For all of you who thought that the Tories wouldn’t attempt to harvest IFE-marshalled votes, here’s a nasty surprise:
Peter Golds, the Tory leader on Tower Hamlets council, bravely stood up with the Muslim moderates and against the IFE fundamentalists in my Channel 4 documentary. But his colleague Tim Archer, the Tory parliamentary candidate for Poplar and Limehouse, is rather different.
I’ve known for a while that Mr Archer has quite close and interesting relationships with the IFE’s headquarters, the East London Mosque. I’ve been prepared, until now, to put this down to the usual naivety of the white political establishment. Maybe, I thought, like so many others, Mr Archer believed the mosque’s spin about its commitment to “community cohesion” and “tolerance.” Maybe he didn’t realise the major inconsistency between what they say to the likes of him, and the hate and extremist speakers they regularly host.
But Mr Archer must by now know what has gone on at this mosque. As an active politician in Tower Hamlets, he must be aware of the stories that the Telegraph, Channel 4 and this blog have run over the last few weeks.
So I can draw only one conclusion from his decision to appear at an IFE event on 30 March at the East London Mosque whose purpose is to attack “media smearing of Muslim organisations” (code, no doubt, for our investigations). That conclusion is as follows: Mr Archer is perfectly willing to allow himself to be used as a pawn by Islamists if he thinks there might be a few votes in it.
Mr Archer will be appearing alongside a number of other speakers who have, shall we say, a famously friendly relationship with Islamism: Bob Lambert, the former head of the Met’s Muslim Contact Unit; Oliver McTernan, director of “Forward Thinking;” and that celebrated figure, George Galloway – who owes the IFE, in his own words, “more than I can say, more than it would wise for me to say.” Nobody, interestingly, from the Labour Party. But there will be Muhammad Habibur Rahman, recent former president of the IFE.
Mr Archer’s opponent in Poplar is another brave witness against East End Islamism, Jim Fitzpatrick (also invited to the event, but I fear unlikely to attend!). Perhaps the IFE is whispering in Mr Archer’s ear that if he stands with them, they will stand with him to oust the evil Fitzpatrick.
But there are some things that democratic politicians simply should not do to win votes. Among those things, I’d suggest, is legitimising a group opposed to everything your party is supposed to believe.
Yesterday I received a letter before action from Galloway’s little helper, Kevin Ovenden, threatening libel action if I didn’t pay him £50,000. In discussing that letter, I observed:
Intriguingly, the letter is entitled “George Galloway -v- Mr David Toube“. I expect that George Galloway was originally going to be the claimant, but then thought better of it. When it comes to matters of cash, Galloway evidently has a little more sense than his bag carrier.
I was evidently wrong. Here is Galloway’s letter. You will note that, confusingly, I am being asked to apologise to Kevin Ovenden. It is almost as if the lazy solicitor, Mr Bajwa, had failed to check his draft before sending it out!
All the points I made in relation to Ovenden’s libel threat apply in the case of Galloway, and so I won’t bore you by repeating them. Here are a few more.
First of all, Galloway takes exception to the reference to the following quotation:
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)
George Galloway describes this quotation as “inflammatory and racist”. I agree. Unfortunately, this Hadith appears in the Hamas Covenant.
So it is good to know that Galloway does acknowledge that Hamas is a political party that has been built on ”inflammatory and racist” foundations.
So, the obvious question is this. If Galloway genuinely believes that it will harm his reputation to be connected to an “inflammatory and racist” political party, why does he voluntarily associate with its leading members, and give them money and goods?
Let’s do a quick roll call of some of the connections, shall we?
First of all here is Galloway with Ismail Haniyeh, leader of Hamas in Gaza:
Secondly, here is Galloway’s own description of his conduct:
We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of the contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say: We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine. Just in case the British government or the European Union want to face me in any court, let me tell them live on television: I personally am about to break the sanctions on the elected government of Palestine. Many of my friends have to give their cash to charities. By Allah, we carried a lot of cash here. You thought we were all fat. We are not fat. This is money that we have around our waists. And we have to give this… Some of my friends have to give this money to charities, and they will do this in private later this evening, because they need receipts and it’s not practical to do it here.
But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. The government of Palestine is the best people where this money is needed. We are giving this money now to the government of Palestine. If I could, I would give them 10 times, 100 times more. We are against this siege. We are opposing this siege. We are breaking this siege. We are breaking this siege.
Thirdly, the Viva Palestina convoys have been closely involved with Hamas, all along. Take, for example the involvement of Mohammed Sawalha, who BBC Panorama has identified as a founder member of Hamas.
