Category Archives: Think Tanks

Think Tank Henry Jackson Society Promotes Iran War To Parliament

The Henry Jackson Societies attempt to build a pro war consensus against Iran gathered further pace last week, as they pitched their case of “what it takes to prevent a nuclear Iran” to a packed committee chamber in Parliament.

As we showed in a damning expose last week, penned by Alan Mendoza, a former Co-Director of The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) In a damning indictment, Mendoza stated that the HJS are an:

“abrasively right-wing forum with an anti-Muslim tinge, churning out polemical and superficial pieces by aspiring journalists and pundits that pander to a narrow readership of extreme Europhobic British Tories, hardline US Republicans and Israeli Likudniks…..provides an insight into the obscure backstage world of Conservative politics”

HJS are a Zionist, Neo-Conservative front that are lobbying intensively at the heart of our Government to manufacture consent for an attack on Iran.

A recent study released by the Political Studies Association at the University of Durham titled “Thinking ahead : David Cameron, the Henry Jackson Society and the British Neoconservatives” makes for some very shocking reading to the uninitiated, on matters of Foreign Policy and International Relations.

The “expert talking head” the HJS bought into Parliament to effectively sell war to our politicians was one Michael Makovsky, Foreign Policy Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a right wing, pro war, Neo-Con, American think tank.

Michael Makovsky is himself an interesting character, between 2002-2006, Makovsky served as a special assistant for Iraqi energy policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defence and is a founder and president of MSM Consulting LLC, an energy and political risk consulting firm for various investment firms, focusing on markets and hedging strategies for oil, petroleum products, natural gas and electric power.

Makovsky also authored “Churchill’s Promised Land” exploring Winston Churchill’s relationship with Zionism.

So what you have is a staunch zionist, that definitely stands to gain ideologically with Iran’s destruction and possibly earning a few bucks by hedging investments on behalf of his clients on the world oil bourse.

Sadly our Parliamentarians are either too stupid or are complicit with this scheme, the picture above was gleefully tweeted by HJS staffer Ray Kassam shows a packed parliamentary committee room listening to the lies being spun:

Just in case our Oxbridge educated political elite have forgotten about the lies and spin that led to the illegal invasion and subsequent murder of over a million innocent Iraqi’s, let’s just remind them of a few facts.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just released its most recent report GOV/2012/37 30 August 2012on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.

As usual this report is used to hype up the “nuclear Iran” scare.

Rupert Murdoch’s The Times was busily reporting that Iran is stockpiling weapons grade uranium a claim which is so completely false as even its own report below that headline states:

The Israeli diplomat said that Iran was in the process of doubling its capacity at Fordow to about 1,500 centrifuges, increasing the amount of 20 per cent-enriched uranium it could produce. Uranium enriched to 20 per cent fuels Iran’s main research reactor, but it is also just below the level usable in nuclear bombs.”

Not only is any Uranium Iran has below weapons grade but, according to the new IAEA report, “Iran has today less enriched Uranium that could quickly be converted into a nuclear weapon than it had in May 2012”, the time of the IAEA’s last report GOV/2012/23 – dated 25 May 2012 on the issue.

In an unprecedented visit to Israel, Sir John Sawyers, head of Mi6, urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to give the go-ahead to plans to bomb Iran. Britain may well be opposed to taking decisive military action on Iran right now, but with the likes of the HJS beating the drums of war to our Politicians, it makes the likelihood of an escalation of hostilities far more likely.

Recently Sir Nick Harvey the Lib Dem MP was removed from his post in the Ministry of Defence. The former Armed Forces Minister, told friends that he was fired in the reshuffle to allow Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to sign Britain up to an Israeli-US preventive strike to take out Iran’s nuclear installations.

Was Harvey sacked just so he wouldn’t embarrasse the Government by being too critical of Israel’s actions if he had still been in the key Ministry of Defence post?

The row broke as sources confirmed that the US has asked Britain to provide frigates to patrol the Straits of Hormuz, where an Armada of international naval power is massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike. That’s quite a manoeuvre to pull off, while the rest of the world is distracted by a video no one ever really saw, cruisers, aircraft carriers and minesweepers from 25 nations have converged onto the Persian Gulf.

On the whole, the “nuclear Iran” scare has little to do with reality and everything to do with the Israeli, American and British desire to subjugate Iran and thereby further their global and regional domination. As was proved in the run upto the Iraq invasion, we cannot expect to read about the reality of Iran when the consensus is dictated by Israeli pro war hawks, to our imbecilic politicians or even in the majority of the western propaganda media channels.

