In December 1980 I stood alongside George Galloway in Caird Square as the flag of Palestine was hoisted above Dundee City Chambers to mark the twinning of Dundee with Nablus in the West Bank. I was 22 years old.
George had led the campaign for the twinning, against much opposition. In those days I worked alongside George to support the striking miners, in support of striking workers at Timex and NCR as Thatcherism ripped through the city, in the Anti-Nazi League and in other causes.
George and I never had the same politics. But we cooperated.
And now we are together working to do everything within our power to halt the sickening genocide of the Palestinian People in Gaza and indeed in the West Bank. Because that is the absolute priority at this moment.
Both major parties support arms sales to Israel, military cooperation with Israel, intelligence links to Israel and trade with Israel. We have to give people something else to vote for.
But I am happy to say I also firmly support the need to give an alternative to the Thatcherite economic policy offered by both Labour and Tory.
I heard Rachel Reeves launch Labour’s economic policy yesterday and the emphasis on fiscal rigidity, on tax cuts, on allowing untrammelled capital formation, bore no trace of social democratic, let alone socialist thinking.
The return to the homely analogies of state finances with family finances absolutely mirrored Thatcher and either wilfully embraced a fallacy or showed extraordinary ignorance.
Fundamental reform is needed as late-stage capitalism hurtles towards unsustainable wealth inequality and widespread lack of opportunity in a helot society. I am very pleased to align myself with the Workers Party on nationalisation of Rail, Water, Energy and all natural monopolies – which has always been my position. That is just a start.
Finally the Tory stance of Starmer, banging on about “Border security” and endorsing huge amounts of money pumped to the military-industrial complex, sickens me in supposedly coming from a left-wing party.
Starmer leads a Genocide Party and is as Tory as they come.
There isn’t a cigarette paper on domestic policy between Labour and Tory. But I am unapologetic in admitting that I would not be in Blackburn fighting this election were it not for Gaza.
Will a politician who is prepared to be complicit in thousands of children being slaughtered in Gaza, genuinely care about the education of your child as a poor person in the UK?
George and I still hold different views on many things, but the notion that you have to cancel anybody with whom you disagree on anything is a foolish one and can only lead to a general decline in intellectual rigour.
Here are George and I debating Scottish Independence. I hope it is an example of how two people can hold fundamentally opposed positions on an issue, and debate them openly without softening of the differences, yet with mutual respect.
Now we have to win this election in Blackburn and send a message against genocide, and provide me with a platform in the House of Commons where I can take forward my views as expressed for two decades on this blog.
This is the moment when I need help. Come here now and join the campaign on the streets of Blackburn. Come now from wherever you are. Give a few days or weeks to working against the genocide.
Accommodation here is strangely expensive; if you have a sleeping bag we can find floor space.
If you can help in any way please email [email protected]. Otherwise donations to the election fund are very essential!
It is difficult to imagine a more depraved, brutal and cowardly act than bombing refugee families in their tents, but I think we now all understand there is no moral depth which the terrorist entity that is Israel will not plumb.
I think you know I have been regularly crying hot tears over the slaughter of innocents and the complicity of the western states. I hope that you will understand it is not from indifference to the unspeakable suffering, that I respond with a disquisition on grammar.
There was an extraordinary unanimity across the entire mainstream media in giving the same misrepresentation of the recent ICJ Order to Israel to stop operations in Gaza.
How does it happen that both media and political class unite in pumping out the same misinterpretation of a document, when that interpretation is not only wrong but impossible?
We are told that the ICJ did not unambiguously order Israel to stop its operations in Rafah, but left “wiggle room” for Israel to conduct operations in a surgical manner without endangering civilians.
The propaganda line goes that Israel was only ordered to halt its offensive insofar as it may cause conditions that could endanger the Palestinian group as a whole.
But what the court said is this:
Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
The Zionist spin is that the final clause qualifies the first clause and thus the offensive need only be stopped if it “inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The argument then runs that an offensive in Rafah allegedly designed not to do this may go ahead. [I explain the Zionist spin, leaving aside for the moment that it is plain to the entire world that Israel is anyway inflicting exactly those conditions of life on the Palestinians.]
But that is a grammatically impossible interpretation.
I do accept that the second comma means that the final clause does also apply to the first statement and not just the “any other action” clause, although that is arguably ambiguous.
But even accepting that, if we remove the middle clause and apply the final clause only to the “offensive”, we still get this:
Israel must immediately halt its military offensive… which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
The order to stop the offensive is peremptory. There is no way to parse the entire sentence which does not give a direct order to “immediately halt its military offensive.”
Let me give a precise analogy.
“Stop playing football in the house, you may break the Ming vase”
CANNOT mean
“Carry on playing football, you might not break the Ming vase.”
I might take time to note the position of the British Labour Party, which is claiming it supports the International Court of Justice, but on the basis of the deliberate misinterpretation of its rulings. Keir Starmer has still at time of writing not condemned last night’s massacre in Rafah.