Or look at the role of Majdi Aqil, who was also a member of Hamas in the past and may still be one today, as noted here.
Let’s look inside his luggage…
What about the meeting with Osama Hamdan, the representative of Hamas in Lebanon? Or, for that matter, the audience in Syria with Hamas leaderAbu Marzook?
Is this the conduct of a man who is really worried about being associated with an “inflammatory and racist” organisation, such as Hamas?
Finally, what does Galloway have to say about Sabah al Mukhtar, his “right hand man” and a former trustee of Viva Palestina, who said:
At one time or another there was this talk of the Protocol of Zion and everybody said that it was a put-up job, it’s not true, it is not factual, all sorts of accusations of this book. But at the end of the day, let’s assume they are all correct, that this is really not a real book and it was not the Protocols of Zion. This is an incredible insight, some hundred years ago, to show what the position nowadays. The control over the media, the education, the law, the medicine.
For a man who describes himself in the letter before action as “consistently anti-racist and not remotely anti-Semitic”, his choice in “right hand men” is rather peculiar.
So, why is Galloway bothering with this?
I can only assume that he hopes to argue that it was he as an individual, rather than Viva Palestina, who gave money to Hamas. If those are the foundations of his case, they’re rather shaky. Even if there was a clear distinction between the work of Viva Palestina and the “personal” donations of its participants and leading members to Hamas officials, it is difficult to see how Galloway’s reputation has been damaged.
Perhaps Galloway and Ovenden will argue that they were not giving money to Hamas, but to the “elected government of Palestine”. There are a couple of problems with that. The first is that the acting government of Gaza – not of Palestine – is Hamas. Secondly, although Hamas won the Parliamentary elections, they did not win the Presidential elections. Rather, they took power following a coup.
There is a deeper problem here, of which Galloway is aware. Here it is, in Galloway’s own words:
I personally am about to break the sanctions on the elected government of Palestine.
…
I am saying now to the British and European governments: If you want to take me to court, I promise you, there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me. They will convict you for the siege of the Palestinian people. Revolution until victory! Revolution until victory! Revolution until victory! Viva, viva! There’s more money coming in from my friends. Viva viva, Palestine!
What Galloway means by that is the little matter of the EU Sanctions regime against Hamas. Breach of that sanctions regime is a criminal offence.
This whole business has the distinct whiff of David Irving v Penguin Books to it. Nobody forced David Irving to bring his ill judged libel action. However, his decision to do so resulted in his final discrediting and utter disgrace.
I cannot believe that George Galloway is as foolish as David Irving. Perhaps I am wrong.
This is a cross-post from Ben Cohen of the Z-Word blog
To anyone who knows the medium of television, the statement that a news program is probably the last place to have a serious discussion about a serious matter is hardly a revelation. The allotted timeframe, generally three or four minutes, precludes any in-depth analysis. Discussants are acutely aware that they have to communicate in soundbites, so rather than engaging with each other, they artfully twist the presenter’s questions into answers that emphasize the talking points they arrived at the studio with. That’s how it’s always been.
A key assumption here is that the anchor will keep a respectful distance, editorially-speaking, between his or her guests. The anchor will allow each guest equal time to speak. Whether the anchor is in passive listening mode or acting like an amphetamine-fueled interrogator, the accepted norm is that all guests will receive the same treatment.
True, this conception of the anchor’s role now seems almost quaint, a throwback to the days when journalism placed a supreme value on objectivity. Nonetheless, it remains valid, particularly when it comes to straight news shows (as distinct from the more charged talk show environments.)
Keeping the above template in mind, I want to relate what happened to me when I appeared, in my capacity as AJC’s Associate Director of Communications, on CNN International earlier this week. In a segment anchored by Jim Clancy, Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street and myself were discussing the diplomatic row between the US and Israel sparked by the announcement, during Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel, of a new housing development in the east Jerusalem district of Ramat Shlomo.
I expected a rough ride as I watched the introductory clips: Palestinian propagandist Rami Khouri, Israel Lobby author Stephen Walt and some Italian journalist I’d never heard of called Loretta Napoleoni, all waxing lyrical about the inordinate power of the Israel Lobby. There was no dissenting view.
When it came to the “discussion,” Clancy was extremely deferential toward Ben Ami, beginning and ending the segment with him and not interrupting him once. In marked contrast, he interrupted me no less than ten times in a three minute segment. Moreover, he insisted on portraying AJC – a decidedly centrist organization that has long supported a two-state solution – as a collection of wild-eyed fanatics.