The Neo-Con/Zionist axis of evil promotes wars that have absolutely nothing to do with Britain or the British people. Merchants of hate like the HJS piggy back onto Iran to simply promote their own agenda. They are not interested in the oft quoted “Freedom & Democracy”, peace or the idea that Western civilisation is far more advanced than the rest of the world.

The HJS operate as a “Fifth Column” in Britain, with every single conflict and war that they promote requiring the death of British troops and our taxes to fight their wars. It gives their special interest groups that fund their think tank activities, billions of dollars in extra profits received from servicing the war industry.

You can read further on the Henry Jackson Society in one my recent articles:

Raheem J Kassam – Another “Muslim” house slave for the Neo Cons & Right Wing Tories

As well as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK taking apart another HJS affiliate, in an article titled:

“Where’s Rupert Sutton’s head at?”

2 Comments

Filed under 4GW, Foreign Policy, Great Britain, House of Commons Parliamentary Debates, Iran, Manufacturing Consent, Middle East, Reports & Findings, Think Tanks, UK politics, Zionism

Let’s get rid of ‘Democracy’

“Democracy.” Let’s dump it; toss it on the scrap heap of history. The concept may remain worthy, but the word is rapidly being exhausted of all residual value.

Democracy is much more than the elimination of an undemocratic leader.

What we have seen this year, unfolding on our television screens and laptops, looks like democracy, but as any Parisian schoolchild can recount, the path from the barricades to a functioning parliament can be tortuous.

After the Jacobin terror sent more than 14,000 victims to the guillotine, France (and most of Europe) got Napoleon, whose excesses ultimately led to a restoration of the monarchy. Five years from now, we are more likely to see another Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, or another Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, than to see a functioning representational government in any of the countries now undergoing the “Arab spring.”

The instant transfer of political power is intoxicating, but it should not be confused with democracy itself. Neither can a functioning democracy exist without fair elections, and a social compact that accepts representational government and the discipline of abiding by its decisions.

Truth be told, our government’s commitment to democracy in other countries is almost whimsically inconsistent: clearly greater in Libya than in Saudi Arabia, less in Bahrain than in Iran. We are constrained from actively promoting democracy in China by our enormous national interests there; but in Congo, where our interests are negligible and the outrages against democracy are constant, we do nothing. The misappropriation of the word is so great as to be silly.

Perhaps the late George S. Kaufman had it right when he noted that “One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.”

Taken from Outlook’s Third Annual Spring Cleaning List where 10 ideas, traditions, habits or technologies are dumped into the rubbish tip.

Leave a comment

Filed under Think Tanks, UK politics

Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Hate Crime On The Increase – European Muslim Research Centre

In many countries government policies designed to control the Muslim community, to “domesticate” Islam, have put pressure on Muslims not simply to integrate into a multicultural society but to assimilate by abandoning elements of their Muslim belief and culture in order to enjoy a fuller participation in their new country.

The European Muslim Research Centre recently launched it’s newest report into Islamophobia and anti-Muslim Hate Crime, which can be viewed below.

Professor John Esposito’s foreword (P.27) makes for a very succinct analysis on the exponential increase in Islamophobic rhetoric and agenda.

Ask yourself the simple question, what are YOU doing to stem the tide of anti-Islamic hate that’s sweeping the world?

Leave a comment

Filed under Identity, Islam, Islamophobia, Positive Relations Islam & West, Reports & Findings, Think Tanks

BBC Panorama’s – British Schools, Islamic Rules and The Policy Exchange Connection

So the BBC Panorama’s John Ware finds “Muslim Extremists” running schools and takes the evidence to Michael Gove, Education Secretary. Policy Exchange, the think tank also reports on the same thing as reported by Andrew Gilligan. The ex-chairman of Policy Exchange is…….Michael Gove.

John Ware is a despicable individual with a long and proven track record of Islamophobic hate statements.

Another Panorama report by Ware, entitled “Faith, Hate and Charity” sought to discredit Interpal, a British charity that provides relief and development aid to Palestinians in need. The documentary was criticised for, among other things, an over-reliance on partisan Israeli and American sources.

The right wing think tank Policy Exchange’s reason for being is to serve as another divisive unit, attempting to drive a wedge between British Muslims and the rest of society.

Before Nick Clegg sold out his principles, he blasted that Policy Exchange directors of “bizarre and underhand behaviour”, and questioned the validity of their “evidence”.

The Akh is pleased to see organisations other than the Muslim Public Affairs Committee taking up the media jihad.

Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) issued a notable press release.

Engage also had a piece on this topic, showing how several media outlets, including the Daily Mail, the Metro and the Daily Star acting as a force multiplier by re-reporting on this latest Panorama programme.

Muslim organisations have  to learn how to defend themselves and their much maligned communities. By understanding  the modus operandi of the how the political system works and is influenced by the media and think tanks alike is a vital and necessary first step in grasping the insidious nature of the game being played against Muslims.

2 Comments

Filed under Documentary, Islamophobia, Reports & Findings, Think Tanks, UK politics

Analysing The House of Commons debate on Gaza & Britain’s Middle East Policy 14/15 June 2010

Last week, two debates were held in the House of Commons on Britain’s Policy on Gaza and the Middle East. The Akh provides you with analysis on what was said.

This debate is being paraded as a success by the Conservative Friends of Israel because they managed to flood the debate with their members and controlled the floor.

What’s most interesting is the amount of MP’s who act as Israel’s attack dogs, who stifle any real debate with the obvious red herring of Hamas being a terrorist group, to counter any sort of criticism put towards Israel.

The Akh has taken a lengthy look at the comments made, and aims to dissect it’s true meanings, the following are excerpts of the debate in the order they were made.

The full transcript of what was said on the 14 June debate is available to read here. Whilst the debate held on the 15 June can be read here.

“Let me spell out in simple terms, but in no particular order, the Government’s aims and objectives for the middle east. We will work to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only long-term solution to the conflict is a secure Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, with Jerusalem the future capital of both states, and with a fair settlement for refugees.”

Secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state – What a joke, tell you what Alistair, I’ll give you a map, and you show me where a “Viable” Palestinian state would exist. Al-Quds/Jerusalem cannot be called an Israeli capital, not now, not in the future. United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 proves this to be the case, although successive Israeli administrations since 1980 have given international law the middle finger salute.

Allow the six million plus Palestinian diaspora back to their homeland, and have a full and frank democratic election.

Hold on a second, Israel would never have that, an open election where there would be more Arab/Muslim voters then the imported russian zionists, we could never settle for that.

“Hamas might be as an expression of a movement, it also represents a repressive, authoritarian force which has had a grip on Gaza for too long and held Gilad Shalit unfairly as a hostage for too long.

Democratically elected, whilst Shalit was captured deep into Lebanese territory, remind us what Israeli tanks were doing there in the first place?

“the countries of the middle east will continue to be essential suppliers of the world’s energy needs. There is similarly mutual benefit in the flows of other trade and investments between Britain and the region. This Government will work closely to support and extend those links, facilitating trade missions and signing investment and promotion protection agreements.”

Britain’s role in the Middle=East has always been two fold – secure a cheap and plentiful energy supply and protect Israel, nothing has changed in the last 60 years.

“96 humanitarian aid workers were gunned down in different conflict zones. Why does the United Nations not demand inquiries in every other country where humanitarian aid workers are slaughtered?”

Red herring alert! Denis Macshane is Labour Friends of Israel
see how he tries to divert the pressure away from Israel – Israel isn’t the only bad guy in the world, this kind of thing happens everywhere, it’s normal – No Denis, it is not, no army sends it’s commando’s to invade a ship in the middle of international waters and then proceeds to machine gun unarmed civilians in the back of the head.

“I was asked several times in my ministerial capacity during interviews on al-Jazeera: how could I, as a Jew, undertake my role as British Minister for the middle east independently and objectively? Putting aside the appropriateness or otherwise of the question, my answer was and is straightforward. I am proud to be a friend and supporter of Israel.”

Nothing to do with your Jewishness Ivan, but your belief in humanity.

“The Labour party-in government and opposition-has long championed a two-state solution: a viable, contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.”

Labour had 13 years in charge, what did you do?

Nothing.

Note the wording again “Secure Israel”, “Viable Palestine”.

“Does my hon. Friend agree that a good step forward would be if Israel released the substantial number of Palestinian parliamentarians who are still held in prison, several years after the election? Otherwise, the message is that democracy does not work, and it is like saying to the Palestinians, “Your leaders get arrested and taken away, and therefore you have no representation.” The anger at that in Gaza and the west bank is very serious indeed.”

First bit of sense, in this whole debate, well done Jeremy!

“Does my hon. Friend agree that Hamas, with its view that eliminating the state of Israel is a religious imperative, is a real obstacle to peace?”

More moral midgetry by another key zionist attack dog and paid up member of Labour Friends of Israel, no less the vice chair herself, Louise Ellman.

