UK Labour cruising towards split over Israel-Palestine, George Galloway, rt.com, 1/8/18:
"Britain's Labour Party prepares to split; the Israel-Palestine issue breaks up the party after 100 years to the relief of Prime Minister Theresa May. At least that's the proximate cause of the rapidly approaching schism in the opposition Labour Party. Attempts to effectively outlaw existential criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel have foundered on the rocks of obduracy of the veteran Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose commitment to the Palestinian cause has been a leitmotif of his 40 years in left-wing politics.
"Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel has grown massively in recent decades in Britain and throughout the Western world. The recent decision after a passionate debate in the Irish Senate to ban the products of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories was a high point for the BDS movement. And this decision preceded the new controversial National Law passed in the Israeli Knesset, which UN bodies and others have said makes Israel officially an apartheid state, giving a spur to the BDS cause. Widespread ostracism of apartheid South Africa was an important factor in the downfall of the system in South Africa.
"But Israel is far from taking these defeats lying down. The Israeli embassy in London is a vital center for counter-offensives, [with] ambassador Mark Regev a key operative in Netanyahu's machine. That Israel chose to send Regev to London was an early sign of the importance of the UK battleground.
"When I joined the Palestinian struggle in 1975, you could've fitted all British supporters of the PLO into a small hall, with room for elephants at the back. Now you couldn't fit us into Hyde Park. We are millions, literally. I know when the tide turned because I was there, literally. I left West Beirut in 1982, just ahead of the advancing Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Within hours they were at the gates. Their capture of President Arafat's fiefdom in the West of the city led to the departure of Arafat and his forces under an agreement brokered by the US plenipotentiary Philip Habib. Its terms included the protection of the families the fighters were leaving behind. They were promptly fallen upon by the Israeli-backed Lebanese Phalange militia and massacred.
"The UN and the Israeli Kahan Commission later held that former Israeli defence minister Ariel Sharon - present at the scene of the massacre in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp - shared responsibility for the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians. Sharon was required to resign from the government of Menachem Begin but would later return as prime minister himself. The massacre marked the beginning of a long, slow but inexorable turn away from Israel by the British labour and trade union movement. I wrote the resolutions that passed that year in both the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress against fierce Israeli lobbying (I could show you my scars). The resolutions established policy for the first time in favour of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for the recognition of the PLO as the 'sole legitimate representative' of the Palestinian people. In 1982, this was a heady brew, I assure you.
"Year by year, as Israeli governments became ever more right wing and as the plight of the Palestinians grew ever more grim, the giant tanker turned a little more. Although his lifelong fidelity to this cause was not the reason for Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader - the Iraq War and austerity were much more so - it certainly marked a high water mark in the growing movement against Netanyahu's Israel. And Mr Regev and the embassy were not slow to recognise the danger to their position in a Britain whose perfidy played such a key role for over a century in the Israel-Palestine question.
"The full might of the Israel lobby has been mobilized to first stop Corbyn winning the leadership, to depose him once he had won it, and above all to stop him becoming prime minister. They have had some success, particularly within the ranks of Corbyn's MPs - most of them products of the long reign of Tony Blair. Revolt after revolt from within against Corbyn has been mounted on everything from Brexit to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. But the most potent is the now-rampant virulent campaign against 'anti-Semitism' in Corbyn's Labour. What this boils down to is, of course, not anti-Semitism at all but opposition to Israel. The idea that the vegetarian left-wing bicycling peacenik and anti-racism fanatic Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews is as absurd as it is offensive.
"Having failed to dislodge him and failed to make him kneel, his enemies are planning to break away and form a new centrist bloc against Brexit, in favour of NATO and Trident nuclear weapons, and of course in defense of Israel. The last time this happened nearly 40 years ago it failed to prosper. But by dividing the anti-Conservative vote, it kept Mrs Thatcher in power for a whole decade. And thus the only person laughing in British politics today is the beleaguered Mrs May."
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2018
Friday, April 20, 2018
Iraq: No 'War for Oil'
I watched George Galloway's fine 2017 doco The Killing$ of Tony Blair last night. If you haven't already seen it, I can assure you it's well worth it.
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Classic British Blowback
You reap what you sow:
"[Anti-Gaddafi] rebels living in England have claimed the UK Government waived travel bans to let them fight Colonel Gaddafi in Libya as investigators probe the Manchester bomber's visits to Tripoli. Fighters which included Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents have described how MI5 operated an open door policy for those willing to travel to North Africa to topple the dictator.
"It comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted Salman Abedi, who killed 22 and injured at least 119 people when he blew himself up at Manchester Arena, was known to counter-terror authorities. Those who travelled to Libya to fight alongside Islamic rebel groups have described how, even though they were subject to counter-terror orders banning them from leaving their homes because they posed a security threat, they were allowed to travel to the hostile warzone.
"When they returned to the UK, having spent months alongside groups thought by British intelligence to have links with Al-Qaeda, rebels were said to have been allowed back into the country without hesitation. Libyan officials have backed up the claims, saying the British government were 'fully aware' of young men being sent to fight, turning the North African country into an 'exporter of terror'." (Rebels 'went to Libya with MI5 blessing' amid Abedi probe, Gareth Davies, dailymail.co.uk, 25/5/17)
But who could possibly have known this at the time?
Well, Gaddafi, actually.
As he warned Tony Blair in February 2011:
"It's a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the streets.They are armed gangs... [There are] no foreign correspondents here. We have asked all [the] world's reporters to come and see the truth... [You] can't reason with them. They keep saying Muhammed is the prophet, similar to Bin Laden. They are paving the way for him in North Africa... They want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe. [You] need to explain to the international community. Reporters can come to make sure that this is the truth. They are welcome." (Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks in Europe, phone conversations reveal, Robert Mendick, telegraph.co.uk, 7/1/16)
But what would he know?
"[Anti-Gaddafi] rebels living in England have claimed the UK Government waived travel bans to let them fight Colonel Gaddafi in Libya as investigators probe the Manchester bomber's visits to Tripoli. Fighters which included Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents have described how MI5 operated an open door policy for those willing to travel to North Africa to topple the dictator.
"It comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted Salman Abedi, who killed 22 and injured at least 119 people when he blew himself up at Manchester Arena, was known to counter-terror authorities. Those who travelled to Libya to fight alongside Islamic rebel groups have described how, even though they were subject to counter-terror orders banning them from leaving their homes because they posed a security threat, they were allowed to travel to the hostile warzone.
"When they returned to the UK, having spent months alongside groups thought by British intelligence to have links with Al-Qaeda, rebels were said to have been allowed back into the country without hesitation. Libyan officials have backed up the claims, saying the British government were 'fully aware' of young men being sent to fight, turning the North African country into an 'exporter of terror'." (Rebels 'went to Libya with MI5 blessing' amid Abedi probe, Gareth Davies, dailymail.co.uk, 25/5/17)
But who could possibly have known this at the time?
Well, Gaddafi, actually.
As he warned Tony Blair in February 2011:
"It's a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the streets.They are armed gangs... [There are] no foreign correspondents here. We have asked all [the] world's reporters to come and see the truth... [You] can't reason with them. They keep saying Muhammed is the prophet, similar to Bin Laden. They are paving the way for him in North Africa... They want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe. [You] need to explain to the international community. Reporters can come to make sure that this is the truth. They are welcome." (Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks in Europe, phone conversations reveal, Robert Mendick, telegraph.co.uk, 7/1/16)
But what would he know?
Sunday, September 18, 2016
First Bliar, Now Cameron
It seems that British prime ministers just cannot help themselves.
In 2011, a mere 9 years after Bliar invaded Iraq, former UK PM David Cameron (2010-16) got stuck into Libya. (Needless to say, as a Tory MP in 2003, he also voted in favour of the Bush/Bliar war on Iraq.)
