Beware politicians cloaked in the American flag or diplomats sporting Union Jack kippahs...

When Marcellus, in Shakespeare's Hamlet, famously says, "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark", he means that the body politic is rotting from the top down and the corruption stinks to high heaven.

410 years later the Bard's words are especially applicable to the so-called political élite of the Western world. The stench of their corruption is assailing the nostrils of more and more people and causing mass nausea.

Thankfully some small but effective relief is available in the United States courtesy of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), an independent non-profit concern that provides information and analysis on the Middle East and its relationship to the United States. The CNIF has been doing an excellent demolition job on US foreign policy and exposing how it is dangerously at odds with American values and national interests.

The CNIF hammers home the necessity for voters and their elected officials to be free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their lobbyists.

The US's uniquely massive support for Israel, says CNIF, has cost trillions of dollars and multitudes of lives. It has diminished America's moral standing in the world, lessened its domestic freedoms, and exposed the American people to unnecessary and growing peril.

And yet America's taxpayers give Israel over $8 million per day. And since the US is in deficit, this means borrowing the money, handing it to Israel, then paying interest on it for evermore afterwards. 10 million American families are reportedly sliding into foreclosure; but the US administration continues to heap tax money onto Israel.

It is not as if Israel is a close ally. The Israeli regime spies on America incessantly. Its forces have killed and injured numerous Americans with impunity. And Israel has repeatedly stolen US technology and passed it on to other nations, some of them America's enemies.

In 1967 Israel attacked the USS Liberty, killing or injuring over 200 American servicemen. A high ranking independent commission in 2003 found that Israel had committed an act of war against the United States. Yet the US President at the time (Johnson), and his secretary of defense (McNamara), are said to have recalled rescue aircraft and ordered a cover-up.

Israeli aggression and defiance of international law, human rights conventions and UN resolutions, have created enormous hostility throughout the world, much of which is directed at the US as Israel's number one buddy, funder and protector. Furthermore Israel's nuclear arsenal is a menace both to the region itself and far beyond. It has refused to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and the British American Security Information Council has found that in Israel "nuclear weapons are being assigned roles that go well beyond deterrence."

The fact that such weapons are in the hands of Israel's psychopaths makes it perfectly understandable that other nations in the region wish to acquire them as a deterrent.

US intelligence agencies have so far found no concrete proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran, of course, is not happy to be constantly threatened with sanctions and pre-emptive strikes. It demands that the American authorities publicly apologize to the Iranian government and its citizens "for the false accusations they publicized against Tehran in violation of international norms and regulations". In a letter handed to the Swiss Embassy, which represents US interests since Iran and Washington severed diplomatic relations in 1980, Tehran also demanded compensation for material and moral damages caused by America' anti-Iran publicity campaign.

You'd think that a supposedly responsible superpower like the US would seek to re-establish diplomatic links rather than stay in a sulk for 30 years and spitefully snipe and intimidate through third parties. America is seen to have the unmistakable hallmarks of a playground bully who could drag us all into another world war.

As for Israel's war crimes in Jerusalem, the West Bank and especially Gaza, the racist regime uses American weapons in violation of US laws, killing and maiming huge numbers of civilians, women, and children.

This endless killing spree funded by American taxpayers and shielded by the US government has caused a burning hatred of the US throughout the Muslim world.

Britain, as America's and Israel's bitch, is also feeling the heat and putting herself in peril.

A red rag cover-up

Meanwhile, on the British side of the Atlantic former ambassador Craig Murray has numerous well-placed informants and is busy blowing the lid off one of the slimiest intrigues ever exposed at Westminster.

On his website Murray has penned a marvellous piece titled Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory. Gould is the British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Werritty is zionist stooge Adam Werrity, friend and "adviser" to disgraced defence secretary Liam Fox.

"There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran," says Murray. He had made a Freedom of Information request for all communications between Gould and Werritty and was astonished to receive a midnight reply that his request was refused because it was "likely to exceed the cost limit".

This was like a red rag to a bull. And it coincided with attempts to obstruct MP Paul Flynn while questioning Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. Flynn was repeatedly interrupted by Robert Halfon MP who, says Murray, receives funding from the same Israeli sources as Werritty and was formerly Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

Murray's concerns centre on the numerous meetings between Fox, Werrrity and Gould, and especially their "private dinner" in Tel Aviv with Mossad. Murray claims that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O'Donnell listed in his "investigation" into the affair.