For my part, the most telling moment came when I tried to raise the ten-month moratorium on West Bank settlement announced by the Israeli government last November. This is what transpired:
Ben Cohen: …one thing Jeremy did not mention is that there has been a 10-month moratorium on settlements by the Netanyahu government, that was a very important concession…
Jim Clancy (interrupting): …Now wait a minute, settlements…Ben Cohen, you’re drawing lines here that are absolutely false, you know well when you say that that Israel continues to build in occupied east Jerusalem. Ok, I know it is not completely sorted out, but there is no sense in you looking the audience straight in the eye and not telling the truth….
BC: I am looking the …
JC (interrupting): The last word here, I’ve got to give it to Jeremy.
BC(sarcastic): Of course you do, Jim.
Had Clancy allowed me to continue, I had planned to say that the announcement was significant for two reasons: firstly, because it came from Netanyahu, in spite of the fragile coalition he heads and his long-standing reputation as a hardliner, secondly, because when the announcement was made, it was explicitly welcomed by the US, even though east Jerusalem was outside the terms of the freeze.
By any standards, what I wanted to say was reasonable and relevant, even if not everyone would agree with my analysis; yet I was rudely shut down. Why this happened is really the heart of the matter – much more than the personal discourtesy shown towards me, which resulted in an apology from Clancy when he called me the following day.
Recall the three clips I mentioned which introduced the segment: all the speakers advanced the thesis of a shadowy, unaccountable “Israel Lobby” that runs policy and “controls the discourse,” as Mearsheimer and Walt put it in their shabby book, “The Israel Lobby.” It’s a thesis which has pierced the mainstream to the point where it has become unremarkable, despite its psychedelic assertion that a cluster of loosely-connected non-governmental agencies exercise more power over Middle East policy than the White House, the State Department and The Pentagon.
Once you buy into this thesis, you cannot help but regard any representative of one of the “Lobby’s” constituents as a born liar whose prime loyalty is to the West Bank settler movement (as Clancy said to me, before I’d addressed the substantive point he put to me, “you’re drawing lines here that are absolutely false…there is no sense in you looking the audience straight in the eye and not telling the truth.”)
Therein lies the paradox: just as those who indignantly deny that antisemitism is a problem are usually the same people doing their utmost to promote it, those who protest that the “Lobby” is muzzling honest debate are invariably the first to close down the viewpoints they object to, on the grounds that these viewpoints must really be lies. In other words, they do to us what they accuse us of doing to them.
There is plenty to think about here, and not only for those of us doggedly combating the portrayal of Israel as the source of every ill, whether a terrorist bomb on a Madrid commuter train or a slain American soldier in Afghanistan. J Street also needs to ask itself whether it wants to be the “good Jew” in a universe of “bad Jews.” I certainly don’t blame Jeremy Ben Ami for what happened to me on CNN; he was there to put across his own position, and he did so in an accomplished manner. That notwithstanding, does he want to be regarded as an ally by those whose objection is not to Israeli policy, but their bigoted, half-baked conception of what Israel is?
Recently, after a very pleasant evening of drinking in a pub in central London, my girlfriend and I took separate routes home. Having had no more than a half pint, I cycled off into the night whilst she braved the Number 25 bus. Braved, I say, because she found herself in rather inglorious company. Fairly shortly after getting onto the bus, she was joined by a chap called Anjem Choudary.
Finding herself surrounded by Andy’s goons, my lovely girlfriend texted me this message:
Anjem Choudary is on my bus. Permission to kick his ankle?
My response was that, rather than kicking his ankle, she should pinch his bum. My other (equally sensible) suggestions were:
1) Run up to him, give him an overly familiar hug and kiss and proclaim “Andy! Long time no see! Remember the good times back at Southampton? Are you still shagging that David guy?” and
2) Wander up and say “Haven’t I seen you on the tele? You’re Maajid Nawaz, aren’t you!”
Anyway, I thought I’d like to share this with Harry’s Place and see what suggestions you have for next time one or other of us has such an unfortunate encounter on the No25. That said, baiting nutters like Anjem (good clean fun) is not the same as insulting religiously observant Muslims (just rude) so, if you want to make cracks about Mohammed or flinging bacon, please exercise your right to do so elsewhere. We may well disagree with a lot that conservative Muslims believe in but, so long as they aren’t trying to impose their beliefs on anybody else, let’s live and let live.
This is a crosspost by Shiraz Maher from Standpoint
The East London Mosque (ELM) continues pushing the line that it only hosted the al-Qaeda linked preacher Anwar al-Awlaki at its mosque on one occasion and that ‘there was no credible evidence at the time of the event that al-Awlaki might be an extremist’.
Both parts of that statement are demonstrably wrong.