Cameron's role in turning Libya into a base for the latter-day Wahhabis and takfiris of IS should receive the same scrutiny as Bliar's in the destruction and sectarianisation of Iraq, and both should be held to account for the devastating consequences of their actions. Hopefully, in Cameron's case, the following official report will help kick-start that process:
"Former prime minister David Cameron's 2011 decision to intervene militarily in Libya was misguided and helped give rise to jihadist extremism in North Africa, a key British parliamentary committee says. The report slams Mr Cameron and his top advisers for expanding a civilian protection mission in Libya to include regime change and failing to adequately plan for the country's future after the overthrow of long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi. It says Britain's military action was based on 'erroneous assumptions' and 'an incomplete understanding' of the ramifications of removing Colonel Gaddafi, and Mr Cameron's team should have been aware the rebel groups Britain was backing contained 'significant' numbers of extremists. 'The UK's actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today,' said committee chairman Crispin Blunt, a Conservative Party MP." (MPs blame Cameron for Libya crisis, rise of IS, Gregory Katz, AAP/Sydney Morning Herald, 16/9/16)
In 2011, a mere 9 years after Bliar invaded Iraq, former UK PM David Cameron (2010-16) got stuck into Libya. (Needless to say, as a Tory MP in 2003, he also voted in favour of the Bush/Bliar war on Iraq.)
Cameron's role in turning Libya into a base for the latter-day Wahhabis and takfiris of IS should receive the same scrutiny as Bliar's in the destruction and sectarianisation of Iraq, and both should be held to account for the devastating consequences of their actions. Hopefully, in Cameron's case, the following official report will help kick-start that process:
"Former prime minister David Cameron's 2011 decision to intervene militarily in Libya was misguided and helped give rise to jihadist extremism in North Africa, a key British parliamentary committee says. The report slams Mr Cameron and his top advisers for expanding a civilian protection mission in Libya to include regime change and failing to adequately plan for the country's future after the overthrow of long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi. It says Britain's military action was based on 'erroneous assumptions' and 'an incomplete understanding' of the ramifications of removing Colonel Gaddafi, and Mr Cameron's team should have been aware the rebel groups Britain was backing contained 'significant' numbers of extremists. 'The UK's actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today,' said committee chairman Crispin Blunt, a Conservative Party MP." (MPs blame Cameron for Libya crisis, rise of IS, Gregory Katz, AAP/Sydney Morning Herald, 16/9/16)
Monday, August 15, 2016
The Killing$ of Tony Blair
The introduction from Saurav Dutt's review of George Galloway's new film The Killing$ of Tony Blair:
"You will laugh, you will cry tears of incendiary rage and you will marvel at the depths the human soul can reach in its quest for infamy and treasure in George Galloway's spectacular new film.
"Galloway has always been a master of the spoken word and a prodigious writer, he now extends his talent to the art of documentary film making and in The Killing$ of Tony Blair Galloway and his talented team have crafted a searing portrait of Blair that will move you to tears and just might make your stomach churn in disgust at the former PM of Britain who callously led the country to war, obliterating Iraq and Afghanistan in the process, stabbing most of his Labour compatriots in the back and walking away from the ashes with riches the devil himself would envy. And what is worse the whole blood-soaked enterprise seems to have troubled him as much as losing a round of golf." (The Killing$ of Tony Blair: troubling, emotional & essential, sauravdutt.com/blog, 28/7/16)
Coming to a cinema near us? We wish...
"You will laugh, you will cry tears of incendiary rage and you will marvel at the depths the human soul can reach in its quest for infamy and treasure in George Galloway's spectacular new film.
"Galloway has always been a master of the spoken word and a prodigious writer, he now extends his talent to the art of documentary film making and in The Killing$ of Tony Blair Galloway and his talented team have crafted a searing portrait of Blair that will move you to tears and just might make your stomach churn in disgust at the former PM of Britain who callously led the country to war, obliterating Iraq and Afghanistan in the process, stabbing most of his Labour compatriots in the back and walking away from the ashes with riches the devil himself would envy. And what is worse the whole blood-soaked enterprise seems to have troubled him as much as losing a round of golf." (The Killing$ of Tony Blair: troubling, emotional & essential, sauravdutt.com/blog, 28/7/16)
Coming to a cinema near us? We wish...
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Leave Your Brain at the Door
A truly stunning example of political groupthink from a just-posted tweet by former UK MP George Galloway:
"The only 3 MPs who didn't stand up to applaud Blair when he left parliament were me, Corbyn and [Diane] Abbott."
The statement emerged from a Q&A session following one of the public screenings in the UK of Galloway's new documentary The Killing$ of Tony Blair.
"The only 3 MPs who didn't stand up to applaud Blair when he left parliament were me, Corbyn and [Diane] Abbott."
The statement emerged from a Q&A session following one of the public screenings in the UK of Galloway's new documentary The Killing$ of Tony Blair.
Friday, August 5, 2016
The Bush/Blair Gift That Keeps on Giving
"A Polaroid picture of a dead man, captioned on the back in ink by an Islamic State judiciary clerk, is the only memento that Hassan Mohammed Ali has of his missing younger brother Sultan. It was handed to Mr Ali at his home in the village of Haji Ali, south of Mosul, by an ISIS patrol that knocked at his door. In the photograph Sultan is lying on his back in a blue tracksuit top, shot at close range, the top right corner of his head blown off. He had been caught several weeks earlier trying to flee. 'Executed for attempting to escape to join the unbelievers,' the dated and signed explanation says on the photograph. 'I keep the photo because it is all I have left to remember my brother,' Mr Ali, 39, said. He was lucky, he managed to escape 3 weeks ago with most of his family. 'I also keep it to remind myself what we fled from.' Mr Ali has found shelter with thousands of other Sunnis fleeing the area around Mosul in the Debaga camp in Iraqi Kurdistan, where he and his family live under the steps of an abandoned football stadium. 'It is freedom of a sort, though not quite as I expected,' he said. [...] Seated in the shade, Mr Ali tapped the photo of his dead brother as he reflected on his fate. 'Once I wanted a lot in life,' he mused. 'Then all I wanted was to escape the Daesh. But now, all I want is a tent'." (Mosul exodus puts camps at breaking point, Anthony Loyd, The Times/The Australian, 2/8/16)
"Many of the refugees are deeply traumatised, having been ostracised by the Baghdad government, bombed by the coalition, persecuted by Islamic State, hunted as they fled the caliphate and enraged at the camp's conditions. Zahir Ibrahim said he had to leave the dismembered bodies of his wife, his cousin and his three children, less than 10 years old, in the desert as they escaped from a village south of Mosul last month. One of the children had detonated an IED. Survivors triggered a second device as they tried to collect the bodies from the first explosion. 'Then the Daesh started shooting at us,' he said. 'So we began running across the desert, 65 of us, leaving the dead in pieces behind us. It is better in this camp than life under the Daesh but it still feels like jail here'." (ibid)
Never forgive. Never forget.
"Many of the refugees are deeply traumatised, having been ostracised by the Baghdad government, bombed by the coalition, persecuted by Islamic State, hunted as they fled the caliphate and enraged at the camp's conditions. Zahir Ibrahim said he had to leave the dismembered bodies of his wife, his cousin and his three children, less than 10 years old, in the desert as they escaped from a village south of Mosul last month. One of the children had detonated an IED. Survivors triggered a second device as they tried to collect the bodies from the first explosion. 'Then the Daesh started shooting at us,' he said. 'So we began running across the desert, 65 of us, leaving the dead in pieces behind us. It is better in this camp than life under the Daesh but it still feels like jail here'." (ibid)
Never forgive. Never forget.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Imperial Hubris
Jeez, that Imperial Hubris is a potent brew:
"... one of the documents released with the [Chilcot] report, a letter from Blair to Bush on December 4, 2001, does contain a hint that things could have been even more disastrous. After suggesting military actions to take place in Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia, Yemen, and Indonesia, Blair turns to Syria and Iran. His advice here begins: 'If toppling Saddam is a prime objective, it is far easier to do it with Syria and Iran in favor or acquiescing rather than hitting all three at once." (In political fights over Chilcot report, Iraqi lives don't matter, Robert Mackey, theintercept.com, 7/7/17)
And don't you just love: "If toppling Saddam is a prime objective..."
