Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Wasn’t she supposed to serve US? Twitter unamused as IDF ‘salutes’ Haley for her support for Israel

RT | October 10, 2018

A tweet from the IDF thanking Nikki Haley for her “unwavering support” for Israel has sparked an avalanche of snarky comments, with many pointing out that Haley was supposed to be the US, not Israeli, envoy to the UN.

In a surprise announcement on Tuesday, Haley resigned her post as Washington’s envoy to the United Nations. Haley’s departure ignited a Twitter storm of speculation about why she chose to step down, and what she’s planning next. Israel’s military, however, used the announcement as an opportunity to thank the retiring US diplomat for her service to the Jewish state.

“Thank you @nikkihaley for your service in the @UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth. The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!” the IDF’s official Twitter account wrote.

But the IDF’s appreciative “salute” to Haley was immediately swarmed with angry and sarcastic replies, with Twitter users accusing the former US envoy of putting Israel’s interests ahead of her own country’s.

“’Unwavering support’ aka, blind allegiance,” one Twitter user noted bluntly.

“You love her for the reasons the rest of us despise her,” another netizen shot back at the IDF. “She left the Human Rights Council, pulled the US out of Iran deal, slashed funds to UNRWA, moved embassy to Jerusalem, and was exaggerated in her support for the IDF when they abuse Palestinian human rights.”

Twitter user “Alan” made a similar, although considerably more succinct, observation: “I thought she was meant to be serving… Never mind.”

Haley has been a fierce defender of Israel, repeatedly using her seat on the UN Security Council to shield Tel Aviv from international criticism. During her tenure at the UN, the US envoy lashed out at the international community for allegedly “bullying” Tel Aviv, warning that the she “wasn’t going to have it.”

“We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US,” she said.

Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Haley for leading an “uncompromising struggle” on behalf of the “justice of our country.”

He was referring to Israel, not the United States. Just to be clear.

October 10, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Benjamin Netanyahu Is No Friend to America

By Scott Ritter | TruthDig | October 4, 2018

Benjamin Netanyahu is no stranger to the American spotlight. A career Israeli politician who attended school in the United States, he specializes in the kind of rhetoric that his American counterparts revel in—a kind of narcissism that’s more used car salesman than educator.

Netanyahu specializes in selling danger to the American people. This is an art he has practiced on numerous occasions, whether it be at the gatherings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), his many appearances before the U.S. Congress, at televised events or during the general debate in the United Nations General Assembly, an annual gathering of global leaders and diplomats where each nation’s representative is provided the opportunity to address counterparts and the world on issues he or she deems to be of particular import.

Bibi (as he is known, affectionately or otherwise) delivered his latest address to the General Assembly on Sept. 27. Like others he had delivered previously, this one was a tour de force of angst, fear and anger with a nearly singular focus on the issue that has seized Netanyahu for more than two decades—Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program.

In his 1995 campaign autobiography, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu, preparing to run for the office of prime minister of Israel, asserted that Iran was “three to five years” away from having a nuclear bomb. Bibi repeated this claim several times over the next 20-plus years, apparently unconcerned by the fact that his self-appointed timetable kept coming and going without the Iranian nuclear threat manifesting itself.

In September 2002, when he briefly found himself a private citizen, Netanyahu shifted his aim to Iraq, which he confidently asserted had a nuclear weapons program as he touted the benefits of removing Saddam Hussein from power—this during so-called “expert” testimony before the U.S. Congress. He was wrong on both counts, a fact that seems to slip the minds of those who continue to assign him a semblance of credibility given his proximity to Israel’s vaunted intelligence service.

As someone who spent four years (from 1994 to 1998) working closely with Israel’s intelligence service to uncover the truth about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, I can attest that Israeli intelligence is better than most at what it does, but far from perfect. For every good lead the Israelis delivered to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), for which I was working at the time, they provided a dozen or more that did not pan out. Their detailed analysis about the alleged organization and structure of Iraq’s covert nuclear program proved to be far removed from the truth. They got names wrong, affiliations wrong, locations wrong—in short, the Israelis made the exact same mistakes as any other intelligence service.

Iraq was a denied area, made less so by the presence of UNSCOM weapons inspectors like me who had unprecedented access to the most sensitive national security sites in the country. And still the Israelis got it wrong. They did so not because of “bad intelligence,” but because they, like the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world, were privy to the vast amount of information and data collected by UNSCOM inspectors about the true state of Iraq’s proscribed weapons and related programs. They suffered from the same lack of imagination as did the others that postulated a nuclear-armed Iraq circa 2002, unwilling to consider the possibility that Saddam Hussein might be telling the truth about not having retained any weapons and related capabilities prohibited by the Security Council resolution. This same lack of imagination appears to fuel Netanyahu’s increasingly wild claims about Iran.

It is no secret that Netanyahu has opposed the Iran nuclear deal—officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA—since the possibility of a negotiated solution to the stand-off between Iran and the rest of the world was put on the table by the Obama administration in 2012. He lobbied hard against the agreement, interjecting himself in American domestic politics in an unprecedented fashion to undermine the negotiations.

When Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Netanyahu found a kindred spirit whose intellectual curiosity would not permit any effective challenge to the narrative constructed by the Israeli prime minister. And when Trump faced resistance from his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and his national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, he simply replaced them with more compliant persons, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton respectively.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was facilitated not by any supporting brief from the U.S. intelligence community, which held fast to the assessment that Iran was fully compliant with its obligations under the JCPOA, but rather by intel provided by Israel that featured wild claims of an operation in the heart of Tehran; hundreds of thousands of documents purported to outline a nuclear program that Iran insisted did not exist. In April 2018, Bibi unveiled the existence of what he termed Iran’s “Atomic Archive” as he detailed some of its contents, allegedly recovered during an Israeli operation.

While Netanyahu’s dramatic presentation proved to be enough to help push Trump into withdrawing from the JCPOA the following month, it failed to convince the rest of the world that Iran was operating in bad faith when it came to declaring the totality of its nuclear program. One of the main reasons for this is that the tale put forward by Bibi simply didn’t add up. Documents he presented as being derived from the newly captured archive were recognized by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—which, along with supporting governments, is responsible for implementing the JCPOA—as matching those presented to the agency more than a decade ago. That cache of documents was allegedly recovered from a laptop computer sourced to an Iranian opposition group by Israeli intelligence.

