English Defence League leader refused entry into US?

Nick Lowles reports: "I've picked up a rumour this morning that EDL leader 'Tommy Robinson' has been refused entry into the United States where he was due to attend an anti-Islam rally at Ground Zero in New York. Robinson was travelling with a number of other EDL leaders when he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities. He was taken into custody and almost immediately put on a plane back to London. His fellow EDL members were allowed to go through."

Hope Not Hate, 10 September 2010

Though Pamela Geller will no doubt be disappointed that a notorious far-right organiser of violent confrontations with Muslim communities in England won't be able to make it, she can at least take consolation in the fact that there will still be a contingent of racist Islamophobic thugs from the UK attending her anti-Muslim hate-fest tomorrow.

Update: "Tommy Robinson" has confirmed that he was turned back at JFK airport: "I arrived in new York yesterday, was held for six hours then put back on a flight, pretty shattered, I'm still glad we have representatives over there. I think the powers that be are worried about the highly influential people in the states are backing us. This trip would of concreted our relationship with many of them."
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/uk

Britain more interested in saving Israelis from garden shed rockets than British citizens from Israeli pirates – by Stuart Littlewood

Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg is Britain's deputy prime minister.

A month ago, while reports were coming in that Israeli gunboats had "intercepted" the Free Gaza flotilla 90 miles out to sea and told the humanitarian workers they would be boarded and towed to an Israeli port, I emailed Clegg: "Where is the Royal Navy when it's needed to protect life and limb of the 30-odd British nationals?"

Ministers received advanced warning of Israel's threats to stop the flotilla "by any means". What was needed was firm intervention. Just for a change the British people wanted their government to do them proud on the international stage and protect those brave souls on their peaceful mission to bring relief to Palestinians whose lives have been made a living hell by the bully-boys of the Middle East.

They were, after all, only doing the right thing… doing what the West's cowardly governments wet their pants at the very thought of doing.

Back in December when the parties were warming up for the general election, Clegg wrote in The Guardian:

"…And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.

No doubt the febrile sensitivities of the Middle East have deterred governments, caught between recriminations from both sides. No doubt diplomats have warned that exerting pressure on Israel and Egypt may complicate the peace process.

But surely the consequences of not lifting the blockade are far more grave?"

He certainly talked the talk. Would he walk the walk if given the chance?

Well, he now has the chance, and his reply has just arrived.

"The Government was very clear in its disapproval of the Israeli actions which ended in such heavy and tragic loss of life.

"We have underlined the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into the events of 31 May. We have made clear that we want to see a process that ensures full accountability and commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation.

"Israel's announcement of an inquiry headed by former Supreme Court judge Yaakov Tirkel is an important step forward. We welcome the appointment of Lord Trimble as an international observer. Clearly it is very important that this is a truly independent inquiry and a thorough investigation that the international community can respect.

"These events have captured the world's attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arose from the unacceptable and unsustainable blockade of Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the Government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there.

"It is essential that there is unfettered access – not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is an essential part of a viable state of Palestine which we hope will one day exist alongside Israel in peace and security.

"A solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is firmly in the national interests of the UK, as well as those in the region. We want the new generation of Palestinians to grow up in hope, not despair… We want the next generation of Israelis to live free from the fear of rocket fire… Whilst we cannot deliver this for either side ourselves, as friends to both Israelis and Palestinians we will seek to buttress the diplomatic initiative of President Obama's Administration and the proximity talks…"

So no, he won't walk the walk.

It is pointless calling for the blockade to be lifted. You have to smash it… with warships "exercising" nearby. Israel's promise to "ease" it is purely cosmetic. I hear that incoming goods have risen by a miserable 7 or 8% while the block on exports remains. That's all the West's feeble hand-wringing has achieved.

Clegg's choice of words is revealing… "the interception by Israeli forces". It was nothing less than a dead-of-night military assault with guns blazing and a pre-planned execution of civilians on a wanted list. His whole reply might as well have been scripted by Tel Aviv. It probably was, because it turns out to be word for word the same as the communication sent to other complainants by Israel's great friend now doubling as Britain's under-secretary of state in charge of Middle East affairs, Alistair Burt.

Clegg can call for "a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation" until he's blue in the face, but he won't get one. He welcomes the appointment of Trimble to this farce. Why? Trimble is a founding member of a new international "Friends of Israel Initiative".

The context for Israel's crimes on the high seas is, of course, the racist regime's belief that it can act with impunity. It never gets rapped for lawless conduct thanks to the abject failure of the international community – especially Britain, whose mandated responsibility Palestine once was – to enforce international and maritime law and the numerous UN resolutions (not just 1860).

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (America abstained on Israel's orders, according to Olmert) calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. There is still no sign of Israeli compliance.

Clegg claims that "we" are friends to both Israelis and Palestinians. Bollox. British governments have spent the last 93 years betraying the Palestinian people, and continue to do so while slavishly supporting the Israeli regime in its programme of occupation, oppression, ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Our last government and now this Coalition won't even acknowledge the Palestinians' right of self-determination or their democratic choice of government. Britain, to its shame, is complicit in those crimes.

To make matters worse, Labour and Conservative leaders are anxious to change our laws of universal jurisdiction to provide a safe haven for Israel's killers while denying visas to Palestinian footballers.

And please, Mr Clegg, spare us this endless nonsense about rockets. At least as many state of the art US-supplied Israeli missiles were launched into Gaza, usually from US-supplied F-16s, as garden-shed whizz-bangs were lobbed into Israel. And Israeli air-strikes and armoured incursions continue on a daily basis. Furthermore, no rockets come out of the West Bank, yet the West Bank continues to be occupied, sealed and under severe movement restrictions. Clearly, this is not about rockets or even about Hamas, which has already agreed to recognise Israel within its pre-1967 borders in accordance with the international community's position.

It's a well-known fact that America is a dishonest broker, so aligning Britain with the puppet Obama's diplomatic "initiative" simply hands Israel even more time to establish irreversible facts on the ground.

But the British public are wising up. They are beginning to know the score. Prime minister Cameron is a self-declared Zionist. Foreign secretary Hague has been a Friend of Israel since the age of 15. Under-secretary of state Burt is not just a Friend of Israel but an OFFICER of the Conservative Friends of Israel organisation.

The Knesset's stooges roost happily in Westminster.

And Cameron has just put his name to a G8 leaders' statement calling for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit but not the freeing of thousands of Palestinians abducted and rotting in Israeli jails.

Burt, in his letter, talks of our pledge of £26.8 million for humanitarian aid and early recovery activities in Gaza. Is that supposed to purge our negligence? The Palestinians wouldn't need £millions of British taxpayers' money year after year if they were left in peace. All this aid simply subsidises and reinforces the Israeli occupation at our (the public's) expense.

Now that Clegg is in a position to actually kick government ass, I hoped the Liberal Democrats would have a moderating effect on the rabid Conservative Zionists who devote so much of their energies to the service of Israel.

