The departure of the spectacular “Freedom Flotilla” to Gaza carrying 5,500 tonnes of aid has been postponed (again), because the flag state of the major vessels, Guinea Bissau, has withdrawn their registration.

The key question is why the organisers were proceeding with such an unreliable flag state in the first place?

In the 2010 Freedom Flotilla, the vessel Mavi Marmara was boarded by Israeli troops and ten aid workers were executed in cold blood. Just days before sailing, the Mavi Marmara had changed its flag from Turkey to the Comoros Islands.

On a vessel at sea outside the twelve mile territorial limit of a state (as the Mavi Marmara was when boarded), the law that applies is that of the flag state. Had the vessel still been Turkish flagged, the murderers would have been within Turkish jurisdiction and subject to investigation by Turkey and prosecution in Turkish courts.

I flew to Izmir to investigate the case and I concluded that it was Turkish security services who had obliged the change of flag to the Comoros Islands, thus facilitating the Israeli murderous attack.

Plainly the Mavi Marmara incident should indicate to organisers of aid to Gaza the vital necessity of having a vessel registered to a flag state which would be able to react strongly to an attack by Israel on its ship, and indeed whose flag might deter Israel from such an attack.

So it makes no sense to me that the organisers intended to proceed under the flag of Guinea Bissau.

On 8 April I received a Whatsapp message from organisers asking me to publicise the flotilla. This was my reply.

Hi Irfan and thank you. May I ask what are the flag states of the four vessels?
This is extremely important.
The Mavi Marmara organisers made the literally fatal mistake of allowing the ship to reflag to the Comoros Islands before sailing. Outside the 12 mile territorial sea the vessels are under the law of and entitled to the protection of the flag state

After a holding reply I received

Sorry for the late reply. It is still to be confirmed sir

I reiterated

OK, I am very keen that people understand that it is crucially important.
I have always believed pro Israeli security services influenced the change of flag of the Mavi Marmara.
Any Israeli forces boarding the ships beyond the 12 mile territorial limit are subject to the law of the flag state of the vessel. I should be grateful if you confirm to me the organisers fully understand this.

The reply was simply

Thank you sir

I am therefore entirely perplexed that the organisers went with Guinea Bissau as the flag state rather than a state likely to stand up to Israel and the US. Of course it failed.

Is the problem incompetence, or is it again security service influence?

I should make plain that I absolutely support the aims and the strategy of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I have several friends on board, and I believe my good colleague Ann Wright is among the organisers. I am however intensely frustrated.

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

Governments cannot take big decisions extremely quickly except in the most extreme of circumstances. There are mechanisms in all states that consider policy decisions, weigh them up, involve the various departments of the state whose activities are affected by that decision, and arrive at a conclusion, though not necessarily a good one.

The decision to stop aid funding to UNRWA was not taken by numerous Western states in a single day.

In the UK, several different government ministries had to coordinate. Even within only a single ministry, the FCDO, views would have to be coordinated through written submissions and interdepartmental meetings between the departments dealing with the Middle East, with the United Nations, with the United States, with Europe and then of course between the diplomatic and development wings of the ministry.

That process would include seeking the views of British Ambassadors to Tel Aviv, Doha, Cairo, Riyadh, Istanbul and Washington and to the United Nations in Geneva and in New York.

It is not necessarily a lengthy process but it is not a day’s work, and nor would it need to be. There was no practical impact to making the announcement of cutting UNRWA funding a day sooner or a day later.

Consider that the parallel process had to be completed in the United States, in Canada, in Germany, in Australia and in all the other Western powers that contributed to starvation in Gaza by cutting aid to UNRWA.

All of these countries had to go through their procedures, and it could only be by prior coordination – weeks in advance – between these states that they announced all on the same day the destruction of the life support system for Palestinians, then in absolute need.

And then consider that we now know for certain that the Israelis had produced no evidence whatsoever of UNRWA complicity in Hamas resistance, on which these decisions in all those states were allegedly based.

I have no doubt at all that the Western political elite, paid tools of the zionist machine, are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians and ethnic cleansing of Gaza at a much deeper level than the people have yet understood. The refusal by Starmer and Sunak to contemplate ending arms sales and military support to Israel is not due to inertia or concern for the arms industry. It is that they actively support the destruction of the Palestinians.

The coordinated decision of the Western nations to fast track famine by stopping UNRWA funding was announced within an hour,  following the ICJ ruling that Gazans were at immediate risk of genocide, and drove from the media headlines the adverse ruling against Israel.

This sent the clearest signal in response that the Western powers would not be stopped from the genocide by international law or institutions.

The Western powers give not a fig for 16,000 massacred Palestinian infants. No evidence of mass graves in hospitals will move them. They knew genocide was happening and continued actively to arm and abet it.

This genocide is the desired goal of the West. No other explanation is remotely plausible.

Western Political Support for this Genocide is No Accident

I have never believed the spin that Biden is trying to restrain Netanyahu, while simultaneously arming and funding Netanyahu and using US forces to fight alongside him.

Biden is making no effort to restrain Netanyahu. Biden fully supports the genocide.

My reading of this was reinforced when I was looking back at the Israeli murders on the Mavi Mamara in 2010, when they killed ten unarmed aid workers attempting a Freedom Flotilla aid delivery to Gaza. Israel’s actions were clearly both murderous and in breach of international law. Joe Biden as Vice President defended Israel staunchly then.  It is essential to understand that Genocide Joe has always been Genocide Joe.

Joe Biden took the lead in defending the raid to the U.S. public. In an interview with PBS, he described the raid as “legitimate” and argued that the flotilla organizers could have disembarked elsewhere before transferring the aid to Gaza. “So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?” Biden asked about the humanitarian mission. “Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don’t know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight — 3,000 rockets on my people.’”

Biden is not being outplayed by Netanyahu. He is actively abetting Netanyahu and shares with him the objective of full Israeli occupation of Gaza after the Palestinian people are killed or expelled into Sinai. He also shares with Netanyahu the aim of a wider regional conflict in which the US and Gulf states ally with Israel against Iran, Syria, Yemen and Hezbollah. This is their joint vision of the Middle East – Greater Israel, and US hegemony operating through the Sunni monarchies.

If you believe all the spin from the White House about Biden trying to restrain Netanyahu, I suggest you look instead at the White House and State Department spokesmen refusing to accept any single instance of Israel atrocity and deferring to Israel on every single crime.

I am currently in Pakistan, and I must say it has been a great refreshment to be in a country where everybody understands why ISIS, Al Nusra etc. never attacked Israeli interests, and sees precisely what Western governments are doing over Gaza. What is understood by developing nations is thankfully understood by Gen Z in the West as well.

The Arab regimes of the Gulf and Jordan are dependent upon Israeli and US security services and surveillance for protection from their own people. The lack of really massive street protest against their own regimes by Arab peoples is a direct testimony to the effectiveness of that vicious repression, particularly when states like Jordan actually fight alongside Israel against Iranian weapons.

The anti-Iranian card is of course the trick both Biden and Netanyahu have left to play. By promoting an escalation with Iran, Western politicians were able to default to a position of claiming the case for arming Israel was proven – and I think were genuinely perplexed to find the public did not buy it.

The political class, across the Western world and the Arab world, is utterly divorced from its people over Gaza. We are seeing worldwide repression, as peaceful conferences are stormed by police in Germany, students are beaten by police on American campuses, and in the UK old white people like me suffer the kind of continual harassment long suffered by young Muslim men.

This is not the work of Netanyahu operating as a rogue. It is the result of the machinations of a professional political class across the Western world welded to zionism, with the supremacy of Israel as an article of fundamental belief.

Times are not this dark by accident. They were designed to be this dark.

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The United States has now, on the face of it, produced the Diplomatic Note giving the two assurances required by the High Court to allow the extradition of Julian Assange to proceed. The assurance that Julian Assange will be allowed to rely on the First Amendment in his defence is a blatantly weak piece of sophistry.

You can read my analysis on the High Court judgment of Assange’s right to an appeal here.

Let me dispense with the assurance against the death penalty. I am sure it will be accepted by the court. The USA does not need to execute Julian, it can incarcerate him in a tiny concrete tomb for life, under extreme sensory deprivation, as a terrible half living warning to any journalist who might reveal their crimes.

Should that ever become inconvenient, he can be Epsteined or Seth Riched at any moment. Remember this is a government that plotted to kidnap and/or assassinate him, as pled and not denied in court.

The assurance required on First Amendment protection is being misunderstood by almost everybody reporting it, and the US Diplomatic Note seeks to take advantage of the confusion.

The High Court took the view that the First Amendment provides the same protections as Article X of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore Assange’s Convention rights will be protected if he is allowed to plead the First Amendment as a defence before a US court. The court did not ask for an assurance that such a plea would succeed. Article X of the ECHR is itself absolutely shot through with authoritarian national security and other exceptions.

The assurance on which the High Court did insist was that such a plea could not be struck down on the grounds of Assange’s nationality. That would contradict the separate ECHR provision against discrimination by nationality. The US Diplomatic Note has failed genuinely to address this point: but it pretends to do so.

The US prosecutor in an affidavit to the UK court had already stated that Assange may be barred from First Amendment protection because he was a foreign national who had acted abroad. Mike Pompeo had also stated this officially. The principle is plainly articulated by the Supreme Court in the case of USAID vs Open Society:

THE CRUCIAL “SEEK TO”

The United States was therefore simply unable to state that Julian Assange will be able to make a First Amendment defence, because the judge, following the Supreme Court precedent, is almost certainly going to disallow it on grounds of nationality.

The Diplomatic Note therefore states that Assange may seek to raise a First Amendment defence without prohibition on grounds of nationality. This means precisely that his lawyers are permitted to say:

“My client wishes to claim the protection of the First Amendment for freedom of speech”

This is “seeking to raise” it.

The judge will immediately reply:

“The First Amendment does not apply to your client as a foreign national acting abroad, as established by the US Supreme Court in USAID vs Open Society”.

That is consistent with the actual operative phrase in the US Diplomatic Note: “A decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is entirely within the purview of the US Courts”.

On 20 May there will be a hearing to determine whether this non-assurance is adequate to protect Julian Assange from discrimination on grounds of nationality and permit the extradition to proceed.

Now being a reasonable person, you doubtless are thinking that it is impossible that such a flimsy confection of legal sleight of hand could ever be accepted. But if so, dear reader, you have no idea of the corruption of the stool pigeons disguised as British judges.

Who would think that they could have ruled that the UK/US Treaty has legal force to extradite Julian Assange, but that Article IV of the Treaty excluding political offences strangely does not have legal force?
Who would have thought that they could have ruled that the US government spying on his attorney/client legal conferences and seizing his legal papers did not invalidate the proceedings?
Who would have thought they could have ruled that the US government plot to kidnap or murder him is irrelevant, because if he is extradited the US government will have no further need to kidnap or murder him?

I could go on. I shall be very surprised if the High Court judges following the 20 May hearing do not rule that the right to ask not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality (and be denied) is sufficient protection against discrimination by nationality.

They really are that shameless.

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

I shall be standing for election to Parliament as the member for Blackburn. This unexpected turn of events requires an honest declaration.

1) I am standing because of the Genocide in Gaza.
2) I am standing because of the appalling pro-Genocide stance of the Labour Party and Keir Starmer’s continued support of arms exports to Israel.
3) I am standing because the Blackburn Independent Councillors and the Workers’ Party invited me to.

The political class, including both the Labour and Tory parties, has continued to offer wholehearted support for Israel. The Tories are a lost cause, irrelevant in Blackburn and I will not waste words upon them. The Labour Party is led by Keir Starmer, a man who has declared himself an unqualified zionist, is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, who refused to oppose Israel’s blockade of food and water to Gaza, refuses to acknowledge any war crimes committed by Israel, let alone the ongoing genocide, and strongly supports the continued sale of arms to Israel.

40% of Labour’s shadow cabinet, at least, are financed by the zionist lobby.

Starmer has also expelled more Jews from the Labour Party than every previous Labour leader combined – under the excuse of “anti-semitism”, but in reality because they are Jews who honestly oppose the murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the schemes of the apartheid state of Israel.

The people of Blackburn, like all voters in the UK, deserve the chance to vote for a candidate who actually opposes the genocide. The Independent Councillors in Blackburn, who have resigned from the Labour Party over the issue, have chosen me to be that candidate. I have accepted.

Following George Galloway’s victory in nearby Rochdale under the banner of the Workers’ Party, I have also accepted the support of that party. I expect to fight the seat as a party candidate.

While Gaza motivated me to stand, it is by a long way not the only issue on which the voters of Blackburn deserve an alternative choice.

The Labour Party has abandoned working people. Last weekend Keir Starmer said Labour would increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP – a 25% increase. Yet the Labour Party has stated it will be bound by Tory fiscal rules and austerity, and there is no money for education or health and other public services.

The Labour Party has stated it will be harsher than the Tories on welfare payments and on immigration controls. Wes Streeting is itching to privatise the Health Service – and he and his frontbench colleagues are sponsored to do so. Plans to renationalise water and other public utilities have been abandoned. Starmer’s party is a Tory Party.

There is a vast disparity in wealth in society which is growing incredibly fast. The 1,000 wealthiest people in the UK are now worth an average of £750 million each, a figure which has doubled in under a decade. Yet we have millions of children living below the poverty line.

This does not happen by accident, nor is it a factor of a free market. It is the product of a system of law and regulation designed to produce this unnatural outcome. It can only be countered by fundamental reform of laws around the formation and ownership of capital. For that reason, I am happy to ally with the Workers’ Party, which recognises this truth.

The people of Blackburn deserve the opportunity to vote for fundamental social and economic change.

I am standing as part of a wider movement in England which is seeking to challenge the two-party conservative duopoly. This alliance is coming together and will embrace Independent candidates and candidates from other small parties. Informal organisation is developing. I expect the Workers’ Party to have a slate of hundreds of candidates, while Andrew Feinstein spoke alongside me in Blackburn on Saturday and will be challenging Keir Starmer directly in the election. Jeremy Corbyn will romp back into parliament in Islington North.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the nationalist parties have been much better on the Gaza genocide, reflecting the experience of those peoples of ethnic cleansing and occupation. They are also notably more socialist than Labour. I need to explain to you, and particularly to my many Scottish readers, why I am not standing in Scotland.

Firstly, it is important to make clear my support for Scottish Independence is undiminished (which I sincerely believe would be good for the people of England too, including Blackburn, in allowing a modern country to emerge from the trappings of Imperial decay).
Secondly, I talked it over with Alex Salmond before I accepted to stand in Blackburn. I have not left the Alba Party. Alex and I mutually agreed that at this election it would be better for me not to stand for Alba in Scotland, as that would give the unionist press an opportunity to continue to muck-rake over the lawfare to which we had been subjected.
Thirdly, George Galloway has declared that he no longer will participate in the Independence debate in Scotland.

I have also seen it reported that the Workers’ Party will not stand candidates in Scotland. That will need to be worked through, but at the minimum I expect we can reach an agreement they will not stand anywhere against the Alba Party, which would render my own position impossible. As Alba is only planning to stand in up to 16 constituencies this should not be difficult. Working relationships between the two parties in the Commons are amicable, and all of this will be resolved in the next few weeks.

Finally, I would say that the events of the last 48 hours have confirmed my decision. Israel’s murderous destruction of Iran’s Damascus consulate, crashing the Vienna Convention, was condemned by neither Labour nor Tories. George Galloway is the only MP to have even mentioned it in the House of Commons, one clear indication of why I am not just content but proud to stand beside George. Iran’s demonstration attack in response – which killed nobody – appears to have restored the shaken confidence of the entire political class in proclaiming their zionist credentials. They hope we have all now forgotten the genocide.

We shall prove them wrong.

From mid-May I shall be relocating my home to Blackburn. Three short visits to the UK seem to have confirmed there is no longer any current intention by the state to arrest me for my support for the Palestinians’ legal right to armed resistance as an occupied people.

I am going to need help – leafleting, canvassing, manning offices and the many myriad tasks of an election campaign. I am also (I am sorry) going yet again to call on readers of this blog to fund the campaign. I am buoyed by the solid start we have in support across all communities in Blackburn. There will be no shortage of space for volunteers to sleep. So start to look in your diaries. We are going to give Starmer a roasting, we are going to take on the zionist monopoly of power, and it is going to be great fun!

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a