At best, there is nothing new in these materials, and all the underlying issues alleged to have been “exposed” had already been discussed and rectified by the IAEA and Iran prior to the rectification of the JCPOA. At worst, Netanyahu was lying about the Israeli intelligence operation, and simply recycling old material—which may have been manufactured by Israel to begin with back in 2004—simply to provide political cover for Donald Trump.

Netanyahu spent much of his Sept. 27 address before the General Assembly detailing an alleged “Atomic Warehouse,” supposedly uncovered by Israeli intelligence in the heart of Tehran. As was the case with the “Atomic Archive” facility, Netanyahu made grand claims about Iranian malfeasance: The site contained “15 ship containers full of nuclear-related equipment and material,” along with “15 kilograms of radioactive material” that Iran allegedly evacuated from the site to evade detection. (Netanyahu seems to have overlooked the fact that the U.S. Department of Energy, prior to the JCPOA and in anticipation of such a scenario, “evacuated” nuclear material from one of its facilities during an exercise, only to have evidence of its existence uncovered by inspectors wielding the same detection capabilities as the IAEA.)

Netanyahu alleged that Iran was maintaining both an “Atomic Archive” and an “Atomic Warehouse” so that it could reconstitute its nuclear weapons program when the “time is right,” ostensibly when the sunset clauses of the JCPOA, which limit the number of centrifuges Iran can operate, expire. As with the “Atomic Archive” story, however, outside of Trump and his inner circle of anti-Iranian acolytes, informed American officials aren’t buying the Israeli leader’s tale, noting that Netanyahu has exaggerated the scope and scale of the warehouse in question. (These officials claim that the “material” being stored there is documentary in nature, a far cry from the “equipment” claimed by Netanyahu.)

Netanyahu bemoaned the fact that the world was promised “anywhere, anytime” inspections in Iran, and yet the IAEA has failed to take any steps to investigate the revelations provided by Israel. The reality is that the JCPOA promised no such thing. “Anywhere, anytime” was an artificial construct cobbled together by opponents of the deal by denigrating the investigatory capabilities of the IAEA. Moreover, the IAEA is intimately familiar with the quality of the intelligence information provided by Israel in the past, having spent months with Iran carefully deconstructing the claims contained within. The agency is hesitant to fall victim to Israeli exaggerations and falsifications again, and rightfully so.

More importantly, the JCPOA has a detailed mechanism in place to investigate claims such as those put forth by Israel. But by precipitously withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Trump administration has removed itself from that process. This means that Israel would need to turn to the Europeans, Russians or Chinese to plead its case. And the fact that neither France nor Germany nor the United Kingdom has picked up the mantle of Israel’s claims points to the inherent weakness of its intelligence. Netanyahu may be able to play siren to Trump’s Ulysses in order to crash America’s ship onto Iranian shoals, but the rest of the world is not following suit.

The American people should not tolerate this continued intrusion into their affairs by an outsider whose previous lies, prevarications and provocations helped get the United States entangled in one war, all the while advocating for our involvement in another. Bibi Netanyahu has a problem with telling the truth, and we give power to his words and deeds by not calling him out for what he truly is—a habitual liar with the blood of thousands of our fellow citizens on his hands. Netanyahu claims he is a friend of the American people. He is, in fact, the furthest thing from it.

Scott Ritter is the author of “Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” published by Clarity Press, October 2018.

October 9, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Administration Follows Corporate Media Playbook for War With Iran

By John C. O’Day | FAIR | October 4, 2018

Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”

In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”

That Bolton’s bellicose statements do not send shockwaves of pure horror across a debt-strapped and war-weary United States is thanks in large part to incessant priming for war, facilitated by corporate media across the entire political spectrum, with a particular focus on Iran.

Back in 2015, while current “resistance” stalwarts like the Washington Post (4/2/15) and Politico (8/11/15) warned us that war with Iran was the most likely alternative to the JCPOA, conservative standard-bearers such as Fox News (7/14/15) and the Washington Times (8/10/15) foretold that war with Iran was the agreement’s most likely outcome. Three years hence, this dynamic has not changed.

To experience the full menu of US media’s single-mindedness about Iran, one need only buy a subscription to the New York Times. After Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the Times’ editorial board (5/8/18) wrote that his move would “lay conditions for a possible wider war in the Middle East.” Susan Rice (New York Times, 5/8/18), President Barack Obama’s national security advisor, agreed: “We could face the choice of going to war or acquiescing to a nuclear-armed Iran,” she warned. Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte (New York Times, 5/10/18) was characteristically more direct, penning an image of Trump alongside Bolton, holding a fictitious new agreement featuring the singular, ultimate word: “WAR.”

On the other hand, calling Trump’s turn against JCPOA a “courageous decision,” Times columnist Bret Stephens (5/8/18) explained that the move was meant to force the Iranian government to make a choice: Either accede to US demands or “pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war.” (Hardly courageous, when we all know there is no chance that Trump or Stephens would enlist should war materialize.)

Trump’s latest antics at the United Nations have spurred a wave of similar reaction across corporate media. Describing his threat to “totally destroy North Korea” at the UN General Assembly last year as “pointed and sharp,” Fox News anchor Eric Shawn (9/23/18) asked Bill Richardson, an Obama ally and President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the UN, whether Trump would take the same approach toward Iran. “That aggressive policy we have with Iran is going to continue,” Richardson reassured the audience, “and I don’t think Iran is helping themselves.” In other words, if the United States starts a war with Iran, it’s totally Iran’s fault.

Politico (9/23/18), meanwhile, reported that Trump “is risking a potential war with Iran unless he engages the Islamist-led country using diplomacy.” In other words, if the United States starts a war with Iran, it’s totally Trump’s fault. Rice (New York Times, 9/26/18) reiterated her view that Trump’s rhetoric “presages the prospect of war in the Persian Gulf.” Whoever would be the responsible party is up for debate, but that war is in our future is apparently all but certain.

Politico’s article cited a statement signed by such esteemed US experts on war-making as Madeleine Albright, who presided over Clinton’s inhuman sanctions against Iraq in the ’90s, and Ryan Crocker, former ambassador for presidents George W. Bush and Obama to some of America’s favorite killing fields: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria.  James Clapper, Obama’s National Intelligence Director, who also signed the letter, played an important role in trumping up WMD evidence against Saddam Hussein before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. When it comes to US aggression, they’re the experts.