Instead, Nick and his party appear to have fallen in with them.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/07/03/britain-interested-saving-israelis-than-british-citizens/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SabbahsBlog+%28Sabbah+Report%29

Vandals attack Eccles and Salford Mosque

Vandals carried out two attacks in one night on a mosque. They were captured on camera as they removed fencing and threw bricks through the windows. The vandalism is the latest in a spate of racially-motivated attacks on the premises in Liverpool Road, Eccles. CCTV cameras were installed after a break-in 2006 when intruders caused extensive damage.

Ali Anees, chairman of the Eccles and Salford Mosque, said:

"We have had problems regularly. In March, someone threw paint over the outside of the mosque and wrote graffiti. Then at about 2am last Saturday two men got into the grounds. One is on film throwing bricks which had been taken from a wall of a neighbouring building. They attacked the building twice in about 20 minutes. Three sections of the windows were smashed and bricks were found inside the office of the mosque. We had another incident in March when eggs were thrown at people leaving the mosque by people driving past.

"After a lot of damage was caused in 2006, we had people come forward to help us and in the last two years we have spent £425,000 on new buildings. We have up to 500 members and they are very angry about the attacks. We want the culprits caught."

One vandal is seen to hurl at least five bricks through windows and temporary fencing is pulled down. Det Chief Insp Bill McGreavy, of Salford Police, said: "We are treating these incidents very seriously and believe they are racially aggravated. Anyone with information should contact us."
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/anti-muslim-violence

Israel's stooges battle for British votes

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

We can already see how disastrously the US election turned out, not just for Americans but the rest of us also. "The US president is simply the voice of the Zionist parasite," writes a friend in Norway. "It is sickening and frightening that Obama is seen toeing the Zionist line."

"Zionism has the US administration and other western governments by the balls."

Well, that's certainly the way it looks. Last month Israel's prime minister Netanyahu slapped America in the face by approving more illegal settlements during vice-president Joe Biden's visit. What did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do? She repeated the pathetic mantra: "We have an absolute commitment to Israel's security. We have a close unshakeable bond between the United States and Israel and between the American and Israeli people".


Clinton completed her surrender to the Israeli terror machine by sharing the AIPAC Conference platform with a triumphant Netanyahu.

Whereupon over half of America's lawmakers topped Clinton's performance by signing a letter committing to the US's "unbreakable" bond with the racist regime.

Nine months earlier, speaking in a BBC interview, Obama said he believed the US was "able to get serious negotiations back on track" between Israel and the Palestinians. And when asked about Israel's defiance when called on to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, he urged patience. "Diplomacy is always a matter of a long hard slog. It's never a matter of quick results."

The fact is, diplomacy doesn't work with the Israelis. Everyone knows the problem: Israel's contempt for international law and UN resolutions. And now we see Obama's contempt too. In this wobbly leader's mind Israel is somehow exempt from the laws, conventions, codes of conduct and respect for the rights of others that apply to everyone else in the civilised world.

Forcing negotiations is immoral

And Obama should know better than to keep harping on about peace negotiations. It is absurd to put a weak party and a strong party together and expect fair results when the strong party is in permanent occupation and has its military boot on the weak party's neck.

It is immoral to expect the weak party to negotiate while the strong party is in flagrant breach of international law, commits acts of piracy, maintains a crippling blockade, carries out daily air strikes on civilians and continues to steal the weak party's land and resources.

It is immoral for sponsors of negotiations to be so partisan as to refuse to recognize the democratically elected representatives of the weak party or its right to self-determination and territorial integrity.

It is immoral to force negotiations without first establishing a level playing field and ensuring both sides are compliant with international law. The international community has shirked this responsibility for decades, not because the peoples of the community of nations lack the will but because their leaders are gutless and corrupt.

Then there's the scandal of the US government's aid to Israel which runs at nearly $3 billion annually and totals well over $100 billion since 1949. The money helps pay for Israel's costly occupation of Palestinian territory, its F-16s, helicopter gun-ships, tanks, ordnance, Caterpillar bulldozers, and all the other tools of military oppression and territorial grand theft.

Israel gets more $billions in indirect aid – military support, loan write-offs, rich technology transfers and special grants. Before George W Bush left office he agreed an assistance package of $30 billion over the next ten years.

So the US taxpayer has been cheerfully funding Israeli operations to destroy Palestinian infrastructure (which in many cases has been paid for by British, EU and – yes – US taxpayers) and bring the whole civil society to its knees.

Most of this aid violates US laws that stipulate US-supplied weapons can only be used for "legitimate self-defense" and military assistance is prohibited to any country that engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". Military assistance is also banned to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. But thanks to the "unbreakable" bond with Israel these inconvenient laws might as well not exist.

Israelis fiercely attack any attempt to 'de-legitimise' their ill-gotten gains while more and more people argue that the state of Israel had no legitimacy in the first place. Nevertheless the Zionist menace now has nuclear fangs and the capability to target most European cities… and, as we have seen, has no sense of restraint whatever.

Gee, thanks, America. Before you go accepting any more peace prizes, Obama, how about bringing to heel this monster the US has been nurturing?

Israel's 'Voices' compete for British vote

Here in Britain we have our own version of AIPAC. The Foreign Office has been under Zionist influence for decades. Our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee – are headed by Israel flag-wavers. They have embedded themselves in nearly ever nook and cranny of parliamentary life.

Right now these stooges are battling for our votes in a general election.

Before the election campaign the main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, were so wedded to the Zionist cause that both wished to change our laws to protect Israeli leaders from arrest on war crimes charges and provide them with a safe haven in Britain.

Now they keep very quiet about their pro-Israel antics, no doubt hoping the question won't be brought under the public spotlight or need explaining.

Labour has been in power 13 years and is now under Blair's successor Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund. The party's 115-page manifesto barely mentions the fate of the Holy Land except to say: "We support the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can live alongside a secure Israel." Note that it's a secure Israel but only a viable Palestine. Israel must remain comfortably secure while continuing its ethnic cleansing and thieving.

The Conservative Party is favourite to win the election – or was until its leader, David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron, flunked a televised leaders' debate. Cameron too is a dutiful patron of the JNF. His party's 118-page manifesto says nothing about Britain's responsibility towards the Palestinians apart from promising support for a two state solution to the Middle East Peace Process. That's all, full stop.

80% of Conservative MPs and MEPs, it is claimed, are passionate admirers of racist Israel. But they don't shout it from the rooftops at election time. No, they are furtive because they know deep down that it is a grubby, indefensible position and the public would react with revulsion if the party's allegiance to a foreign military power that makes war of Christian communities was exposed in the mainstream media.

Sad to say, then, there is no sign of Labour or the Conservatives deviating from the path of betrayal.

Thankfully a third party, the Liberal Democrats, is emerging strongly. Its leader, Nick Clegg, is no rabid Zionist though readers will remember he recently sacked Baroness Jenny Tonge to appease the Israel lobby. However, the Liberal Democrats at least believe Britain and the EU must put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza and talk of borders "which are secure and based on the situation before the 1967 conflict".

This party looks less corruptible than the others and less likely to worship at the altar of Zionism. Not being considered serious contenders till now, Clegg and his team probably haven't been groomed by the US administration's spivs and pimps. So we can expect big efforts to discredit them in the days ahead.