"... one of the documents released with the [Chilcot] report, a letter from Blair to Bush on December 4, 2001, does contain a hint that things could have been even more disastrous. After suggesting military actions to take place in Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia, Yemen, and Indonesia, Blair turns to Syria and Iran. His advice here begins: 'If toppling Saddam is a prime objective, it is far easier to do it with Syria and Iran in favor or acquiescing rather than hitting all three at once." (In political fights over Chilcot report, Iraqi lives don't matter, Robert Mackey, theintercept.com, 7/7/17)
And don't you just love: "If toppling Saddam is a prime objective..."
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Greg Sheridan: Master Satirist
This is satire, right?:
"Listening to Tony Blair's epic press conference and John Howard's shorter but no less commanding performance, I was struck by just what master politicians these two men were, and how far they tower over all their successors from both sides of politics in either country. Thirteen years after the events, these two giants are still masters of all the detail, picking their way through the fog of war in real time." (Giants show the path to truth in fog of war, The Australian, 8/7/16)
"Blair's memo to Bush that 'we will be with you, whatever' was not a blank cheque to go to war... but a commitment that Britain would work with Washington to solve the problem of Iraq." (ibid)
"Islamic State emerged out of Syria, a collapsed nation in which the West did not intervene at all." (ibid)
"Listening to Tony Blair's epic press conference and John Howard's shorter but no less commanding performance, I was struck by just what master politicians these two men were, and how far they tower over all their successors from both sides of politics in either country. Thirteen years after the events, these two giants are still masters of all the detail, picking their way through the fog of war in real time." (Giants show the path to truth in fog of war, The Australian, 8/7/16)
"Blair's memo to Bush that 'we will be with you, whatever' was not a blank cheque to go to war... but a commitment that Britain would work with Washington to solve the problem of Iraq." (ibid)
"Islamic State emerged out of Syria, a collapsed nation in which the West did not intervene at all." (ibid)
Monday, June 27, 2016
A Very British Coup in the Making
A backgrounder from Craig Murray's It's still the Iraq War, stupid:
"No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against [UK Labour leader Jeremy] Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?
"The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair's lies will still be visible underneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labor party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published. For the Labor Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labor leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khrushchev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair's careful planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.
"Yes, they are that nuts.
"If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel." (craigmurray.org.uk, 26/6/16)
Worth a read in its entirety.
"No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against [UK Labour leader Jeremy] Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?
"The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair's lies will still be visible underneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labor party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published. For the Labor Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labor leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khrushchev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair's careful planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.
"Yes, they are that nuts.
"If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel." (craigmurray.org.uk, 26/6/16)
Worth a read in its entirety.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Tony Blair Just Couldn't Wait for Iraq War
Sensational revelations on Tony Blair and Iraq appeared in yesterday's MailOnline.
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Thursday, August 13, 2015
A Warning from Tony Bliar
Remember this line from Britain's then Labour prime minister, Tony Bliar?:
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." (24/9/02)
Now here's the same Bliar, much enriched (net worth: $30m and counting) in 'retirement', writing in today's Guardian on the frontrunner in Britain's Labour Party leadership contest, Jeremy Corbyn:
"If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won't be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation." (Even if you hate me, please don't take Labour over the cliff edge, theguardian.com, 13/8/15)
If a warning like that, from a shameless, lying, multi-millionaire war criminal, doesn't get Corbyn across the leadership line (within 45 minutes?), I don't know what will.
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." (24/9/02)
Now here's the same Bliar, much enriched (net worth: $30m and counting) in 'retirement', writing in today's Guardian on the frontrunner in Britain's Labour Party leadership contest, Jeremy Corbyn:
"If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won't be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation." (Even if you hate me, please don't take Labour over the cliff edge, theguardian.com, 13/8/15)
If a warning like that, from a shameless, lying, multi-millionaire war criminal, doesn't get Corbyn across the leadership line (within 45 minutes?), I don't know what will.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Blair Inc.
Behold Fiona Capp's review of Blair Inc.: The Man Behind the Mask in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Few political leaders have provoked as much controversy after leaving office as Tony Blair. Blair Inc. is a combative investigation of the way Blair has gone about 'making himself seriously rich'. The gravest allegation concerns conflicts of interest between his public role as Middle East special envoy to promote economic growth in Palestine and his private commercial interests. The authors argue that Blair's work as envoy has been compromised by his position as an adviser to the bank JP Morgan - whose clients benefited from the two major deals Blair brokered for the Palestinians - and that the Palestinians regard him as Israel's mouthpiece. Overall, Blair emerges as a secretive, self-serving hollow-man. The hostile tone, however, makes it difficult to assess or entirely trust the claims being made."
OK... so Bush's poodle emerges "as a secretive, self-serving hollow man," but the authors of Blair Inc. should have toned down the hostility.
Sure, he may have been complicit in reducing Iraq to the status of a vile, sectarian hell-hole, sending over 500,000 souls to their doom and creating millions of refugees in the process, but hey, that "hostile tone," that's going way too far, guys!
Jeeesus!
"Few political leaders have provoked as much controversy after leaving office as Tony Blair. Blair Inc. is a combative investigation of the way Blair has gone about 'making himself seriously rich'. The gravest allegation concerns conflicts of interest between his public role as Middle East special envoy to promote economic growth in Palestine and his private commercial interests. The authors argue that Blair's work as envoy has been compromised by his position as an adviser to the bank JP Morgan - whose clients benefited from the two major deals Blair brokered for the Palestinians - and that the Palestinians regard him as Israel's mouthpiece. Overall, Blair emerges as a secretive, self-serving hollow-man. The hostile tone, however, makes it difficult to assess or entirely trust the claims being made."
OK... so Bush's poodle emerges "as a secretive, self-serving hollow man," but the authors of Blair Inc. should have toned down the hostility.
Sure, he may have been complicit in reducing Iraq to the status of a vile, sectarian hell-hole, sending over 500,000 souls to their doom and creating millions of refugees in the process, but hey, that "hostile tone," that's going way too far, guys!
Jeeesus!
Monday, June 16, 2014
Brain Trusts
Australia no longer recognises that Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem is... Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, and as a result, Arab diplomats are reportedly mulling a boycott of Australia's live export trade to the Middle East.
What a bummer! So what's poor old flummoxed Barnaby Joyce to do?
"Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, who has made live exports a core feature of his tenure, said the issue was not his 'field of endeavour. I will leave all that wondrous stuff on foreign affairs to people on a vastly better pay scale and smarter than I am,' Mr Joyce said." (Bishop hoses down East Jerusalem row, Jared Owens, The Australian, 14/6/14)
Right... leave it to the Abbott government's... er... brain trust. Hm... that can only mean Foreign Minister Julie Bishop:
"Ms Bishop was a member of the Howard government, which in 2003 committed Australian forces to the US-led invasion of Iraq that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Asked on Sunday whether this had been a mistake in light of current events, Ms Bishop told Channel Ten, 'Well, I supported the liberation of Iraq at that time. I thought Saddam Hussein was one of the worst dictators on the planet at that time. And his removal was a good thing." (We offer support but no troops for Iraq, says Bishop, Dan Harrison, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/6/14)
Yeah, right... And speaking of brain trusts and Iraq:
"Another supporter of the 2003 invasion, former British prime minister Tony Blair, hit out at critics for linking those events to the current violence [in Iraq]. In an article published on his website, Mr Blair blamed the violence on the sectarianism of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, and the west's failure to act in Syria. 'It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis,' he wrote." (ibid)
Oh, I see... so today's Middle East has become a "cauldron" all by itself, and the 2003 Bush/Blair/Howard/Bishop invasion and occupation (that word again!) had absolutely nothing to do with it?