Vanity Fair (9/26/18) interviewed John Glaser of the Cato Institute, who called Trump’s strategy “pathetic,” and also warned that it forebodes war. In an effort to “one-up Obama,” Glaser explained, Trump’s plan is “to apply extreme economic pressure and explicit threats of war in order to get Iran to capitulate.” Sound familiar? As Glaser implies, this was exactly Obama’s strategy, only then it wasn’t seen as “pathetic,” but rather reasonable, and the sole means for preventing the war that every US pundit and politician saw around the corner (The Hill, 8/9/15).

When everyone decides that war is the only other possibility, it starts to look like an inevitability. But even when they aren’t overtly stoking war fever against Iran, corporate media prime the militaristic pump in more subtle yet equally disturbing ways.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu speaks for the Iranian people on CNN (9/29/18)

First among these is the near-complete erasure of Iranian voices from US airwaves (FAIR.org, 7/24/15). Rather than ask Iranians directly, national outlets like CNN (9/29/18) prefer to invite the prime minister of Israel, serial Iran alarmist and regional pariah Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak for them. During a jovial discussion this weekend over whether regime change and/or economic collapse is Iran’s most likely fate, Netanyahu explained to the audience that, either way, “The ones who will be happiest if that happens are the people of Iran.” No people of Iran were on hand to confirm or deny this assessment.

Bloomberg (9/30/18) similarly wanted to know, “What’s not to like about Trump’s Iran oil sanctions?” Julian Lee gleefully reported that “they are crippling exports from the Islamic Republic, at minimal cost to the US.” One might think the toll sanctions take on innocent Iranians would be something not to like, but Bloomberg merely worried that, notwithstanding the windfall for US refineries, “oil at $100 a barrel would be bad news for drivers everywhere—including those in the US.” [$500,000,000 increase in gas costs, daily, just for Americans]

Another prized tactic is to whitewash Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief geopolitical rival, whose genocidal destruction of Yemen is made possible by the United States, about which corporate media remain overwhelmingly silent (FAIR.org, 7/23/18). Iran’s involvement in Yemen, which both Trump and the New York Times (9/12/18) describe as “malign behavior,” is a principal justification for US support of Saudi Arabia, including the US-supplied bombs that recently ended the brief lives of over 40 Yemeni schoolchildren. Lockheed Martin’s stock is up 34 percent from Trump’s inauguration day.

Corporate media go beyond a simple coverup of Saudi crimes to evangelize their leadership as the liberal antidote to Iran’s “theocracy.” Who can forget Thomas Friedman’s revolting puff piece for the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman? Extensively quoting Salman (New York Times, 11/23/17), who refers to Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “the new Hitler of the Middle East,” Friedman nevertheless remains pessimistic about whether “MBS and his team” can see their stand against Iran through, as “dysfunction and rivalries within the Sunni Arab world generally have prevented forming a unified front.” Oh well, every team needs cheerleaders, and Friedman isn’t just a fair-weather fan.

While Friedman (New York Times, 5/15/18) believes that Trump has drawn “some needed attention to Iran’s bad behavior,” for him pivotal questions remain unanswered, such as “who is going to take over in Tehran if the current Islamic regime collapses?” One immediate fix he proposed was to censure Iran’s metaphorical “occupation” of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Isn’t this ironic coming from an unapologetic propagandist for Washington’s decades-long, non-metaphorical occupation of the two countries to the east and west of Iran? (FAIR.org, 12/9/15)

In a surprising break from corporate media convention, USA Today (9/26/18) published a column on US/Iran relations written by an actual Iranian. Reflecting on the CIA-orchestrated coup against Iran’s elected government in 1953, Azadeh Shahshahani, who was born four days after the 1979 revolution there, wrote:

I often wonder what would have happened if that coup had not worked, if [Prime Minister] Mosaddeq had been allowed to govern, if democracy had been allowed to flourish.

“It is time for the US government to stop intervening in Iran and let the Iranian people determine their own destiny,” she beseeched readers.

Shahshahani’s call is supported by some who have rejected corporate media’s war propaganda and have gone to extreme lengths to have their perspectives heard. Anti-war activist and Code Pink  founder Medea Benjamin was recently forcibly removed after she upstaged Brian Hook, leader of Trump’s Iran Action Group, on live TV, calling his press conference “the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen” (Real News, 9/21/18). Benjamin implored the audience: “Let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. Is that who our allies are?”

“How dare you bring up the issue of Yemen,” admonished Benjamin as she was dragged from the room. “It’s the Saudi bombing that is killing most people in Yemen. So let’s get real. No more war! Peace with Iran!” Code Pink is currently petitioning the New York Times and Washington Post to stop propagandizing war.

Sadly, no matter whom you ask in corporate media, be they spokespeople for “Trump’s America” or “the resistance,” peace remains an elusive choice in the US political imagination. And while the public was focused last week on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s perjurious testimony, the Senate finalized a $674 billion “defense” budget. Every single Democrat in the chamber voted in favor of the bill, explicitly naming Iran as persona non grata in the United States’ world-leading arms supply network, which has seen a 25 percent increase in exports since Obama took office in 2009.

The US government’s imperial ambitions are perhaps its only truly bipartisan project—what the New York Times euphemistically refers to as “globalism.” Nowhere was this on fuller display than at the funeral for Republican Sen. John McCain (FAIR.org, 9/11/18), where politicians of all stripes were tripping over themselves to produce the best accolades for a man who infamously sang “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of a Beach Boys song.

McCain’s bloodlust was nothing new. Nearly a hundred years ago, after the West’s imperial competition culminated in the most destructive war the world had ever seen, the brilliant American sociologist and anti-colonial author WEB Du Bois wrote, “This is not Europe gone mad; this is not aberration nor insanity; this is Europe.”

Iranian leaders have repeatedly said they do not want war with the US (AP, 9/27/18), but US corporate media, despite frequently characterizing Trump as a “mad king” (FAIR.org, 6/13/18), continue to play an instrumental role in rationalizing a future war with Iran. Should such an intentional catastrophe come to pass, we can hardly say that this would be America gone mad; war is not aberration, it is always presented as the next sane choice. This is America.