Murray observes: "It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power - with never another British official present - they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary." He acknowledges that O'Donnell was correct in saying that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition wasn't his concern. But what Gould - a senior official - was doing with them most certainly was. "A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?"

O'Donnell, replying to Flynn's questions about the dinner date with Mossad, said: "The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual's biases. That is what ambassadors do."

But Murray is adamant. "I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran."

Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory

Gould has been photographed wearing a Union Jack kippah in a tacky attempt to convince us he's batting for Britain. Can an ardent zionist Jew be anything but an Israel-firster? You may well ask... Fox and Werritty are both zionist sympathisers, as are foreign secretary Hague and prime minister Cameron.

All of them appear firmly wedded to the principle expressed in Fox's idiotic declaration that "in the battle for the values that we stand for... Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together..." Fox was the man the Jewish Chronicle hailed as "a champion of Israel within the government", though of course there are many others - 80 percent of Conservative MPs for a start.

Mad, mad world of diplomacy

The American and British publics have been shamefully caught up in more than enough zionist warmongering plots. Iraq, which we subjected to 12 years of cruel sanctions and subsequently bombed back to the Stone Age, killing hundreds of thousands, was never our enemy. Libya was not our enemy. Iran is definitely not our enemy. Nor is Afghanistan; nor Syria; nor Lebanon; nor Palestine; nor Egypt.

As I write, reports are coming in that Iran's parliament has voted to expel the British ambassador, presumably in retaliation for the British chancellor George Osborne's announcement last week of fresh punitive measures targeting Iranian financial sectors, including the Central Bank of Iran. The bill now needs the approval of the Guardian Council.

The UK Foreign Office says it will to react "robustly" if Iran expels its ambassador. "This unwarranted move will do nothing to help the regime address their growing isolation or international concerns about their nuclear programme and human rights record. If the Iranian government acts on this, we will respond robustly in consultation with our international partners."

However, for some seven months this year the Foreign Office didn't bother to send an ambassador to Tehran when the last one finished his stint in March. Hague and Cameron, like Obama and Clinton, apparently think it unimportant to maintain senior level contact with the country they say is dangerous and must be crippled by sanctions or smashed by war.

Welcome to the mad, mad world of zio-British and zio-American diplomacy. Shouldn't they be straining every sinew to strengthen links with Iran, too long neglected? Or are we supposed to applaud this supremely casual attitude in the matter of key relationships that could mean life or death for millions?

The stench of "something rotten in the state" is becoming unbearable. Would the Council for the National Interest Foundation care to set up a branch here in the UK, please, and help clean up and disinfect?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

Related posts:

• Something Rotten This Way Comes
• Mohamed Khodr – Obama and Western Civilizations: Hypocritical Rhetoric and Righteous Holocausts
• Murdoch is not the only maggot in the rotten apple

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A few weeks ago the Methodist Church's annual conference did a very courageous and praiseworthy thing. It voted to boycott products from Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestine, regarded as illegal under international law, and to encourage Methodists across Britain to do the same.

"The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches," said the press release.

Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships, remarked: "This decision has not been taken lightly, but after months of research, careful consideration and finally, today's debate at the Conference. The goal of the boycott is to put an end to the existing injustice. It reflects the challenge that settlements present to a lasting peace in the region."

Predictably the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which calls itself "the chief voice of British Jewry", blew a gasket. In a joint statement with the Jewish Leadership Council they said the Methodists should "hang their heads in shame". The Chief Rabbi led the verbal assault warning that the implications would "reverberate across the hitherto harmonious relationship between the faith communities in the UK".

What seemed to have inflamed the Chief Rabbi this time was the report 'Justice for Palestine and Israel' submitted to the Methodist Conference. Its recommendations include the following...

In listening to Church Leaders and our fellow-Christians in Israel Palestine as well as leaders of Palestinian civil society we hear an increasing consensus calling for the imposition of boycott, divestment and sanctions as a major strategy of non-violent resistance to the Occupation. The Conference notes the call of the WCC [World Council of Churches] in 2009 for an 'international boycott of settlement produce and services' and calls on the Methodist people to support and engage with this boycott of Israeli goods emanating from illegal settlements (some Methodists would advocate a total boycott of Israeli goods until the Occupation ends).