What she fails to say is that Hamas accepted a 2002 Saudi peace proposal that accepts and recognises Israel’s right to exist in a secure and peaceful manner. It is primarily Israel, as well as its allies refusing to accept the democratically elected Hamas administration as a representative that they can sit and discuss terms with.

“If any other country had behaved as Israel is behaving towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories, international action would have been taken long ago. Yes, Iran’s regime is detestable and it is important to do all we can to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it does not have them at present and it has never invaded another country. Israel does possess nuclear weapons; it is said to have 200 warheads. It has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty and it recently refused to attend President Obama’s conference on nuclear weapons divestment. Israel has invaded Lebanon three times. It facilitated the Sabra and Shatila massacres. It also conducted Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza blockade and the attack on the Gaza flotilla.

Let us also dispose of the distractions that impede action. It makes no difference whether the inquiry into the attack on the flotilla is conducted internally by Israel or internationally. Even an international inquiry would not change Israeli policy. The Goldstone inquiry into Operation Cast Lead had no influence at all, and Goldstone was vilified as a Jewish anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. We have heard mention this afternoon of the dreadful situation involving Gilad Shalit, the young man who was taken into captivity four years ago this week. I feel great sorrow for his family, but he was a soldier on military duty. About 15 members of the Palestine National Council are being held without charge by the Israelis, and about 300 children are being held in prisons by the Israeli Government. It is a distraction to propose, as Tony Blair and Baroness Ashton have done, to change the terms of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Neither of them has challenged the principle of the blockade, yet it is that principle that contravenes the Geneva convention.”

Wow!

“Israel ignores international opinion on the illegal wall that has turned towns such as Kalkilya and Bethlehem into prisons, and on the illegal checkpoints. It knows that, whatever it does, no action will follow. It has the most extremist Government it has ever had, under the most extremist Prime Minister it has ever had, and a Foreign Minister who is an avowed racist. Israel is allowed literally to get away with murder. Only punitive international action will make even the tiniest difference. That means an arms ban, and the kind of sanctions that were imposed by the senior President Bush on Yitzhak Shamir to force him to participate in international talks in Madrid.

This is a situation in which one country is holding 1.5 million people in an internal prison and 4 million other Palestinians in a form of detention, but let us be clear about this: no action will be taken against Israel. President Obama will take no action, partly because he has mid-term elections in five months’ time, and partly because the odious pressure group, AIPAC-the American Israel Public Affairs Committee-can destroy any United States politician who makes the slightest criticism of Israel. When a Republican Congressman suggested that a tiny sliver of the billions of dollars that the United States gives to Israel should be transferred to alleviate a certain amount of poverty in Africa, AIPAC labelled him an anti-Semite. That is what American politicians, including Obama, have to put up with. We could take action, however. The European Union could take action over trade agreements, for example. Let us be clear that we cannot appeal to the conscience and good will of a country that has not demonstrated that it has either quality.

The situation is now unsustainable. The more the Israelis repress, suppress and oppress the Palestinians, the more precarious the future of their state will be. I saw, as did other hon. Members when we went to Iraq this year, that the Israelis are breeding children who hate them because of their hunger and their lack of schooling, and because of the way in which they are being treated. The Israelis seem to believe that treating the people of Gaza like that is a way of weaning them away from Hamas, but it only makes them support Hamas even more. Nobody is excusing Hamas; it has done dreadful things, as I pointed out to its representatives when I was in Gaza earlier this year. The fact is, however, that the Israelis are creating a generation of children who will grow up hungry and hating them.

This Israel does not want a two-state solution, but the only alternative is a one-state solution, and the existential fact is that, before long, there will be more Palestinians than Israeli Jews. It took the Jews 2,000 years to get their homeland in what is now Israel. After 60 years in that homeland, they now risk throwing it all away.”

Now that’s impressive! A politician that actually says it how it is!

“My speech has also been informed by my visit to Gaza in March as part of a cross-party delegation led by my noble Friend, Lord David Steel. The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck) were also part of the delegation. For me, that visit to Gaza was one of those life-transforming experiences that crystallised the issues in my head and made me see them more clearly than I had done before.

