Will Labour’s ‘change’ agenda include Palestine?

By Dr Daud Abdullah | MEMO | July 8, 2024
From a purely moral point of view, the British government, and the Labour Party in particular, should have been the first to recognise the State of Palestine given their historic role in the dispossessing three-quarters of a million Palestinians. They should not be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. After all, it was the Labour Party which officially adopted at its 1944 annual conference the policy; Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in.
Houthi: US surprised by Yemen’s naval tactics, failed to stop retaliatory operations in Red Sea
Press TV – July 7, 2024
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement says the Yemeni armed forces’ naval tactics in the Red Sea have taken the United States off guard, adding that Washington’s advanced military technology has failed to stop the Arab country’s retaliatory operations.
Abdul-Malik al-Houthi made the remarks during televised a speech on Sunday, where he praised Yemen’s advanced military and missile capabilities in confronting the coalition of the US, Britain, and Israel which he referred to as the “triangle of evil”.
Houthi went on to say that Yemen’s naval operations have frightened the enemies, noting that US aircraft carriers in the Red Sea are escaping rather than attacking and its MQ-9 Reaper drones are continuously shot down.
He also pointed out that many countries were not caught in the trap laid by the US-led coalition against Yemen and even had direct coordination with the Arab country instead.
“The biggest failure of the United States was that it could not include the countries neighboring the Red Sea in operations to support Israel. Washington also failed to force the Arab and neighboring countries to attack us from their soil,” he said.
The Ansarullah leader further said that the US is trying to use Saudi Arabia to exert pressure on Yemen, warning that any Saudi “hostile action” against Yemen will benefit Israel and the US.
“America intends to bring Saudi Arabia into an all-out war with us and return the situation to the peak of tension,” he said, while urging for Muslim unity and cooperation.
He also emphasized that Yemen will not remain idle in the face of aggression and will not watch the nation’s economy collapse.
Yemeni forces have repeatedly launched drones and missiles against Israeli and Israel-bound ships since mid-November last year, saying they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians against Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip.
Back in January, the United States and Britain began striking Yemen in order to dissuade the country from targeting Israeli ships which carry arms and logistics for the onslaught on the besieged enclave.
Despite months of US-led airstrikes, Yemeni forces have continued their operations, drawing from an arsenal of increasingly advanced weapons to attack Israeli, US and UK vessels in and around the Red Sea.
Met Office Still Opening Junk Weather Stations
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | July 5, 2024
As we know, 77.9% of the Met Office’s temperature station network is junk Class 4 and 5.
![]()
But how many of these have been added in recent years?
The Met Office have now sent me a full list of stations, showing both Class and opening date. Since 2000, 58 stations have been added, out of a current total of 380. However only nine are acceptable Class 1 and 2s:
| Class | No |
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 |
| 3 | 5 |
| 4 | 29 |
| 5 | 15 |
| Total | 58 |
One Class 4 station was opened as recently as last year at Arthog in Wales.
It is one thing having poorly sited stations which have been around for decades. But I personally find it unacceptable that the Met Office have deemed it appropriate to carry on opening so many more, which they know full well should not be used for climatological purposes.
It is surely not beyond their wit to build a few pristine Class 1 sites. Which leads us to the conclusion that they are doing it deliberately.
Meanwhile in other news, the hottest place in the UK yesterday was ……………… HEATHROW!!
Corbyn triumphs over former party in UK election
RT | July 5, 2024
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has retained his seat in the UK parliament after running as an independent in Thursday’s general election.
Corbyn won 24,120 votes in London’s Islington North constituency, comfortably ahead of Labour rival Praful Nargund, who received 16,873 votes. Turnout in the constituency was 67.5%, 4% less than in 2019, The Guardian reported on Friday.
The 75-year-old Corbyn has represented Islington North as an MP since 1983. A long-time advocate of Palestinian rights, he led Labour from 2015 to 2020, but was ousted from his position and suspended from the party over his response to allegations of anti-Semitism in the organization during his tenure.
Corbyn insisted that the claims were “dramatically overstated for political reasons,” while his supporters have argued that he was the victim of a smear campaign by party rivals due to his anti-austerity and anti-war stance.
Earlier this year, Corbyn’s successor as Labour leader, Keir Starmer, banned him from representing the party in the general election. He was officially expelled from Labour in May after announcing he would campaign as an independent.