In my simple way I see a glimmer of hope here.

When a proper history comes to be written, Americans will struggle to explain how the most powerful nation on earth was so easily conned and mugged for countless billions of tax dollars to finance the ambitions of a bunch of extremists bent on defiling the Holy Land and spreading their tentacles into every crevice of the western world.

The British also will have some explaining to do.

Failure of Attempts to Discredit the Goldstone Report and its Authors

There has been a prolonged and concerted campaign to discredit anyone who is brave enough to speak out against the Zionist policies of Israel. The list of academics, lawyers, activists, politicians and private citizens who have been lambasted by Zionists for daring to speak out against Israel is absurdly long and is growing every day. It is becoming almost comical how one can predict the tag of “anti-Semite” being flung at anyone who dares even raise a minor point of concern over Israel’s growing list of human rights abuses and breaches of international law.

It’s not really Colonel Travers but the Goldstone Report which is essentially under attack.

Colonel Desmond Travers is one such individual who has recently found himself subject to a flurry of completely unjustified attacks on his person simply because he has been brave enough to demand that Israel be held to account for its crimes in accordance with international law. Colonel Travers (a retired Colonel in the Irish Army with a distinguished military career spanning over 40 years and member of the board of directors for the Institute of International Criminal Investigation in The Hague) is one of the four co-authors of the landmark Goldstone Report who has recently been subjected to a barrage of completely unjustified abuse from Zionist apologists. If you look at the substance of the complaints levelled against him however, you will see that each criticism is completely unfounded and does not in any way relate to Colonel Travers as an individual but is merely in response to his association with and defence of the Goldstone report. His very association with the report has been enough to make him a target of the Zionist lobby.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself said that Israel has three main enemies Iran, Palestine and Goldstone. It seems that many Zionists have taken those comments to heart and are trying to defeat what is perceived to be one of the biggest threats to Israel, namely the Goldstone Report. This has also spilled over to include viewing anyone associated with the report as an enemy of Israel as well, which is grossly unfair considering the unbiased nature of the individuals involved as well as the fact that the report was the result of a desperately needed UN sanctioned fact-finding mission into a major, illegal, military attack on the civilian population of Gaza.

The report itself has been attacked as flawed, misguided and biased. However, to any objective person who has actually taken the time to read it, it is clearly an exceptionally well crafted and well researched report and the criticisms of it are generally the unfounded rantings of supporters of Israel who refuse to hear a single word said against their beloved state, no matter how well founded the criticisms of Israel may be. Like many others therefore, Travers is simply an innocent casualty standing too close to indiscriminate Israeli fire.

But let’s look at some of the recent criticisms levelled against him anyway.

Hamas rockets were an “excuse” not a justification for Operation Cast Lead

One of the criticisms that keeps coming up and which Zionists are attempting to use to discredit Colonel Travers are his comments in an interview with the Middle East Monitor relating to Hamas rocket fire. Colonel Travers was asked whether Israel’s claim of “self-defence” justified their attack on Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. After remarking, quite rightly, that every country has an inherent right to self-defence, he then again, quite rightly, pointed out that this justification did not apply in the case at hand. He explained that, as everyone knows, there had been a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas since June 2008, brokered by Egypt, which Hamas had scrupulously observed. For four months (between July and October) Hamas had not fired a single rocket into Israel, and no Israelis were killed. This is something that even Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev has himself admitted to, live on air. However, Israel then broke that ceasefire on November 4th 2008 when they killed 6 Palestinian men. It is only following Israel’s breach of the ceasefire therefore, that rockets started to be fired into Israel once again. It is a testimony to the strength and control of Hamas that throughout the ceasefire period they managed to ensure that their people, as well as most other Palestinian groups, adhered to the agreement. It is especially impressive considering the fact that Israel has kept Gaza under an illegal siege for years now, preventing access to food, medicine, humanitarian aid, clean water and so on. As such, Hamas’ success at restraining Palestinians who have been imprisoned by Israel and preventing them from retaliating in the only way that they can, by firing off a few homemade rockets cobbled together in a dusty basement somewhere, was a feat indeed.

However, while it is true that immediately following Israel’s breach of the ceasefire there was an increase in the number of rockets fired towards Israel, as Travers said, that does not make it directly attributable to Hamas. It must be borne in mind that just because a rocket is fired into Israel from Gaza does not mean that it was Hamas that fired it. Many breakaway factions exist in Gaza, in addition to Fatah supporters, as well as undercover Israeli agents.

If Israel really is interested in defending itself, perhaps it should stop attacking Palestinians. Can Israel really expect to be able to breach a ceasefire agreement, kill Palestinians, and then when there is retaliation claim that their next act of violence is in self-defence? That is in abuse of the very term. You can not provoke a reaction and then use self-defence as a justification for a new attack.

It is hard to understand why this line of argument has come as such a shock to some people. Colonel Travers is by no means the first or only person to point out the fact that Israel initiated the violence by breaching the ceasefire. Professor Avi Shlaim from Oxford University, for example, has similarly pointed out that “the home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead”. Regarding the ceasefire, as Prof. Shlaim says, “contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza killing six Hamas fighters…”

The Pro-Israel Lobby in Britain

In a report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) they complain that in the MEMO interview, Colonel Travers made the remark that “Britain’s foreign policy interests in the Middle East seem to be influenced strongly by Jewish lobbyists.” By making this statement, they assert, “Travers implies that British Jews have interests that differ from Britain’s own national interests and that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government is influenced by these considerations. This statement, unless corrected, places Travers in a position in which his views are suspect of being motivated by anti-Semitic prejudices.”

Apparently you do not have to say very much at all to be branded as an anti-Semite then. The mere observation that Britain’s foreign interest policies “seem” to be “influenced” by pro-Israeli lobbyists is apparently enough to get you into the club. This should reassure the countless others who have been unjustly branded as such that they are not alone. Furthermore, you would probably be hard pressed to find any right thinking individual who did not agree with Colonel Travers statement.

In any event, what really seems to be the problem with the comments Colonel Travers has made with regards to the pro-Israel Lobby? Why are the Zionists so defensive? Are the critics really trying to deny that such a lobby exists? In a world where a lobby exists for almost anything, from the gun lobby in America to the fox hunting lobby in the UK, are they trying to suggest that one does not exist for Israel? Surely Israel, the lauded masters of PR spin, has a lobby too. I can’t imagine that anyone is really trying to suggest that they do not. That would just be a facile position to try and maintain.

Instead then, are they objecting to the strength and influence which is being attributed to the pro-Israel lobby in British politics? Again, I find it hard to believe that they would agree that they do have a pro-Israel lobby but that it is a weak and feeble lobby with no real significance, influence or power. Surely that is not what they want us to believe either, which is good, since it is literally unbelievable. So what are the critics objecting to? They do not make that clear. Apparently just alluding to the very existence of a pro-Israel lobby is enough to raise their hackles; but why?