In Gaza, 1.5 million people are being held under siege conditions. First, they are blockaded on land. We saw the wall and, more pertinently, we had to be careful not to get too close to it because of the snipers who patrol it. The people are also blockaded by air, as well as by sea, the tragic result of which we saw a couple of weekends ago. To set this in the context of my own constituency, that is the equivalent of the whole of greater Bristol, Bath and all of Wiltshire being blockaded off from the rest of the United Kingdom and denied access to the most basic goods. This is a humanitarian violation on a quite staggering scale”

Note Stephen Williams says he is informed by his visit to Gaza. Instead of doing collections for masajid extensions, use those funds to send more MP’s out to Gaza and the occupied territories of Palestine, let them see for themselves the situation with their own eyes and ears, instead of relying on press statements issued by Israel’s hasbara department.

“We have heard plenty of words, but they have been interspersed with violence. There have been conferences, accords, mutual recognitions, declarations of principles, assassinations, memorandums, elections, permanent status negotiations, unilateral withdrawals, intifadas, reports, ceasefires, peace initiatives, curfews, a so-called “security barrier” that separates families from their livelihoods and nomadic people from their land, rocket attacks, road maps, air strikes, incursions, prisoner exchanges-we have seen all that and more since 1991. We have heard many words, but we have seen many negative consequences and very little positive impact. UN resolutions have been ineffective and Israel has not been held accountable to international standards of conduct and law.”

Oh indeed Sandra, lip service has been all to common, it’s solid action not harsh words which are needed.

“I declare my interest: I am interested in Israel, I am the parliamentary chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel and proud to be so. Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. It was created in the 1940s, partly as a reaction to the way in which the Jews were treated during the holocaust. Israel was created by the international community and it became a bastion of the rule of law, democracy, free speech, business enterprise and family values. If that is not what this country also stands for, I am disappointed.”

Need I say more?

Arbuthnot is Conservative Friends of Israel’s Parliamentary Chairman and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee.

“I would say to my hon. Friend Mrs Ellman and Mr Arbuthnot that, to get to the bottom of what happened on the Gaza flotilla, why can we not have an inquiry to international standards, run by the international community? What is the problem with that if we are to get to the truth?

There has been a lot of focus on Gaza today-rightly so; it is understandable in the circumstances-but let us not forget the west bank. Although there has been a partial easing of checkpoints and movement restrictions, it is still under occupation. Since the start of this year, there has been an escalation of attacks by settlers on Palestinians-up to 132. Land confiscations continue. Demolitions of homes continue. There has been a particularly pernicious systematic eviction of Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem from their homes-often virtually in sight of the United Kingdom consulate general.

If we are to bring such things to an end, we must do more than talk. It is time to say what action can begin to be effective. The European Union has an association agreement with Israel that carries not only rights but responsibilities. It carries the right to trade preferences and various other preferences, but it carries the responsibility of Israel abiding by standards of international humanitarian law. Israel is simply not abiding by those standards. The terms of the EU-Israel association agreement are not being carried out. Therefore, until Israel changes its attitude, that agreement needs to be suspended.”

Yes Richard I agree with you totally.

Sanctions are an excellent way of reprimanding Israel for its bellicose actions.

Boycotting, sanctions and divesting are what ended the apartheid regime in South Africa, and should be used against Israel, by a governmental level (don’t see it happening) and on an individual level.

“The first, fundamental duty of any Government is to safeguard their citizens and borders, and to look after their people at home and abroad. As we come up to the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, we may ask, who would have denied our nation the right and duty to safeguard ourselves against the Nazis? Who would condemn Britain’s historical roles, both in the middle east and blockading the African coast to enforce the abolition of slavery back in the 19th century?”

Bob is pretty delusional, talking about nazi’s, who is imposing collective punishment on whom?

“We must challenge the position taken on the flotilla and ask what its purpose was.”

Yes Bob, do go on

“Look at what happened on 31 May, particularly on the Mavi Marmara. Many of the individuals concerned appeared to wish to be martyrs to the great cause. They attacked Israeli soldiers-remember, Israeli soldiers were injured during the boarding, and the reality is that they were attacked with weapons.”

Bob, take that poster of Mark Regev off your wall.

Obviously myself and most of the world got it wrong, it was the israeli elite commando’s in their helicopters who were minding their own business and were stormed by gun toting maniacs who climbed up to the helicopter and proceeded to bash them with kitchen utensils…yes yes, that’s how it happened.

Be careful Bob, you are a newly appointed MP, The Akh helped to get rid of the zionist MP Dismore in Hendon, be careful what you say or I may just end up on your doorstep. After witnessing your performance first hand at the hustings, it wouldn’t take much to get the natives restless and get you kicked out on your rear.