This is a turning point in history. The mask has been pulled away from the West and the pretence of support for international law has almost entirely been abandoned. It is fascinating to witness the determined efforts of the media and politicians to keep events in Gaza out of the election campaign.
As both major parties support continued arms sales and military support to Israel, and in the words of Keir Starmer support Israel “unequivocally”, it is unsurprising they wish the genocide happening now to be ignored in the campaign.
We have to make sure that does not happen.
————————————————
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.
Keir Starmer has calculated that no matter how far he abandons working people and moves the Labour Party to the right, those voters who are themselves getting the short straw in the vastly unequal distribution of wealth in society, or who simply wish to see a fairer world, have nowhere else to go.
In doing so he has completely sold out the party to the Israeli lobby, to the extent Starmer has actively supported the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Labour still support UK arms sales to Israel. He stated three times Israel has the right to cut off water and electricity and supported the UK stopping funding to UNRWA. Labour actively oppose sanctions against Israel. Labour support the provision of British military and intelligence support to the Israeli military.
Labour do this because they receive millions in funding from the Zionist lobby.
Not one Labour MP has resigned from Labour Friends of Israel over the Gaza genocide. Not one: I have cried bitter tears every single day for eight months over the children slaughtered in Gaza.
I have also done everything one man can to stop it. I was in the courtroom at the International Court of Justice for the South Africa vs Israel genocide hearing. My articles on the use of the Genocide Convention were read by key members of South Africa’s cabinet before they took the decision to go ahead.
A decade ago I had advised the Palestinian Authority to accede to the Rome Convention on the International Criminal Court. That is what has enabled the prosecution of Netanyahu.
I travelled to Geneva and spoke at the United Nations there. I have spoken at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in eight different countries since the genocide started, and have done hundreds of interviews with media worldwide.
In October I was detained at Glasgow Airport under the Terrorism Act and subject to police investigation because of my support for Palestine.
My voice is one of experience and authority on the issue and needs to be heard in the House of Commons.
But not only on Gaza. Labour has abandoned the key policies which are needed to return us to a more just society, including the abolition of tuition fees and the renationalisation of the privatised utilities. Starmer lied and lied to get elected leader, and is a complete creature of the Establishment.
The Labour Party majority in Blackburn is massive. The Tories are an irrelevance in Blackburn with under a quarter of the vote even when winning the last election. Labour have 66%. The only way to stop this genocidal juggernaut in Blackburn is my campaign.
Across England the Workers Party, Independents and Green Party candidates offer alternatives depending on location. (The Celtic nations have wider choice and a better starting position).
I particularly want to see George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Feinstein and myself in parliament as the core of a principled and hopefully large group of real intellect and capability.
I intend to stand in parliament and fight for the interests of the people of Blackburn, against a state and political class which does not care and is increasingly oppressive.
This blog is the repository of millions of words of my views. I am an open book. Those are the things I intend now to say in Parliament. I am standing at the invitation of Blackburn people, and under the flag of their alliance with the Workers Party.
I am going to need both financial and practical assistance from readers of this blog. I need as many people as possible to come to Blackburn to do leafleting, door knocking and organisation according to their talents and preference. We should be ready to receive you there shortly.
Those who cannot do this will find there is still much to do spreading the word on social media.
We are going to speak truth to power. We are going to have great fun mixing with wonderful people. And we are going to win.
In the normal run of things, if a very senior judge instructs you to give an assurance to their Court, it would probably not be wise to avoid giving the assurance, to devote a huge amount of text to trying to obscure the fact you have not given the assurance, and then to lecture the judge on why they were wrong to ask for the assurance in the first place.
Most lawyers would probably advise against that course of conduct. But this did not deter the fearless James Lewis KC, back to lead for the United States prosecution against Julian Assange, eyes twinkling and his neat nautical facial hair having grown rather wilder, as though he had decided to assume a piratical air to match his reckless conduct of the case.
This day of the Assange hearing felt rather different from all the other days these past 14 years. For one thing, when I arrived early in the morning, I was neither freezing nor drenched. Instead the sun was out and the sky untroubled by any thought of rain.
The many supporters gathered outside the Court appeared more colourful and cheerful than of late, and I was happily struck by the very large amount of Free Assange graffiti I passed on my mile long walk to the court, sprayed all over central London.
I was very confident we would win and this would be a good day, so confident in fact that I mounted the podium and broadcast it to a slightly startled Strand.
You will recall that in the last High Court judgment, the court had requested assurances from the US government against the use of the death penalty, and that Julian would not be barred by his nationality from claiming the freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment in a New York court.
The Americans had provided what seemed to me – and more importantly to Julian’s legal team – sufficient assurance against the death penalty.
On the right to plead the First Amendment, plainly no sufficient assurance had been given. The US government had simply assured that Julian’s defence in the US would be entitled to seek to make a First Amendment defence.
It is important to understand that the High Court has not asked for an assurance that the First Amendment argument would ultimately prevail against other factors, e.g. so-called national security. They had merely asked that the line of defence not be barred on nationality alone. The US assurances had sought to avoid the question completely by ignoring it and seeking to conflate the other arguments that might prevail against the First Amendment.