The pro-Israel lobby hardly operates under the radar anymore; what with the Labour Friends of Israel; the Conservative Friends of Israel; Gordon Brown’s 2007 appointment as Patron to the Jewish National Fund UK; the funding and wooing of politicians as uncovered by Peter Oborne’s “Inside Britain’s Israel lobby“ documentary on Channel 4; it would be hard to argue that the lobby did not exist.

One need only look at the state of British relations with Israel to see the presence and influence of the Israel lobby lurking in the foreground. For instance, who is behind Britain’s refusal to abide by its international legal obligations to pursue and arrest Israeli war criminals? Give us one good reason why Britain is risking its international reputation to protect Israeli war criminals? The pressure being brought to bear on British politicians to change the law to accommodate such offenders and protect them when they visit our shores is surely coming from one primary source; the pro-Israel lobby.

In one of the many on-line attempts to mar the character of Colonel Travers a posting on Wikipedia1 said, under the heading “controversy”, that “when asked about his controversial statement about the influence of “Jewish lobbyists” at the London School of Economics on 8th March 2010, Travers chose not to answer the question or make any comment, even when urged to do so repeatedly by an audience member.”

However, what the “critic” failed to explain was who that audience member was. The question was raised by Jonathon Hoffman who is a vice-chair of the Zionist Federation in the UK and he has recently been banned from attending public events as a result of his aggressive anti-social conduct at public events. In July last year for instance, War on Want’s Executive Director John Hilary told the Jewish News that Hoffman had been banned from an event because of fears that he would ‘disrupt’ activities, saying: “It has been advised to us by fellow organisers of similar events that Jonathan Hoffman attends these functions strictly to disrupt proceedings. When he applied to attend the meeting, we informed him he would not be permitted, as we want to ensure the event is not hijacked by people who cannot act respectfully.”

In the weeks surrounding Colonel Travers’s excellent talk at the LSE Hoffman was removed by Parliamentary police on at least two occasions following him disrupting speakers as they delivered talks on Israel and Palestine, one of which was during a talk by Ilan Pappe and Ronnie Kasrils. Hoffman has become notorious for his rude heckling of guest speakers who in anyway criticise Israel. When the wikipedia1 critic therefore says that Travers did not answer a question “even when urged to do so repeatedly by an audience member”, that comment has a little more meaning when viewed in the light of who was asking the question and the rude manner in which the question was asked. In any event, it is ridiculous to assert, as the JCPA do, that Travers’s reference to a pro-Israel lobby in the UK “places Travers in a position in which his views are suspect of being motivated by anti-Semitic prejudices.” The leap that they have made from his mere observation, to them branding him an anti-Semite is one more feeble attempt to discredit him and through him the Goldstone Report; one that, as usual, looked at closely, holds no weight at all.
The term Anti-Semitism is being abused by Zionists

Jews have a right to be very upset with Israel right now and indeed many of them are. Israel is committing atrocious acts of violence and barbarism and is daily committing gross violations of human rights in their name.

Even President Obama has been accused of being anti-Semitic, (by Netanyahu’s own brother in law, Dr Hagi Ben-Artzi no less) and this is despite his country giving billions of dollars to Israel, supplying them with weapons, supporting them in the UN, and being their closest ally. If Obama has been branded as anti-Semitic then how can Colonel Travers, or indeed anyone else, expect to fair any better?

It has been said that Travers avoided the “difficult question of anti-Semitism.” It is not a difficult question however. It is an easy one. Criticism of Israel does not equal anti-Semitism. It is as simple and easy as that. Amidst all of their spurious allegations of anti-Semitism there has not yet been a single statement of his in which Travers reveals even the slightest hint that he holds any ill will, prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people. Therefore, either his critics are sadly misinformed as to the true meaning of the words anti-Semitic or their claims are false. There is not a shred of evidence of any anti-Semitism on his part. He is merely being branded, as so many other critics of Israel have been, in the hope that this will cast doubt as to his true motivation in taking part in the Goldstone Report and consequently in the hope that, in this way, the report itself might lose credibility. It will not however, as at each turn critics of the report are failing. Following months and months of scrupulous nitpicking and dissection if what is out there so far is the best that critics can come up with, the soundness of the Goldstone report has been demonstrated. It has stood up remarkably well to assaults from every angle and it still stands.

Lastly, the JCPA state that Travers “clearly emerges as an individual who is not qualified to take part in any serious fact-finding mission and the U.N. should not seek his services in the future. Given his statements, Justice Richard Goldstone should repudiate Col. Travers and completely reject the conclusions that he reached as a result of his work.” Again this is baseless. The charges laid against him are flimsy at best and merely attempts to divert attention away from the larger picture; Israel’s actions itself. In what has been referred to as a tactic of “distraction” Israel and its supporters try to deflect attention away from its own offences and attack the messengers instead. By complaining that Colonel Travers has dared to allude to a pro-Israel lobby in the UK or by complaining that he would not answer every single question of a well known Zionist heckler in a university lecture, they are trying to draw attention away from Israel’s crimes. But no amount of distraction will make us forget that the IDF killed some 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children, and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, including more than 115 women and some 85 men aged over 50 during Operation Cast Lead.

Nothing will make us forget that Gaza has been under a virtual lock-down – siege – for over one thousand days now; that children are dying from lack of medical care; mental health is deteriorating; malnutrition is common place; 95% of the water in Gaza is unfit for human consumption; thousands of Palestinian homes have been illegally destroyed; Israel’s use of illegal weapons have left children mutilated and orphaned. These are the matters that must stay in focus. We will not be hoodwinked by Israel’s tactics of distraction. Colonel Travers is just one messenger and the Goldstone is just one message and we will not let Israel shoot the messenger or destroy the message. Support the Goldstone report and all those who support it.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/04/failure-of-attempts-to-discredit-the-goldstone-report-and-its-authors/

"Cabbing" for Israel?

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A question every voter should ask candidates in the coming UK general election

There can be few sights more pathetic than ex-ministers and chums of Tony Blair offering to use their government contacts to help influence policy on behalf of business clients.

"I'm like a cab for hire," said Stephen Byers when secretly filmed by a Channel 4 TV 'Dispatches' programme. Byers could be "hailed" for £3,000 to £5,000 per day.

And so a new expression was born into the sleazy world of Westminster: "political cabbing".

The latest revelations come only a few months after another Channel 4 'Dispatches' report, by Peter Oborne, showed how large numbers of MPs were stooging (or "cabbing") for Israel.


Mr Oborne reported that a majority of Conservative MPs and half the shadow cabinet are signed-up Friends of Israel, and £millions flow into the bank accounts of MPs and parties although only a fraction of these "contributions" are visibly accounted for. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem, observed: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes, these contributions come with no strings attached."

Mr Oborne showed how Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel take dozens of MPs on free trips to Israel, where they are guests of the Israeli government.

Few, if any, declare this interest when speaking in Parliament.

He showed how one of the Conservative Party's big donors has vested interests in illegal settlement development in the West Bank and in Bicom, an Israeli public affairs outfit, and how the party's leadership is subjected to foreign pressure.

What harm does "cabbing" for Israel do?