“I wanted to take a little time to step back and tell the House why, ultimately, I count myself a friend of Israel, first and foremost, in the middle east. That is because I think of some fundamental truths. So let us be clear: for all its errors and excesses, which I and the whole House see, Israel is an oasis in a desert-an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights in the middle east. We therefore have to ask ourselves, why does Israel do those things that shock, pain and worry us all? Why does it feel driven to inflict on the people of Gaza what we all recognise, whether in law or not, as seemingly like collective punishment? The answer is very simple: it is not just faced but encircled by an enemy that wishes to destroy it.”

Another ideologically driven zionist comes out of the woodwork.

“I was going to say something very different when I started listening to the debate, but after hearing Nick Boles talk about different countries’ rules, regulations and societies, I must say that that is no basis for invading, for killing or for destroying other people. One cannot say, “I’m a friend of Israel because it is a democracy.” We can be friends with Israel; I have no problem with the state of Israel. I welcome what my hon. Friend Mr Lewis said about the way to deal with the situation in the middle east. He said that the Palestinian people should receive land in proportion to their population. There should be an end to illegal settlements, and we should end the war, which has created so much misery for the Palestinian people.”

Well said Yasmin.

You may not like it, but this is the way that debates are framed and policy is formulated in Britain, a policy that effects millions around the world.

You have to ask yourself what you are doing to challenge the status quo.

Are any of these your elected representative?

Did your MP even bother to turn up at this debate?

Why aren’t your views being heard?

All Members of Parliament are public servants, and occasionally they need to be reminded of this fact, they are in their position to represent the points of view of their constituents.

The only way they can do this, is if you keep the pressure up on your local MP.

Give them the carrot and the stick approach.

Pressure politics, simple and plain!

1 Comment

Filed under Great Britain, House of Commons Parliamentary Debates, Think Tanks, UK politics, Zionism

Mearsheimer: “There Will Be No Palestinian State, There Is No Political Will For It”

Professor John J. Mearsheimer recently delivered a fascinating lecture of the situation in Palestine. His lecture titled “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners” was delivered at The Palestine Centre in Washington DC, and as his prognosis is disseminated, I’m sure it’ll have the zionists hopping mad, just like his now seminal piece “The Israel Lobby” did a couple of years back.

The full video is available to view here and I have taken the liberty of summarising the key findings for you below. For the more studious types out there, you can read the full unabridged transcript of his lecture here.

· There is not going to be a Palestinian state. There is no political will for it in Israel, and the US lacks the power to impose a two-state solution, largely because of the continuing power of the Israel Lobby. Netanyahu’s “victory was so complete that the Israeli media was full of stories describing how their prime minister had bested Obama and greatly improved his shaky political position at home.” Mearsheimer quotes Andrew Sullivan’s comment on “a cardinal rule of American politics: no pressure on Israel ever. Just keep giving them money and they will give the US the finger in return. The only permitted position is to say you oppose settlements in the West Bank, while doing everything you can to keep them growing and advancing.”

· A Palestinian state is anathema to the Israeli government – the most radically ethnonationalist in its history – and it contradicts basic Zionist ideology, going back to Mandate days: “From the start, Zionism envisioned an Israeli state that controlled all of Mandatory Palestine. There was no place for a Palestinian state in the original Zionist vision of Israel.”

· It is possible that there would be a mass ethnic cleansing – but such a “murderous strategy seems unlikely, because it would do enormous damage to Israel’s moral fabric, its relationship with Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing.” Nevertheless, “we should not underestimate Israel’s willingness to employ such a horrific strategy if the opportunity presents itself. It is apparent from public opinion surveys and everyday discourse that many Israelis hold racist views of Palestinians and the Gaza massacre makes clear that they have few qualms about killing Palestinian civilians. … Still, I do not believe Israel will resort to this horrible course of action.”

· The result is that the trends toward an “incipient apartheid state” will become a full-blown apartheid state “over the next decade.”

· “In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. … It will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians.”

· An apartheid Israel is non-viable for several reasons: The information freely available on the Internet; continued outrage among the Arabs and Muslims; because it is “antithetical to core Western values”; because it endangers American lives; and because most American Jews will not back it.

· Elaborating on the last point, he divides American Jews into three groups, “righteous Jews” (liberals like Norman Finkelstein and Philip Weiss who are critical of Israel), “the great ambivalent middle,” and the “new Afrikaners” – people like Abe Foxman and Elie Wiesel whose views are identical to those of the politically dominant ethnonationalist government in Israel. At the very least, the new Afrikaners will support Israel no matter what it does.