This was so blatant, I did not see how the court could rule that the US assurances were sufficient, and still retain any intellectual self-respect. My observation of judges Johnson and Sharp at the last hearing was that they very much possessed intellectual self-respect. So my optimism of winning the right to a new appeal was very high.
To match the bright new morning, the case had been moved to a new, much bigger and brighter courtroom. The audiovisual system for the press in nearby rooms broadly worked. Efficient new crowd management systems were in place. I was even given a laminated card entitling me to my place in the main courtroom, as opposed to an ad hoc scrap of paper. I had been spared from standing in the queue by Jamie, Jim and the wonderful volunteers.
In the queue with folk who have been here since 4 am to hold places for journalist friends of Julian. @CraigMurrayOrg your place is saved. pic.twitter.com/vuQ7SxMinQ
What is more, Edward Fitzgerald was sporting a different horsehair wig, possibly a century or so younger than the previous model. For those who poo-poo the effectiveness of this blog, I can report that he told me that my comments on his wig in my last report caused him to dig out his spare. This blog gets results!
Once we had all settled in to this resplendent fake-medieval courtroom, with its extraordinary lantern roof architecture flooding light in from above, Fitzgerald rose and launched into the case with a notable lack of preliminaries. He appeared a bit puzzled at what he was meant to be arguing against. It was like punching fog.
Fitzgerald accepted that the assurance on the death penalty was sufficient. But the assurance that Assange could rely on the First Amendment was inadequate. It merely said he could “seek to” rely on it.
Furthermore the “assurance” did not even commit the prosecutor not to argue that Assange should be denied First Amendment protection on the grounds of nationality. The original statement before the court from US Prosecutor Kromberg that the prosecution may do that, still stood.
Even if the prosecution were to commit – which they had not – that they would not argue the point, there could be no guarantee that the US court itself would not debar Assange from First Amendment protection on account of his foreign citizenship, following a number of precedent cases including at the Supreme Court.
The High Court had made plain that this was a real concern of discrimination by nationality contrary to the Extradition Act, and its concern had not been addressed by the United States. “There is a real risk of discrimination and that risk survives the equivocal and downright inadequate assurance”.
Mark Summers KC then stood to complete the defence argument.
This transformational day had its greatest effect on Summers. Gone was the anger at events, the simmering impatience at the failure of the judges to grasp the arguments. Instead, he was so softly and sweetly spoken nobody could hear him. As he rose, the sun inched across the sky just enough that a clear shaft of sunlight pierced the lantern window and illuminated Summers. It seemed an effect too bold for Hollywood, possibly something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I am pretty sure I heard angels singing.
Summers said he had the difficult task of countering the US arguments before they had made them, and asked the court for permission to speak again later, which Judge Dame Victoria Sharp – who had obviously also heard the angels singing – agreed immediately.
Summers enumerated the US arguments from their written submission. He went through these as:
1) Assange will be on US soil during trial and thus the First Amendment will apply.
But this Summers said was inconsistent with Kromberg’s sworn statement and with previous case law.
2) Assange might be found to have been on US soil when offences were committed and so the First Amendment would apply.
Except, said Summers, Assange clearly was not on US soil at the time.
3) Nationality is a narrower concept than citizenship so no relevant discrimination is taking place.
Summers said this was plainly wrong as shown by many examples including the Refugee Convention.
4) Nationality was only one of the factors which might lead to the first amendment not being applicable.
Summers pointed out that if nationality was a factor, that was discrimination. The existence of other factors was irrelevant.
5) The United States was saying that the 14th Amendment – which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States – was somehow relevant.
Summers looked perplexed and dismissed this argument with a wave of his hand.
It was now time for James Lewis KC to re-enter the fray on behalf of the United States. His number 2, Clare Dobbin, who had replaced him so inadequately in the last hearing, was nowhere to be seen. I fear she may not just have been relegated back to the substitutes’ bench, she may have been transfer-listed.
Lewis said that the burden was on the Appellant (Julian) to prove there was a serious possibility of, or reasonable grounds to fear, prejudice on the basis of his Australian nationality.
Section 81b of the Extradition Act provides that the court could bar extradition where
if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.
It is an anti-discrimination clause, which means you need to show unfair treatment against that of the comparator, in this case a US citizen.
Lewis than appeared to take a real swing at the absent Dobbin. He stated that he wished to draw attention to a Court of Appeal judgment which “for some reason” had not been highlighted at the previous hearing.
In a Court of Appeal case, the Foreign Secretary had won against a claim that it was unfair discrimination on his part to treat UK citizens differently from non-citizen UK residents, when making representations on their behalf over incarceration in Guantanamo Bay. This case showed it was legitimate to treat citizens and non-citizens differently.
The ruling states “a person who is not a British citizen is not entitled to protection”. British citizenship was simply a fact of law, and nothing to do with the person’s characteristics. “That is the correct prism through which to look at this case”.