The ELM admits the Awlaki spoke at the mosque in January 2009, stating:
A video of al-Awlaki was shown by an external hirer on 1 January 2009 in which he talked about life after death. Nothing controversial or extreme was said in the video.
That might be so, but the manner in which the event was advertised was certainly controversial and extreme. Billed as an ‘end of days’ conference the poster shows Manhattan under siege, submitting to an almost Hadean apocalypse.
The content of Awlaki’s talk in this respect is largely irrelevant. Yes, he spoke about ‘life after death’ but would the ELM have allowed Nick Griffin to lecture at their mosque provided he agreed not to speak about race?
The ELM says this is the only occasion on which Awlaki spoke at its premises. Yet, at a conference the following month held at the London Muslim Centre – a venue owned and controlled by the ELM, and attached to the mosque – the same group that hosted him in January promised to repeat the lecture:
[Message from "Abu Salahudeen"]
Re: Noor Pro Media…Don’t Despair
For those who missed the opportunity to watch the video lecture by Anwar Al Awlaki (Your Just Reward…Paradise or Hell) at our last event, we will be airing this video again at this event.
So please arrive early and make sure you have purchased a ticket, as we have limited seating available.
It is not known whether this actually happened but, so far, there have been no denials from either the ELM or the event organisers, Noor Pro Media.
What the ELM also fails to acknowledge is that they hosted Awlaki in 2003. He spoke at an event hosted by the now defunct group ‘Stop Police Terror’ in the East London Mosque and focused on anti-terror arrests, urging Muslims not to report fellow Muslims under any circumstances:
A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not oppress him, he does not betray him and he does not hand him over…You don’t hand over a Muslim to the enemies…
You can hear his speech here:
The second point raised by the ELM is that when it allowed Awlaki to broadcast his message in 2009 ‘there was no credible evidence at the time of the event that al-Awlaki might be an extremist’.
To be honest, I don’t even know where to begin with this one.
Last month I produced an authoritative rebuttal of the argument that Awlaki has somehow become more radical in recent years. It is manifestly untrue.
Long before Awlaki spoke at the ELM he was translating and disseminating jihadist texts such as Thawaabit Ala’ Darb Al-Jihad – which means ‘The Constants of Jihad’. He also promoted stories from the ‘Book of Jihad’ written by a 14th Century jihadist, Ibn Nuhaas and delivered the lecture ‘Allah is preparing us for victory’ in which he told listeners:
…the solution for the Ummah is Jihad fe Sabeelillah [Jihad in the path of God]. When the Ummah revives this Ibaadah [worship], it becomes ironical; Jihad fe Sabeelillah becomes an irony. People run away from it because they see that is it a loss of money and it’s also a loss of self; you could loose [sic] life and you could loose [sic] your wealth in Jihad fe Sabeelillah. The irony is that when the Ummah fights Jihad fe Sabeelillah, the Ummah becomes the wealthiest and when the Ummah is fighting Jihad fe Sabeelillah, the least of this Ummah die.
Indeed, two months before the ELM hosted Awlaki in 2009 the Homeland Security Under-Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Charles Allen, stated:
Another example of al-Qa’ida reach into the Homeland is U.S. citizen, al-Qa’ida supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11th hijackers Anwar al-Awlaki-who targets U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.
One month after Awlaki’s video message was broadcast at the ELM, he wrote the following on his blog:
I pray that America sees no progress at all. I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies and the day that happens, and I assure you it will and sooner than you think, I will be very pleased.
Let’s assume the ELM is sincere when it says it did not know the truth about Awlaki. Surely that means its senior management – such as Mohammed Abdul Bari – are grossly unfit to continue serving as government advisers on violent extremism?
When Andrew Gilligan exposed the Islamic Forum of Europe’s political operations and agenda in East London, the local council chose a dismissive and defiant stance:
Tuesday 2 March 2010
Channel 4 ’s Dispatches programme
Channel 4 ’s Dispatches programme, ‘ Britain’s Islamic Republic’, presented a picture of Tower Hamlets which many who live and work in the borough fail to recognise. Supposition and innuendo replaced the facts about a place with a proud tradition of anti-racism and where social cohesion is evident. Mr Gilligan presented little of substance and nothing that demonstrated that Tower Hamlets Council has acted improperly.
Some of the comments made during last night’s programme are familiar to us and have already been investigated. We will examine any evidence of illegal or inappropriate activity by council officers or councillors, should any evidence be provided to us. We accept that there will always be some members of the community who are unhappy about losing grant funding and urge people to come forward with any proof they may have that grants have been provided unfairly, either to the Council or the appropriate complaints/government body.
CONTROVERSIAL assistant chief executive of Tower Hamlets council Lutfur Ali has resigned tonight.