October 4, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Best Government Money Can Buy

By Philip M. GIRALDI | Strategic Culture Foundation | 04.10.2018

Very few Americans know who Sheldon Adelson is and fewer still appreciate that, as America’s leading political donor, when he speaks the Republican Party listens. By virtue of his largesse, he has been able to direct GOP policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel, which might well be regarded as his true home while the United States exists more as a faithful friend that can be produced at intervals whenever Israel finds itself in need of a bit of cash or political cover.

Adelson’s recent successes in translating his political donations into policy favorable to Israel have included shifting the US Embassy to Jerusalem, cutting aid to Palestinians, ending the Iranian nuclear monitoring agreement and closing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s diplomatic office in Washington. All those Trump Administration measures were reportedly worked out privately by Adelson speaking directly with the president.

Adelson’s activities in buying politicians reflect what he believes, he reportedly having said that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.” Nor does his world view include much concern for the country that has sheltered him and made him wealthy. He served in the US Army in World War 2 and has said that he regrets having done so, as he would rather have worn an Israeli army uniform. He also expressed his desire that his son might become an Israeli Army sniper.

Adelson benefits from his exceptional access to the White House to the detriment of actual American interests. A New York Times article “Sheldon Adelson Sees a Lot to Like in Trump’s Washington,” states that he “enjoys a direct line to the president” and meets the president monthly “in private in-person meetings and phone conversations.” He has been delighted with the openly expressed threats emanating from the Administration’s key foreign and national security policy spokesmen regarding Iran. He would like to see the United States go to war with the Iranians to destroy their government and bring about some kind of regime change, and, judging from recent developments, he just might get what he seeks, which could easily have catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.

Adelson is somewhat unhinged on the issue of Iran and has even called for dropping a nuclear bomb on a desert region of the country as a negotiating tactic to show “we mean business” so Washington could then “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.” If Iran continued to resist, Adelson would to drop the next one on Tehran. If Tehran were to be nuked millions of Iranians would die, which doesn’t bother Adelson one bit. Such a development would, in Adelson’s opinion, be good for Israel, which is his primary concern.

Adelson’s power over policy makers is also evident in what the White House does not do. Israeli snipers have shot dead at least 143 unarmed Arab demonstrators in Gaza without so much as a word of condemnation coming out of Washington. Indeed, the Donald Trump Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has gone out of his way to defend the killings and also to support the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Adelson is also widely believed to have had a hand in personnel changes in the White House. He has used his money and influence to advance the careers of United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo while also arranging the removal of H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson for “being anti-Israeli” and not sufficiently willing to go to war with Iran. Defense Secretary James Mattis, the only actual adult remaining in the room when foreign policy is discussed, is believed to be the next target for removal.

How does Adelson do it? Money talks. He is worth an estimated $35 billion. His fortune came from casinos both in the US and in China, which some might consider to be promotion of vice. To buy and maintain the Republican support for right wing Zionist policies he has donated what is for him pocket change, $55 million so far this year in support of GOP candidates in the Midterm elections. In 2016, he gave large sums to the Trump campaign and to other Republicans, donating $35 million to the former and $55 million to two top Republican PACs — the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund.

In America’s corrupt political culture, a monster like Sheldon Adelson can buy both a White House and Congress on behalf of a foreign government for a paltry $150 million or so. It is a reasonable investment for him given his views, as through him Israel is able to control a large slice of American foreign policy while also receiving billions of dollars each year from the US Treasury. And for those who think it would be different if the Democrats were in charge, think again. The Democrats have their own Adelson. His name is Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media magnate who has said he is a “one issue guy and my issue is Israel.” He is also the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party.

Photo: Flickr

October 4, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US policy on Iran is viewed through Israeli prism: Ex-Pentagon official

Press TV – October 2, 2018

The United States is exerting pressure on Iran to implement Israeli policy, according to a former Pentagon official.

“US policy toward Iran is really being looked at through an Israeli prism,” former Pentagon security analyst Michael Maloof told Press TV in a phone interview on Tuesday.

He said the foreign policy of the United State of American was being led by President Donald Trump’s neoconservative team of Israel-lovers.

The US foreign policy team comprised of US National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who clearly want an American-Israeli military conflict with Iran, are running the policies, according to Maloof.

Trump’s neoconservative foreign policy team seeks Tel Aviv’s approval on any policy linked to Iran. “Anything that has to do with Iran has to be sanctioned by Israel for some reason,” Maloof insisted, adding that was where the neoconservatives really flourished.

“They regard Iran as the number one enemy of Israel, and as the consequence, any US foreign policy toward Iran necessarily goes through Tel Aviv,” he said.

Instead of pursuing Americans’ interests, the neoconservatives are making effort to implement Israeli policy.

“Israeli Prime Minister,Benjamin Netanyahu would like the United States to apply militarily the expansion and execution of basically Israeli policy for Iran.” he noted, adding, “This complicates the things incredibly.”

October 3, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Victory for Iran: Highest UN court orders US to suspend sanctions

Press TV – October 3, 2018

In a victory for Tehran against Washington, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered the United States to halt the unilateral sanctions it recently re-imposed on “humanitarian” supplies to Iran.

The Hague-based court, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, announced its ruling on Wednesday regarding the July lawsuit brought by Tehran against Washington’s decision to re-impose unilateral sanctions following the US exit from the the 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran’s lawsuit argued that the sanctions violate the terms of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the US. It also called on the court to order Washington to immediately suspend the measures.

On Wednesday, the UN’s top tribunal – known as the World Court — unanimously ruled that the US must ensure that the re-imposed sanctions do not impact humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

According to the verdict, which was read out by Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Washington “shall remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on May 8 to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities” as well as airplane parts.

The court further said that sanctions on goods “required for humanitarian needs… may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran.”

US sanctions on aircraft spare parts also had the “potential to endanger civil aviation safety in Iran and the lives of its users,” it added.

The decisions of the ICJ – which rules on disputes between UN member states – are legally binding and cannot be appealed.

In a post on his Twitter account on July 16, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the complaint challenged the US “unlawful re-imposition of unilateral sanctions.”

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of US contempt for diplomacy & legal obligations. It’s imperative to counter its habit of violating int’l law,” he tweeted.

In May, Trump pulled his country out of the 2015 nuclear agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite objections from the other signatories to the accord.

In August, he re-imposed the first round of sanctions on Iran. The second phase of US bans will come into effect next month.