You will perhaps permit me to point out that I predicted, before the US assurances were given, precisely and correctly what the US arguments would be, including this one: that it is legitimate to treat citizens differently from other nationals in terms of consular protection (which entirely routine legal concept is the only thing the Guantanamo Bay case quoted by Lewis effectively says).
Lewis continued that Assange would not face discrimination because of his Australian nationality; he would rather be treated differently as a non-US citizen. At issue was the “simple legal fact” of his non-US citizenship.
Lewis said the claim of discrimination only works here on fair trial issues and the assurance addresses fair trial issues. Assange is guaranteed a fair trial.
While the court has suggested that the First Amendment should apply because it provides Assange the kind of Article X ECHR protection to which Assange would be entitled, it must be noted that Article X only covers “reasonable and responsible” journalism. This is not what Assange did.
One factor that may define “reasonable and responsible” might be where the journalism took place. Assange had chosen to publish outside the relevant jurisdiction of the source of the material. That was not responsible. There were many other factors, not just nationality, which would decide whether the First Amendment applies. That includes national security of the United States. Assange was guaranteed a fair trial on all these points:
“He will be able to rely on the First Amendment but that does not mean he will succeed. As a plain matter of law, Assange is a foreigner in a foreign country carrying out acts that affect US national security”.
There were also 18 charges, covering different categories of offence. Some of the charges, such as hacking and conspiracy to steal documents, could never get First Amendment protection. That had been clearly shown in the Chelsea Manning judgment. Assange’s conduct was not protected by the First Amendment.
Mark Summers was then given his promised right to reply for the defence. He said that the notion that there was legitimate discrimination based on the characteristic of nationality was not applicable here. This was about a trial process.
None of the cases quoted by the prosecution relates to the trial process. Section 81b forbids discrimination by nationality in the trial process. That in other situations citizenship had legal effect was not relevant.
As regards the distinction being made between nationality and citizenship, it was worth noting that prosecutor Kromberg states that Assange may be excluded from First Amendment protection on the basis of nationality, and not of citizenship.
The argument that nationality is only one factor which might exclude the First Amendment fails. Lewis had stated that Assange may be excluded from the First Amendment because he is “a foreigner carrying out acts on foreign soil”. That is discrimination by nationality. If he were a US national he would not be excluded. The other factors become irrelevant.
The ability to rely on and argue from the First Amendment is not the same thing as to say this argument must ultimately succeed.
The finding against Chelsea Manning was not relevant. Manning was in a different position. He was a government employee, a whistleblower and not a journalist. The position in relation to the First Amendment was entirely different.
The argument that the First Amendment would automatically apply if Assange were on US soil is simply wrong. Several precedent cases showed this.
Summers then handed over to Edward Fitzgerald again. At this point. James Lewis rose to object. He said he had not objected to Mark Summers replying, although this was not the originally agreed procedure. But to have two people replying seemed excessive.
Judge Sharp responded with great seriousness. “Given what is at stake here”, she said, she would hear anything anybody wanted to say. If he wished, Lewis could respond again after Fitzgerald.
That “given what is at stake here” was very striking. It was the first real acknowledgement of the major issues at stake in this case, and perhaps also of the devastating consequences for Julian personally, from the judiciary in over a decade of proceedings. It did feel like something had changed.
Edward Fitzgerald then got going. The most important point, he said, was the deafening silence from Kromberg. He could have given the assurance that the prosecution would not seek to argue that Julian should be debarred from First Amendment protection by his nationality. But he had not done so.
It was perfectly normal practice for diplomatic assurances to include commitments for the prosecution to pursue or not pursue a certain course of action. In this very case they had assured the prosecution would not seek to pursue charges which might bring the death penalty. Yet Kromberg had not given any assurance he would not pursue the barring of the First Amendment, which he had on the contrary given an affidavit saying he might indeed pursue.
The assurance given was no assurance at all. Lewis had said that Assange would be able to rely on the First Amendment; but that was not what the “assurance” said. It said rather that he could seek to rely on the First Amendment, which was not the same thing at all.
Extradition could not be granted because there were too many issues of prosecutorial behaviour unresolved as well as issues of law.
The arguments were now at a close after just ninety minutes. Judge Sharp rose and said she and Judge Johnson would return in ten minutes to explain what would happen next.
In the end it took twenty minutes. When she returned, Judge Sharp had on her most solemn face. She started off by saying that everybody should listen to their decision in silence, and if anybody thought they could not do that, they should leave the court now.
I have to confess, I worried. If they now ruled against Julian, extradition could be immediate. He could literally be whisked straight to a military airfield. Was Judge Sharp expecting protest?
Very quickly the fears were allayed. Sharp stated simply that the right to appeal had been granted on grounds 4 and 5 of the applications – i.e. Freedom of Speech and Discrimination by Nationality. She also stated explicitly that the right to appeal applied to every count of the indictment, thus rejecting Lewis’s argument that some of the charges could not attract a freedom of speech defence.
The parties were given until 24 May to submit a joint memorandum on procedure and timetabling for the appeal hearing.