Large numbers of MPs (and many parliamentary candidates) are exposed to the Israel lobby's influence, and its message is carried through into parliamentary work causing great damage to our parliamentary democracy, harm to Britain's reputation throughout the world and risk to our security because a just solution in the Holy Land is prevented by such partisanship.

The majority of Conservative MPs and MEPs are Friends of Israel. The lobby also claims a very large number of Labour MPs and ministers. Membership is said to be a necessary step to high office.

The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel website brazenly states that its first aim is to maximise support for the State of Israel within the party and Parliament, and develop and maintain a broad-based LDFI membership inside and outside of Parliament…

Conservatives Friends of Israel have a 'Fast Track' group for parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats. 



Senior Conservatives try to justify their support for the foreign military power by insisting that Israel is "a force for good in the world" and "in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together".

This partisanship undermines a number of the Principles on which our standards in public life are founded. One of these requires holders of public office not to 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.

Nowhere is this disregard for principle more dramatically demonstrated than in the appointment of Israel flag-wavers to the chairmanship of our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee.

Prime minister Gordon Brown told Labour Friends of Israel that they were "one of the great influences on the whole of the Labour movement… I will continue to do what I can both to defend Israel and to protect the security of Israel's borders… I count myself not only a friend of Israel but someone who wants to support the future of Israel…. we will do everything that we can to work with Israel."

Conservative opposition leader David Cameron has said: "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."

Both leaders are patrons of the Jewish National Fund, an organisation with a sinister purpose.

Lobbying will be the "next political scandal", says Cameron blissfully unaware of the irony of his remark.

"Cabbing" to change the law and protect Israel's thugs

When Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel's main opposition party Kadima and foreign minister during the murderous blitzkrieg on Gaza civilians a year ago, recently cancelled a visit to Britain after an arrest warrant was issued against her by a British court, Israel complained that "we have to put an end to this absurdity, which is harming the excellent bilateral relations between Israel and Britain."

Gordon Brown responded by insisting that Livni was welcome and promising to change the law that allows British courts to issue warrants for war crimes suspects.

Foreign secretary David Miliband reinforced this by saying the British government was determined that arrest threats against visitors of Ms. Livni's stature would not happen again. "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop these ties," he said. "Israeli leaders – like leaders from other countries – must be able to visit and have a proper dialogue with the British government."

Livni is not even a serving minister. And far from apologizing for the slaughter of Gazans a year ago, this odious individual declared: "I would make the same decisions all over again." For decent people she is beyond the pale and unwelcome.

Nevertheless the attorney-general has told the world that the government intends to protect high-ranking Israeli officials from arrest in the UK. Speaking at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Baroness Scotland said Israeli leaders should not face arrest for war crimes under the law of universal jurisdiction. "The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed to avoid this situation arising again. Israel's leaders should always be able to travel freely to the UK."

Why? There can be no hiding place for those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, extra-judicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.

States that are party to the Geneva Conventions – there are 194 of them, including Israel itself – are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed "grave breaches" of the Conventions and "bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case."

The Geneva Conventions are treaties, solemnly entered into, that contain universal rules limiting the barbarity of war. "Grave breaches" means wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, the causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war. Israel is well practised in all of these.

Brown and Miliband, "cabbing" like fury, are happy to dismantle our obligations under international law in order to save their unsavoury friends and allow Israel's worst thugs to walk the streets of our capital.

"Cabbing" for Israel even extends to making light of the theft by Mossad agents of the passport ID of several British citizens in a mission to assassinate a Hamas operative in Dubai. It was not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Mr Miliband announced the expulsion of an unnamed individual on the Israeli embassy staff. This feeble slap on the wrist was not nearly enough to wipe the smirk off Ambassador Prosor's face.

George Galloway MP called for a more robust response – the closing of the embassy. "Every British citizen travelling in the Middle East has been endangered by the actions of Mossad operating from the Israeli embassy in London. Protecting British citizens abroad demands nothing less than closing that centre of espionage at home."

That's more like it.

Miliband's and Brown's friends are not my friends… or anyone else's as far as I can see. The idea that Israel and the gangsters who run it have any value to us as strategic partners, is a figment of their tiny imagination. George Washington's warning of years ago seems all the more appropriate today: "The nation which indulges towards another a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."

Who , if they had any integrity, would "cab" for a regime that thieves, murders, assassinates, carries out ethnic cleansing and shows utter contempt for international law, human rights, UN resolutions and the normal codes of human conduct?

Who would "cab" for a regime that, by using overwhelming military might, has systematically impoverished its neighbours and resorted to starvation tactics to make them submit?

Who, if they had a shred of honour, would "cab" for a regime whose leaders are wanted for war crimes?

Be warned, you parliamentary candidates, when you come a-knocking for my vote. The first question will be "Are you cabbing for Israel?"
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/27/cabbing-for-israel/#more-5870

Another bump in the road for

By Paul Reynolds
The British government is expected to announce the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in connection with Israel’s alleged misuse of British passports – a number of which were carried by a hit squad that assassinated Palestinian Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

In February, the government set up an investigation into the matter.

At the time, official language in announcing that the Israeli ambassador in London Ron Prosor would be going to the Foreign Office was notably moderate.

A statement said simply that “given the links to Israel of a number the British Nationals affected, there will be a meeting between the FCO Permanent Under Secretary and the Israeli Ambassador tomorrow”. This was an invitation not a summons.

It was, in February, a matter of Britain asking questions, not making protests and taking retaliatory action (such as demanding an apology, restricting official contacts or even expelling the ambassador for a time).

During his meeting with Mr Prosor, the permanent under-secretary Sir Peter Ricketts asked for full Israeli co-operation with the British inquiry. This may have proved problematic if Mossad was involved. Israel would not want to reveal too much. So a lot depends on how the word “cooperation” is defined. A total failure to cooperate would trigger a British response.

Promise

One complicating factor is that in 1987, the Israelis promised Britain that it would not use British passports in secret operations again.

On that occasion, eight British passports reckoned to be for Mossad agents were found in a bag in a West German telephone booth.

The then Israeli ambassador in London, Yehuda Avner, did find himself on the receiving end of a British protest.

If it turns out that the assurance given then has been broken, the British diplomatic reaction will be more severe.

Britain might also press other European countries whose passports have surfaced in this affair – Ireland, France and Germany – to take a firm line.Ritual element

However, these events have a certain ritual about them. New Zealand got angry with Israel in 2004 when two Israeli agents were found to be using New Zealand passports. Diplomatic ties were frozen, but were quietly resumed a year or so later after an Israeli apology.

In 1987, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did order the closure of the Mossad station in London for a time – though no doubt it carried on in different ways – after the kidnapping of the Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu.
But that did not affect her support for Israel and in due course, normal service resumed.

If it finds the evidence this time, Britain will no doubt demand satisfaction. But neither Britain or Israel will want this to escalate into a full-scale row.

The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is sympathetic to Israel and there is a delicate intelligence relationship that needs to be preserved as far as possible in view of the threat to both countries from Islamist extremists.

Difficult relationship

This might well be one of those bumps in the road that have dogged British-Israeli relations for decades, going back even beyond the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.