Defeat for ‘sanctions-addicted’ US

Meanwhile, Tehran has welcomed the ruling by the 15-member panel of justices, saying it once again indicted Iran’s “righteous” position against the hostile US policies.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif described the verdict as yet another defeat for the “sanctions-addicted” US government.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also issued a statement, saying the decision “proved once again that the Islamic Republic of Iran is right, and that US sanctions against people and citizens of our country are illegitimate and cruel.”

It also showed that “the US government is growing more isolated day by day due to its wrong and extremist policies and as a result of its own excessive demands from other countries,” the statement added.

Tehran further called on Washington to abandon its unpleasant addiction to imposing cruel and illegal sanctions against other people and act as a responsible member of the international community.

October 3, 2018 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US cancels 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran after UN court ruling

Press TV – October 3, 2018

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Washington is canceling a 1955 treaty with Tehran after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the United States to halt the unilateral sanctions it recently re-imposed on “humanitarian” supplies to Iran.

“I’m announcing that the United States is terminating the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, this is a decision that is 39 years overdue,” Pompeo told reporters Wednesday at the State Department.

“In July, Iran brought a meritless case in the International Court of Justice alleging violations of the Treaty of Amity,” Pompeo said.

“We’re disappointed that the court failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order relating to these sanctions measures with the United States, which is doing its work on Iran to protect its own essential security interests,” he added.

“Iran has attempted to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions as necessary to protect our national security and Iran is abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes,” the top American diplomat said.

He claimed the United States would work to ensure it is providing humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people.

The Hague-based court, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, announced its ruling on Wednesday regarding the July lawsuit brought by Tehran against Washington’s decision to re-impose unilateral sanctions following the US exit from the 2015 nuclear deal.

The decisions of the ICJ – which rules on disputes between UN member states – are legally binding and cannot be appealed.

Iran’s lawsuit argued that the sanctions violate the terms of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the US. It also called on the court to order Washington to immediately suspend the measures.

The treaty established economic relations and consular rights and was signed during the terms of former US President Dwight Eisenhower and former Iranian Prime Minister Hossein Ala.

In May, US President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the 2015 nuclear agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite objections from the other signatories to the accord.

In August, he re-imposed the first round of sanctions on Iran. The second phase of US bans will come into effect next month.

In a post on his Twitter account on July 16, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the ICJ complaint challenged the US “unlawful re-imposition of unilateral sanctions.”

October 3, 2018 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Showdown at Tanf

Sic Semper Tyrannus | October 3, 2018

The reconciliation process initiated by the Russians in Syria has saved countless lives of soldiers, civilians and even jihadists. It also preserved SAA fighting strength, brought a lot of Syrian territory back under the control of Damascus. It brought former jihadists back into the fight on the side of the SAA. This process may appear to be tedious and without the glorious satisfaction of annihilating jihadis in a costly series of rapid offensives, but I firmly believe the reconciliation process is the right way for Syria. This strategy is now being brought to bear at Tanf.

The first evidence of this was the mid-September agreement for the removal of the US trained and backed al-Qaryatayn Martyrs Brigade and 5,000 civilians from the Rukban refugee camp to the Euphrates Shield-held area in northern Aleppo. This was the work of the Russian Reconciliation Center. More recently, tribal leaders from Damascus have met tribal leaders at the refugee camp to discuss their situation. A list of refugees wanting to engage in the reconciliation process is being prepared. Many of those not reconciling with Damascus will be shipped north to join the al-Qaryatayn Martyrs Brigade and their families. The camp evacuations are already underway. Next week the Russians will escort a UN aid convoy into the Rukban Refugee Camp.

Although the US has apparently acquiesced to the Russian plan to depopulate the Rukban Refugee Camp, I believe Russia has cleverly outmaneuvered the US. The SAA is steadily destroying the remaining jihadis on the al-Safa plateau. I believe the US forces at Tanf will soon be left alone without jihadis to control, or even any remaining jihadis to fight. The “fighting ISIS” rationale will disappear and the real reason for remaining at Tanf will become clear. At Israel’s behest, we are blocking the Teheran-Baghdad-Damascus highway.

TTG

https://southfront.org/us-backed-militant-group-in-al-tanaf-accepts-evacuation-agreement-report/

https://southfront.org/russian-us-negotiations-to-evacuate-civilians-from-al-rukban-camp-near-al-tanaf/

https://southfront.org/damascus-government-and-local-leaders-reach-initial-agreement-on-al-rukban-camp/

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-scores-big-advance-in-southern-syria-amid-heavy-resistance-from-isis-video/

October 3, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

7 years after US got its way in South Sudan & death toll approaches 400,000, study shows

RT | October 2, 2018

The US pushed hard to split South Sudan from its northern neighbor. But instead of ending violence, the move led to a civil war, which caused nearly 400,000 deaths, according to a new study.

South Sudan is the world’s youngest internationally recognized nation, which got its independence from Sudan in 2011 after decades of bloodshed and two major civil wars. The bid for independence was pushed hard by the US under several administrations. But the euphoria from the birth of a new nation didn’t last long.

In late 2013, President Salva Kiir Mayardit – best known in the US for receiving a Stetson hat as a gift from George W Bush and making it a permanent part of his image – accused his former deputy Riek Machar and other opponents of attempting a coup. Violence broke out in the capital and spread all over the country. After four years and several failed attempts at a peace deal, South Sudan remains just as divided as the unified Sudan was before 2011.

The death toll from the civil war is hard to count. The UN tally in 2016 stated it at about 50,000. A new study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, which was partially funded by the US State Department, estimated that the conflict resulted in 382,000 deaths, roughly half directly from violence and the rest from causes like malnutrition and diseases, which were exacerbated by the ongoing conflict. Some 2 million were displaced while about 2.5 million fled to neighboring nations, the study said.

RT’s Caleb Maupin reports how the US-backed nation-building project in South Sudan turned out to be yet another failure.

October 2, 2018 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

One Click Closer to Annihilation

Last week Washington threatened Iran, Syria, China, Venezuela and Russia

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • October 2, 2018

The nuclear war doomsday clock maintained on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website has advanced to two minutes before midnight, the closest point to possible atomic apocalypse since the end of the Cold War. In 1995 the clock was at fourteen minutes to midnight, but the opportunity to set it back even further was lost as the United States and its European allies took advantage of a weakened Russia to advance NATO into Eastern Europe, setting the stage for a new cold war, which is now underway.