His resignation comes three weeks after he featured on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme about alleged extremism in the East End.
In a statement the council said he had resigned his job after “deciding to move on”.
Mr Ali has a background in diversity and took up the £120,000 job in September 2008, with special responsibility for policy, performance, and delivery at the council.
He also oversaw the communications, scrutiny, equalities and democratic services teams at the council.
At the time of his appointment concerns over the authenticity of his CV led to opposition leader, Tory Peter Golds, referring the posting to the council’s overview and scrutiny committee, but these concerns were not upheld.
Tonight the council’s chief executive Kevan Collins said he was sad to lose Mr Ali and acknowledged his contributions to the council.
Lutfur Ali, one of the key figures in the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe/ East London Mosque’s influence over Tower Hamlets Council, has tonight resigned, the council confirmed. Mr Ali was the second most powerful officer on the council and his departure is a major blow to the fundamentalists. The IFE’s opponents are overjoyed. “This is the tipping point,” says Badrul Islam, one of the main local opponents of the group.
Mr Ali, a close associate of the IFE, was appointed assistant chief executive of the council on £125,000 a year despite a negative headhunter report and a misleading CV. He featured heavily in my Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on fundamentalist infiltration into London politics.
As we reported, Mr Ali has been accused of moonlighting for other employers – who only realised when they saw him in our documentary.
Now here is a good match. At the end of the month Friends of al Aqsa, a group entirely dedicated to campaigning against Israel, will hold a pre-election event with Liberal Democrats in Leicester. Who will represent the party? Prospective parliamentary candidate for Leicester South and local councillor Parmjit Singh Gill and, ahem, Jenny Tonge.
Friends of al Aqsa is headed by Ismail Patel. He is also the director of YouElect, a new group set up to encourage Muslims to vote at the general election and provide information on candidates. It is being promoted by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). You will also find Patel on the steering committee of the “Stop the War Coalition”.
Here he is at the January 10 2009 Gaza demonstration in London, which ended in violence. He saluted Hamas and told off bad Jews for supporting “genocide”.
“Hamas is no terrorist organisation. The reason they hate Hamas is because they refuse to be subjugated, occupied by the Israeli state, and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel.”
…
“…to the state of Israel: you no longer represent the Jewish people. You have no moral authority to speak for the Jewish people when thousands of Jews are against what you are doing. And finally, to the British Jewish Board of Deputies, shame on you, to work, to promote the genocide of the Palestinian people and the war crimes of the Israeli government. You do not speak for the British Jewry who today have signed in the Guardian against the Jewish government, what it is doing to the Palestinian people. Shame on the British Jewish Board of Deputies.”
This article excerpt, posted today, is the kind of material you will find on Patel’s Friends of al Aqsa website:
Anti-Semitism: Zionism’s Tool to Blackmail the World
In his diary, Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, wrote that not always and not everywhere should Jews oppose anti-Semitism, because anti-Semites are an invaluable card that can be used against anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who dares to speak out against Israel and Zionism.
“It is essential that the suffering of Jews become worse. This will assist in the realization of our plans. I have an excellent idea. I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth, the anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews, the anti-Semites shall be our best friends…So anti-Semitism, which is deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm Jews.
I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt.” (from his diary, part I, PP. 16)
David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, was convinced that Zionism could only thrive on anti-Semitism, and that in order to strengthen Zionism, anti-Semitism would have to be encouraged.
Just what is Friends of al Aqsa recommending people read? The excerpt is taken from an article on IslamOnline, a website headed by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al Qaradawi. IslamOnline chose this lovely image for the article:
Let’s see what else the writer has to say:
Today, one of the least-known secrets about Israel’s exploitation of anti-Semitism is the fact that Israeli agents, as well as Zionist activists around the world, are often instructed to carry out “anti-Semitic” incidents in order to serve Israeli interests.
Normally, such activities witness a phenomenal rise whenever Israel’s image is suffering, especially in the aftermath of war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by Israel against the Palestinian people, or other peoples of the Middle East.
This might sound strange in light of the often-vitriolic reactions by Israel and Zionist circles, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who oppose ostensibly anti-Jewish acts, such as vandalizing Jewish grave markers, spray-panting swastika signs at Jewish-own property, or shouting “kill Jews.”
Sometimes, hand-grenades are hurled at Jewish targets, such as synagogues, and Jewish cultural centers are torched, all in order to foster an atmosphere of fear among Jews, which Israel could utilize in order to expedite Zionist goals, including forcing Jews to immigrate to Israel on the account that they would not be able to find peace and security elsewhere.