· Although the organized Jewish community is now dominated by the new Afrikaners, this will not last because Jews, like other Americans are ill-informed about the extent of Israeli apartheid. “This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”

1 Comment

Filed under Israel, Morals & Ethics, Palestine, Reports & Findings, Think Tanks, Zionism

Iranians Defecting As New Middle East War Promoted

The Manufacturing of Consent to invade Iran continues, the consensus being built should be noted for its unreliability in its content, an even more grave consequence is that these “facts” are getting major airtime where it counts, if you read my post yesterday, then you’ll know all about how the media can frame the discussion.

The Washington Post states:

“Iran’s political turmoil has prompted a growing number of the country’s officials to defect or leak information to the West, creating a new flow of intelligence about its secretive nuclear program.

Some of the most significant new material has come from informants, including scientists and others with access to Iran’s military programs, who are motivated by antipathy toward the government and its suppression of the opposition movement after a disputed presidential election in June, according to current and former officials in the United States and Europe who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence gains.

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have acknowledged that an Iranian nuclear scientist defected to the West in June. Shahram Amiri, 32, vanished while on a religious pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia and has provided spy agencies with details about sensitive programs, including a long-hidden uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Qom, intelligence officials and Europe-based diplomats said.

Amiri is described by some as the most significant Iranian defector since Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asgari, a former deputy defense minister and Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who switched sides during a 2007 trip to Turkey.”

The Israeli, Arutz Sheva added:

“An Iranian nuclear scientist has asked for asylum in Israel, Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, of the Druze community.

My office has received a request from an Iranian scientist who is currently staying in a friendly country, by means of an Israeli Jewish woman of Iranian birth, Kara revealed in a interview panel appearance in Ramat Gan. I am making an effort to assist in this matter because I believe in helping anyone to remove the strategic and nuclear threat upon the enlightened and democratic world.”

While the Wall Street Journal ran with:

“Israel weighs merits of solo attack on Iran”, alongside a fully interactive demo of the routes Israeli attack jets can fly to attack Iran. They all would require Israeli planes to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq or through the airspace of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey, which could cause serious political consequences for Israel.

David Schenker of The Washington Institute, A U.S.-based (Pro Israeli) think tank, has issued a report saying that a new Middle East war may be looming on the horizon.

Pro Zionist commentators in America are pushing for an attack on Iran by rounding on President Obama:

“The President is more interested in trying to mollify Islamist fanatics who continue their war preparations.”

Whilst elsewhere they conflate Israel’s pro war stance with America’s domestic woes, adding:

“A third factor is whether Israeli planes would need to fly over Iraqi air space to reach Iran. The U.S. still has air bases around the region, and might not want to recognize Israeli planes as friendly. Thus Obama instills uncertainty into foreign policy just he prolongs the recession by instilling uncertainty into domestic policy on medical costs and taxes.”

To say that The Akh is dismayed by this propaganda would be an understatement of immense proportions.

The facilitator of every major violent event thus far in the twenty-first century have been based on lies told by democratic governments. The lies are continuing to be told, about the supposed “existential” menace posed by Iran to Israel, America and (if you believe some European leaders) to Western Europe.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was motivated by the neo-conservative illusion that the Iraqi people would welcome invasion and become a force for democracy, and friends to Israel. Instead, the death of Saddam Hussein and destruction of his government, the wrecking of Iraqi urban society and the country’s infrastructure and industry, which will take years to reconstruct, ignited anarchic insurrection and sectarian conflict, delivering the country into the power and influence of a much larger and more important enemy of both the United States and Israel, Iran. Another lesson about lies, one might have thought.

U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is reported to have sent a secret letter to President Barack Obama last January reviewing the military options available if diplomacy and the new American attempt to intensify international sanctions on Iran fail to produce the desired halt in Iran’s effort, if that is what it is, to build a nuclear deterrent.

If Iran does pursue a nuclear capability, once again it is to deter attack. Precisely the same objection exists to theories of Iranian aggression as to those lies put forward in 2002-2003 about Iraq posing a nuclear menace to the world.

Once more the threat is a polemical invention, intended to frighten American, Israeli (and European) voters, and prompt a pre-emptive attack on Iran. The reason Mr. Gates reports his uncertainties to the president is that he too recognizes that the conflict with Iran is constructed from fictions – which, as with the lies about Iraq, may turn into another war, whose consequences are sure to be worse for all concerned than the fiasco and tragedy of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent slaughter.