It is difficult to imagine how the United States might avoid a new war in the Middle East given the recent statements that have come out of Washington, and, given that the Russians are also active in the region, a rapid and massive escalation of something that starts out as a minor incident should not be ruled out.

President Donald Trump set the tone when he harangued the United Nations last Tuesday, warning that the United States would go it alone in defense of its perceived interests, with no regard for international bodies that exist to limit armed conflict and punish those who commit war crimes.

Trump’s 35-minute speech featured an anticipated long section targeting Iran. He commented that:

“Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond… We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America,’ and that threatens Israel with annihilation, to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth.”

There are a number of things exaggerated or incorrect in Trump’s description of Iran as well as in the conclusions he draws. The Middle East and other adjacent Muslim countries are in chaos because the United States has destabilized the region starting with the empowering of the Islamist Mujadeddin in the war against Soviet Afghanistan in the 1980s. It then invaded Afghanistan in 2001 followed by Iraq in 2003, enabling the rise of ISIS and giving local al-Qaeda affiliates a new lease on life, before turning on Damascus with the Syria Accountability Act later in the same year and then destroying the Libyan government under Barack Obama. These were, not coincidentally, policies promoted by Israel that received, as a result, bipartisan support in Congress.

The emotional description of disrespecting “neighbors, borders and sovereign rights” fits the U.S. and Israel to a “T” rather than Iran. The U.S. has soldiers stationed illegally in Syria while Israel bombs the country on an almost daily basis, so who is doing the disrespecting? Washington and Tel Aviv are also the principal supporters of terrorists in the Middle East, not Iran, – arming them, training them, hospitalizing them when they are injured, and making sure that they continue their work in attacking Syria’s legitimate government.

And as for “most dangerous weapons,” Iran doesn’t have any and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel and the U.S. have not signed. Nor would Iran have any such weapons in the future but for the fact that Trump has backed out of the agreement to monitor and inspect Iranian nuclear research and development, which will, if anything, motivate Tehran to develop weapons to protect itself.

Trump also elaborated on the following day regarding Iran’s alleged but demonstrably non-existent nuclear program when he indicated to the Security Council that Washington would go after countries that violate the rules on nuclear proliferation. He clearly meant Iran but the comment was ironic in the extreme, as Israel is the world’s leading nuclear rogue nation with an arsenal of two hundred nuclear devices, having stolen the uranium and key elements of the technology from the United States in the 1960s.

Trump’s new appraisal of the state of the Middle East is somewhat a turnaround. Five months ago he said that he wanted to “get out” of Syria and bring the soldiers home. But in early September, the secretary of state’s special representative for Syria engagement, James Jeffrey, indicated that the U.S. would stay to counter Iranian activities.

And John Bolton has also recently had a lot to say about Iran, Syria and Russia. Last Monday he confirmed that Washington intends to keep a military presence in Syria until Iran withdraws all its forces from the country. “We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias.” On the following day, speaking at a Sheldon Adelson funded United Against Nuclear Iran Summit, he said the “murderous regime” of “mullahs in Tehran” would face serious consequences if they persist in their willingness to “lie, cheat and deceive. If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens there will indeed be hell to pay. Let my message today be clear: We are watching, and we will come after you.”

John Bolton also warned the Russians about their decision to upgrade the air defenses in Syria in the wake of the recent Israeli bombing raid that led to the shooting down of a Russian intelligence plane. He said absurdly and inaccurately “The Israelis have a legitimate right to self-defense against this Iranian aggressive behavior, and what we’re all trying to do is reduce tensions, reduce the possibility of major new hostilities. That’s why the president has spoken to this issue and why we would regard introducing the S-300 as a major mistake.”

Bolton then elaborated that “We think introducing the S-300s to the Syrian government would be a significant escalation by the Russians and something that we hope, if these press reports are accurate, they would reconsider.” And regarding who was responsible for the deaths of the Russian airmen, Bolton also has a suitable explanation “There shouldn’t be any misunderstanding here… The party responsible for the attacks in Syria and Lebanon and really the party responsible for the shooting down of the Russian plane is Iran.”

Bolton’s desire to exonerate Israel and always blame Iran is inevitably on display. He is curiously objecting to the placement of missiles that are defensive in nature, presumably because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked him to do so. The only way one can be threatened by the S-300 is if you are attacking Syria, but that might be a fine point that Bolton fails to grasp as he was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War and has since that time not placed himself personally at risk in support of any of the wars he has been promoting.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also spoke on Monday, at the Pentagon. His spin on Iran was slightly different but his message was the same. “As part of this overarching problem, we have to address Iran. Everywhere you go in the Middle East where there’s instability you will find Iran. So in terms of getting to the end state of the Geneva [negotiations] process, Iran, too, has a role to play, which is to stop fomenting trouble.”

To complete the onslaught, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking at the same United Against Nuclear Iran Summit as Bolton, accused European nations seeking to avoid U.S. sanctions over the purchase of Iranian oil as “solidifying Iran’s ranking as the number-one state sponsor of terrorism. I imagine the corrupt ayatollahs and IGRC [Revolutionary Guards] were laughing this morning.”

Even the U.S. Congress has figured out that something is afoot. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, who were carefully briefed on what to think by the Israeli government, warned after a trip to the Middle East that war between the United States and Iranian proxies is “imminent.”

Iran is fun to kick around but China has also been on the receiving end of late. Last Wednesday the U.N. Security Council meeting was presided over by Donald Trump, who warned that Beijing is “meddling” in U.S. elections against him personally. It is a bizarre claim, particularly as the only country up until now demonstrated as having actually interfered in American politics in any serious way is Israel. The accusation comes on top of Washington’s latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against the Chinese government-run Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li Shangfu for “engaging in significant transactions” with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is on a list of U.S. sanctioned companies.

The Chinese sanctions are serious business as they forbid conducting any transactions that go through the U.S. financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal. As most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.