After running against his former party and winning, Corbyn said that by electing him for the 11th time, the people of Islington North “have shown what kinder, gentler and more sensible, more inclusive politics can bring about.”
“I couldn’t be more proud of my constituency than I am tonight and proud of our team that brought this result,” he stressed.
Despite Nargund’s failure in Islington North, Labour has delivered a crushing defeat to the Conservatives, securing its first election victory since 2005 with an estimated 412 seats and a large parliamentary majority.
When asked what kind of prime minister Starmer would make, Corbyn replied: “Well, let’s see what happens.”
The manifesto put forward by the current Labour leader “is thin to put it mildly and doesn’t offer a serious economic alternative to what the Conservative government is doing. And so the demands on [Starmer] are going to be huge,” he argued.
“If you don’t give yourself space to increase spending on the desperate social needs… then I think there are going to be political problems. The demands from the people are going to be huge,” Corbyn warned.
Made in America: The ISIS conquest of Mosul
The Cradle | July 2, 2024
Ten years ago this month, the notorious terror group ISIS improbably conquered Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. In only two days of fighting, a few hundred ISIS militants captured the city, forcing thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police to flee in chaos and confusion.
The western media attributed the city’s fall to the sectarian policies of then-Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, suggesting that local Sunnis welcomed the ISIS invasion. US officials claimed they were surprised by the rapid rise of the terror organization, prompting then-US president Barack Obama to vow to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.
However, a close review of events surrounding the fall of Mosul and discussions with residents during The Cradle’s recent visit to the city shows the opposite.
The US and its regional allies used ISIS as a proxy to orchestrate the fall of Mosul, thereby terrorizing its Sunni Muslim inhabitants to achieve specific foreign policy goals. Says one Mosul resident speaking with The Cradle:
There was a plan to let Daesh [ISIS] take Mosul, and the USA was behind it. Everyone here knows this, but no one can say it publicly. It was a war against Sunnis.
‘Salafist principality’
As the war in Syria raged in August 2012, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) authored a now well-known memo providing the broad outlines of the plan that would lead to Mosul’s fall.
The memo stated that the insurgency backed by the US and its regional allies to topple Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus was not led by “moderate rebels” but by extremists, including Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Islamic State of Iraq).
The DIA memo stated further that the US and its allies, “the western powers,” welcomed the establishment of a “Salafist principality” by these extremist forces in the Sunni majority areas of eastern Syria and western Iraq. The US goal was to isolate Syria territorially from its main regional supporter, Iran.
Two years later, in June 2014, ISIS conquered Mosul, declaring it the capital of the so-called “Caliphate.”
Though the terror group was portrayed as indigenous to Iraq, ISIS only made the “Salafist principality” predicted in the DIA memo a reality with the help of weapons, training, and funding from the US and its close allies.
US and Saudi weapons
In January 2014, Reuters reported that the US Congress “secretly” approved new weapons flows to “moderate Syrian rebels” from the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA).
In subsequent months, the US Army military and Saudi Ministry of Defense purchased large quantities of weapons from Eastern European countries, which were then flown to Amman, Jordan, for further distribution to the FSA.
After an exhaustive three-year investigation, EU-funded Conflict Armament Research (CAR) found that the weapons funneled to Syria by the US and Saudi Arabia in 2014 were quickly passed on to ISIS, at times within just “days or weeks” of their purchase.
“As far as our evidence shows, the diverters [Saudi and the US] knew what was going on in terms of the risk of supplying weapons to groups in the region,” Damien Spleeters of CAR explained.
The US-supplied weapons and equipment quickly reaching ISIS included the iconic Toyota Hilux pickup trucks, which became synonymous with the ISIS brand.
The Kurdish role
Another way US and Saudi-supplied weapons reached ISIS was through Washington’s main Kurdish ally in Iraq, Masoud Barzani. Discussing the secret funding for weapons approved by the US Congress in January 2014, Reuters noted that “Kurdish groups” had been providing weapons and other aid financed by donors in Qatar to “religious extremist rebel factions.”
In the following months, reports emerged that Kurdish officials from Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) were providing weapons to ISIS, including Kornet anti-tank missiles imported from Bulgaria.