It is very important to understand that all of the other issues have fallen away and cannot be reintroduced. We are now down to the one narrow point on freedom of speech and discrimination by nationality. But I do not see how the United States escapes from this corner.
At the substantive appeal hearing, the issue, the arguments and the case law will all be exactly the same as at this preliminary hearing. The only difference will be the burden of proof. Here the defence only had to show there was an arguable case of discrimination. At the substantive hearing they will have to prove it is a winning argument.
But given the performances here and the fact the judges took only several minutes – when everyone was expecting at least several days – to reject the US prosecution arguments, I do not see how the USA can now win this.
We do not know when the substantive hearing will be. My bet would be October, though the legal team thought July possible. Of course Julian remains in a terrible maximum security prison. But freedom comes closer.
A cynic may see all this as a further kick into the long grass and spinning out of the process until beyond the US Presidential election, as Biden would be very ill-advised to bring Julian in chains to Washington for the campaign. But my feel for it was not that. I do believe this was a genuine win, and we are on the way to victory and freedom before Christmas.
It is unlikely, though not impossible, that the judges who granted the appeal will hear the appeal, so I fear that is the last we shall see of Dame Victoria Sharp. The frankly hideous Tory Lord Chief Justice Burnett has retired, so I expect the appeal will be heard by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, who has no previous involvement with the case.
It is a notable fact that so far female judges have shown themselves much less biddable by security service interests than male judges in this long saga. It appears that the judiciary have again found a way towards barring the extradition that does not involve any judgment on the public interest of revealing war crimes or any discussion of the issues in material revealed by Wikileaks most embarrassing to the United States.
If the United States loses this case, as at present they stand to do, then Biden is in a lose-lose situation. He will get no credit for promoting freedom of speech and media freedom by dropping the case. On the other side, the hawks will characterise him as a loser who could not win an important national security case, even in his closest ally. The political logic for Biden in taking the off ramp appears compelling. But can Biden’s interests prevail over the will of the CIA?
————————————————
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.
The collective shrug with which the Western media and political class noted the attempted assassination of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has been telling.
Can you imagine the outrage and emotion that would have been expressed by Western powers if not Fico but a pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian leader within the EU had been attacked? The new orders for weapons that would have been presented to the arms manufacturers, the troops that would have been deployed, the sabres that would have been rattled?
Instead we have the media telling us that Fico opposed sending arms to Ukraine and opposed threatening Russia. We are told he did not accept the mainstream narrative on Covid vaccinations. The media do not quite say he deserved to be shot, but they come very, very close.
Fellow EU leaders followed correct form in making statements of shock and disgust at the attack on Fico, but they were formal and perfunctory. The “not actually one of us” message was very clear.
There are now an ordered set of neoliberal beliefs to which anybody in a Western nation participating in public affairs must subscribe, or they are beyond the pale.
Not to subscribe to all of these beliefs makes you a “populist”, a “conspiracy theorist”, a “Putin puppet” or a “useful idiot”.
These are some of the “key beliefs”:
1) Wealth is only created by a small number of ultra-wealthy capitalists on whom the employment of everybody else ultimately depends.
2) The laws governing financial structures must therefore tend to concentrate wealth to these individuals, so that they may deploy it as they choose.
3) State-created currency must only be concentrated in and distributed to private financial institutions.
4) Public spending is always less efficient than private spending.
5) Russia, China and Iran pose an existential threat to the West. That comprises both an economic threat and a physical, military threat.
6) Colonialism was a boon to the world, bringing economic development, trade and education to people of inferior cultures.
7) Islam is a threat to Western values and to world development.
8) Israel is a necessary project for spreading Western values to the uncivilised Middle East.
9) Security necessitates devoting very substantial resources to arms production and the waging of continual war.
10) Nothing must threaten the military and arms industry interest. No battle against corruption or crime can override the need for the security military industrial complex to be completely unchallenged and internally supreme.
Within this architecture of belief, other orthodoxies hang dependent, such as the correct way to respond to a complex pandemic, or support for NATO and impunity for the security services. (Support for Israel is probably better portrayed as a dependent point, but with the subject of Gaza so prominent at the moment I have figuratively moved it into the main structure.)
Any deviation on any point of belief is a challenge to the entire system, and thus must be eradicated. You will note there is no room whatsoever, within this architecture of thought, for values like freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. They simply do not fit. Nor is it possible within this architecture to incorporate actual democracy, which would give people a choice of what to believe.
If you accept this architecture of thought, then you must argue that the Genocide in Gaza is a good thing, and it threatens the entire structure if you state that it is not a good thing. That is why we have witnessed the spectacle of politicians defying and then repressing their own people, willing to place all of their political capital at the service of genocidal Zionism.
Words struggle to convey the horrors we have all seen from Gaza, and in no way does it lessen the terrible suffering nor the extent of the crime to observe that it has caused a major rift in the neoliberal belief system which cannot be hidden from the people.
Gaza has ramifications leading to questioning throughout the system. Why is Tik Tok being banned, to stop people getting information on Gaza? Why is it a problem that the platform is owned by China?
What has China done that makes in an enemy? China has no military designs on the West. Of recent purchases most of us have made of physical goods, a high proportion have come from China. Why is an important trade partner an “enemy”?
Why is Russia our enemy? The notion that the Russian army is going to land on the Wash is utterly implausible. The Russian state, over centuries and wildly differing regimes, has never had the slightest desire to invade the British Isles. In the UK, under various governments, for almost three centuries charlatans have been claiming a threat of Russian invasion to justify higher defence expenditure.
Why the need to have “enemies” at all?
One designated “enemy” is David McBride. He is the latest whistleblower to be jailed for serving humanity. An Australian military lawyer, he blew the whistle on war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan.
Now there is no dispute that the war crimes were real. There is no dispute that they were being covered up. There is no dispute that McBride released true information that was being hidden from the public.
But that does not matter. McBride was sentenced to five and a half years for leaking documents. As is the case in both the US and UK as well as Australia, there was no public interest defence allowed in McBride’s whistleblowing.
The case is slightly complicated by the fact that McBride claimed he did not leak the documents to expose the war crimes, but rather the opposite; to prevent the heavy-handed investigation of individual soldiers. Whatever the motive, nobody has in fact faced any punishment for the war crimes revealed by McBride, while McBride is in jail for exposing them.
The slavish worship of “national security” is of course similarly at play in the case of Julian Assange, who has another court date on Monday. He has already served five years in a dreadful maximum security jail, after seven years detained in the Ecuadorean Embassy, for his exposure of extensive war crimes for which nobody has been punished. Again, no public interest defence is permitted.
I am for once hopeful that we shall see Julian free very soon. Asked to give an assurance to the court that Julian Assange will not be barred from claiming First Amendment freedom of speech rights on the grounds of his nationality, the US government has replied that he will be able to argue in court that he should not be so barred.
That is of course not the same thing.
The “rules-based order” that has replaced international law in the neoliberal mind, depends on ad hoc rules designed to enforce the neoliberal thought construct outlined above. In the International Court of Justice in South Africa vs Israel, we will witness whether the established legal system retains enough self-respect to uphold actual law against these “rules”.
At the High Court in London we shall witness the High Court of England and Wales face the same test. In the face of blatant refusal by the United States to comply with the stipulated assurances, will the High Court maintain its intellectual self-respect? Or will it bow down to the dictates of the neoliberal world order?
It is a key moment. I believe the neoliberal structure is cracking. Who can be saved?
————————————————
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.
Incredibly the Israeli genocide in Gaza is now reaching new heights of violence. Casualty figures are not coming in, as the attacks are so bad that bodies cannot be recovered, medics cannot travel and there are almost no medical facilities operational now anyway.
We now see that the Western injunctions not to attack Rafah were a smokescreen of lies to mask complicity. The final pocket of Gaza is being ruthlessly ethnically cleansed and its infrastructure will be destroyed like all the rest.
It is striking that this is accompanied by an absolutely shameless doubling down of support for Israel by the Western political and media classes. Any thought that their isolation from the vast breadth of public opinion would give them pause, must be abandoned. Their Zionist lobby paymasters have jerked the chain, and rather than rowing back, we are seeing a redoubling of their efforts to suppress dissent and obscure the truth.
Some of this shameless distortion is so dissonant with the alleged norms of Western society it is almost impossible to believe it is happening. Here are a few examples.
1) Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta is a highly respected reconstructive surgeon who continued to work heroically and tirelessly in Al Shifa hospital, carrying out operation after operation, mostly on women and children, as the hospital was shelled, strafed and machine gunned around him.
He was already a surgeon of great distinction, based in Glasgow where he is now Rector of Glasgow University.
When Germany banned him from entering to address the conference on Palestine from which Yanis Varoufakis and others were also barred, it appeared perhaps as a one-off action as part of Germany’s extreme and panicked reaction to pro-Palestinian expression.
We have come to understand that Germany has a vicious hatred of Palestinians, remarkably based on the psychological trauma of inherited guilt from the Holocaust. While this is a muddled national psychosis that is plainly immoral and wrongheaded, at least it is possible to have some understanding of how it occurred.
But it then turned out that the travel ban slapped on Dr Abu Sitta by Germany has a Schengen-wide effect as he was also banned from France. That appeared again something that was almost a technical accident as regards the rest of Europe.
But the Western political establishment has now doubled down again by banning him from the Netherlands, and this time the Dutch government has made it clear that it supports the ban, and is not just caught by a Schengen restriction.
So the major governments of the European Union are forbidding a distinguished surgeon from giving first-hand medical evidence of the genocide taking place. I cannot think of anything that more sharply exposes the willingness of the Western political class to abandon the most basic tenets of supposed “Western democracy” in the interests of Israel.
2) The willingness of the United States to use extreme violence against pro-Palestinian students on college campuses is another demonstration of the same abandonment of the pretence of democracy when it comes to Israel. It also illustrates what has come to be a serious generational divide in Western public opinion, with young people very strongly motivated to oppose the genocide (which is not to say that older people are pro-genocide, just that they are more split, particularly in the USA).
This is being followed up with yet more crazed pro-Israeli legislation in the United States, seeking to designate anti-genocide and pro-Palestinian expression on campuses as anti-semitic and thus illegal.
In many ways this typifies the reaction of the ruling class across the West. Their reaction to suddenly being exposed as the paid servants of an Israel which no longer has popular support and now causes public revulsion, is simply to attempt to ban free expression and make it specifically illegal to disagree with them.
3) The British Labour Party has gone even madder. Keir Starmer’s Genocide Party is an outstanding example of the success of the Israeli lobby in buying up both sides of the aisle and controlling the entire neoliberal uniparty that poses as the repository of democratic “choice” in the West.
Starmer had been doing his best to conceal his explicitly expressed “unequivocal support for Israel” lately, and to row back from his straightforward assertion that Israel has the right to cut off food and water from the population of Gaza. There had been a fake shift, from refusing to countenance the word “ceasefire” to supporting a temporary ceasefire or a “sustainable” ceasefire – the latter being code for a ceasefire after Israel had achieved all its ethnic cleansing objectives.
But then David Lammy blew this out of the water with an address to US Republican senators in which he made the totally bonkers assertion that Nelson Mandela would have opposed the college protests for Palestine. Lammy is a truly despicable individual, one of the ultimate examples of the corrupt politician whose voice is bought. But this was a move far beyond the pale.
4) Even today, the Western media continues to spout out Israeli propaganda at mains pressure. The Guardian, despite the thousands and thousands of dead women and children we have seen on our mobile phones this past seven months, continues to pretend that the genocidal attack is on “Hamas militants”.
The bombing and shelling of civilians in tents is still described as “clashes”. This propaganda really does not wash any more, though it may reinforce the morale of hardened Zionists. Everybody else has seen through it months ago. Yet still they persist.
5) The endgame is becoming very apparent. The United States is completing its floating harbour for Gaza, and Israel has gained control of the Rafah crossing into Egypt, giving the US and Israel total control of entry points into Gaza. Israel has announced that the Rafah crossing is to be handed over to a US mercenary force. The US can then say it is complying with Biden’s pledge not to put US forces’ boots on the ground in Gaza, while actually taking control.
The Israeli attack on Rafah has been justified by the USA as a “limited military operation”, thus claiming it does not violate Biden’s purported “red line”, even though Israel has ordered over a million displaced people in Rafah to evacuate again, to nowhere.
Conclusion:
The only possible conclusion from all of the above is to reinforce my analysis that the Zionist political and media classes in the West, including Biden, Blinken, Trudeau, Macron, Sunak, Starmer, Scholtz, von der Leyen and all, are active and willing participants in a programme of genocide.
They had numerous opportunities to turn back. We all saw what is happening months ago. They did not take them.
The endgame remains the processing of the remaining Palestinian population out of Gaza through the US-controlled points of the Rafah crossing and the floating harbour, primarily into camps in the Sinai desert. The Western powers are doubling down on their genocide and on their colonial project.
I see nothing whatsoever that indicates they can have any other long-term objective in mind than the complete Israeli annexation of Gaza minus its civilian population. What do you see?
————————————————
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.
The deluge of Islamophobia on social media unleashed by supporters of the Gaza genocide has been profoundly shocking. It is one reason I am very sorry that Humza Yousaf was forced out as First Minister of Scotland, as he was a particular target and his ousting will have encouraged the bigots.
On Twitter and Facebook I frequently receive comments suggesting that I should go and live in an Islamic country (from people evidently unaware that I have previously), or that I should meet Hamas or the Taliban (from people again unaware that I have previously) who would behead me, or that Muslims wish to kill all non-Muslims.
What strikes me curiously is the sincerity of their Islamophobic beliefs – they really do believe all these things, because they have been imbued with this hate by absorbing years of propaganda in which Muslims are dehumanised.
I want to tell you, and them, a small story. In Pakistan a fortnight ago, I was in Lahore searching for the house of General Allard, where Alexander Burnes spent time. Allard is a fascinating figure but I do not want to digress here from the point of this story.
I did not find Allard’s palatial residence, which has been demolished long ago, but I did find the tomb where he and his daughter were buried. The tomb was attached to the house, and my friend Masood Lohari and I were able to do some urban archaeology, discovering that elements of the palace and its outbuildings had been incorporated into much later structures now on the site.
We were walking around the dense buildings when a man got off his scooter and invited us in to a doorway. Masood told him what we were doing, and he invited us up many winding steps to his attic apartment, where he opened a trapdoor into a roof cavity that revealed a very old structure.
His attic apartment was clean but very sparsely furnished. It had two rooms, in one of which his invalid father lay on a bed. In the other he and his wife had their bed. There were plastic chairs and table and an incongruously large old fridge.
His wife produced dates and nuts and tea and insisted we sit down to drink. The fridge was opened and the entire contents were emptied out for us. There was a delicious half melon, which was diced and put into bowls. A handful of strawberries were crushed and whipped up with the milk. Bread was broken and the very small amount of meat diced and grilled.