…
In interviews with some of Israel’s Palestinian collaborators, I found out that the Shin Beth, Israel’s chief domestic security agency, often instructed some collaborators to lead demonstrations and shout extremist slogans against Jews, not Israelis, such as “kill the Jews,” “slaughter the Jews,” and “Jews to the gas chambers.”
Of course, Israeli TV cameramen would be impatiently awaiting to film the priceless propaganda sketches, highlighting the anti-Semitic sound bites. And within a few hours, the fabricated scenes would find their way to TV screens around the world, and MEMRI, HonestReporting and other Zionist propaganda mouthpieces would enjoy releasing another “scoop” showing “the type of people Israel is dealing with in the Middle East.
…
Inducing Judeophobia at the hands of Zionist agents is by no means confined to occupied Palestine, where often-monstrous Israeli crimes are more than enough to make Palestinians hate everything Zionist and Israeli. In Europe and North America, Zionist agents have been fabricated numerous “anti-Semitic” incidents in recent years, some of which have been exposed but only after generating a huge outcry in the media and society.
…
It is important to confront the world with these facts, especially now as Israeli propaganda’s leaders are having the audacity of calling for swapping Palestinian refugees with Jewish refugees from the Arab world. They are scandalously ignoring the huge differences between the two cases, namely the fact that in the first case, Palestinians were massacred into leaving their homeland while in the other cases, Jews were terrorized or induced, also by Zionism, to leave for Israel in order to bring about Zionist fulfillment.
Today, Israeli agents keep up the same hateful traditions of encouraging anti-Semitism in countries, such as France in order to generate a feeling of fear and insecurity among French Jewry, hoping that this would prompt them to immigrate to Israel to live on a land that belongs to another people.
I am quite sure that Israeli and Zionist strategists pray for a miracle, perhaps in the form of a bombing campaign against French Jewish targets, which would trigger an exodus of Jewish immigrants from France to Occupied Palestine.
Nevertheless, Zionist would want to do it “safely” and “without getting exposed,” probably by secretly hiring some naïve and unemployed French citizens of North African descent to do the job.
This is why, it is imperative that all ostensibly anti-Jewish incidents be monitored meticulously in order to ascertain whether Zionist hands are behind them.
A final note: There is no doubt that Israel’s genocidal crimes against Palestinians, such as last year’s Nazi-like onslaught on the defenseless people of the Gaza Strip, remain by far the biggest generator of anti-Semitism around the world.
This is a clarion proof showing the utter mendacity of the claim that Zionism constitutes the final solution for the “Jewish problem” or “anti-Semitism”. It also shows that eradicating Zionism, the poisoned ideology of Jewish supremacy, is a sine-qua-non for eradicating anti-Semitism, since the two are more or less two sides of the same coin.
Got that? Antisemitism exists, but mind the Nazi Jewish plots behind many of its most vicious expressions, including physical attacks. Oh, and Zionism must be “eradicated”.
The author of the article is Khalid Amayreh, a Palestinian journalist who specialises in demonisation of Jews. Ismail Patel is very keen on his work. So, by the way, is Middle East Monitor, the web operation of Daud Abdullah, deputy secretary general of the MCB.
Here’s another “Jews are Nazis” piece by Amayreh on IslamOnline – “Holocaust: Israel’s Red Herring”. It shows just how low he and IslamOnline go in their putrid Jew hatred:
Their actions were evil, because they were simply evil, and even if six million non-Jews had been killed instead of the six million Jews we are told were killed, the nefariousness of the Nazi crimes would not have been any lesser.
This means that anyone or any people behaving in Nazi-like manner should be compared to the Nazis. In the final analysis, when Jews think, behave, and act like Nazis, as demonstrated in Gaza last year, they should not be spared the Nazi epithet no matter how long and how hard the Netanyahus, Wiesels, Liebermans, and Pipes of the world keep barking.
That IslamOnline article is illustrated with these images:
Have a look at Mr Amayreh’s website for more evidence of his extreme views. He has written a whole book on the Nazi Jews theme. He also has a taste for cartoonist Latuff and Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon.
This is the swamp of racist hatred Ismail Patel wallows in. He and Jenny Tonge are perfect partners.
Paul Bogdanor has brought to my attention an article published in the October 4, 1980 issue of Socialist Worker. He would not have wasted my time and I knew that his reference would be worthwhile checking. Hence, I went to the vaults and obtained the article. I copy an extract below:
Iraq – Britain’s artificial state
Alex Callinicos and Jon Bearman
Socialist Worker, October 4, 1980, p.10.