Further evidence of Barzani’s support for ISIS comes from a lawsuit currently being litigated in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Kurdistan Victim’s Fund.
The expansive lawsuit, led by former US Assistant Attorney James R Tate, cites testimonies from sources with “direct clandestine access” to senior ranking officials in the KDP, alleging that Barzani’s agents “purposefully made US dollar payments to terrorist intermediaries and others that were wired through the United States,” including through banks in Washington, DC. These payments “enabled ISIS to carry out terrorist attacks that killed US citizens in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.”
Further, the agents made use of “email accounts serviced by US-based email service providers to coordinate and carry out elements of their partnership with ISIS.”
It is unthinkable that Barzani regularly arranged payments to ISIS from the heart of the US capital without the knowledge and consent of US intelligence.
An explicit agreement
In the spring of 2014, reports emerged of a deal between Barzani and ISIS to divide the territory in Iraq between them.
French academic and Iraq expert Pierre-Jean Luizard of the Paris-based National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) reported there was “an explicit agreement” between Barzani and ISIS, which “aims to share a number of territories.”
According to the agreement, ISIS would take Mosul, while Barzani’s security forces, the Peshmerga, would take oil-rich Kirkuk and other “disputed territories” he desired for a future independent Kurdish state.
According to Luizard, ISIS was given the role of “routing the Iraqi army, in exchange for which the Peshmerga would not prevent ISIS from entering Mosul or capturing Tikrit.”
In an unpublished interview with prominent Lebanese security journalist and The Cradle contributor Radwan Mortada, former Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki claimed that meetings were held to plan the Mosul operation in the Iraqi Kurdistan capital, Erbil, which were attended by US military officers.
When US officials denied any involvement, Maliki responded by telling them:
These are pictures of American officers sitting in this meeting … you are partners in this operation.
The UK pipeline
A resident from Mosul speaking with The Cradle states that many of the ISIS members he encountered during the group’s three-year occupation of the city were English-speaking foreigners, in particular the ISIS commanders.
But where did these English-speaking ISIS members come from?
In 2012, UK intelligence established a pipeline to send British and Belgian citizens to fight in Syria. Young men from London and Brussels were recruited by Salafist organizations, Shariah4UK and Shariah4Belgium, established by radical preacher and UK British intelligence asset Anjam Choudary.
These recruits were then sent to Syria, where they joined an armed group, Katibat al-Muhajireen, which enjoyed support from UK intelligence. These British and Belgian fighters then joined ISIS after its official establishment in Syria in April 2013.
Among these fighters was a Londoner named Mohammed Emwazi. Later known as the infamous Jihadi John, Emwazi kidnapped US journalist James Foley in October 2012 as a member of Katibat al-Muhajireen and allegedly executed him in August 2014 as a member of ISIS.
Made in America
The commander of Katibat al-Muhajireen, Abu Omar al-Shishani, also later joined ISIS and famously led the terror group’s assault on Mosul. Before fighting in Syria and Iraq, Shishani received US training as a member of the country of Georgia’s special forces.
In August 2014, the Washington Post reported that Libyan members of ISIS had received training from French, UK, and US military and intelligence personnel while fighting in the so-called “revolution” to topple the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011.
Many of these fighters were British but of Libyan origin and traveled to Libya with the encouragement of UK intelligence to topple Qaddafi. They then traveled to Syria and soon joined ISIS or the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, the Nusra Front.
“Sometimes I joke around and say that I am a fighter made by America,” one of the fighters told the Post.
There is no indication that the relationship between these fighters and US and UK intelligence ended once they joined ISIS.
‘Maliki must go’
US support for the ISIS invasion of Mosul is evident through the actions Washington refused to take. US planners monitored the ISIS convoys traveling across the open desert from Syria to assault Mosul in June 2014 but took no action to bomb them.
As former US secretary of defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged, “It wasn’t that we were blind in that area. We had drones, we had satellites, we had intelligence monitoring these groups.”
Even after Mosul fell, and as ISIS was threatening Baghdad, Washington planners refused to help unless Maliki stepped down as prime minister.
Maliki claimed in his interview with Mortada that US officials had demanded he impose a siege on Syria to assist in toppling Assad. When Maliki refused, they accused him of sabotaging the Syria regime change operation and sought to use ISIS to topple Iraq’s government.