It has rarely been an easy relationship and has been marked by contradictions, resentment and touchiness on both sides.

The historic promise from Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour in 1917 that Britain would establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, while also promising that the “civil and religious rights” of the “existing non-Jewish communities” would not be prejudiced, proved impossible for Britain to deliver.

Britain found itself having to put down a Palestinian-Arab revolt in 1936 only to be attacked by Jewish groups wanting Britain out of Palestine after World War II (though during the war there was strong Jewish support through the formation of the Jewish Brigade of the British army). Britain pulled out of Palestine in anger and chaos.

The Israelis complain that Britain reneged on the Balfour promise in a White Paper in 1939 which rejected the concept of a two-state solution and severely restricted Jewish immigration at a time when Jews were being murdered by the Nazis.

Reliance on US

For years, there was a strand in the British Foreign Office that was hostile to Israel.

Britain delayed recognising Israel as a state for eight months. The US did so within minutes. You can occasionally hear echoes of that hostility in London, but there are really only echoes, not policy.

Things improved in the 1950s and 60s. In fact, Britain and France were Israel’s main weapons providers then, not the United States. Israel won the 1967 war with French aircraft and British tanks. And in the Suez operation in 1956, Britain and France colluded with Israel in the invasion of Egypt, until the US pulled the plug.

Then, Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath slapped an arms embargo on Israel and other combatants in the 1973 war, and Israel has relied on the US ever since.

It no longer puts its trust in any European government, though it likes their goodwill.

The Europeans try to balance their support for Israel as a state with their sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. They also have to be mindful of their relationship with the Arab world as a whole.

Relations at the best of times can turn touchy. There is currently a row over the British system of allowing magistrates to issue arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and, according to Israel, the British government has been too slow in changing this.

Incidents like Dubai make maintaining a balance more difficult.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/03/another-bump-in-the-road-for-british-israeli-relations/

Anti-democratic Zionist Jews in Canada, the U.S. and U.K.

Dr. Mohamed Bakr

This week witnessed three different scenes in three different democracies. These scenes may look from the outset to be not related but all three point to the same problem in Western "Democracies". So, what are these scenes?Scene1, Canada:

Last week, the sixth Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) took place. In this week, in many Universities over the world, events are held to inform people of the suffering of the Palestinian people under the Israeli occupation.

The IAW this year is more important than in any other year because it is held after the Goldstone committee report was released. This committee, which was headed by a Zionist Jewish judge, found ample evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel during its attack on Gaza, also known as operation Cast Lead.

This year’s IAW was faced though with a tough organized campaign from different levels of government and media.

The Ontario Legislature issued a statement condemning the IAW.

The government of Mr. Harper, who has been consistent in its loyalty to Israel, has issued also a statement condemning the event.

Mr. Ignatieff, who in 2003 condemned the Israeli illegal settlements and equated them to the apartheid regime in South Africa, also flipped and condemned the IAW!

The IAW was turned into an auction in which each politician is trying to show that he is more loyal to Israel and to its Jewish Zionist lobby in Canada than the others.

Not a single one of them dared to attend the events of the IAW and see that there was no hate directed against anyone. No one of them dared to mention the Goldstone report.

No one of them dared to mention the so many reports by Israeli and international rights groups condemning gruesome Israeli crimes. No one of them even dared to remember the freedom of the Canadian people who elected them to criticize any rogue foreign state!

Scene 2, England:

The government of the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown moved this week to change the law so that Israeli war criminals are not prosecuted during their visits to the UK.

Several months ago, the ex. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni was about to be arrested in London based on a judge order for her role in the war crimes in Gaza.

It is widely believed that the British government helped smuggle Livni out of the country even though they were fully aware of the judge order!

Since then the Israeli government demanded that the British law be changed so that human rights groups cannot annoy the Israeli war criminals when they travel abroad.

A group of over 70 British intellectuals, many of whom are Jews, published a letter over a month ago condemning any attempt to change the British law based on orders from a foreign state accused of war crimes.

Despite the public resistance, the changes are implemented with complete disregard to the country’s sovereignty or reputation.

Almost a year ago, Spain also changed its law based on Israeli requests so that Israeli war criminals are not prosecuted when visiting this country!

Scene 3, US:

The US Congress issued a resolution this week recognizing what is referred to as the Armenian Genocide during the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

For many years, the Congress refused to issue such a resolution because the pro-Israel lobby was against it.

At the time, Turkey was a close ally of Israel outside the Arab world.

However, since the operation Cast Lead, the Turkish criticism of the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian population was increasing. This resulted in several verbal exchanges between the officials in both countries.

Turkey also canceled joint military training with the IDF. Many Turkish TV programs now show scenes of brutality against the Palestinian population.

Since this started to happen, many predicted that the US congress will issue this resolution based on directions from the pro-Israel lobby.

Of course, this resolution will cause serious damage for the relationship between the US and one of its main allies. It is definitely harmful to US interests in the Middle East.

This, however, did not seem to stop the congress from acting in this way. Turkey and Armenia are starting steps towards a historical reconciliation between them and such a resolution will only complicate matters.

The problem with these three stories is the same.

Representatives who are supposed to defend freedom of speech, national sovereignty, and national interests, seem to work against all three!

They are more interested in showing unconditional submission to the Zionist Jewish lobby that is linked to a foreign state. So, how come a democratic system ends up failing its people so miserably?

The reality is that there is no true democracy in all three countries.

The people who invented the idea of democracy believed that representatives elected by the people will work for the people’s interests.

What they missed is that in order to reach the people you need media. Also, in order to have election campaigns you need money.

This meant that lobbies that have strong media influence and have access to strong financial resources are able to manipulate and even threaten politicians.

These lobbies effectively make politicians work for their interests rather than the interests of the people who elected them.

So, what is the way out of this trap that literally voids the concept of democracy in the West?

Any hope for having a truly democratic system that defends the global human values of human rights and freedom depends on stopping mighty lobbies from corrupting the political game.

All politicians should have access to free unbiased media and to the same financial resources regardless of any political positions that may take.

This separation between capital and politics is our only hope in having a true democracy in the West.

Only then, Canadian politicians will not be afraid to do the right thing and side with the oppressed Palestinian people in their struggle against oppression and apartheid. Will we ever see this day?
http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2010/03/anti-democratic-zionist-jews-in-canada.html

U.S. ignores UK's Iraq war evidence

By David Swanson

Peter Dyer sums up well the sort of conclusions we can draw from the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into Britain's role as sidekick launcher of aggressive war on Iraq:

"On March 18, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned as Deputy Legal Adviser to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the British equivalent of the US State Department.

"'I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post,' she said later. Ms. Wilmshurst discussed her resignation while appearing before the current British inquiry into the Iraq War — the Chilcot Inquiry.

"In an office of 35 or so lawyers, she may have been the only one to resign. However, she testified that her perspective was shared unanimously among all the FCO Legal Advisers, including the head of the office, Sir Michael Wood.

"Sir Michael himself told the Chilcot Inquiry: 'I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law. In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorized by the Security Council, and had no other legal basis in international law.'