So if you’re paying attention to Trump, Bolton, Mattis, Pompeo and Haley you are probably digging a new bomb shelter right now. We have told Iran that it cannot send its soldiers and “proxies” outside its own borders while Syria cannot have advanced missiles to defend its airspace, which Russia is “on notice” for providing. China also cannot buy weapons from Russia while Venezuela is also being threatened because it has what is generally believed to be a terrible government. Meanwhile, America is in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to stay while nearly all agree a war with Iran is coming soon. Everyone is the enemy and everyone hates the United States, mostly for good reasons. If this is Making America Great Again, I think I would settle for just making America “good” so we could possibly have that doomsday clock go back a couple of minutes.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org .

October 2, 2018 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

US creating basis for regional conflagration in Middle East: James Petras

Press TV – September 29, 2018

The United States is creating the basis for the regional conflagration in the Middle East by fortifying its circle around Iran, American writer and academic James Petras says.

The US State Department has endorsed the proposed sale of more than 800 tactical missiles to Bahrain amid the Al Khalifah regime’s heavy-handed crackdown on pro-democracy campaigners and political dissidents in the tiny Persian Gulf country.

The approval includes Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Unitary Rocket Pods and Army Tactical Missiles System (ATACMS) Unitary missiles for an estimated cost of $300 million, the Arabic-language al-Khaleej al-Jadeed news website reported on Saturday.

“Well, it’s part of the US setting up the aggressive policy; mainly it is directed against the government in Iran. And it’s largely responsible for encouraging this aggression with the addition of its support of Israel and Saudi Arabia,” Professor Petras said.

“It’s creating the basis for the regional conflagration. I don’t think anyone is aware of any danger to the small (Persian) Gulf state. They’re mainly there to serve the US, and to enrich the oligarchies that run those countries,” he added.

“They have no defensive function. They have no positive role to play. And they are forever condemned for their repression of their dissident populations,” the analyst said.

“So I think this is an act by the Trump administration to fortify its circle around Iran. It’s likely to force Iran to increase its defenses and its alliances in the region,” he added.

“I don’t think it has any positive function for the US to continue meddling the Middle East and causing new wars, new terrorists, and new instability in the region,” the academic concluded.

September 30, 2018 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis

By Kenneth Surin | CounterPunch | September 25, 2018

Several CounterPunchers, I included, have posted on the “antisemitism” campaign directed at the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s most virulent accusers have been from his own party, abetted by the tabloid media, and the supposedly liberal Guardian (though it has long been a Blairite holdout, and its chief op-ed writer on Israel is the ardent Zionist Jonathan Freedland).

This anti-Corbyn faction in the Labour party is made up of two overlapping groups: increasingly marginalized supporters of the former leader Tony Blair whose neoliberal “Thatcher lite” agenda has been superseded by Corbyn’s push to reclaim and revitalize Labour’s socialist origins; and a Zionist element, which turns out to be extremely well-funded, having well-documented strong links with pro-Zionist advocacy groups.

In particular, I’ve been researching organizational links and funding sources from key donors, along with associated parliamentary patterns on two significant issues–  the illegal invasion of Iraq and Saudi adventurism in the Middle East–  congruent with Israel’s declared interests.

Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has been an unyielding supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people.

The results, presented below, have (to say the least) been more than a mild surprise.

Corrections, and updates, from readers will be most welcome, as I intend to keep this list up-to-date and free from error.

LABOUR POLITICIANS WHO ARE/WERE OFFICERS OF LABOUR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL (LFI):

Rt. Hon Joan Ryan MP, LFI Chair (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Evening Standard of October 26, 2007, in 2005-06 she made the second highest expenses claim of any MP, while in 2006-07 she managed to achieve first place, with a total of £173,691/$227,800. In May 2009 Ryan claimed more than £4,500/$5,900 under the additional costs allowance for work on a house she had designated as her second home. In February 2010 she was asked to repay £5,121/$6,700 mortgage interest, which she had wrongfully claimed. Corbyn by contrast has been the lowest claimer of expenses since these were monitored—in 2010 he claimed just £8.70/$11.40 for an ink cartridge. His expenses rose significantly when he became leader of the main opposition party, and his claim between 1 June 2017-31 May 2018 amounted to £20,397.74/$26,700, still chicken’s feed compared to Ryan’s excesses).

Dame Louise Ellman MP, LFI Vice-Chair, former chair of Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)§. (Voted for the war on Iraq, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.  In 2011, The Jerusalem Post described Berger as “an active supporter of Israel who has visited the country over 20 times”.)

Sharon Hodgson MP, LFI Vice-Chair

Rupa Huq MP,LFI Vice-Chair (Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Pat McFadden MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn, former LFI Chair (Tony Blair’s unofficial liaison with business. In the 1998 “Lobbygate” scandal he was caught on tape boasting to an undercover reporter (Greg Palast) posing as a businessman, about how he could sell access to government ministers and create tax breaks for their clients.

Rachel Reeves MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports curbs on immigration, and attracted controversy by hiring unpaid interns. In 2017, she received a “donation in kind” of £12,500/$16,400 from Sir David Garrard#)

Rt. Hon John Spellar MP, serves on the Political Council of the neoconservative and Islamophobic think-tank Henry Jackson Society (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, House of Lords LFI Chair (former MI6 (UK spying outfit) operative, specializing in Scandinavian affairs)

Jonathan Reynolds MP, LFI Vice-Chair

John Woodcock MP (resigned from the Labour party in July 2018, now sitting as an Independent MP), LFI Vice-Chair (Favoured UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Andrew Dinsmore, Member of the London Assembly for Barnet and Camden 2012- (Opposed the academic boycott of Israel in parliament, saying the boycott was “misguided” and “undermined academic freedoms” and contributed “absolutely nothing to trying to bring peace to the Middle East”)

Former Labour MP (2010-2017) Michael Dugher, LFI vice-chair. (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has criticized the BDS campaign, saying in a tweet: “Boycotting Israeli institutions is ignorant, wrong and counterproductive to peace. We should be building bridges and furthering dialogue”. A keynote speaker at the ‘We Believe in Israel’ conference, he said he was “proud to be a Zionist”, and that “Each time I visit Israel, my admiration for that great country grows”. In parliament he termed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state as “unnecessary and divisive”)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Jane Kennedy, Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner 2012- (LFI Chair 1997–98, 2000–-07)

Former Labour MP (1997-2005) Stephen Twigg, ex-LFI chair (Voted for the war on Iraq)

LABOUR POLITICIANS WHO ARE LFI SUPPORTERS:

Ian Austin MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. On 1 June 2012, he apologised after claiming that a Palestinian human rights group had denied the existence of the Holocaust. Members of Friend of Al-Aqsa made reference to the fact that Austin had written about the group in an article written on the Labour Uncut website in 2011. In 2017, he received a “donation in kind” of £10,000/$12,400 from Sir David Garrard#, and £5,000/$6,200 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Luciana Berger MP, Director of LFI (2007-2010),also parliamentary chair of JLM (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Nick Brown MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Liam Byrne MP

Vernon Coaker MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rosie Cooper MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.)