American sources all but confirm Maliki’s claim. The US military-funded Rand Corporation noted that the US–Iraqi relationship at this time had become strained “because of the willingness of the Maliki government to facilitate Iranian support to the Assad regime despite significant American opposition.”
As Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Philip Gordon explained:
The president was clear he didn’t want to launch that campaign [against ISIS] until there was something to defend, and that wasn’t Maliki.
New York Times journalist Michael Gordon reported that Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Baghdad two weeks after ISIS captured Mosul to meet with Maliki. Desperate for help, Maliki asked Kerry for airstrikes against ISIS to protect Baghdad, but the latter explained that the US would not help unless the former gave up power.
In July 2014, ISIS fighters were moving captured US artillery and armored vehicles back to Syria across the open desert. Gordon reports further that the ISIS convoys were “easy pickings for American airpower.”
However, when US Major General Dana Pittard requested authorization to conduct the airstrikes to destroy the convoys, the White House refused, saying the “political prerequisites” had not been met. In other words, Maliki was still prime minister.
Geopolitical gains
While claiming to be enemies of ISIS, the US planners and their allies deliberately facilitated the terror group’s rise, including its capture of Mosul.
ISIS relied on US and UK-trained fighters, US and Saudi-purchased weapons, and Kurdish-supplied US dollars – rather than popular support from the city’s Sunni residents – to conquer Mosul.
When self-proclaimed caliph and leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, announced the establishment of the so-called Caliphate at the city’s historic Nuri Mosque, he set up the very Salafist principality outlined in the DIA document by US intelligence heads.
This orchestrated rise of ISIS not only destabilized the region but also served the geopolitical interests of those who claim to be combating terrorism.
BBC presenter calls for Trump to be assassinated
RT | July 2, 2024
BBC presenter David Aaronovitch has called for the “murder” of former US President Donald Trump in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Aaronovitch later deleted his message following a backlash, claiming it had been “satire.”
Aaronovitch, the voice behind the British state broadcaster’s Radio 4 program ‘The Briefing Room’, tweeted on Monday: “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security.”
The post was accompanied by the hashtag #SCOTUS, indicating that the comment had been triggered by Monday’s confirmation from the US Supreme Court that former presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for their official actions.
Aaronovitch was forced delete the post after an online backlash, and claimed in a follow-up message that he had been accused of inciting violence by “a far right pile.” The presenter insisted his tweet was “plainly a satire.”
On Monday, the highest US court ruled that under “our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Trump touted the verdict on presidential immunity as a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy.”
President Biden attacked the Supreme Court ruling, urging citizens to “dissent” against the verdict.
US federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal counts related to the 2020 presidential election, alleging that he “conspired” to overturn the results.
The Supreme Court verdict still grants lower courts the right to hold evidentiary hearings to determine whether the actions are official or unofficial. Unofficial acts by the president are not covered by immunity from prosecution.
Trump has repeatedly called his prosecution politically motivated, describing it as a “witch hunt” launched by Biden and his administration.
If the war expands, will western facilities become the new target banks?
The Cradle | June 28, 2024
Israel’s brutal, nine-month military assault on Gaza has full support from several western-allied states, not only in supplying the occupation army’s war machine with a broad range of armaments and ammunition but also through direct military participation. The United States and Britain, for example, have provided vital reconnaissance and intelligence data and have sent their special forces to assist Israel in military operations.
An 8 June New York Times report revealed that US forces assisted the Israelis in retrieving four Israeli captives from Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp, killing at least 274 Palestinian civilians and three additional captives and leaving over 698 wounded. According to the paper’s Israeli sources, the US and UK provided intelligence from the air and cyberspace that Israel could not obtain on its own.
On 29 May, the Declassified UK media project reported that London authorized an unprecedented 60 Israel-bound flights using cargo planes that took off from the UK’s RAF Akrotiri air base in Cyprus, a facility covertly used by the US Air Force to move weapons to Israel.
The British government has not revealed the content of the air cargo transported – and maintains that no “lethal aid” is included. London instead claims that RAF flights to the occupation state are used to support its “diplomatic engagement” with Tel Aviv and repatriate British subjects – an odd use of military aircraft when Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport is still operational for regular passenger travel.