5 Comments

Filed under 4GW, Iran, Islamophobia, Israel, Manufacturing Consent, Think Tanks, War, Zionism

“Anti-Terror Laws Need Review” – Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights

Britain’s anti-terror laws need urgent review, many of us have been saying it for years, and now so is parliament’s joint committee on human rights.

One has to question the  “permanent state of emergency” which the government has placed us in, to introduce a number of so called counter-terrorism measures, which as far as protecting us, have eaten huge chunks of our civil liberties and freedoms.

Since September 11th 2001 the government has continuously justified many of its counter-terrorism measures on the basis that there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

In case you haven’t followed how anti terror laws effect us today, here’s a quick breakdown;

  • We’ve seen a dramatic growth in the use of secret evidence in the UK courts.
  • The government’s is complicit in torture.
  • The government maintains an ongoing enthusiasm for extending pre-charge detention to 42 days.
  • Widespread use of intercept evidence – phone taps et al.
  • Terrorism Act 2000’s failure to grant bail.
  • Stop and search powers extended.

Is it credible to say that this country has been in such a state for more than eight years?

This permanent state of emergency inevitably has a deleterious effect on public debate about the justification for counter-terrorism measures.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling backed the call for an urgent review of terror laws and said the committee was right to question whether all the legislation introduced since 2001 is necessary.

“Even more important is the need to stop the use of terror laws for other purposes, like routine stop and search and local authorities’ surveillance of recycling habits”

The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added:

“We have lost too much liberty in the name of security in recent years. Control orders and extended pre-charge detention are a step too far.”

This comes at a time when the genius’s heading up the anti-terror branch, decide to heighten the levels of paranoia by getting internet cafe owners to act as surveillance officers and monitor their patrons web habits.

I have been a vociferous opponent of this government’s Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) agenda, and this effective extension into making the community police one another is just another example of it’s lunacy.

To ask internet cafes to spy on their customers and students is another step in the direction of creating a society of total surveillance.

The dangers about this initiative is that it does not just focus on preventing access to illegal material but also material that is defined as ‘extremist’ without offering an objective definition of what that is.

It  potentially criminalises people for accessing material that is legal but which expresses religious and political opinions that police officers find unacceptable.

It is likely to result in not only a general violation of privacy and freedom of expression but also discrimination against Muslims, whose use of the internet will be seen as inherently more suspicious.

The Institute of Race Relations issued a report last year (downloadable here) in which it found the government’s PVE programme created division, mistrust and alienation.

For all the talk of “Muslims” hating the “West” for its democracy and freedom, it seems our government is doing everything in its path to prove it is more potent than any terrorist threat, as it continually erodes our civil liberties, under the false flag of protecting us.

Unfortunately I now feel more scared of the government than I ever did of any terrorist threat.

Being so close to an election, politicians know full well that the Muslim vote will count, being a cynic I would say they are pandering to our demands, but isn’t that the purpose of an effective lobby?

2 Comments

Filed under Great Britain, Islam, Operation Muslim Vote 2010, Police State, Reports & Findings, Think Tanks, UK politics

Vote None Of The Above

With all the talk about overhauling the voting system to restore our confidence in politicians, it got me thinking, wouldn’t it be better to have a “Vote For None Of The Above” box on our ballot papers?

The fallacy of the voting system is that if you choose to hold a protest vote, by simply not bothering to turn up to vote, then you get the scum bag racists like the BNP or the closeted scum bag racists UKIP winning seats, or even pro Zionist MP’s being parachuted into safe seats.

MP’s always have the felicitous reasoning of demanding why didn’t you vote?

The truth is you give us no reason to vote for you, you constantly lie and we don’t trust you.

To have a system where you could declare your active non-vote would be a brilliant way to get the message across to the political system of this country. The politicians and the media will always write off non-voters as being lazy, apathetic or non-political, none of them are ever able to arrive to the simple conclusion that perhaps they are not voting to make a protest, as their voices aren’t being heard.

Mark Thomas is on the right lines on how the system needs to be totally overhauled. His brilliant tour of “The People’s Manifesto” outlines what the people want, after all this is a system of governance by the people, for the people, right?

The idea that all MP’s should wear logo’s of all the companies that sponsor them is a brilliant one, a bit like F1 drivers do on their racing suits, so next time a MP opens their mouth, we can instantly judge which special interest is at work.

Or simply do like Richard Pryor did in Brewster’s Millions:

Unfortunately, we are not a threat to anyone if we choose not to vote.

By voting you make the prospective MP listen to what you have to say, make them chase your vote.

To hell with it, vote none of the above.

4 Comments

Filed under Think Tanks, UK politics