Funny then, that 2002 statement of US Ziocon, Michael Ledeen:
"If ever there was a region that deserved to be cauldronized, it's the Middle East today."*
What could possibly have possessed him to say such a thing?
[*See my 24/3/13 post Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Iran.]
What a bummer! So what's poor old flummoxed Barnaby Joyce to do?
"Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, who has made live exports a core feature of his tenure, said the issue was not his 'field of endeavour. I will leave all that wondrous stuff on foreign affairs to people on a vastly better pay scale and smarter than I am,' Mr Joyce said." (Bishop hoses down East Jerusalem row, Jared Owens, The Australian, 14/6/14)
Right... leave it to the Abbott government's... er... brain trust. Hm... that can only mean Foreign Minister Julie Bishop:
"Ms Bishop was a member of the Howard government, which in 2003 committed Australian forces to the US-led invasion of Iraq that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Asked on Sunday whether this had been a mistake in light of current events, Ms Bishop told Channel Ten, 'Well, I supported the liberation of Iraq at that time. I thought Saddam Hussein was one of the worst dictators on the planet at that time. And his removal was a good thing." (We offer support but no troops for Iraq, says Bishop, Dan Harrison, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/6/14)
Yeah, right... And speaking of brain trusts and Iraq:
"Another supporter of the 2003 invasion, former British prime minister Tony Blair, hit out at critics for linking those events to the current violence [in Iraq]. In an article published on his website, Mr Blair blamed the violence on the sectarianism of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, and the west's failure to act in Syria. 'It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis,' he wrote." (ibid)
Oh, I see... so today's Middle East has become a "cauldron" all by itself, and the 2003 Bush/Blair/Howard/Bishop invasion and occupation (that word again!) had absolutely nothing to do with it?
Funny then, that 2002 statement of US Ziocon, Michael Ledeen:
"If ever there was a region that deserved to be cauldronized, it's the Middle East today."*
What could possibly have possessed him to say such a thing?
[*See my 24/3/13 post Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Iran.]
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Lest We Forget... Iraq
An excellent letter from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"David Cameron has demanded an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka's civil war. Sure, straight after there's an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed when the British government, with others, invaded Iraq despite not having any justification under international law or the authorisation of the UN Security Council.
"It is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy for Cameron to demand another country be open about war crimes it might have committed when the result of the Chilcot inquiry into the circumstances in which Tony Blair dragged Britain into the US-led invasion of Iraq is sitting on his desk, held up from being released because he doesn't want to upset Washington by revealing what Blair and George Bush said to each other." Gordon Drennan Burton (SA)
"David Cameron has demanded an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka's civil war. Sure, straight after there's an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed when the British government, with others, invaded Iraq despite not having any justification under international law or the authorisation of the UN Security Council.
"It is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy for Cameron to demand another country be open about war crimes it might have committed when the result of the Chilcot inquiry into the circumstances in which Tony Blair dragged Britain into the US-led invasion of Iraq is sitting on his desk, held up from being released because he doesn't want to upset Washington by revealing what Blair and George Bush said to each other." Gordon Drennan Burton (SA)
Friday, July 19, 2013
Blair the Barbarian
The chutzpah. The chutzpah:
"So what should the West do [about Egypt]? Egypt is the latest reminder that the region is in turmoil and won't leave us alone, however much we may wish it would. Disengagement is not an option, because the status quo is not an option. Any decision not to act is itself a decision of vast consequences." (We can't let Egypt collapse, Tony Blair, The Australian, 17/7/13)
The Middle East won't leave us alone, however much we may wish it would. Just like Iraq forced our hand, eh Tony?
Here's imperialism's latest pitch from a practitioner of the art: If that perfectly innocent bystander, the West, invades, or destabilises, or otherwise meddles in the affairs of a Middle Eastern country, it's only because said country has left it with no choice in the matter.
Yeah, right.
There is nothing new, of course, in such talk. It's just another variation on Kipling's 'white man's burden'. (See my 5/11/11 post Rudyard Kipling Redux.)
The following reflection on the subject of European imperialism in the Middle East says it all. It's taken from a book published in 1940, The New Spirit in Arab Lands, by an Arab-American, H.I. Katibah:
"There was a time, in the distant past, when imperialism wore a halo around its head; when wholesale murder on the battlefield assumed a mystical quality of divine vindication, if not exultation. There was a time when Jehovah was called the Lord of Hosts, when the almighty God judged among the nations of the world by the sword and the javelin. The great Thothmes III, whom James Breasted called the first empire builder of history, could then appropriately put in the mouth of his God the words of a paean which has come down to us as a monument at Karnak: I have come that I may cause thee to tread down them that are in the marshes; The lands of Meten tremble for fear of thee.
"We feel a thrill of vicarious pride and majesty as we listen to Ammon-Ra, the supreme Egyptian God, adressing his favourite son, the king: I cause them to behold they majesty as a fierce-eyed lion, while thou makest them to be corpses throughout their valley.
"That day has long past. A different philosophy of life has come to the world to disturb those who deify selfishness and glorify greed. Today imperialism has fallen on evil days; it has 'lost face' with all people of intelligence and integrity. It slinks about like a cowardly villain, taking refuge in hypocritical self-justification. It has stooped to apologize and to defend itself like a convicted criminal before the bar of justice. The secret pang of conscience and blush of shame which we now feel as we grimly go about our business of bombing innocent women and children from the sky were blithely absent in a Thothmes, a Nebuchadnezzar or a Genghis Khan.
"This most illustrious of Egyptian monarchs, whose conquests extended from upper Egypt to Megiddo and the confines of Mesopotamia in the 16th century before Christ, would feel quite out of place among the conquerors of our present day. How absurd would it sound to our ears if the Karnak monument had recorded that Thothmes III had conquered the Tehenu and the Utentiu in order to bring them the bounties and beneficences of Egyptian civilization, to prepare them ultimately for self-rule! It would have been equally absurd for Thothmes to have announced to the world, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that he was carrying the 'brown man's burden' in darkest Africa, or in white Syria. No such thoughts disturbed the mind of Thothmes III. If some of his unfortunate enemies were spared, if some war slave rose to the rank of a Moses and was brought up with the Pharaoh's children, that was only incidental to a social system that recognized no freedom or rights for the vanquished. The threats of Thothmes were as fearful as his favors were condescending.
"If we argue that there is some grain of truth and honesty in the humanitarian claims of the modern imperialists, let us not forget that Thothmes and his peers did not so thoroughly crush and annihilate their enemies as their boasts would indicate; their cruelties on the battlefield were not so grim as one would gather from reading their monuments. We have the authority of Breasted himself that Thothmes 'launched his armies upon Asia with one hand and with the other crushed the extortionate taxgatherer.'
"That was ancient imperialism at its best, unmasked, yea naked, standing like a beautiful and mighty savage in the face of the sun, fearful and fascinating like a very God, of one piece with the thundering torrents, the lightning and the earthquake. Not so is modern imperialism which looks more grotesque than grand. Its savagery is atrocious and cunning; the breath of its lying propaganda, like that of a repulsive monster, kills ere it reaches its victim. It is a reversion to barbarism shorn of its innocent beauty and majestic grandeur." (pp 116-118)
"So what should the West do [about Egypt]? Egypt is the latest reminder that the region is in turmoil and won't leave us alone, however much we may wish it would. Disengagement is not an option, because the status quo is not an option. Any decision not to act is itself a decision of vast consequences." (We can't let Egypt collapse, Tony Blair, The Australian, 17/7/13)
The Middle East won't leave us alone, however much we may wish it would. Just like Iraq forced our hand, eh Tony?
Here's imperialism's latest pitch from a practitioner of the art: If that perfectly innocent bystander, the West, invades, or destabilises, or otherwise meddles in the affairs of a Middle Eastern country, it's only because said country has left it with no choice in the matter.
Yeah, right.
There is nothing new, of course, in such talk. It's just another variation on Kipling's 'white man's burden'. (See my 5/11/11 post Rudyard Kipling Redux.)
The following reflection on the subject of European imperialism in the Middle East says it all. It's taken from a book published in 1940, The New Spirit in Arab Lands, by an Arab-American, H.I. Katibah:
"There was a time, in the distant past, when imperialism wore a halo around its head; when wholesale murder on the battlefield assumed a mystical quality of divine vindication, if not exultation. There was a time when Jehovah was called the Lord of Hosts, when the almighty God judged among the nations of the world by the sword and the javelin. The great Thothmes III, whom James Breasted called the first empire builder of history, could then appropriately put in the mouth of his God the words of a paean which has come down to us as a monument at Karnak: I have come that I may cause thee to tread down them that are in the marshes; The lands of Meten tremble for fear of thee.
"We feel a thrill of vicarious pride and majesty as we listen to Ammon-Ra, the supreme Egyptian God, adressing his favourite son, the king: I cause them to behold they majesty as a fierce-eyed lion, while thou makest them to be corpses throughout their valley.
"That day has long past. A different philosophy of life has come to the world to disturb those who deify selfishness and glorify greed. Today imperialism has fallen on evil days; it has 'lost face' with all people of intelligence and integrity. It slinks about like a cowardly villain, taking refuge in hypocritical self-justification. It has stooped to apologize and to defend itself like a convicted criminal before the bar of justice. The secret pang of conscience and blush of shame which we now feel as we grimly go about our business of bombing innocent women and children from the sky were blithely absent in a Thothmes, a Nebuchadnezzar or a Genghis Khan.
"This most illustrious of Egyptian monarchs, whose conquests extended from upper Egypt to Megiddo and the confines of Mesopotamia in the 16th century before Christ, would feel quite out of place among the conquerors of our present day. How absurd would it sound to our ears if the Karnak monument had recorded that Thothmes III had conquered the Tehenu and the Utentiu in order to bring them the bounties and beneficences of Egyptian civilization, to prepare them ultimately for self-rule! It would have been equally absurd for Thothmes to have announced to the world, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that he was carrying the 'brown man's burden' in darkest Africa, or in white Syria. No such thoughts disturbed the mind of Thothmes III. If some of his unfortunate enemies were spared, if some war slave rose to the rank of a Moses and was brought up with the Pharaoh's children, that was only incidental to a social system that recognized no freedom or rights for the vanquished. The threats of Thothmes were as fearful as his favors were condescending.
"If we argue that there is some grain of truth and honesty in the humanitarian claims of the modern imperialists, let us not forget that Thothmes and his peers did not so thoroughly crush and annihilate their enemies as their boasts would indicate; their cruelties on the battlefield were not so grim as one would gather from reading their monuments. We have the authority of Breasted himself that Thothmes 'launched his armies upon Asia with one hand and with the other crushed the extortionate taxgatherer.'
"That was ancient imperialism at its best, unmasked, yea naked, standing like a beautiful and mighty savage in the face of the sun, fearful and fascinating like a very God, of one piece with the thundering torrents, the lightning and the earthquake. Not so is modern imperialism which looks more grotesque than grand. Its savagery is atrocious and cunning; the breath of its lying propaganda, like that of a repulsive monster, kills ere it reaches its victim. It is a reversion to barbarism shorn of its innocent beauty and majestic grandeur." (pp 116-118)
Friday, June 14, 2013
Tony the Tank Engine
"Iraq is poisoned. Thirty-five million Iraqis wake up every morning to a living nightmare of childhood cancers, adult cancers and birth defects. Familial cancers, cluster cancers and multiple cancers in the same individual have become frequent in Iraq. Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects - some never described in any medical books - are all around, in increasing numbers. Trapped in this hellish nightmare, millions of Iraqis struggle to survive, and they call for help. At long last, public pressure and media attention to this public health catastrophe prompted a joint study by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Iraqi Ministry of Health to determine the prevalence of birth defects in Iraq. This study began in May-June 2012 and was completed in early October 2012. The WHO website says that this large-scale study was conducted in Baghdad (Karkh and Rasafa), Diyala, Anbar, Sulaymaniyeh, Babel, Basrah, Mosul and Dhi-Qar, with 10,800 households from 18 districts and a sample size of 600 households per district. The Independent (UK) reported that this study was due to be released in November 2012. But the report has not yet come out... One possible answer was suggested on May 26 by the Guardian. It reported the recent comments of Hans von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations: 'The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers'." (What's delaying the WHO report on Iraqi birth defects? Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, aljazeera.com, 6/6/13)
Tony: How's this, Doc, from my latest opinion piece? "Saddam Hussein was responsible for two major wars, in which hundreds of thousands died, many by chemical weapons. He killed similar numbers of his own people..." (Be honest about problem in Islam, Tony Blair, The Australian, 12/6/13)
Shrink: Excellent, Tony! Just keep up the 'At least we got rid of Saddam' mantra and that'll help you get through the day, OK? For the nights, well, just keep popping the pills I gave you. The key thing though is to keep busy, OK? Stay involved! Keep moving! Keep talking! Keep scribbling! Got me?
Tony: Oh, I am, I am. "When I return to Jerusalem soon, it will be my 100th visit to the Middle East since leaving office, working to build a Palestinian state." (ibid) But, you know Doc, it's getting harder and harder to keep up the pretense.
Shrink: Tony, Tony - there you go again, getting all negative. What'd I say about this Palestinian state thingy?
Tony: Learn from Thomas the Tank Engine?
Shrink: That's right! You gotta believe in yourself! OK, let's play trains again. Ready?
Tony: Yes, Doc.
Shrink: Wooo... Wooo...
Tony: I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...
Shrink: That's it, Tony! What else?
Tony: I know I can! I know I can! I know I can!
Shrink: That's the spirit, Tony. Every time Netanyahu brings you down, just remember Thomas, OK?
Tony: Thanks, Doc, I feel better already.
Shrink: The busier the better, Tony. What about another feelgood project to keep your warm inner glow pulsing away?
Tony: That's what Cherie suggested, Doc. "That is why I established a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths around the world to learn about each other and live with each other." (ibid)
Shrink: Wooo... Wooo... Way to go , Tony!
Tony: How's this, Doc, from my latest opinion piece? "Saddam Hussein was responsible for two major wars, in which hundreds of thousands died, many by chemical weapons. He killed similar numbers of his own people..." (Be honest about problem in Islam, Tony Blair, The Australian, 12/6/13)
Shrink: Excellent, Tony! Just keep up the 'At least we got rid of Saddam' mantra and that'll help you get through the day, OK? For the nights, well, just keep popping the pills I gave you. The key thing though is to keep busy, OK? Stay involved! Keep moving! Keep talking! Keep scribbling! Got me?
Tony: Oh, I am, I am. "When I return to Jerusalem soon, it will be my 100th visit to the Middle East since leaving office, working to build a Palestinian state." (ibid) But, you know Doc, it's getting harder and harder to keep up the pretense.
Shrink: Tony, Tony - there you go again, getting all negative. What'd I say about this Palestinian state thingy?
Tony: Learn from Thomas the Tank Engine?
Shrink: That's right! You gotta believe in yourself! OK, let's play trains again. Ready?
Tony: Yes, Doc.
Shrink: Wooo... Wooo...
Tony: I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...
Shrink: That's it, Tony! What else?
Tony: I know I can! I know I can! I know I can!
Shrink: That's the spirit, Tony. Every time Netanyahu brings you down, just remember Thomas, OK?
Tony: Thanks, Doc, I feel better already.
Shrink: The busier the better, Tony. What about another feelgood project to keep your warm inner glow pulsing away?
Tony: That's what Cherie suggested, Doc. "That is why I established a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths around the world to learn about each other and live with each other." (ibid)
Shrink: Wooo... Wooo... Way to go , Tony!
Friday, March 1, 2013
And The Answer Is...
"Let me tell you a joke, Rora said. Mujo wakes up one day, after a long night of drinking, and asks himself what the meaning of life is. He goes to work, but realizes that is not what life is or should be. He decides to read some philosophy and for years studies everything from the old Greeks onward, but can't find the meaning of life. Maybe it's the family, he thinks, so he spends time with his wife, Fata, and the kids, but finds no meaning in that and so he leaves them. He thinks, Maybe helping others is the meaning of life, so he goes to medical school, graduates with flying colors, goes to Africa to cure malaria and transplants hearts, but cannot discover the meaning of life. He thinks, maybe it's the wealth, so he becomes a businessman, starts making money hand over fist, millions of dollars, buys everything there is to buy, but that is not what life is about. Then he turns to poverty and humility and such, so he gives everything away and begs on the streets, but still he cannot see what life is. He thinks maybe it is literature: he writes novel upon novel, but the more he writes the more obscure the meaning of life becomes. He turns to God, lives the life of a dervish, reads and contemplates the Holy Book of Islam - still, nothing. He studies Christianity, then Judaism, then Buddhism, then everything else - no meaning of life there. Finally, he hears about a guru living high up in the mountains somewhere in the East. The guru, they say, knows what the meaning of life is. So Mujo goes east, travels for years, walks roads, climbs the mountain, finds the stairs that lead up to the guru. He ascends the stairs, tens of thousands of them, nearly dies getting up there. At the top, there are millions of pilgrims, he has to wait for months to get to the guru. Eventually it is his turn, he goes to a place under a big tree, and there sits the naked guru, his legs crossed, his eyes closed, meditating, perfectly peaceful - he surely knows the meaning of life. Mujo says: I have dedicated my life to discovering the meaning of life and I have failed, so I have come to ask you humbly, O Master, to divulge the secret to me. The guru opens his eyes, looks at Mujo and calmly says, My friend, life is a river. Mujo stares at him for a long time, cannot believe what he heard. What's life again? Mujo asks. Life is a river, the guru says. Mujo nods and says, You turd of turds, you goddamn stupid piece of shit, you motherfucking cocksucking asshole. I have wasted my life and come all this way for you to tell me that life is a fucking river. A river? Are you kidding me? That is the stupidest, emptiest fucking thing I have ever heard. Is that what you spent your life figuring out? And the guru says, What? It is not a river? Are you saying it is not a river?" Aleksandar Hemon, The Lazarus Project: A Novel
Now that you've been softened up, how about an answer to the question: What are we going to do about Syria?
Well, as it happens, a certain greying guru-cum-war criminal, who's been there and done that, in Iraq actually, has The Answer:
"Tony Blair has given up trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. Speaking before the 10th anniversary of the invasion, the former British prime minister admitted yesterday that people were sometimes abusive towards him about the war but he still managed to walk down the street. 'Yes, it remains extremely divisive and very difficult,' he said. 'I have long since given up on trying to persuade people it was the right decision. What I have tried to persuade people of now is to understand how complex a decision it was, because I think if we don't understand that, we won't take the right decision about what I think will be a series of of these types of problems that will arise over the next few years.' He admitted that life in Iraq, where sectarian killings continue on a weekly basis, was not what he had hoped it would be following the downfall of Saddam Hussein. But he said the situation would have been much worse if the dictator had been allowed to stay, describing him as 20 times worse than Bashar al-Assad of Syria. 'The answer is not to say to people: 'I'm afraid we should have left Saddam in charge because otherwise these sectarians will come in and try and destabilise the country.' The answer is you get rid of the oppressive dictatorship and then you have a long, hard struggle to push these sectarian elements out, too,' Mr Blair told the BBC." (Iraq war defence wears out for Blair, Deborah Haynes, The Times/The Australian, 28/2/13)
However, his heirs and successors, are yet to avail themselves of The Master's priceless wisdom:
"The Obama administration, in co-ordination with some European allies, is for the first time considering supplying direct assistance to elements of the Free Syrian Army as they seek to ramp up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down and end nearly two years of increasingly deadly violence. Officials in the US and Europe said yesterday the administration was nearing a decision on whether to provide non-lethal assistance to carefully vetted fighters* opposed to the Assad regime in addition to what it is already supplying to the political opposition." (US may boost aid to Syrian rebels, AP, AFP/The Australian, 28/2/13)
[*"Extremists intent on establishing an Islamist state in Syria have gained power within the rebel insurgency, while moderates have lost clout since moves by Washington late last year aimed at the opposite result, according to US officials and rebel fighters... Islamists say the Western concept of a secularist Syrian rebel is misguided. 'There is no such thing as a secularist fighting on the ground, ' said Abu Muhammad, a leader with an Islamist group. 'In the next phase, the Syrian people won't just welcome radicals. They'll welcome the devil himself if he'll help in the fight.'" (West warned it's dreaming, as jihadists take up Syrian insurgency, Nour Malas, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 1/3/13)]
Now that you've been softened up, how about an answer to the question: What are we going to do about Syria?
Well, as it happens, a certain greying guru-cum-war criminal, who's been there and done that, in Iraq actually, has The Answer:
"Tony Blair has given up trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. Speaking before the 10th anniversary of the invasion, the former British prime minister admitted yesterday that people were sometimes abusive towards him about the war but he still managed to walk down the street. 'Yes, it remains extremely divisive and very difficult,' he said. 'I have long since given up on trying to persuade people it was the right decision. What I have tried to persuade people of now is to understand how complex a decision it was, because I think if we don't understand that, we won't take the right decision about what I think will be a series of of these types of problems that will arise over the next few years.' He admitted that life in Iraq, where sectarian killings continue on a weekly basis, was not what he had hoped it would be following the downfall of Saddam Hussein. But he said the situation would have been much worse if the dictator had been allowed to stay, describing him as 20 times worse than Bashar al-Assad of Syria. 'The answer is not to say to people: 'I'm afraid we should have left Saddam in charge because otherwise these sectarians will come in and try and destabilise the country.' The answer is you get rid of the oppressive dictatorship and then you have a long, hard struggle to push these sectarian elements out, too,' Mr Blair told the BBC." (Iraq war defence wears out for Blair, Deborah Haynes, The Times/The Australian, 28/2/13)
However, his heirs and successors, are yet to avail themselves of The Master's priceless wisdom:
"The Obama administration, in co-ordination with some European allies, is for the first time considering supplying direct assistance to elements of the Free Syrian Army as they seek to ramp up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down and end nearly two years of increasingly deadly violence. Officials in the US and Europe said yesterday the administration was nearing a decision on whether to provide non-lethal assistance to carefully vetted fighters* opposed to the Assad regime in addition to what it is already supplying to the political opposition." (US may boost aid to Syrian rebels, AP, AFP/The Australian, 28/2/13)
[*"Extremists intent on establishing an Islamist state in Syria have gained power within the rebel insurgency, while moderates have lost clout since moves by Washington late last year aimed at the opposite result, according to US officials and rebel fighters... Islamists say the Western concept of a secularist Syrian rebel is misguided. 'There is no such thing as a secularist fighting on the ground, ' said Abu Muhammad, a leader with an Islamist group. 'In the next phase, the Syrian people won't just welcome radicals. They'll welcome the devil himself if he'll help in the fight.'" (West warned it's dreaming, as jihadists take up Syrian insurgency, Nour Malas, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 1/3/13)]
Monday, October 8, 2012
Seriously Now...
"Opposition claims of plagiarism have overshadowed Julia Gillard's launch of a campaign designed to attract standout students to teaching. The Prime Minister launched the 'Who's your favourite teacher?' campaign last Friday... Visitors to her Facebook page are asked to post photos and memories of their favourite teachers... But the opposition claims it is a carbon copy of efforts by former British Labour leader Tony Blair to boost teaching which ultimately failed... In a video on her Facebook page, Ms Gillard nominates her primary school English teacher Mr Crowe as her favourite teacher. Mr Blair also nominated his English teacher Eric Anderson as his favourite." (Teacher campaign just 'reheated Blair', Christian Kerr, The Australian, 8/10/12)
Seriously now, would any kid with his wits about him really want to be taught by a teacher commended by the likes of Blair, Bush, Gillard, Abbott & Co?