Yvette Cooper MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Mary Creagh MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Jon Cruddas MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Wayne David MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Gloria DePiero MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Angela Eagle MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Chris Evans MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jim Fitzpatrick MP

Rt. Hon Caroline Flint MP(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

James Frith MP

Mike Gapes MP, former LFI Vice-Chair(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Barry Gardiner MP, former vice-chair of LFI (Voted for war on Iraq, and supported the Israeli onslaught on Gaza 2008-09)

Preet Gill MP

Mary Glindon MP

Lilian Greenwood MP

Nia Griffith MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Andrew Gwynne MP

Fabian Hamilton MP (Voiced opposition to Ed Miliband (then Labour leader) who criticized Israel’s 2014 operation in Gaza “wrong and unjustifiable”. In parliament he opposed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon David Hanson MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt. Hon Dame Margaret Hodge MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother, paid tax of just £163,000/$214,000 (0.01%) on revenues of more than £2.1bn/$2.75bn in 2011. Corbyn has pledged to close these tax loopholes)

Rt. Hon George Howarth MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Dan Jarvis MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Register of Members’ Interests, he accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Diana Johnson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Darren Jones MP

Helen Jones MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Kevan Jones MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Mike Kane MP

Barbara Keeley MP

Liz Kendall MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Abstained on a parliamentary motion recognizing the state of Palestine.  According to the Register of Members’ Interests, she accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Peter Kyle MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon David Lammy MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Chris Leslie MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has stated that “Marxism has no place in the modern Labour Party” )

Ivan Lewis MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Ian Lucas MP (Also member of the Labour Friends of Palestine. Opposes BDS)

Sandy Martin MP

Chris Matheson MP

Steve McCabe MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Catherine McKinnell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Conor McGinn MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Stephen Morgan MP

Melanie Onn MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Toby Perkins MP (voted for UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jess Phillips MP

Bridget Phillipson MP

Lucy Powell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.  Introducing legislation in the House of Commons banning private, invite-only groups on Facebook because they “promote hate speech”).

Virendra Sharma MP

Barry Sheerman MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Ruth Smeeth MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Smeeth used to work for a pro-Israel campaign group, BICOM (considereda ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). The Register of Members’ Interests shows that Smeeth declared a donation of £5,000/$6,200 from Poju Zabludowicz’s company Tamares Real Estates in June last year. Zabludowicz, a billionaire property speculator, used his wealth, inherited from his Israeli arms dealer father, to establish BICOM. Smeeth also declared a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Angela Smith MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jeff Smith MP

Owen Smith MP

Gareth Snell MP

Wes Streeting MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Graham Stringer MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Emily Thornberry MP (Shadow secretary of defence)

Anna Turley MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Karl Turner MP

Chuka Umunna MP (Received donation of £25,000/$32,700 from Sir David Garrard#)

Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Tom Watson MP, Labour Deputy Leader (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Watson was keynote speaker at LFI’s 2016 “annual lunch” and praised LFI for being “fearless in its support for the state of Israel”. Since December 2015, Watson has received £50,000/$65,500 in personal donations from Sir Trevor Chinn*.  Watson has also received £15,000/$19,600 from Sir David Garrard#, and £4,500/$5,900 from LFI. There is no Labour politician more welcoming of pro-Zionist largesse than Watson)

Phil Wilson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon Rosie Winterton MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt Hon Lord Anderson of Swansea

Former Labour MP (1987-2010) Alun Michael, South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner 2012– .

Lord Beecham DL

Rt Hon Lord David Blunkett, member of Tony Blair’s cabinet. (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Lord Clarke of Hampstead CBE

Rt Hon Lord Clinton-Davis(former director of The Jewish Chronicle and former member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Lord Davies of Coity CBE

Rt Hon Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Rt Hon Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.)

Lord Harrison

Lord Haskel

Baroness Dr Hayter

Lord Kennedy

Lord Michael Levy (Chief fundraiser for Tony Blair, he was Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East (1998-20017). Described by The Jerusalem Post as “undoubtedly the notional leader of British Jewry”)

Lord Livermore

Rt Hon Lord John Reid of Cardowan (As Blair’s minister of defence sent 3,000 British troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan. Supports curbs on immigration)

Lord David Sainsbury of Turville (Supermarket tycoon, and major donor to the Labour party (£18.5m/$24.3m until 2016). Served as Blair’s minister of science, without salary)

Lord Stone of Blackheath

Lord Turnberg

Rt Hon Lord David Watts

Lord Robert Winston of Hammersmith (Since 2017 founding member and co-chair of the UK-Israel Science Council)

Lord Young of Norwood Green

Ψ The JLM director, Ella Rose, was an Israeli embassy officer before she became JLM director.

# Sir David Garrard: property tycoon, offshore tax-dodger. In 2006 it was revealed Garrard had made a secret “loan” to the Labour Party of £2.3m/$3m (this is in addition to donations of £1.5m/$2m since 2003 under the “New Labour” leaders Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband). He was also nominated for a peerage at that time, but the nomination was withdrawn when news of the suspect “loan” became public.  In 2013 Garrard hosted a junket to Israel by 11 Labour MPs, including shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, shadow defence minister Gemma Doyle, LFI chair Anne McGuire and vice-chair Louise Ellman. He left the Labour party in March 2018, citing Corbyn’s “antisemitism” as his reason.

*Sir Trevor Chinn: former chair of the Kwik-Fit and Lex chain of motor garages. Has funded the Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI; and he sits on the Executive Committee of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Chinn also sits on the executive committee of the Zionist advocacy group BICOM (considered a ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). Chinn has funded several leadership rivals to Jeremy Corbyn.  The Independent reports that Chinn has donated an undisclosed amount to Tony Blair, who was of course the main UK sponsor of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »