Williams – a good guy but not the right man at this time. And what are we to make of his replacement, Archbishop number 105, who will be enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral in March?  Justin Welby is touted as an expert in conflict resolution, but he comes from nowhere and is not known for his concern about the Holy Land. His grandfather was a Jewish immigrant and Welby was Bishop of Durham for barely five minutes before landing this top job.
justin welby
The Jewish Chronicle reported that Welby last year helped mount a Holocaust Memorial Day exhibition in Liverpool Cathedral and… wait for it… abstained in last summer’s vote at the Anglican Synod which endorsed the EAPPI.
In my view, anyone who cannot bring himself to give wholehearted backing to a worthy humanitarian project like EAPPI shouldn’t be leading a great Christian church.
Stuart Littlewood
24 January 2013

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Boycotting Israel Galloway-style – THE RIGHT STYLE

January 28, 2013

Galloway, is neither Palestinian, nor Arab, nor Muslim, but, he is more Palestinians than a lot of the Palestinians, especially those in BDS who sold 78% of Palestine, he is Arabic more that the Majority of Arabs, Muslim more than millions of Muslims, 

All of his critics, with BDS the top dosen’t worth (as Lucia, an Activist from Spain, said 4 years ago when the same crew led by Haitham Sabbah smeared Galloway, and called him to apologize to Mubarak) a grain of dust on his shoes.

Boycotting Israel Galloway-style

February 26th,
British MP George Galloway.

By Stuart Littlewood

A big fuss blew up last week when British MP George Galloway, invited to Oxford University to debate the motion “Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank”, walked out of the chamber when he heard that the student opposing the motion was an Israeli.

At Oxford, something Eylon Aslan-Levy said prompted Galloway to ask, “Are you an Israeli?”
“Yes,” came the reply.
“I don’t debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry,” said Galloway putting on his coat. “I don’t recognise Israel and I don’t debate with Israelis,” he added and left.

The following message then appeared on Galloway’s Facebook: “The reason is simple: no recognition, no normalization. Just boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the apartheid state is defeated. I never debate with Israelis nor speak to their media. If they want to speak about Palestine – the address is the PLO.”

The PLO, of course, is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

[More:]

Galloway’s point was that BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions), in his terms, means “no purchase of Israeli goods or services, no normal contacts with individuals or organizations in Israel who support the existence of the racist Apartheid creed of Zionism. That’s what I mean by boycott. That’s what I do. Israelis who are outside of and against the system of Zionism are comrades of mine… My opponent at Oxford University did not meet this test.”

Aslan-Levy is reported to have told The Guardian that Israel’s withdrawal should not be immediate but “in the context of a negotiated peace treaty, which would recognize both Israeli and Palestinian states”. According to the Daily Mail he also said: ‘”To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a Member of Parliament.”

A lot of people have criticized Galloway for his behavior in this matter. However, anyone arguing against an immediate end to the brutal and illegal 65 year-old occupation and offering silly excuses for prolonging the misery – like more lopsided ‘negotiations’ when international law and UN resolutions have already spoken – deserves to feel the cold blast of boycott, Galloway-style.

The attacks on Galloway seem to come mainly from people in the BDS movement itself who are supposedly on the same side. Press reports mention cries of “racism”. But notice that Galloway said he doesn’t debate with Israelis, not Jews. Others may not wish to debate with North Koreans or Afghan tribesmen. Our own foreign secretary apparently has no intention of chatting with his Iranian opposite number while turning the sanctions screw on the Iranian people. Obama when he visits the Holy Land to pay homage to Netanyahu won’t drop in on Haniyeh in Gaza to discuss football.
And it is pretty rich for a national of a racist state to call anyone else a racist.

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), which claims to set the guidelines for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, says it does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views, but adds: “Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with.”

OK, so why is Galloway getting flak?

– Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Palestinian Leadership Still Asleep at the Wheel?

December 23, 2012

Stuart LittlewoodEmpowered, emboldened… but what is the PLO doing with its new UN status?

 by Stuart Littlewood

The Palestinian Embassy in London has just issued a press release under the heading “Pressing need to halt Israel’s illegal settlement colonization campaign via political, legal, and diplomatic means”.

It complains about Israel’s “flagrant disrespect of international law” in announcing, the day after the UN upgraded Palestine’s status, a further 3,000 illegal settlement units in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

“It is time that political, economic and legal means are used so that Israel bears its responsibility for its violations and obstruction of peace efforts,” says Ambassador Manuel Hassassian. He wants the British government and the EU to ban Israeli settlement products and bar Israeli extremist settlers. “This is the only way to halt Israel’s illegal settlement campaign, salvage the two-state solution and revive the peace process.”