… President Saddam Hussein rules together with a small clique from the Takrit region, many of them related to one another, using methods of naked terror. Last year he called together Ba’ath party functionaries and instructed them to kill several members of the ruling Revolutionary Command Council to make them responsible for the purge….
The ‘socialist’ regime has used brutal methods to keep the Kurds down. 495 Kurdish villages were raised to the ground in June and July 1978 and some 300,000 Kurds were forced to move to government camps.
Iraq, once Moscow’s closest ally in the Middle East, broke with Russia in 1978. The CP [Communist Party] was purged and many of its members executed….
The rapid development of capitalism under the Ba’ath regime has meant that the industrial working class has grown from about 90,000 in 1958 to over 200,000 today….
Defeat, or a long and wearing war in Iran, could encourage this working class to overturn Hussein, adding him… to the long list of megalomaniacs destroyed by popular revolt.
So let us get this straight: in 1980 Socialist Worker was calling for Saddam Hussein, who they regarded as a mass murderer of leftists and others and someone who ruled by terror, to be destroyed and overthrown. Why, then, did the Socialist Workers Party complain so much when America, Britain and other members of the “Coalition of the Willing” did the job that the “working class” had not done? Why, also, did they get in bed with George Galloway, who famously said to this murderous dictator in1994, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability”?
Chaharshanbeh Souri was celebrated today in Iran, up and down the country, by Iranians of all different shades of skin colour, languages and religions, but all united by their common culture. This was the day that the Islamofascist clerics desperately didn’t want to see. The regime tried all manner of tactics to prevent the population coming out, fromplaying 11 movies back to back on TV, to police threats and transforming Tehran into a military garrison. It did not work.
Some choice clips of brave Iranians, resisting the terrorist Islamic Republic Regime:
Pictures of Khamenei and Khomeini being torched in Sa’adat Abad district of Tehran:
Protesters shouting “Death to Dictator” and clashing with security forces, in Boroujerd, Lorestan Province:
Protesters shouting “Death to Dictator” in Sadeghi Square, Tehran:
Protesters throwing copies of the Regime’s ultra-fascist Kayhan newspaper into the bonfire:
Firefighters attempt to put out a fire in a Basiji car which has been set alight by protesters:
Up and down the country, from east to west, the Islamic Regime was resisted by the people, note the protesters in Lorestan, Esfahan, Shiraz and so on. Are these the same North Tehran rich kids that George Galloway goes on about? :))) Is this also the same country which Flynt Leverett and CASMII declared “is in no way a society on the verge of fundamental political upheaval”? :))
The misguided propaganda of Islamic Republic apologists aside, we can see that this is yet another step towards freedom and the final overthrowing of the Islamic Republic. The bravery of the people of Iran will pay off.
Mr President, thank you for giving me an opportunity to address this session.
I am a London-based human rights campaigner who has been campaigning for human rights for 43 years. For 20 of those years, I have monitored and supported the Pakistani people’s struggle for democracy, human rights and social justice, including more recently in Balochistan.
I am neither a Pakistani nor a Baloch. I have no personal or vested interest in the conflict. I address the situation in Balochistan solely as an independent, objective investigator who is committed to the defense of human rights.
I would like to begin by endorsing the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), which urge the complete demilitarisation of occupied Balochistan, as a precondition for a negotiated political settlement to end six decades of economic neglect, ethnic persecution and military repression by successive governments in Islamabad.
Echoing the criticisms of Baloch national leaders, the HRCP says the Pakistan government’s recent peace and reconciliation package is undermined by on-going military operations and human rights abuses.
It points out that 4,000 Baloch people have been arrested and then disappeared. Only a handful have been released since the western-backed military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, was replaced by a democratically-elected civilian government in 2008.
The torture of Baloch rights campaigners also remains routine. Promises of military de-escalation are contradicted by continued army incursions and air strikes, which have resulted in many civilian casualties, and by the shooting dead of peaceful Baloch protesters, most recently in January this year.
Successive Pakistani attacks on Balochistan are estimated to have in resulted in 3,000 people killed and up to 200,000 displaced.
Baloch human rights groups report that the kidnapping and torture of peaceful, lawful Baloch activists continues unchecked. Indeed, the Pakistani government has admitted that in 2009 over 1,000 Baloch people were seized by its security forces and disappeared.
These crimes against humanity are still happening in Balochistan, despite Pakistan’s ostensible transition to democratic government. They are well documented by Pakistani and international human rights groups, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Human Rights Watch, the Asian Human Rights Commission, the International Crisis Group and Amnesty International.
In response to national and international criticism, the Prime Minister of Pakistan has publicly apologised for the persecution of the Baloch people and pledged to halt military assaults in Balochistan.
Despite the Prime Minister’s assurances, military attacks have continued. The attacks have been aided and abetted by military supplies from western countries, including my own country, the UK. The US is the biggest weapons supplier. It has sold the Pakistani military $10 billion in arms, including F-16 attack aircraft, and Cobra attack helicopters, which have been used to indiscriminately strafe and bomb Balochistan, killing many civilians.
To cover up its human rights abuses, Islamabad restricts media access to Balochistan and refuses to allow the UN and international aid agencies to provide humanitarian assistance to most parts of the region. If Islamabad has nothing to hide, why is it refusing open access to Balochistan?
Despite Balochistan’s huge mineral wealth, Balochistan is the poorest region of Pakistan. Much of the population is malnourished, illiterate and semi-destitute; living in squalid housing with no electricity or clean drinking water.
According to the Asian Human Rights Commission’s 2009 report:
“88% of the population of Balochistan is under the poverty line. Balochistan has the lowest literacy rate, and the lowest school enrolment ratio, educational attainment index and health index compared to the other provinces. 78% of the population has no access to electricity and 79% has no access to natural gas.”
The Pakistani military have remained in Balochistan continuously since it invaded and annexed the region at gun-point in 1948. It has blanketed the country with military garrisons to suppress the people. In recent years, there has been a 62% increase in police stations and a 100% increase in paramilitary checkpoints.
If the Baloch people are happy and free, as Islamabad claims, why is there a need for this pervasive, suffocating military presence? And why has Pakistan always refused Balochistan a referendum on independence?
Ever since its annexation in 1948, Balochistan has been subjected to a quadruple whammy of military occupation, political domination, economic exploitation and cultural hegemony. Pakistan is an oppressed nation turned oppressor nation. It now adopts the imperialist tactics of its former colonial overlords to subjugate and exploit the Baloch – and the people of other victim provinces such as Sindh and North West Frontier.
Just like Israel’s settlement programme on the West Bank, Islamabad has a settler scheme to colonise Balochistan. It is encouraging Punjabis, the largest and dominant ethnic group in Pakistan, to move to the region. The aim is to make the Baloch people a minority in their own homeland, as happened to the Native Americans in the US and the Aboriginal people in Australia. This goal has already been achieved in major cities like Quetta, where colonist settlers now predominate.
Cultural imperialism is another weapon. Punjabi supremacists have imposed an alien language, Urdu, on the Balochi-speaking people. Borrowing from the tactics of the apartheid regime in South Africa, which forced black children to be schooled in Afrikaans, Islamabad has dictated that Urdu is the compulsory language of instruction in Baloch educational institutions.
The cultural conquest of Balochistan also involves the radical Islamification of the traditionally more secular Baloch nation. Large numbers of religious schools have been funded by Islamabad, with a view to imposing Pakistan’s harsher, more narrow-minded interpretation of Islam. This is fuelling fundamentalism.
The West’s attitude towards the plight of the Baloch people is less than honourable. Because Britain and the United States want Pakistan as an ally in the so-called “war on terror,” they have armed Pakistan and acquiesced with its suppression of the Baloch people.
Pakistan’s war against Balochistan is strengthening the position of the Taliban, who have exploited the unstable, strife-ridden situation to establish bases and influence in the region. From these bases, the Taliban terrorise the often more liberal, secular Baloch people and enforce the Talibanisation of Balochistan.
The Pakistani military often appears to tolerates the Taliban, on the grounds that Taliban influence acts as a second force to crush the Baloch people and weaken their struggle for independence. In other words, the Taliban are being used as a proxy force by Islamabad in its war against Balochistan.
The bases in Balochistan are also hide-outs from where Taliban fighters mount military operations in Afghanistan. Despite recent well-publicised military operations, the Pakistani security forces are taking very little serious action to stop the Taliban using Balochistan as a base for their Islamist war against democracy and human rights.
If the nations of the world want to strike a blow against the Taliban and fundamentalism, they should seek an end Pakistan’s repression in Balochistan and support the Baloch people’s right to self-determination. Baloch secular nationalism could act as a powerful bulwark against the Talibanisation of the country, which ultimately threatens all the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan – and the wider region.
As for the future status of Balochistan:
Whether self-determination means the restoration of independence, or full regional autonomy within a federal Pakistan, is a matter for the Baloch people to decide. The best way to resolve this issue would be for the government of Pakistan to authorise a United Nations-supervised and monitored referendum to allow the people of Balochistan to freely and democratically determine their own future.
The Baloch people, like all people everywhere, have a right to self-determination – and the right to democracy, human rights and social justice.
If tiny East Timor can be an independent, self-governing nation, why not Balochistan?