London has vigorously invoked its D-Notice since just after the war’s onset, a military and security directive aimed at preventing media outlets from publishing information that could harm national security, specifically relating to British airborne Special Forces (SAS) operations in Gaza. No further information has been revealed since the directive was issued on 28 October 2023.
How western intel penetrates West Asia
But all those concealment efforts were cracked open during Israel’s disproportionate military operation to secure the release of captives during the recent Nuseirat camp fiasco. Trending videos appeared of an Israeli helicopter landing next to the recently-installed $320 million US’ aid pier’ and of ‘aid trucks’ carrying special ops teams that were flanked by armored vehicles during the operation.
Media then reported that dozens of US and UK drones assisted in the Nuseirat camp assault, ostensibly by providing reconnaissance services to the Israeli military.
These incidents highlight not only direct western military participation in the war on Gaza but also the brazen exploitation of diplomatic cover or humanitarian work to prepare and carry out military actions that have led to mass civilian casualties and war crimes, as described by many United Nations institutions.
The question now is whether western facilities and troops will come under target as the war expands, potentially to Lebanon, given the evident collusion of western states in Israel’s aggressions – especially those in flagrant violation of international norms and law.
Although the use of embassies and civilian institutions – in the modern sense – as bases for intelligence gathering and launching special missions is not a new practice and dates back to at least the nineteenth century, current developments in technology and computing have enabled these facilities to act as spying and eavesdropping centers, monitoring and storing information for an entire country.
What was previously impossible has become reality through wireless communication and the Internet. Signal intelligence formerly gained by planting eavesdropping and listening devices can now be accessed via the common smartphone – with data funneled to these centers inside sovereign states.

Aerial view of the US embassy complex, northern Beirut.
‘Second-biggest US Embassy in the world’
Spawling approximately 174 thousand square meters, around 13 kilometers from the Lebanese capital of Beirut, lies the second largest embassy in West Asia – and the world. The new US Embassy in Beirut is surpassed in size only by its counterpart in Baghdad’s “Green Zone.”
Subtracting from the massive size of the embassy and its cost of nearly a billion dollars, there are many questions about the need for such facilities and what they contain.
The computer-generated images published by the embassy show a complex featuring multi-story buildings with tall glass windows, entertainment areas, a swimming pool surrounded by greenery, and views of the Lebanese capital. According to the project website, the complex includes an office, representative housing for employees, community facilities, and associated support facilities.
In May 2023, the Intelligence Online website reported that the massive billion-dollar complex will include a data collection facility, preparing the site as the new regional headquarters for US intelligence. The report says that because of its proximity to Syria, “Lebanon is considered a safe and strategic location for the deployment of intelligence agents already in the region as well as new personnel, who are selected directly from Washington-based agencies.”

Construction of the new US embassy, 13 kilometers north of the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
Although it is not possible to obtain precise information about the design of this embassy, the excavations below surface level, the use of reinforced concrete in the structure, and its fortified location on top of a hill suggest that there is more to its operations, especially since several precedents of the US Beirut diplomatic mission being implicated in the work of intelligence services exist.
The 1983 bombing of the American Embassy revealed a high CIA death toll, with eight killed, including the CIA’s chief West Asia analyst and Near East director, Robert Ames, station chief Kenneth Haass, James Lewis, and most of the CIA’s Beirut employees.
The embassy was not only used as a CIA hub but also as a key regional intelligence base due to Lebanon’s proximity to both the sea and two British NATO bases in southern Cyprus, Dhekelia and Akrotiri, from which reinforcements or helicopter transfers can arrive rapidly onto Lebanese soil. A recent example, in 2020, is Washington’s smuggling of its agent Amer al-Fakhouri from the US embassy using an Osprey helicopter.
British Watchtowers on Lebanon’s borders
On 3 May, Lebanon announced the visit of an official delegation and a senior British intelligence officer the previous month to discuss the construction of new UK-built watchtowers. These are in addition to the more than three dozen watchtowers built by Britain during the Syrian war along the sensitive border between Lebanon and Syria.
According to leaks reported by Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the British delegation had asked the Lebanese army “to approve a plan to establish watchtowers along the border with occupied Palestine, similar to those existing on the eastern and northern borders with Syria.”
Following the low-profile visit, Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati disclosed: “Establishing the towers and taking measures along the border are Israel’s conditions for stopping the war with Lebanon.”
Last February, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry received an official Syrian protest note classifying the British watchtowers as a threat to Syrian national security on several levels. The main threat is the tower systems’ sensitive intelligence and espionage equipment, which “shines deep into Syrian territory and collects information about the Syrian interior.”
According to Al-Akhbar’s report, “the information output from this equipment reaches the hands of the British, and the Israeli enemy benefits from the output to target Syrian territory and carry out strikes deep inside Syria.” The Syrian memorandum also refers to “the presence of some British officers at the towers.”

A 30-foot British watchtower near the Lebanese-Syrian border
Security cameras monitor the surrounding area at a border point on Lebanon’s border with Syria (Photo by the Lebanese Army Command, Orientation Directorate)
The 38 British watchtowers that claim to assist Lebanese authorities in “combating smuggling” raise many questions instead, among them the reasoning behind the erection of such a large number of these structures. Why, too, do the towers contain thermal monitoring, eavesdropping, signal intelligence, and communications equipment – especially in light of the close relationship between Tel Aviv and London and the periodic presence of British officers in these towers under the pretext of training the Lebanese army?
A commanding officer of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), interviewed at length by The Cradle in August 2021, contradicts London’s public claims about the towers, saying: “The aim of the towers today is to monitor the movements of Hezbollah and the Syrians.”
Dutch special forces in Dahiyeh
In March, Hezbollah captured several Dutch military forces operating covertly in Dahiyeh, the southern suburb of Beirut, which hosts several offices of the Lebanese Resistance. The detainees claimed they were operating under cover of the Dutch Embassy in Lebanon and were found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of military equipment and advanced communications devices on their persons and in their vehicles.
During investigations, the Dutchmen claimed they had entered the southern suburb as part of a training exercise for evacuating Dutch citizens and diplomats in the event of a war. However, no Dutch nationals of the embassy resided in that area. It was also found that the servicemen had not communicated about their mission with the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Lebanese security services, or their country’s embassy.
That same month, a Spanish citizen was arrested for filming inside the same southern suburb of Beirut, only to discover later that he had a diplomatic passport and that his phone contained advanced software that prevented access to its data.
These events and a myriad of other examples show that some western governments continuously use western diplomatic and civilian facilities to gather intelligence or conduct special missions training in sovereign Lebanon.
These actions constitute a clear violation of the Vienna Convention on International Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which prohibit embassy diplomats from carrying out espionage activities. These actions don’t only place civilian populations in danger but also the thousands of professional diplomats in the country, all diplomatic missions, and the civilian facilities used as cover for illicit operations. They also drag otherwise immune diplomatic facilities into the legal framework of “hostilities,” intentionally or accidentally.
This danger is reinforced by Israel’s repeated violations of diplomatic and international norms, which are either ignored or protected by western allied states. Israel’s unprecedented military strikes against Iran’s consulate building in Damascus in April, for instance, did not receive the deserved condemnation from most western capitals, which helped it avoid the requisite UN Security Council censure.
Since the basic value of international norms is the precedent and event on which this law is built, the possibility increases that such western-supported attacks will backfire wildly and lead to the retaliatory targeting of western facilities and embassies – all in the context of new legal precedents and customs created that no longer prohibit strikes on suspect non-military facilities.
It is yet unknown to what extent western governments can expect to maintain their double standards in the application of international law and customs, especially if the Gaza war they are materially supporting expands to Lebanon or other West Asian regions.
The Resistance Axis, which has, in the past nine months, normalized military strikes on Israel, missile attacks on Israel-destined shipping vessels, and weekly strikes on US and UK naval fleets, are but one escalation away – as in, a declared war on Lebanon – to create a new set of target banks that surpass their last ones.
Does that then include the US embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the region – and the world – hosting 10 thousand American employees and troops, or, closer to home, the second largest embassy in West Asia, the US embassy in Beirut?
It is difficult to imagine that such facilities will remain immune if western involvement remains apparent, which we already know to be a constant, daily flow of armaments to fuel Israel’s war machinery and provide Tel Aviv with military intelligence and target banks.
It will be even harder to protect diplomatic missions if they reveal themselves to essentially act as military command centers or intelligence hubs during the conduct of war. Targeting these facilities – which are already in breach of the Vienna Convention – can easily fall within the framework of self-defense and reciprocity as long as western states and Israel continue to normalize these illicit activities.