What’s more, he urges the British public to…

  • Write to their MP outlining Israel’s illegal settlement expansion activities which are a breach of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitute war crimes.
  • Ask their MP to call for a ban on import of settlement products into the UK.
  • Contact the Foreign Office.
  • Inform the Embassy of any responses.

There has been a “pressing need” to halt Israel’s illegal settlement-building ever since the Allon Plan of 1967. But the PLO did remarkably little over the years to use the channels open to it until last month when it finally got around to applying for – and getting – non-Member observer status at the UN.

Why is the newly-empowered Palestine, fresh from its victory, still asking us to do the donkey-work? One hoped that President Abbas would waste no time in signing up to the Rome Statute and joining the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in order to lay long-overdue charges against Israel for its illegal occupation, blockade, war crimes and crimes against humanity. First among the many legal options, surely, is to cut the endless whining and apply for an injunction against further settlement construction.

True, reports are circulating that Palestinian officials talk of filing war crimes charges and encouraging the international community to impose sanctions. But there may be a long wait before this Zionist-corrupted British government suspends trade with the thugs it repeatedly pledges to support and persuades its EU partners to do the same.

What if those 138 nations adopted BDS…

Now that access to the proper UN legal machinery is available for Palestinians, it is ridiculous to claim that EU and other sanctions are “the only way” to halt Israel’s illegal settlement campaign and salvage the two-state solution. Did 138 nations vote to upgrade Palestine’s UN status for nothing?
Only a few days ago Agent Cameron renewed his loyal pledge: “We said we’d resist calls for boycotts on Israel and yes – we are going to keep on working with Israel, doing business with Israel, trading with Israel.”

And earlier this month Agent Hague was saying that European trade sanctions against Israel were not an option. “I don’t think there is enthusiasm around the European Union … about economic sanctions in Europe on Israel. I don’t believe there would be anywhere near a consensus nor is that our approach.”

Even news that South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, has adopted BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) as official policy is unlikely to push Hague and Cameron into making a humiliating U-turn and shafting their best friends in all the world. But if those 138 nations could be persuaded to similarly embrace BDS, who knows, it might do the trick.

Meanwhile, when asked what steps the British Government was taking to promote compliance with obligations under international law in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, Alistair Burt (Foreign Office minister for Middle East affairs) gave Parliament this soppy reply: “We repeatedly call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and have a regular dialogue with Israel on legal issues relating to the occupation, including settlements and the treatment of prisoners, including Palestinian children in military custody.”

“We have consistently condemned Israel’s announcements to expand settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem… We look to the Government of Israel to take all necessary steps to prevent settlement construction.”

And when Jeremy Corbyn asked what steps were being taken to make sure Israeli settlements are excluded from all EU and UK agreements with Israel, Burt replied that UK and EU guidelines do not currently differentiate between products from Israel or from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He said the EU Foreign Affairs Council was working on measures to ensure that settlement produce does not enter the EU duty-free, under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and that EU-wide guidelines are issued to make sure that settlement products are not incorrectly labelled as Israeli produce. But there are currently “no plans for EU or domestic legislation on this issue”.

Another MP asked what advice the Government was giving UK companies who do business with Israeli settlements, and was told: “International law does not impose obligations on corporations, and for a company to operate in Israeli settlements is not, per se, contrary to UK law. So we do not provide advice or guidelines to UK companies who operate, or are considering operating, in Israeli settlements.”

So much for ‘dialogue’.

The ball is now in the PLO’s court. Before telling us what WE must do, Mr Ambassador, let’s see evidence of what the PA/PLO are doing, if anything, after their heady success at the UN three weeks ago.

Here was a chance for the Palestinian leadership to show us what they’re really made of. But it seems they’re stuck in same old time-wasting groove.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Stark Christmas Message from the Holy Land

December 20, 2012


“Act and intervene, or nothing will change”
 
 by Stuart Littlewood
 Peace is possible if justice is possible

My first Christmas greeting this year came all the way from Bethlehem itself, just yards from where the Big Story is supposed to have begun 2012 years ago. My friend Jiries is a survivor of the murderous 40-day siege of the Church of the Nativity by Israeli troops in 2002.


Meanwhile in Gaza…. a family gathers around a bonfire for warmth in the ruins of their home, bombed to rubble in the latest Israeli offensive against the Palestinian people (grateful thanks to Fadi F Hamada)

These days, for me, Christmas has become a time to remember some of the extraordinary people I’ve met in the Holy Land…

And none is more extraordinary than the veteran Catholic priest in Gaza, Fr Manuel Musallam, who hosted a visit by a small group I was with in 2007. The Gaza Strip had been under tight blockade for 18 months following Hamas’s 2006 election victory and the mood was strained to say the least.

In the church’s school assembly hall I was surprised to meet so many Muslim students. On one wall hung a huge portrait of the Pope and on the adjacent wall an equally large portrait of Arafat.

Fr Manuel whisked us off to a meeting at the House of Fatah and from there we drove to see the Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and some of his colleagues, who received us with utmost courtesy and friendship and gave straight answers to straight questions. Haniyeh and Fr Manuel declared their unity to the TV cameras afterwards, emphasising that they were Palestinians first and Muslim or Christian second, in the struggle against a common foe.

When I got home to the UK Gaza’s health minister sent me, as he had promised to do, lists of desperately needed medical supplies and hospital equipment spares that had been blocked at the border by Israel. I forwarded these to my own Government direct and via my MP, but as far as I could discover they simply ignored them.

“Our love for God is in intensive care”

The following year – and who can forget it? – the Israelis launched their horrific 3-week
blitzkrieg called Operation Cast Lead at Christmas-time and New Year 2008/9.

Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and Fr Manuel Musallam, November 2007.

At the height of the killing spree, Fr Manuel sent this message from the smoking ruins to anyone who would listen:
“Our people in Gaza… eat but remain hungry, they cry, but no one wipes their tears. There is no water, no electricity, no food, only terror and blockade… Our children are living in a state of trauma and fear. They are sick from it and for other reasons such as malnutrition, poverty and the cold… The hospitals did not have basic first aid before the war and now thousands of wounded and sick are pouring in and they are performing operations in the corridors. The situation is frightening and sad.

He added:
“May Christ’s compassion revive our love for God even though it is currently in ‘intensive care’.”
A few days later he wrote:
“Hundreds of people have been killed and many more injured in the Israeli invasion. Our people have endured the bombing of their homes, their crops have been destroyed, they have lost everything and many are now homeless. We have endured phosphorus bombs which have caused horrific burns, mainly to civilians. Like the early Christians our people are living through a time of great persecution, a persecution which we must record for future generations as a statement of their faith, hope and love.”

When he retired in 2009 in failing health I remarked in an article: “I doubt if God has finished with him just yet. There’s a mountain of work to be done and good men are hard to find.”
And so it was to be. In the run-up to Christmas 2010 Fr Manuel was one of a trio of churchmen from the Holy Land touring Ireland to raise awareness of the plight of the dwindling Christian community under Israeli military occupation. He, Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church) and Constantine Dabbagh (Executive Director of the Middle East Council of Churches) showed they were more than a match for western politicians who fancied they knew all about the Middle East. “We need only one thing, to be protected by the world against the crimes of Israel,” was their central message.

Outside the Irish Parliament. Left to Right: Alan Lonergan (SADAKA), Constantine Dabbagh, Fr Manuel Musallam, John Ging (Head of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip), Archbishop Theodosius Hanna.

And they made this stark plea: “Act and intervene, or nothing will change.”
Fr Manuel told Irish Government ministers and their foreign affairs committee: “I was in Gaza during the war [Operation Cast Lead] and suffered with my people for 22 days. I saw with my own eyes a phosphoric bomb in the school yard. I saw people injured by these phosphoric bombs, although these bombs are forbidden. These crimes against us were ignored by all the people of the world…

“What happened in Gaza was not a war. A war is a clash between soldiers, aircraft and weapons. We were victims, just victims. They destroyed Gaza. I was there and saw with my own eyes what happened. We in Gaza were treated like animals… We are not terrorists. We have not occupied Israel.

“We do not want to die to liberate Palestine. We want to live to build Palestine…. We are asking the world to give the Palestinian people their rights. The question is whether peace is possible. Despite all the difficulties, the crimes and the war, we as Palestinians say peace is possible if justice is possible.

“All we ask of Israel is to respect us and not treat us like animals. We also ask parliamentarians and governments across the world not to give us food aid. We do not need cookies from Israel. We do not even need to trade with Israel. All we need is to be protected. We are suffering a war that we have endured for more than 60 years.”

“Be assured that Hamas will protect Christians in Gaza”

Christianity in the region had been destroyed not by Muslims but by Israel, said Fr Manuel. “Israel destroyed the church of Palestine and the church of Jerusalem beginning in 1948. It, not Muslims, has sent Christians in the region into a diaspora.”

He told his listeners how he had seen the Israeli army target the Christian school in Gaza. “Five Hamas ministers visited the school after it was attacked and promised they would repair the damage… Hamas paid more than $122,000 to repair all the damage caused. Afterwards I met the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. When he embraced me he said this, and we believed it. He said: ‘Go to your family, but be assured that Hamas will employ weapons against Muslims to protect Christians in Gaza.’ This is the reality. Christians in Palestine are not suffering persecution, because we are not considered to be a religious community, but rather the people of Palestine. We have the same rights and the same obligations.”

He finished by describing how things really are. “We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the Government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink.

“We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990… We want to see an end to this occupation, and please do not ask us to protect those who are occupying our territory.”

Fr Manuel should have been a political leader. To improve the human condition, it seems to me, churchmen must also be politically minded and not afraid to ‘mix it’ with the out-and-out scoundrels who infest our political institutions and cloak themselves in a national flag.
The priest’s words are all the more poignant this Christmas after yet another bloody and cowardly assault on defenceless Gazans and the continued inaction, even connivance, of some (supposedly Christian) Western powers.

My Christmas message to Palestinians in the Holy Land therefore is, pray for a miracle.
And my Christmas message to politicians in the world outside the Holy Land is this: as Fr Manuel says, peace is possible if justice is possible, so get off your fat backsides and ACT to deliver JUSTICE.

Make peace possible.

Or go pack your bags, find other employment, for you offend all decent people.
 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Why they call him ‘Agent’ Cameron

December 16, 2012

by Stuart Littlewood

Saturday, December 15th, 2012

Britain’s prime minister David Cameron has again shown why he should stand down from British politics.

In a speech to Conservative Friends of Israel at a lunch the other day he said – and not for the first time – things that are deeply disturbing to people who expect him to put British interests first. He again compromised himself and this country with ridiculous pledges of support for a foreign military power whose behaviour is beyond the Pale and an affront to human decency. Here are some of his remarks…

I am a passionate friend of Israel – and that’s the way it’s going to stay.

In that case you shouldn’t be in British politics, Mr Cameron. You have fallen foul of the Seven Principles of Public Life, especially the principle of ‘Integrity’ which says quite simply: “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

We promised to stand up for Israel and in Government that’s exactly what we’ve done. We said it was ridiculous that Israeli officials felt unable to visit Britain because of the malicious and unfounded use of arrest warrants so we changed the law to end it.

Unfounded? Tzipi Livni, fr example, was responsible for launching the pre-meditated blitzkrieg four years ago which caused the deaths of 1,400 defenceless Gazans (including 320 children and 109 women), horribly maimed thousands more and caused immense devastation to essential infrastructure and services. She showed no remorse. Livni’s office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead, and speaking later at a conference at Tel Aviv’s Institute for Security Studies, she said: “I would today take the same decisions.”

We said we’d resist calls for boycotts on Israel and yes – we are going to keep on working with Israel, doing business with Israel, trading with Israel.”

Even though Israel is in continual breach of EU-Israel Agreement rules and forcibly prevents its neighbours, the Palestinians, from doing business and trade with the outside world…

To me it is clear what needs to happen… We need the Palestinians to understand there is only one path to statehood, and that is through negotiations with Israel. We made that clear with that UN vote a couple of weeks ago.

Wrong. The correct path to statehood is through implementation of international law and UN resolutions and the approval of the international community. Only when the illegal occupation is ended and the right of self-determination is restored can meaningful talks begin.

We said that Britain could not support a resolution that set back the prospects for peace and that did not commit the Palestinians to return to negotiations without preconditions. Well: they did not provide the assurances that we asked for. So… we did not vote for it.

Pure blackmail. Bullying Palestinians into resuming failed and discredited talks to bargain with the thief for the return of their lands and property when it is still being stolen with impunity, is utterly immoral. There can be no peace under occupation. And nobody ‘negotiates’ with a gun to their head, nor should they be expected to.

And I have made something else clear that needs to be made clear to the Palestinians. Britain will never tolerate the obscenity of a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism.”

This is about Wafa Idris. It has become a favourite rant and Cameron was banging on about it a couple of months earlier at another top Jewish gathering. According to The Jerusalem Post (September 2011) a Fatah-affiliated youth centre in the Ama’ari refugee camp near Ramallah named a sports event after female suicide bomber Wafa Idris, a 28 year-old paramedic who had been shot several times by Israeli rubber bullets during her work for the Red Crescent. Relatives said she was angry at seeing children shot and killed by the IDF in Ramallah. Idris was the first Palestinian woman to carry out a suicide bombing. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a subsidiary of Abbas’s Fatah (who are Cameron’s friends in Occupied Palestine), claimed responsibility for the bomb attack although her family said she was not known to be an activist with any Palestinian militant group.

Cameron, before opening his mouth, might have asked what led her to do it. Wafa Idris was born in the Ama’ari refugee camp http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=105 . Set up by the Red Cross in 1949 it provided tents to refugees from Jaffa, Ramla and Lydda, towns allocated for an Arab state in the UN Partition but subjected to a bloody programme of ethnic cleansing in 1948.

In Lydda the Israelis massacred 426 men, women, and children. 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque. See http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/al-Lydd/index.html for lurid details. Out of the 19,000 people who called Lydda home, only 1,052 were allowed to stay. The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way.

The slaughter in Lydda was led by a certain Moshe Dayan. The event was witnessed by two American newspapermen who reported that “practically everything in their way died. Riddled corpses lay by the roadside.” They saw “the corpses of Arab men, women and even children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge”. This appalling war crime didn’t prevent Dayan becoming a great hero in Israel, and later defence minister and foreign minister.

Today Tel Aviv University has a Moshe Dayan Centre named after the war criminal, but I haven’t heard Cameron complain about that. Likewise the Menachem Begin Centre in West Jerusalem is named after the terrorist leader responsible for the bomb attack in 1946 on the British mandate government based in the King David Hotel, killing 91. Has Agent Cameron anything to say about that?

Back to the Ama’ari refugee camp, now run by the UNRWA, where Wafa Idris was obliged to live in squalor as a result of Israel’s criminal land-grab and forcible eviction of her parents from Ramla. At Ama’ari 10,500 people are squeezed into less than 1 square kilometre in dreadful conditions.

However the camp’s football team has won the Paltine football championship several times and qualified to represent Palestine in regional and international competitions.

The Arab media were lavish in their praise for Idris, the “courageous Palestinian girl”, and as a result she became a heroic symbol of Palestinian womanhood in their struggle to throw off the occupation. If it’s OK for Israel to name major institutions after its famous terrorists what right has Cameron to get upset when a Palestinian football team similarly commemorates one of theirs?

 So, in Gaza too, Hamas need to know that they must renounce violence and they will not be allowed to dictate the way forward in the peace process.

Does Cameron have the balls to tell Israel it too must renounce violence? Hamas, in case he has forgotten, is the legitimate democratic authority. He may not like it but he should respect it and work with them, like the good democrat he claims to be.

Last month, when rockets rained down on Israel, we were unequivocal about the right of Israelis to live free from attack by terrorist groups on their border.

When Gaza suffers air strikes on a daily basis, how unequivocal is Cameron about the right of Palestinians to live free from attack by the terrorist state occupying their lands?
I’ve never had to run for cover as the air-raids sound overhead. I’ve never had to give gas masks to my children. I do understand that for the Israeli people, uncertainty isn’t such a great thing. It means instability. Anxiety. Fear.

If he goes to Gaza he can experience fear and anxiety in abundance under Israeli air raids. I vividly remember as a kid being bombed by the Nazis every night in London – and not with garden-shed whizz-bangs. I remember German bombers flying at rooftop height down our street to avoid the anti-aircraft guns. At least they didn’t use white phosphorus like the Israelis.

Cameron’s hyper-partisan, head-over-heels friendship – no, obsession – with Israel is allowed to steer nearly every aspect of Britain’s foreign policy. What drives this? You need look no further than The Jewish Chronicle which in 2006 reported on the backers bankrolling David Cameron‘s bid for power and provided a fascinating insight into how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and destroys the principles of integrity and accountability so vital to public life.

When Cameron became Conservative leader he proclaimed: “The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel.”

Agent Cameron is very careful not to let the words ‘justice’ and ‘law’ pass his lips in connection with Israel’s illegal occupation of the Holy Land. And he and his foreign secretary, Hague, will put on a wonderful show of hand-wringing, deploring and urging whenever Israel commits atrocities, but they never condemn the racist regime or use any obvious levers like suspension of trade or other sanctions.

On the contrary, they shamelessly find ways of rewarding the Israeli regime’s crimes against humanity, making us complicit with its racist ambitions.

Stuart Littlewood

14 December 2012

Comment:

“Britain’s prime minister David Cameron has again shown why he should stand down from British politics.”

The Problem is not Cameron but the British politics. The zionist entity is the fruit of that politics, a British creation. Ask Galloway. Does the British friends have have the balls to admit that.


“Hamas, in case he has forgotten, is the legitimate democratic authority. He may not like it but he should respect it and work with them, like the good democrat he claims to be.”

Hamas was elected as a resistance movement, and I can assure you, the moment Hamas drop the gun, Cameron would be happy to deal with Hamas, and I can assure you also, at that very moment, Hamas will lose its legitimity.

The Linkman at work: Don’t ask me how I got it

December 16, 2012

In his previous article  the “brilliant magician, based of his well known “good” name, drawn out of his sleeve, the one state solution card to obtain the Palestinian recognition by temptation and persuasion and close the so-called Palestinian file.

“The “UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine as a non-member state” does’t fit” because; “ the Palestinians are never going to surrender to Zionism’s will by accepting crumbs from its table, the only alternative to one state for all is a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That might buy Zionism some more time for the short term, but in the longer term it would most likely guarantee that the rising global tide of anti-Israelism was transformed into classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.”

In his following article he published a letter Netanyahu delivered to Mishaal via a palestinian collaborator.

“Hey readers, I’ve got a scoop. It’s the text of a letter – don’t ask me how I got it – from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Hamas leader Meshal.” Alan wrote, without telling us how the palestinian collaborator managed to deliver the letter!!!

Alan Hart is mad at Bibi,The man who is contributing most to the process that may well lead to the destruction of the “Jewish state””

Alan ended his article giving Mishaal a lesson im media skills.




“In that light (of Bibi’s letter) Meshal could respond to Netanyahu’s letter with these words: “No, prime minister, it is me who has to thank you for what you are doing to destroy your state!”

For his part, Stuart Littlewood, did the same, both Hamas and Fatah need crash course in media skills.


‘Hamas too are a disappointment. They could and should have re-drafted their Charter in diplomatic language more fitting to a civilised party of government.”
 
While they are every bit as entitled to self-defence as the Israelis, the firing of unguided rockets is not a truly defensive act and if they continue armed resistance I suspect supporters would like to see them concentrate more on anti-aircraft, anti-tank, anti-warship and anti-troop weaponry.”

blameOur friend is equating the victim and the Butcher, both, the occupied and the occupier  are entitled self-defensive, and Hamas is a disappointment not because of its Charter, it is but for armed resistance and firing of unguided rockets.

“Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, addressing the crowds in Gaza on the 25th anniversary rally, repeated the usual refrain (which is a good one):

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the north to the south. It is our land and our right, it is our nation, no concession on an inch or part of it… Resistance is the means not the end … for 64 years we have tried all other options but to no avail… We do not fight Jews because they are Jews, but we fight Zionists because they are occupiers and abusers.”


Stu, is reading between the lines, mishaal is indirectly saying the charter is outdated, or null and void, and fighting Zionists because they are occupiers of and abusers” (IN GAZA AND WEAST BANK). Stu, has no problem with Mishaal repeating the usual refrain (which is a good one), as Mishaal accepted the so-called truce, no problem in claiming “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea”  

On May 02, 1989, after his meeting with the French president Mitterrand, Arafat said in a television interview, “I was elected on a political program which is founded on the basis of two states. As for the charter, there is an expression in French: it is ‘caduc.’ ” The word means outdated, or null and void.

“As for unity, that might come with positive action.

However, the hard truth is that Palestinians of both factions (Hamas and Fateh), no matter how unified, will never succeed in re-framing the international discussion and “seizing their destiny” unless they undergo a crash course in media skills. The collaborators among them no doubt will be under instructions from their puppet-masters not to. But there’s no excuse for the rest. It is something they have to do if they are to stand any chance of winning.”


Scoop! Bibi’s letter to Khaled Meshal

By Alan Hart


Hey readers, I’ve got a scoop. It’s the text of a letter – don’t ask me how I got it – from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Hamas leader Meshal.


It was hand delivered in Gaza by one of Israel’s many Palestinian collaborators who lives there.

Like most if not all others of his kind, the poor man didn’t volunteer to spy for Israel. He was “recruited” after being told that his wife would be raped if he didn’t provide information for Israel.