On the other hand, any teacher who'd belted the bejesus out of this lot...
Seriously now, would any kid with his wits about him really want to be taught by a teacher commended by the likes of Blair, Bush, Gillard, Abbott & Co?
On the other hand, any teacher who'd belted the bejesus out of this lot...
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Perfidious Albion, Again
The following frank admission of Britain's responsibility for the Middle East conflict by British colonial administrator, diplomat and ambassador to the UN (1964-1970) Hugh Foot (1907-1970) comes from his 1964 memoir, A Start in Freedom:
"The failure of British administration in Palestine was inevitable. The double sin had been committed of raising false hopes both with the Arabs and with Jews. The hopes were false because they were conflicting. The Arabs who fought with Britain in the first world war to throw off the yoke of the Turkish Empire were led to believe that they were fighting for their freedom. The Jews were led to believe by the Balfour Declaration in 1917 that they would win a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Relying on British assurances they too fought and worked with us. But Palestine was populated and owned by Arabs. Other nations share the responsibility with us. The United States in particular urged us on in the pursuit of policies which were bound to lead to conflict. But the main responsibility was ours. It is true that when the Balfour Declaration was made and indeed for many years afterwards no one, other than a few Jewish visionaries, thought of a Jewish State in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration promised support for a Jewish National Home in Palestine. It was just, but only just, possible to imagine a Jewish National Home in an Arab country progressing towards self-government and eventual independence. Later on various plans of cantonisation or condominium were broached. But by prevarication and procrastination and basically by the fundamental dishonesty of our original double dealing we had made disaster certain. In the narrow compass of the Holy Land we had unleashed two hopes, two forces, two nationalisms. In 1915 we supported King Feisal's desert rising. In 1917 we signed the Balfour Declaration. The surprising thing is that it was twenty years after those actions before the Arabs revolted and almost another decade before the Jews turned to violence and rebellion. By trying to please both Arabs and Jews we lost the respect and friendship of both and eventually earned the contempt of the world by an ignominious withdrawal. We left those who had relied on our promises to fight it out among themselves. I pray that we shall not make the same terrible error again - in southern Africa for instance." (pp 35-36)
But they have - and in Palestine again: Britain, the nation that betrayed the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people by unleashing on them one of the most toxic strains of European nationalism and settler-colonialism, namely political Zionism, has not only not apologised for its 31-year long Crime against Palestinian Humanity (1917-1948), but is now second only to the United States in aiding and abetting political Zionism's continuation and monstrous amplification of that crime:
"The Palestinian Authority's security strategy to crush Hamas and other armed groups on the West Bank was drawn up by Britain's intelligence service, MI6, leaked papers reveal. The strategy included internment of leaders and activists, closure of radio stations and replacement of imams in mosques - the bulk of which has since been carried out. Two documents drafted by the Secret Intelligence Service with other British government departments are understood to have been passed to Jibril Rajoub, the former head of PA security in the West Bank, at the beginning of 2004 by an M16 officer. The evidence in the cache given to al-Jazeera TV and shared with The Guardian, highlights the role British officials and security advisers have played in creating and bolstering the PA administration in the West Bank, which is backed and financed by the US, the EU and most Arab states as it pursues what are now all but moribund peace talks with Israel.
"The British papers, one of which is headed 'Palestinian security plan - confidential', included proposals for a security taskforce based on Britain's 'trusted PA contacts' outside the control of 'traditional security chiefs', a British-US security 'verification team' and 'direct lines' to Israeli intelligence... In the most controversial section, the 2004 MI6 plan recommends 'Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists - Hamas, PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and the [Fatah-linked] al-Aqsa Brigades - through the disruption of their leaderships' communications and command and control capabilities; the detention of key middle-ranking officers; and the confiscation of their arsenals and financial resources'. The document adds: 'We could also explore the temporary internment of leading Hamas and PIJ figures, making sure they are well-treated, with EU funding'.
"The leaked intelligence plan can be seen in retrospect as a blueprint for PA security control of the West Bank, which has become harsher and more extensive since the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007. Hundreds of Hamas and other activists have been routinely detained without trial and subjected to widely documented human rights abuses. The former MI6 officer, Alistair Crooke, who worked for the EU in Israel and the Palestinian territories, said recently that the documents reflected a 2003 decision by the then prime minister Tony Blair, to tie British and EU security policy in the West Bank and Gaza to a US-led 'counter-insurgency surge' against Hamas - which backfired when Hamas won the 2006 elections.
"The CIA played the central role in building up PA security forces from the late 1990s, in close cooperation with the Israeli military and intelligence, detailed in the leaked documents. But particularly after the killing of three US officials in the Gaza Strip in 2003, British forces played an increasingly active role - though always in close cooperation with their counterpart US agency, according to diplomatic sources. A sequence of leaked British documents begins with an unmarked but detailed MI6 draft of the security plan, faxed from the Egyptian embassy, at a time when the agency was working closely with Egyptian intelligence*; continues with a second more formal paper jointly drafted by SIS, which floats internment; and is then translated into a series of official papers drafted by the Jerusalem consulate's military liaison office, which liaises with British special forces, the SAS and SBS [Special Boat Service].
"The documents confirmed that by 2005, British projects under the Palestinan security plan - first drafted and passed to the PA under MI6 auspicies - included extensive funding of the most controversial parts of the PA security apparatus, including general intelligence, special forces and preventive security under the heading of 'UK-Palestinan projects'." (MI6 creates blueprint for smashing Hamas, Milne & Black, The Guardian/SMH, 27/1/11)
[* How very interesting!]
Britain's criminality in Palestine today, as you will have gathered from the preceding paragraph, includes complicity in the use of torture:
"The British government is complicit in torturing political prisoners detained and jailed in the occupied West Bank by the PA, a senior British officer said. The officer, James Macinnes is charged with training the PA's top security officials as part of a plan to provide assistance and financial support to PA agents in arresting and torturing members of the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas. Macinnes admitted to the British role in torturing Palestinian prisoners after an Arab organization for human rights in London revealed that the PA has been torturing prisoners affiliated with Hamas for years.** Torture techniques used in PA prisons included shabh (hanging) of all kinds, beatings with cables, pulling out nails, suspension from the ceiling, flogging, kicking, cursing, electric shocks, sexual harassment and the threat of rape, according to the report. At least 6 Palestinians have died under torture in PA prisons and many other former detainees have permanent disabilities. The human rights organization said that it has documented such 'crimes' for 3 years, from October 2007 to October 2010. During that period, the report said, PA security forces in the West Bank detained 8, 640 Palestinians at a rate of 8 arrests per day. 'Every one of those detainees has been subject to humiliating and degrading treatment, and stayed in cells for more than 10 days', the report said. 'The analysis shows that an astonishing 95% of the detainees were subjected to severe torture, others feeling the detrimental affects on their health for varying periods'. The report also found that 77% of those who had been detained by the PA security forces had been arrested in the past by Israel. Representatives of the organization met with victims or their relatives, and distributed a questionnaire, in secret, to detainees who were held in PA prisons. 'Men and women from all sectors of Palestinian society have been subject to arrest and torture', the report noted. 'These include students, workers, teachers, doctors, engineers, university professors and lawyers'." (UK tortures Palestinians by proxy, presstv.ir, 25/1/11)
[** See my 21/12/09 post Cops Are Tops]
The buck, of course, must stop with former British prime minister Tony Blair (now the Middle East Quartet's special envoy!), under whose watch (1997-2007) Britain's abuse of the Palestinian people resumed with a vengeance. No surprise then to find the following among al-Jazeera's Palestine papers:
"[Blair] was frequently scorned for his efforts to develop the economy of the West Bank... [He] was seen as focusing too much on winning small concessions from Israel for minor development projects, while proving reluctant or impotent when it came to persuading Israel to ease bigger restrictions imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank. In one memo reviewing his proposals, Mr Blair is accused of showing bias to the Israeli security forces and of advocating 'an apartheid-like approach to dealing with the occupied West Bank'." (Tony Blair 'biased' towards Israel, leaked documents claim, Adrian Blomfield, telegraph.co.uk, 26/1/11)
"The failure of British administration in Palestine was inevitable. The double sin had been committed of raising false hopes both with the Arabs and with Jews. The hopes were false because they were conflicting. The Arabs who fought with Britain in the first world war to throw off the yoke of the Turkish Empire were led to believe that they were fighting for their freedom. The Jews were led to believe by the Balfour Declaration in 1917 that they would win a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Relying on British assurances they too fought and worked with us. But Palestine was populated and owned by Arabs. Other nations share the responsibility with us. The United States in particular urged us on in the pursuit of policies which were bound to lead to conflict. But the main responsibility was ours. It is true that when the Balfour Declaration was made and indeed for many years afterwards no one, other than a few Jewish visionaries, thought of a Jewish State in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration promised support for a Jewish National Home in Palestine. It was just, but only just, possible to imagine a Jewish National Home in an Arab country progressing towards self-government and eventual independence. Later on various plans of cantonisation or condominium were broached. But by prevarication and procrastination and basically by the fundamental dishonesty of our original double dealing we had made disaster certain. In the narrow compass of the Holy Land we had unleashed two hopes, two forces, two nationalisms. In 1915 we supported King Feisal's desert rising. In 1917 we signed the Balfour Declaration. The surprising thing is that it was twenty years after those actions before the Arabs revolted and almost another decade before the Jews turned to violence and rebellion. By trying to please both Arabs and Jews we lost the respect and friendship of both and eventually earned the contempt of the world by an ignominious withdrawal. We left those who had relied on our promises to fight it out among themselves. I pray that we shall not make the same terrible error again - in southern Africa for instance." (pp 35-36)
But they have - and in Palestine again: Britain, the nation that betrayed the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people by unleashing on them one of the most toxic strains of European nationalism and settler-colonialism, namely political Zionism, has not only not apologised for its 31-year long Crime against Palestinian Humanity (1917-1948), but is now second only to the United States in aiding and abetting political Zionism's continuation and monstrous amplification of that crime:
"The Palestinian Authority's security strategy to crush Hamas and other armed groups on the West Bank was drawn up by Britain's intelligence service, MI6, leaked papers reveal. The strategy included internment of leaders and activists, closure of radio stations and replacement of imams in mosques - the bulk of which has since been carried out. Two documents drafted by the Secret Intelligence Service with other British government departments are understood to have been passed to Jibril Rajoub, the former head of PA security in the West Bank, at the beginning of 2004 by an M16 officer. The evidence in the cache given to al-Jazeera TV and shared with The Guardian, highlights the role British officials and security advisers have played in creating and bolstering the PA administration in the West Bank, which is backed and financed by the US, the EU and most Arab states as it pursues what are now all but moribund peace talks with Israel.
"The British papers, one of which is headed 'Palestinian security plan - confidential', included proposals for a security taskforce based on Britain's 'trusted PA contacts' outside the control of 'traditional security chiefs', a British-US security 'verification team' and 'direct lines' to Israeli intelligence... In the most controversial section, the 2004 MI6 plan recommends 'Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists - Hamas, PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and the [Fatah-linked] al-Aqsa Brigades - through the disruption of their leaderships' communications and command and control capabilities; the detention of key middle-ranking officers; and the confiscation of their arsenals and financial resources'. The document adds: 'We could also explore the temporary internment of leading Hamas and PIJ figures, making sure they are well-treated, with EU funding'.
"The leaked intelligence plan can be seen in retrospect as a blueprint for PA security control of the West Bank, which has become harsher and more extensive since the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007. Hundreds of Hamas and other activists have been routinely detained without trial and subjected to widely documented human rights abuses. The former MI6 officer, Alistair Crooke, who worked for the EU in Israel and the Palestinian territories, said recently that the documents reflected a 2003 decision by the then prime minister Tony Blair, to tie British and EU security policy in the West Bank and Gaza to a US-led 'counter-insurgency surge' against Hamas - which backfired when Hamas won the 2006 elections.
"The CIA played the central role in building up PA security forces from the late 1990s, in close cooperation with the Israeli military and intelligence, detailed in the leaked documents. But particularly after the killing of three US officials in the Gaza Strip in 2003, British forces played an increasingly active role - though always in close cooperation with their counterpart US agency, according to diplomatic sources. A sequence of leaked British documents begins with an unmarked but detailed MI6 draft of the security plan, faxed from the Egyptian embassy, at a time when the agency was working closely with Egyptian intelligence*; continues with a second more formal paper jointly drafted by SIS, which floats internment; and is then translated into a series of official papers drafted by the Jerusalem consulate's military liaison office, which liaises with British special forces, the SAS and SBS [Special Boat Service].
"The documents confirmed that by 2005, British projects under the Palestinan security plan - first drafted and passed to the PA under MI6 auspicies - included extensive funding of the most controversial parts of the PA security apparatus, including general intelligence, special forces and preventive security under the heading of 'UK-Palestinan projects'." (MI6 creates blueprint for smashing Hamas, Milne & Black, The Guardian/SMH, 27/1/11)
[* How very interesting!]
Britain's criminality in Palestine today, as you will have gathered from the preceding paragraph, includes complicity in the use of torture:
"The British government is complicit in torturing political prisoners detained and jailed in the occupied West Bank by the PA, a senior British officer said. The officer, James Macinnes is charged with training the PA's top security officials as part of a plan to provide assistance and financial support to PA agents in arresting and torturing members of the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas. Macinnes admitted to the British role in torturing Palestinian prisoners after an Arab organization for human rights in London revealed that the PA has been torturing prisoners affiliated with Hamas for years.** Torture techniques used in PA prisons included shabh (hanging) of all kinds, beatings with cables, pulling out nails, suspension from the ceiling, flogging, kicking, cursing, electric shocks, sexual harassment and the threat of rape, according to the report. At least 6 Palestinians have died under torture in PA prisons and many other former detainees have permanent disabilities. The human rights organization said that it has documented such 'crimes' for 3 years, from October 2007 to October 2010. During that period, the report said, PA security forces in the West Bank detained 8, 640 Palestinians at a rate of 8 arrests per day. 'Every one of those detainees has been subject to humiliating and degrading treatment, and stayed in cells for more than 10 days', the report said. 'The analysis shows that an astonishing 95% of the detainees were subjected to severe torture, others feeling the detrimental affects on their health for varying periods'. The report also found that 77% of those who had been detained by the PA security forces had been arrested in the past by Israel. Representatives of the organization met with victims or their relatives, and distributed a questionnaire, in secret, to detainees who were held in PA prisons. 'Men and women from all sectors of Palestinian society have been subject to arrest and torture', the report noted. 'These include students, workers, teachers, doctors, engineers, university professors and lawyers'." (UK tortures Palestinians by proxy, presstv.ir, 25/1/11)
[** See my 21/12/09 post Cops Are Tops]
The buck, of course, must stop with former British prime minister Tony Blair (now the Middle East Quartet's special envoy!), under whose watch (1997-2007) Britain's abuse of the Palestinian people resumed with a vengeance. No surprise then to find the following among al-Jazeera's Palestine papers:
"[Blair] was frequently scorned for his efforts to develop the economy of the West Bank... [He] was seen as focusing too much on winning small concessions from Israel for minor development projects, while proving reluctant or impotent when it came to persuading Israel to ease bigger restrictions imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank. In one memo reviewing his proposals, Mr Blair is accused of showing bias to the Israeli security forces and of advocating 'an apartheid-like approach to dealing with the occupied West Bank'." (Tony Blair 'biased' towards Israel, leaked documents claim, Adrian Blomfield, telegraph.co.uk, 26/1/11)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)