If the Gaza war established entirely new rules of engagement throughout the region, do Israel’s western allies expect to escape unscathed in an expanded war? How do they think they can arm military aggression against a country and yet remain safely in its capital city?
Over 80 UK war planes deployed from Cyprus to Lebanon since 7 Oct: Report
The Cradle | June 28, 2024
The UK has sent over 80 military transport planes to the Lebanese capital of Beirut since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza nine months ago, Declassified UK reported on 28 June.
All the flights have gone from the UK’s massive Akrotiri airbase on the nearby island of Cyprus, long a staging post for UK bombing missions in West Asia.
Declassified UK notes that the number of UK military flights to Beirut has risen dramatically in recent months. The group tracked 25 flights in April and May and 14 so far in June.
Flights from the UK base take around 45 minutes to reach Beirut, which Israel has increasingly threatened to bomb in a possible full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah.
The Ministry of Defense declined to disclose the number of UK military flights to Lebanon since the start of the war on 7 October or their purpose.
A defense source told Declassified UK that the flights “have been primarily for the purpose of facilitating senior military engagement” with the Lebanese army.
But it is widely assumed the planes are carrying weapons to Beirut to arm anti-Hezbollah militias. The US, UK, and Israel would presumably use these militias to attack Hezbollah from within the country in the case of an Israeli invasion from the south.
Declassified UK notes that nearly every Royal Air Force flight to Lebanon has been the Voyager KC mark 2, which can carry a payload of 45 tons and 291 personnel or provide air-to-air refueling. Another flight involved a vast C-17 cargo plane.
Israeli threats to invade Lebanon have accelerated in tandem with the increase in flights.
Israeli military leaders have increasingly warned of a Lebanon campaign to push Hezbollah away from the border and past the Litani River.
Last week, the Israeli army approved “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon,” and the US pledged to support Israel with weapons if a full-scale war breaks out.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned the resistance movement will use its massive rocket and missile arsenal to hit targets across Israel in a “total war” if Tel Aviv decides to launch an invasion.
Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus, noting its role as a US, UK, and Israeli staging ground.
“The Cypriot government must be warned that opening Cypriot airports and bases for the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance [Hezbollah] will deal with it as part of the war,” he said.
Nasrallah’s threat appeared to include the Akrotiri base, which lies in territory retained by the UK when Cyprus gained independence in 1960. The territory now hosts vast military and intelligence hubs for Britain and the US, Declassified UK notes.
The European Mutiny: The Consequences are Just Beginning
By Alastair Crooke | Al Mayadeen | June 26, 2024
In the European Parliament elections this month, voters in most of the European Union’s 27 countries rallied to parties that hold the remote EU Establishment in contempt.
In France, the once-taboo National Rally party outpolled the party of President Macron by more than 2 to 1; in Germany, the party of Scholtz, the SPD (a veteran German party) collapsed to 13% voter support, at the same time that the other components to the governing coalition collapsed. The Greens sank to 12% and the FDP were at borderline 5% of the popular vote (5% is the entry-level to Germany’s parliament).
Much has been written to argue that European Parliamentary Centre ‘held’, yet even that hangs in the balance until the newly-elected MEPs first assemble to approve the clutch of EU top jobs: i.e. the three ‘Presidents’ — Presidents of the Commission, the Council, and of Parliament; plus the High Representative (i.e. the EU’s ‘Foreign Minister’).
For now, the composition of the European Parliament is the subject of intense internecine struggle. These were elections only to the European Parliament — a body that does not initiate legislation in the EU, but which is supposed to exercise a general surveillance.
The real elections in Europe these days are the national elections.
That in itself is a ‘pointer’: Decisive voting is taking place at the national level, and not at the supranational centre in Brussels.
The ‘real’ elections are taking place in France and the UK, despite the latter being outside the EU. The UK vote nonetheless will be an important litmus of European opinion, precisely because its Ruling Strata has become known for its compliance with US policies.
The anti-Establishment and anti-bureaucracy outpouring amongst voters has astonished and disconcerted the élites. The governing party — the venerable Conservative Party — is being routed, and might not survive as a meaningful political entity after 4 July.