We tried to refuse some of the hospitality but plainly to persist in that would have caused enormous offence. It was obvious that this was a household living by western standards in great poverty, but every single bit of food available was cleaned out and given to the guests. Our beaming hosts told us of the blessing they received in providing hospitality to strangers.
The point is, that I have experienced this often in Muslim countries. In my experience, it is typical of the way that Muslim people behave. It is for example a fact that in the UK, Muslims devote a much higher proportion of their income to charity than non-Muslims.
Hate is bred of fear, and fear is bred of ignorance. It is tragic that in developed countries, resources are available for war but not to counter that ignorance.
But of course, the hate is deliberately inculcated as it is required to bolster support for war. From war the Establishment make a great deal of money and foment yet more hatred with which to bolster their authority.
————————————————
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.
The leadership of genocide enthusiast Keir Starmer – who is still supporting arms sales to Israel and the “Israeli right to self-defence”, who still refuses to acknowledge one single Israeli war crime – cost the Labour Party dear in Blackburn in the local elections.
The result means I am very likely to win the parliamentary seat.
The Blackburn Independent Councillors, who resigned from Labour over Gaza and invited me to stand as their parliamentary candidate, were re-elected and took new seats. They did not gain control of the council only because this was an election for just one third of Blackburn with Darwen’s council seats. The council has annual elections by thirds.
The parliamentary seat is no longer contiguous with the council area, with Darwen now excluded. The result inside my parliamentary seat was an even more convincing win for the Independents.
I put Muntazir Patel’s stunning result in Shear Brow and Corporation Park first, because this is where the cover photo of my book “Zionism is Bullshit” was shot.
When I stood against the war criminal Jack Straw in Blackburn in 2005, his Labour/BAE fixer Lord Ahmed Patel ensured I was excluded from the mosques and community events there, so I stood outside in the street on a Friday canvassing. That is the cover shot. Muntazir has now swept the area against Labour.
I am sure we can win. I am going to be very honest. When I accepted the joint offer from the Independent Councillors and the Workers Party of Great Britain to fight the seat, I did not then think we could really win. I accepted on the basis that, if we gave Labour a hard fight in Blackburn, they would be forced to divert resources they could otherwise concentrate on attacking George Galloway in nearby Rochdale.
So my strategy was to help George get re-elected by tying up Labour and by adding to the feeling of a real new working class movement across the North West and elsewhere in England.
I say this without shame.
Under the first past the post system, on average less than 100 seats change hands at a UK parliamentary election. That means in only at most 150 seats are there two candidates who might realistically win. In the other 500 seats there is normally only one candidate likely to win, and the six or so other candidates know they are fighting a losing battle.
So out of about 5,000 candidates in a British parliamentary election, only 800 normally are going to win or to come a close second. Others are standing to advance their arguments and to give voters a choice. Of course few candidates ever admit they do not expect to win.
I now do expect to win. We now know that the revolt against Starmer – accelerated by Gaza, but also by his leading the Labour Party so far to the right they are in all crucial policies indistinguishable from the Tories – is very real.
Starmer is the chosen one of the Establishment, and the media are bigging up his mild gains in the local council elections. But in fact Labour achieved only 35% of the vote nationally in England and Wales, which is one of their worst results and below the average result Labour obtained in national local government and general elections under Corbyn.
I shall be one of a number of candidates standing to give voters a genuine choice of more left wing policies at home and an end to perpetual war and support for Zionism abroad. Those candidates will include Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Andrew Feinstein, Peter Ford, Monty Panesar and others. The informal alliance is growing and bonds are being knit. I hope by election day all voters in England will be offered a left wing, anti-war choice for their vote.
The media and political parties are doing their best to hide the desire for such a choice. But at the English local elections 37% of those who voted, did not vote either Labour or Tory. That is huge. The narrative being spun that those who did not bother to vote are actually enthusiastic Labour or Tory supporters and this will change in a general election with a higher turnout, does not stand up to ten seconds’ serious consideration.
I look forward to having the chance to tell a number of very hard truths in the House of Commons, and to help offer real opposition to the Blue and Red conservative parties. But I need now to take very seriously indeed the role of representing, supporting and improving the lives of all the people of Blackburn. I shall therefore shortly be moving to live full time in the constituency.
I have a lot to give, but also a very great deal to learn from Blackburn people. I approach that with determination and humility.
I judge that the public revulsion at the genocide in Gaza has now made it very difficult for the police to continue to hound me over my support for Palestine, and of course mad Suella Braverman is no longer Home Secretary. Two very brief test visits did not see me arrested again, so I shall now return from exile to run for Parliament. It is a risk I need to take.
When I stood in Blackburn in 2005 against Jack Straw, against the Iraq War and the excesses of the “War on Terror”, many scores of readers of this blog turned up in the town to campaign for me.
We will need you all again, now alongside solid and enthusiastic local support – and this time we are going to win!
————————————————
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.