"In sum: every lawyer charged with advising the British government on the legality of the Iraq invasion believed it was illegal."

And, of course, we already knew this. And, of course, we did not need to know it. We just need to read the UN Charter to know that aggressive wars are illegal.

Dyer spends most of the rest of his article pointing out that even a hobbled toothless inquiry treating public documents as untouchable because "classified" and leading to no law enforcement actions is a giant leap forward from anything happening in the United States, the nation chiefly responsible for the crime under "investigation."

The Chilcot inquiry may ask to meet with former US officials, as noted by UPI, which also reports on the latest smoking gun tossed high onto the pile of thousands of smoking guns:

"Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says he will check records of his pre-Iraq invasion phone calls with then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Straw made the promise Monday to Britain's Iraq Inquiry panel after allegations emerged that Powell told him in the weeks prior to the [2003] Iraq invasion that President George W. Bush would invade the country even if Saddam Hussein complied with nuclear arms inspectors, The Times of London reported.

"The newspaper said the calls became an issue after Straw defended his decision to dismiss the advice of his chief legal adviser that the war would be unlawful.

"Inquiry panel member Lawrence Freedman, hinting that the panel may have documents showing Bush planned to attack Iraq even if U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix found that Saddam was complying with U.N. resolution 1441, asked Straw, 'Was there any point where Powell said to you that even if Iraq complied, President Bush had already made a decision to go to war?'

"The Times said Straw, now Britain's justice secretary, replied, 'Certainly not to the best of my recollection. I would have to check the record of my many conversations I had with Secretary Powell.'"

But that is not how Straw replied. And there was more than a hint here that the questioner already knew the answer.

This "inquiry" is being conducted by panelists in possession of numerous documents, both public and still private, that they are forbidden to discuss. The Downing Street Minutes and every other piece of documentation long since confirming for the public the truth into which this show is "inquiring" are deemed "classified" and unmentionable by the Chilcoteers.

So, what would it look like to question Straw about a document proving Powell had told him (as the entire world outside of US television viewers knows by now the United States told the United Kingdom) that Bush was going to war regardless of Iraq's behavior?

Here's Chris Floyd's account:

"And so, to close out its first phase, the Chilcot Inquiry recalled Straw -- who had already given one sweaty, white-knuckle performance on the witness stand a few weeks ago.

“With the implacable politesse of the true British mandarin, panelist Sir Lawrence Freedman seized the opportunity to suggest to the right honorable minister that the right honorable minister might, perhaps, be lying through his right honorable teeth in denying that Colin Powell had informed him quite clearly that the Americans were going to war, come hell or high water, in March 2003.

“As the Guardian notes, Freedman's questions make it clear that [he] has obviously seen some very interesting paperwork. Here is the exchange, from the Guardian:

"Freedman asked: Can you start by confirming that you knew that military action was planned by the US for the middle of March come what may? You were copied in, presumably, to reports of conversations between the prime minister and the president?

"Straw replied: Yes, I don't think there was any key document that I should have seen that I didn't.

"Freedman: Was there any point where [Colin] Powell said to you that even if Iraq complied, President Bush had already made a decision that he intended to go to war?

"Straw replied: Certainly not to the best of my recollection.

"Freedman went on: I was going to suggest you might want to look through your conversations and check.

"Mr Straw at last got the hint: I will go through the records because I think you are trying to tell me something.

"Yes, Mr Straw. He is trying to tell you, and the world, that he has the paper in his hand documenting your conversation with Colin Powell: a clear admission of the war crime of military aggression, as it reveals that there was not even a pretense of a legally justifiable casus belli among the American and British leaders -- just the cold, pre-determined intention to attack."

And yet, what the best of our commentators across the Atlantic seem to miss is that the illegality of the war is taken as a point in its favor in the United States.

"Proving" its illegality yet again is not really interesting in Washington. The Washington Post deemed it old news prior to ever mentioning it. President Obama openly declared his power to launch illegal wars in a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech some weeks back.

For us, an inquiry into war lies is a quaint tourist destination, like a European town with pedestrian streets and neighbors who speak to each other. We love visiting such things, but we wouldn't want to live there.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/US-ignores-UK-s-Iraq-war-evidence.html

Mohamed Khodr – With Blair-Bush Lies, Muslims Died

“For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men”

- Jeremiah 5:26-29, (Bible: Old Testament)

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

For 100 years the Arab and Muslim world have known that when it comes to European and American imperialistic designs on the Middle East there are two separate universes with separate political, economic, racial and legal standards. With self assured arrogance, hypocrisy and double standards western powers reserved the "right of might" to inflict devastating invasions, occupations, mass murders, ethnic cleansing and the Anti-Jewish cleansing of Europe by gifting a land, without ownership or right, to European Jews who proceeded to emulate European colonialism to attack and ethnically cleanse an innocent people from their land. Israel was born by England's illegal gifting of a foreign land and subsequently immorally supported by the United States at the expense of a hapless population living under the most dire and brutal of occupations.

Throughout the history of their imperialistic, colonial designs those western powers and Israel, the fate of the indigenous populations was never an issue or matter of concern to these warring states. From the Native Americans, North and South, to Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians and the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, their lives, history, religion, culture and language were fodder for extinction to satisfy the economic greed of western powers.

In 1917, a simple typed letter of 68 words signed by Lord Balfour, foreign minister of England and addressed to the Jewish banker, Lord Rothschild, proscribed Palestine, still under Ottoman rule, "a national homeland for the Jews." It became known as the “Balfour Declaration” and used a manifesto by Zionists to justify their illegal, immoral and genocidal design on Palestine.

"In Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…Zionism, be it right or wrong, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

– Lord Balfour, UK Foreign Minister

From David Lloyd George (“We have the right to bomb niggers”), Prime Minister of England 1916-1922 – to Lord Arthur Balfour, UK Foreign Minister 1916-1919 and author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration – to President Truman – to the current Vice President of the United States, Joseph Biden, all have declared themselves to be “Zionists”.

Not since World War II has one western leader, not even one, ever been charged or prosecuted for war crimes against humanity. While Holocaust museums are being erected around the world, often at taxpayers’ expense, not one single museum in a western capital, with the exception of Latin America, has ever been built to memorialize the genocides against African Americans, Latinos, Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians and Aborigines – all victims of imperial holocausts.

These days in London an “inquiry”, not trial, named after its chair, the Chicot Inquiry, has been looking into the reasons and justifications that led to the massively illegal war and devastation of an innocent nation, Iraq.

So far, former British government officials have presented evidence that the war was “illegal”, did not have support from the U.N., nor from the entire world except for UK and US, – that Tony Blair had been told that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that intelligence was “sexed up” and manipulated to justify Blair’s war crimes against Iraq.

Blair launched his war crime against Iraq with the same zeal, lies and fear mongering propaganda used by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, called by Time Magazine, the “Architect” of the Iraq War, was asked in a Vanity Fair interview, May 2003, why was the Iraq War based on Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD’s. This time, he actually told the truth. Wolfowitz stated:

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

As a second reason he stated that the war gave the U.S. the opportunity to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia where Saudi hostility against the presence of the troops was high.

Tony Blair’s lies to the British people, despite their immense opposition to the war, and to Parliament have been aptly documented. But this arrogant war criminal, ironically a MidEast "peace envoy", told the Chicot Inquiry that he did not lie about his justifications for war and unconscionably stood by his false assertions for the devastating illegal war. He was unrepentant and unremorseful for the millions of dead, injured and displaced Iraqis. Nor was he repentant for the sacrifice of British soldiers. In true narcissistic and pathological fashion he said he would make the same decision to invade Iraq again today. Even Saddam’s death wouldn’t have stopped their messianic psychosis to invade Iraq. Got to do it for Oil and Israel.

Blair quotes that reveal a pathological liar with no conscience but possessing a hypocritical racist soul, much like all Israeli leaders, including today’s war criminal du jour, Netanyahu.

“Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.”

“Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.”

“The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

-Foreword to UK Government dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

Tony Blair's arrogant testimony to the Chicot Inquiry is a blatant genocidal example of a western leader trying to justify the unjustifiable. Both Blair and Bush knew beforehand that Iraq had no WMD's and that their falsified intelligence came from an alcoholic liar (“Curveball”) and Iraqi dissident, Ahmad Chalabi, whose lies gave Blair and Bush the weapons for mass destruction of Iraq. The British Intelligence even plagiarized statements from a U.S. PhD student’s thesis on Iraq which included the outrageous claim that Saddam can launch WMD’s within 45 minutes.

Blair, in true contempt to truth and history, used Bush’s fallback position that 9/11 changed their outlook on world affairs and became their pretext for a world “war on terror”. Blair’s testimony showcased that the best defense was a good offense.

The U.N., Fourth Geneva Convention, I.C.C., and International Laws were created by western powers and thus easily manipulated and selectively applied by them to the third world and not to themselves who self ascribe the right to devastate in the name of self defense, even pre-emptively. Using such logic any nation can invade another pre-emptively if it can manufacture hysteria, lies and self perceived threats to itself. Thus China is totally justified to invade Taiwan, Russia can invade Poland and the Czech Republic given America’s deployment of missile defense systems, Cuba can invade the U.S., Turkey can invade Armenia and so on.

Within this cabal of righteous powers is Israel, a nation born out of violence, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing; a nation that has repeatedly launched pre-emptive wars using the western mantra of "self defense". Israel, a state unlike any other that commits genocides with total impunity daring the world to criticize much less consider prosecuting its leaders for documented crimes against humanity, as evidenced by the Goldstone Report.

Not satisfied with the bloodshed in Iraq, Blair has the audacity to call for the same devastation of the Muslim nation du jour, Iran, thereby joining the Israeli motivated policy of “next stop, Tehran”. Iran, like Iraq, poses no threat to either, the west or Israel, even if it does possess nuclear weapons. Would Iran commit suicide or would it insanely nuke Israel thereby committing a holocaust against Palestinians, the very people Iran loves and defends? Would it destroy Jerusalem, while causing massive nuclear radiation in the entire region and risking massive nuclear retaliation from Israel, a state in possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons and a non-signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty? Blaming, then bombing Muslims seems to be Blair's, Obama's, and Israel's policy. Nuclear Israel, demonstrably a criminal nation, is untouchable while non-nuclear Muslim nations are bombable. Justice lies in the eye of the criminal.

TRUTH has always been the enemy of western civilization and in due time will be its undoing.
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/02/02/mohamed-khodr-with-blair-bush-lies-muslims-died/

OBAMA CONDEMNS................

Let’s play a new game called “Obama Condemns Suppression of Innocent Citizens” See if you can pick the country he is referring to. Ready? Here we go….

Obama recently said the following three statements:

Obama said "iron fist of brutality" had been used to silence protesters, calling the actions of officials an "unjust suppression".

1. Was his comment regarding the “suppression” by the Egyptian Government at US and international peace marchers, consisting of house arrests, beatings, removal of internet access, or the threats aimed at Egyptian students who wanted to protest with the marchers? Nah, all that type of “suppression” is “ok” with Obama.

2. Was Obama’s statement directed at Israel for revoking a permit obtained by Arab students at an Israeli University who wanted to exert their right to free speech and protest on the anniversary of Cast Lead Genocide? Nope, any suppression Israel uses is “ok” with Obama.

3. So, that leaves Iran. And yup, you guessed it. Iran is no lackey, I mean "friend" to America, so whatever their government does is immediately condemned. Never mind that if those types of protests (fuelled by a foreign presence) broke out within the USA, I’m quite certain Obama would allow that type of destruction and up-rising, let’s say right outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Yeah right. And let’s all ignore the oppression and suppression taking place right now inside Egypt and Israel.

NEXT QUESTION:

Obama said: "The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent citizens."

1. Was his statement directed at Egypt for threatening Egyptian students who wanted to show solidarity with Palestine and the Gaza Freedom Marchers? Or the threats made to hundreds of international peace activists when they were told they could be arrested if they gathered in groups larger than six, or carried a sign? Nope, it’s Egypt, and they are helping Israel, so never mind about human rights because it’s being done for Israel and that makes it all “ok”

2. So, is his statement directed at Israel for its ethnic cleansing policies, it’s kidnapping and internment of hundreds of Palestinians and Arabs? The weekly house demolitions against Palestinians, The weekly evictions of Palestinians, the burning and destruction of Palestinians farms and land, the beatings, the murders by illegal settlers on stolen land? Nope, sorry, again this is Israel and so that makes it ALL “ok” for Obama.

3. So that leaves poor Iran again. They are just supposed to let chaos and violence ensure and allow protestors to set fires and destroy property and bring down the government that the majority of people still support. Never mind about Egypt and Israel, that type of suppression is allowed and encouraged by Obama.

LAST QUESTION:

Obama said: "The United States stands with those who seek their universal rights," he said, adding that his government wanted to see all those "unjustly detained" freed immediately.

1. Ok, surely this is directed at Israel for the illegal detention and internment without trail of hundreds of Palestinians, right? Wrong-o, have you not been paying attention? Its Israel, so it’s encouraged and allowed and supported, and DEFINITELY never mentioned, and neither are Israel’s nukes. Shhhhhh, don’t mention Vanunu or his recent re-arrest or the nukes!

2. Right then, so this must be directed at Egypt for detaining 38 peace activists under house arrest in two locations. Right? Wrong again, because this again has to do with Israel’s wishes and at its behest. So again this type of oppression is encouraged, allowed and totally ignored by Obama.

3. Yes, you guessed right, it’s directed at Iran, as usual, who are only trying to protect themselves from the unrest being encouraged, nurtured and funded by the US/Israel and England. Go figure………..It’s getting to the point where a Democratically elected Government is refused recognition by the US and becomes a target for overthrow using any means. With Hamas, it’s Israel’s genocide being allowed, encouraged and assisted by the US. With Iran’s Ahmadinejad, another democratically elected government, it’s again the same players, US, Israel, and an additional tag team player, Britain.
http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/