In Germany, Scholtz’s ‘traffic light’ coalition also may not survive — following its calamitous EU election. Scholz’s government has a budget shortfall of €40bn. That is the estimated amount Scholz and his coalition partners need to cut in federal spending in order to plug the gap. Within Germany’s ruling parties, there is a consensus forming that the severely weakened coalition cannot survive another grinding dispute on the budget, as happened last year after a ruling by Germany’s top court blew a €60 billion hole in the country’s finances.
Then there are, in September, key state votes ahead in Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Saxony. According to polls, the (populist-rightist) Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is winning in each region, all of which are located in the eastern or central part of the country. Within the Former East Germany, 40% of the votes in the Euro-elections went to either the AfD, or the party of Sara Wagenkecht – a new party espousing contrarian policies.
In France, the situation for the élite class looks equally dire: A series of opinion polls over the past few days reflect the darkening clouds engulfing Macron’s centrist alliance. The polls show the National Rally inching closer to a majority in France’s lower house of parliament, the National Assembly.
If the National Rally does win a majority, the impact of a putative Rally premiership, led by Jordan Bardella, would have major repercussions extending far beyond France — to the EU and beyond. A confrontational stance by the party toward Brussels is a given. And whilst in Italy, Giorgia Meloni has tried to accommodate Brussels on key policy stances, there’s no guarantee Bardella would follow suit. Or that Meloni will not switch to ally with Bardella.
This ‘mutiny’ has been long in the making: EU policies such as immigration, Green farm policies, and heavy-handed bureaucracy have ignited huge anger; but there is one burning issue that largely is kept under the table, and spoken of in hushed tones — Ukraine.
The Biden-faction within Brussels is wholly invested in the US project for escalation of the war in Ukraine against Russia (at least until November), and thereafter Europe is expected to prepare for a later full-scale confrontation with Russia — possibly mounted to mesh with US military action against China, for which the Pentagon is busy preparing.
Of course, ‘all’ hangs on the US election outcome.
The elephant in the ‘planning room’ is that Europeans do not want war with Russia — however hard it is pushed by the Ruling Strata. It is manifestly not in the European interest.
The National Rally is opposed to support for Ukraine, and even Scholtz, the most faithful leader to a Washington ‘lead’ admitted in an interview on Sunday, that the SPD had as little as 7% support in some parts of eastern Germany, which traditionally has been more positively predisposed toward Russia.
“Something is going on there; No way around it”, Scholtz exclaimed.
He then acknowledged that the dire ratings for the SPD stemmed from the fact that “many people do not agree with the support for Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia. This is also reflected in the [wider, poor] election results”, Scholz stated. “There is no alternative [but] to changing that”.
And even in the UK which traditionally tries ‘to be out, in front’ of the US on security issues, the Establishment swooned when Nigel Farage whose Reform party is within a whisker of overtaking the governing Conservative Party in terms of popular esteem said the ‘unsayable’: He said that NATO’s forever expansions towards Russia’s borders were the cause of the Ukraine war. You (metaphorically) could ‘hear a pin drop’ as he broke ranks and uttered the unsayable.
Now, Farage – whether you like him or not – is a consummate politician — unlike Sunak or Starmer, who are anything ‘but’. Farage knows how to tell which way the wind blows.
France and Germany together, historically provide Europe’s engine. For years, however, the EU has built itself by usurping the prerogatives of Europe’s nation-states, only to reinvest them at the supra-national level — for ever.
By the start of this century, London, Berlin, Rome and Athens were much less self-governing than they used to be — to the alarm of voters: Brexit was one result.
“Europeans”, C. Caldwell writes in the New York Times, “for the most part, were not aware that they had been enlisted in a project that has as its end point the extinction of France, Germany, Italy and the rest of Europe’s historic nations – as meaningful political units. Brussels has been able to win assent to its project only by concealing its nature. Europe’s younger generation appears however to have seen through the dissembling. We are only at the beginning of the consequences”.
Brussels may try to claim that the ‘Centre held’; that their Ukraine, Green immigration and centralizing policies can continue unaffected. But Caldwell is correct: we are only at the beginning of the consequences, should they try to insist. The “real problem with the union [is] not what it does but what it is … a ruthless state-building project like those of Cardinal Richelieu under Louis XIII”.
The European Union’s governing machinery in Brussels has never been where voters’ interests – or hearts – lie.