Many years ago, as I noted in my book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?, Abu Iyad, Fatah’s intelligence chief, told me that most Palestinians who became Israeli assets did so because they were told that their mothers, or their wives, or their daughters or their sisters would be raped if they didn’t do what Israel’s security agencies wanted. “It’s Israel’s standard procedure,” Abu Iyad said. (During Israel’s ground and air assault on Beirut in 1982, a Palestinian woman came to Abu Iyad and confessed that she was an Israeli agent, one of 30 who were reporting on Arafat’s movements to enable Israeli jets to zero in and bomb him to pieces. [To avoid bombing him to piecs]
 
Abu Iyad had the other 29 rounded up and shot. He didn’t tell Arafat until they were dead because he knew the chairman would have insisted on mercy and forgiven them).

The envelope containing Netanyahu’s letter was addressed to “His Excellency, Khaled Meshal.” The letter itself was to “The Palestinian Terrorist Leader.”

The text was as follows:
I thank you with all my heart for your speech in Gaza confirming that Hamas wants no compromise with the Jewish state which, you said, must be liberated, destroyed, “inch by inch.”
Why am I moved to thank you?




خالد مشعل
The Third Birth

I’ll tell you very frankly.

You have solved what was threatening to become a serious problem for me.
The problem?


For some months past European leaders and even people with an inside track to my very, very dear friend Barak Obama have been telling me that I do not understand Hamas’s real position.

Time and time again I have been told that if I want to do what is best for Israel, I must look beyond the rhetoric Hamas leaders use to keep hope alive in the hearts and minds of their supporters and Palestinians everywhere.

Hamas’s real position, I have been told, is that while it will never, ever, recognize Israel’s right to exist, it is prepared to accept the reality of Israel’s existence inside its pre-1967 borders, The obvious implication, I have been told time and time again, is that Hamas has become pragmatic and is prepared to negotiate on the basis of an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, to enable the creation of a Palestinian state which would live in peace with an Israel as envisaged by the letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 242.

I have even been shown “evidence” in the form of newspaper reports which quoted you and other Hamas leaders categorically stating your readiness for peace or at least “a permanent truce” with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state or an undivided Jerusalem the capital of two states.

We both know this is a deception on Hamas’s part. You revealed its true face in your speech in Gaza. You want to destroy the Jewish state.

Thanks to what you said in Gaza, I can now look European and other leaders in the eye and say, “It’s not me who doesn’t understand Hamas’s real position, it’s you.” And if they continue to tell me I should accept Hamas as a party to negotiations, I can and will tell them to go to hell.


As I told my cabinet colleagues shortly after you had spoken in Gaza, if we handed over territory in Judea and Samaria, we’d be inviting rocket and missile attacks from there on Tel Aviv. And that, I told my colleagues, is why no government I lead will ever bow to international pressure and put Israel’s security at risk.

The old year is about to end and my wish is that you won’t see a new one.

All I want to add for the sake of discussion of the kind I once had with Arafat is this.

The notion that a Palestinian state would launch attacks on Israel from the liberated West Bank is absurd in the extreme. What would happen if it did? Arafat’s answer in more or less the following words was this:

“The Israeli Goliath would roll over the Palestinian mini state and crush it out of existence, and it would do so with the understanding and support of the world.” Arafat added, and surely he was right, that having struggled so long for some justice, his people would not be mad enough to give Israel the pretext to close the Palestine file for ever.

The only madness is in the mind of Netanyahu and more than a few of his cabinet colleagues.

And one more point. The man who is contributing most to the process that may well lead to the destruction of the “Jewish state” is Netanyahu himself.

If that was only my Gentile opinion it would not matter, but there is today a small but growing number of Jews, including some Israelis, who are aware of this and saying so.In that light Meshal could respond to Netanyahu’s letter with these words: “No, prime minister, it is me who has to thank you for what you are doing to destroy your state!”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Civil society calls for trade sanctions but Hague says EU has ‘no enthusiasm’

December 12, 2012

by Stuart Littlewood

Civil society calls for trade sanctions but Hague says EU has ‘no enthusiasm’
Earlier this week, in a sham show of ‘get tough’ diplomacy, UK foreign minister Alistair Burt announced that the Israeli ambassador had been formally summoned to the Foreign Office following Israel’s decisions to build 3,000 new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, unfreeze planning in the area known as E1 and withhold tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority.

I set out the depth of the UK’s concern about these decisions and I called on the Israeli government to reverse them. The settlements plan in particular has the potential to alter the situation on the ground on a scale that threatens the viability of a two state solution.

He said the British response

stems from our disappointment that the Israeli Government has not heeded the calls that we and others had made for Israel to avoid reacting to the UN General Assembly resolution in a way that undermines the Palestinian Authority or a return to talks.

A spokesperson said afterwards:

Any decision about any other measures the UK might take will depend on the outcome of our discussions with the Israeli government and with international partners including the US and European Union.

This referred to persistent reports that Britain and France had threatened to withdraw their ambassadors from Israel.
Area E1 is to the north-east of Jerusalem. Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert recalls how Bush and Condoleeza Rice asked him: “

Please don’t build in E1, because if you do, it will be beyond the capacity of the Palestinian leadership to sit with you.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/olmert-implies-decision-to-build-homes-in-e1-area-is-intended-to-torpedo-negotiations/ Building there, he says, is “the one thing” which is certain to offend the government of the United States.

Netanyahu’s move, therefore, seems deliberately intended to scupper any chance of peace talks. Once again the situation makes a nonsense of Hague’s clapped-out mantra that issues can only be resolved by a return to negotiations.
The previous day Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was “extremely concerned” about the 3.000 new housing units. “

Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties.

Poor Willie Hague is a bit slow on the uptake because Israel’s illegal house-building on Palestinian land has been going on for decades.
He continued:

If implemented, these plans would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that makes the two state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, increasingly difficult to achieve. They would undermine Israel’s international reputation and create doubts about its stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians.

If he’d been paying attention he would know that this point was reached some time ago.

The UK strongly advises the Israeli Government to reverse this decision. The window for a two-state solution is closing, and we need urgent efforts by the parties and by the international community to achieve a return to negotiations, not actions which will make that harder.

There has also been media speculation that France and Britain might consider trade sanctions if the settlement decision was not reversed. But Hague says he didn’t think there’s any enthusiasm around the European Union for that. As The Times of Israel puts it, “EU won’t punish Israel for settlement expansion plan, says Britain’s foreign minister”.

Not that anyone seriously thought the wimps would.
And just to put the whole matter quietly to bed, Israel’s comical propaganda chief Mark Regev defended Israel’s latest criminal activity, saying that “from our perspective, Israel is responding in a very measured way to a series of Palestinian provocations.”

Pressure is building for sanctions

However, Hague is coming under increasing pressure in Parliament as MPs queue up to ask difficult questions. For example, Sir Gerald Kaufman (who is proudly Jewish) asked point-blank:

“Is not the building of additional illegal settlements, in addition to settlements that already house 500,000 people, a blatant breach of international law, together with the theft by the Israeli Government of huge sums of tax revenues belonging to the Palestinians? When will we take action such as economic sanctions or an arms embargo against this rogue state that is committing criminal acts?”
Mr Hague:

“The settlements are illegal and on occupied land, and the latest announcement undermines Israel’s international reputation and creates doubts about its stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians. The Government have, of course, strongly advised Israel to reverse that decision…. Only successful negotiation will resolve this issue, and that will require the willing participation of Israel as well as the Palestinians.”

Duncan Hames observed:

“We have been here before, and he must grow weary of repeating to the Israeli Government his condemnation of illegal settlement activity. Given the importance of Europe as a market for Israeli goods and services, which European Ministers shy away from putting economic muscle behind our protestations, and can he assure the House that he is not one of them?”

Mr Hague:

“I do not think there is enthusiasm around the European Union for that. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked earlier about economic sanctions in Europe against Israel, but I do not believe there would be anywhere near a consensus on that, nor is it our approach. We continue to try to bring both sides back into negotiations.”
Ben Bradshaw told Hague:

“The Netanyahu government are completely impervious to condemnation or summoning of ambassadors; it’s time for action. Uncharacteristically, you dodged earlier questions about trade with the illegal settlements. Will you now take the lead in Europe by implementing a ban on all trade with them?”

Hague replied:

“My reaction to calls for economic sanctions of various kinds has not changed, but I also want to stress another point I made earlier: we will be discussing with other EU nations what our next steps will be, because the Israeli Government have not yet responded favourably to the representations we and other countries have made. We will be discussing that with other European Governments, therefore, but I would not want to raise the right hon. Gentleman’s hopes that there would be enthusiasm around the EU for such economic measures.”

Like all his Zionist friends Hague has an aversion to international law and economic sanctions – unless they happen to be targeted on Iran, of course. It was not enough that he shamed the British people by trying to blackmail the Palestinian leadership last week, requiring them not to use their upgraded UN membership to pursue Israel for war crimes and crimes against humanity and instead to bog themselves down once more in dead-end ‘negotiations’.

Now he shames us again by shirking firm action against the racist regime’s endless land thieving and general lawlessness.
Stuart Littlewood