Elsewhere it says:

The Methodist Church has consistently expressed its concern over the illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by the State of Israel. That Occupation continues not only compounds the state's illegal and immoral action but also makes any accommodation with the Palestinian people and future peace in the region much less possible.

The Chief Rabbi nevertheless denounced the report as "unbalanced, factually and historically flawed" without saying in what way it was inaccurate. Actually it is a very well put together document, which hits the mark and is hard to fault.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said the authors of the Methodists' report had "abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage on this issue, only to find our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction". Here is the full text:

Statement on the Flawed Document Endorsed by the Annual Methodist Conference

This is a very sad day, both for Jewish-Methodist relations and for everyone who wants to see positive engagement with the complex issues of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Methodist Conference has swallowed hook, line and sinker a report full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy. The deeply flawed report is symptomatic of a biased process: The working group which wrote the report had already formed its conclusions at the outset. External readers were brought in to give the process a veneer of impartiality, but their criticisms were rejected. The report's authors have abused the trust of ordinary members of the Methodist Church, who assumed that they were reading and voting on an impartial and comprehensive paper, and they have abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage with this issue, only to find that our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction.

This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and as an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations, Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the Methodist Conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the Conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.

Empty barrels, they say, make the most noise.

If arrogance is the only response to serious concerns about Israel's unending barbarity towards Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land, it's time that implications did indeed "reverberate" across the faith communities, not only in the UK but around the world.

Zionist cuckoos in the Methodist nest

Lo and behold, before the dust could settle another new product from the Zionist drawing-board popped up, calling itself Methodist Friends of Israel. "We are Christians who are members or adherents of the Methodist Church, who love Israel and want to bless her and who fully accept God's everlasting covenant with His chosen people," they announced. "While recognising that the nation of Israel is, like all nations of the world, an unrighteous nation that does not always get things right, we firmly stand with her at all times and continue to support her in an increasingly hostile world. We will not turn our backs as so many did in the 1930s.

We see that anti Semitism is on the rise throughout the world with synagogues and graveyards vandalised and Jews being attacked both verbally and physically and that there appears to be a direct relationship between the increased attacks on Jews and the blanket condemnation of Israel by the media, many charitable organizations and world bodies such as the UN. We are concerned that the whole, true picture of what life is like in Israel is given to the world rather than the biased half truths, distortions and lies that are presently reported.

We are concerned that many churches are going down the politically correct line of condemning Israel's policies and are thus contributing to the strong anti Semitic views of the world.

Note that they are concerned only with "what life is like in Israel", not the hell Israel has created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for Christians and Muslims.

And what else do they believe in?

• They recognize that Israel is the land given by God to the Jews and Jerusalem is its only capital.
• They believe that God's word for, promises to, and covenants with Israel - people and land, through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) are everlasting and that the church has not replaced Israel.
• They believe that Scripture prophesies the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel and what they are seeing today is a fulfilment of prophecy. It is a privilege that they are witnesses to this fulfilment.
• They believe that Israel is central in the enactment of God's purposes as we move in these last days.
• They believe in finding out from many sources the whole picture of what is happening in Israel so that they can pass on the facts to those whose view is based solely on biased media coverage, and so correct mistaken beliefs (achingly funny, this).
• They believe in blessing Israel however possible including buying goods and produce from Israel and resisting all calls for boycotts.
• They believe in supporting Israel's defence of its people and their right to live without the threat of missile attacks, homicide bombings etc.
• They believe in standing against libelous attacks against Israel.
• They believe in fully supporting Israel's right to the land given them by God

According to The Jewish Chronicle, the group was set up by preacher Pam Smith from South Wales in reaction to her Church's call to boycott Israel. Naturally Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation, was overjoyed and said: "I hope this will be the start of a grass-roots movement within the Methodists to reverse the motion passed at the Methodist Conference, which was theologically invalid, maligned Zionism and demonised Israel."

Needless to say, the Methodist Friends of Israel website editorial reads like pages from some Israeli propaganda rag.

Have they not heard of The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a statement by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued in 2006? It is neatly summed up in its first sentence:

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

Those guys are on the ground, in the front line. They know the score. It's time Preacher Pam visited Gaza and the West Bank (not by Israeli tour bus or as guests of Israel's 'establishment') and got a grip on reality. She and others have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into supporting a sinister political movement that is intent on stealing the Holy Land from under our noses.

I wonder how long these cuckoos will be allowed to foul the Methodist Church's nest.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood: Israel’s ‘friends’ still shamelessly swinging from the chandeliers at Westminster
• Stuart Littlewood: What sort of Christians become Zionists?
• Middle East history buff Hague whitewashes Israel’s villainy on the high seas – by Stuart Littlewood

Tony Blair

By John Pilger* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like his mentor Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes. Blair's will appear next month and earn him £4.6 million. Now consider Britain's Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenseless country, which the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the "paramount war crime." This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.

In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf, and Basra (the latter "liberated" by the British) are now revealed as higher than those at Hiroshima. "UK forces used about 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003," the Defense Secretary Liam Fox told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic "anti-personnel" weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and American forces.

Such carnage was justified with lies that have been repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament, "We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq ...." Last month, the former head of the intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, told the Chilcot inquiry, "There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection ... [it was the invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad." Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied, "Substantially."

The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair's actions.

Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured. The then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, decided in January 2002 that Guantánamo was the "best way" to ensure UK nationals were "securely held."

Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20 million, much of it as a result of his ties with the Bush administration. The House of Commons Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair's "consultancy" deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets £2 million a year "advising" the American investment bank J P Morgan and undisclosed sums from financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.

In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as the West's "peace envoy" in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which awarded him a $1 million "peace prize." In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W. Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.

His collaborators are numerous. The Cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Jack Straw, later appointed "justice secretary," suppressed the relevant Cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labor Party leadership supported Blair's epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband, sought to cover Britain's complicity in torture, and promoted Iran as the next "threat."

Journalists who once fawned on Blair as "mystical" and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media's gulling of the public, only the Observer's David Rose, to his great credit, has apologized. The WikiLeaks' exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians like Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair's rejuvenation of "enlightened" imperialism, remain silent on the "moral truancy," as Pankaj Mishra wrote, "of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world."

Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the "threat" of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, a similar risk awaits Blair in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain's Kissinger, who has long planned his travel outside the United States with the care of a fugitive.

Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision of adding aggression to its list of war crimes to be prosecuted. This is defined as a "crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity, and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter." International lawyers described this as a "giant leap." Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.

On 21 July, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later "clarification" that he was speaking personally, he had made "a statement that the international court would be interested in," said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.

Tony Blair came from Britain's upper middle classes who, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a specter haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit.

* John Pilger is a world-renowned journalist, author and documentary filmmaker, who began his career in 1958 in his homeland, Australia, before moving to London in the 1960s. He has been a foreign correspondent and a front-line war reporter, beginning with the Vietnam war in 1967. He is an impassioned critic of foreign military and economic adventures by Western governments.

Related posts:

• Citizen’s Arrest of War Criminals Tony Blair and George W. Bush
• Help get Tony Blair into the Top 10 now
• Tony Blair you make me ashamed to be British!

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Millions would love to see the present crop of war criminals dangling from lamp-posts.

But somebody called "Ellie" writing on Medialens has put a damper on this happy prospect. She explained the difficulties in bringing the scum to book. One of the things the British government wants to do, she said, is "stop the possibility of private prosecutions for (international) crimes committed by foreign nationals, so that friendly war criminals can continue to sup tea in Buckingham Palace".

Unfortunately crimes that can supposedly be tackled under universal jurisdiction are limited and don't include waging a war of aggression (although they do include war crimes in general), "so we can't get anywhere with this charge (e.g. against Bush) in a domestic court".

Thanks "Ellie" for that. To pursue someone like Blair for war crimes in a British court it would be necessary to get the Crown Prosecution Service to take the case. However, our corrupted establishment are hardly going to initiate steps against one of their own, or make it easy for outsiders to do so. Efforts so far have met with little success. There could of course be good reasons for this. To make a war crimes charge stick it may be necessary to show, for example, that our armed forces carried out attacks disproportionate to any military gain. That's not as easy as it sounds.

Those who have tried to lay charges need to work on refining the way they formulate and present their case until they leave judges no wriggle-room.

The impression I get is that unless the prime minister and the hordes of MPs who clamour for illegal war and its consequential mega-deaths actually pick up a weapon and personally gun down a classroom of Iraqi kids in front of witnesses, British justice won't touch them.

The International Criminal Court at The Hague is not exactly blazing a trail for justice either. Its Chief Prosecutor, referring to a case before him in February 2006, remarked: "The events in question occurred on the territory of Iraq, which is not a State Party to the Rome Statute and which has not lodged a declaration of acceptance under Article 12(3), thereby accepting the jurisdiction of the Court.

"Therefore, in accordance with Article 12, acts on the territory of a non-State Party fall within the jurisdiction of the Court only when the person accused of the crime is a national of a State that has accepted jurisdiction." Bush isn't, Blair is. The Clinton administration, after much grumbling, signed the Rome treaty but the Bush administration announced afterwards that the US would not be party to the Rome Statute.

The Chief Prosecutor also pointed out that the ICC can examine conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. "International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

"The available information established that a considerable number of civilians died or were injured during the military operations... [but] did not indicate intentional attacks on a civilian population." Furthermore there was a lack of information showing clear excessiveness in relation to military advantage or indicating the involvement of nationals of States Parties, therefore there was no reasonable basis for believing a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed.

Although any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court are grave, the Statute required "an additional threshold of gravity" because the Court will only deal with situations where they are committed as part of a plan or policy involving mass crimes.

The Chief Prosecutor ended by saying: "Effectively functioning national legal systems are in principle the most appropriate and effective forum for addressing allegations of crimes of this nature." In other words, don't bother us.

It shows the sort of thing peace campaigners are up against. Of course, horrendous evidence has come to light since 2006. And just recently the states party to the Rome Statute finally agreed on a definition of "aggression".

The crime of aggression is "the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a leadership position of an act of aggression".

An act of aggression is "the use of armed force by one State against another State without the justification of self-defense or authorization by the Security Council". It must constitute a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

But before we start jumping for joy, the Court will have no jurisdiction to consider waging wars of aggression before 2017. So the circle of buck-passing and general paralysis remains unbroken.

There can surely be no greater crime than going to war illegally or on a false prospectus. The same criminal trash who did so before are bored with their murderous adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and sulking because they haven't turned out to be as heroic as advertised. They are now impatient to do it all again only better... in Iran. Judging by the massive campaign of disinformation and reports of an imminent assault, they are determined not to be deflected from their evil path by the far distant prospect of being hauled up in front of the ICC.

If our elaborate national and international justice machinery won't take out this stinking garbage, which has offended our nostrils for too long, who will?

Assassination made 'legal'

It wouldn't surprise me if angry citizens resorted to some kind of a private 'good riddance' service to get the job done. It conjures up a vision of members of the public, who feel themselves at war with these evil forces, queuing up for the services of an assassination bureau - an upright, socially responsible organization acting in the public interest to eliminate the world's worst tormentors.

Readers may remember the 1969 film The Assassination Bureau, a tongue-in-cheek romp set at the turn of the century a hundred years ago, a time for purging rotten monarchs and cruel tyrants. The Bureau's hit team is for hire provided that Ivan Dragomiloff, its founder and mastermind, deems the targeted killing "socially justifiable" and there's proof of the candidate's misdeeds.

The need for a purge hasn't changed. And these days assassination can be perfectly legal - ask Israel and the US.

Although US President Ford outlawed targeted political killings in 1976, White House and CIA lawyers claim that an intelligence 'finding' makes all the difference. The right sort of finding puts things on a war footing and allows the US, for example, to assassinate so-called terrorists. In the wake of 9-11, all the Americans have to do is invent a 'finding', label the folk who stand in their way 'terrorists' and claim the murder was an act of self-defence in a war situation, and they're home and dry.

Remember the US bombing Gaddafi's home in 1986 in the hope of rubbing him out? And the Clinton administration firing cruise missiles at suspected guerrilla camps in Afghanistan in 1998? And Bush instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" (based on an intelligence 'finding') to destroy Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation?

The Bush administration is believed to have sat down with the world expert in these matters - Israel - to work out a legal framework for a new targeted-assassination policy. Annoying pockets of resistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are answered with the wholesale imposition of Israeli-concocted warfare laws for the benefit of Israel's 'self-defence', which trample everyone else's rights. This was just the ticket for Bush's crooked nonsense as he pressed ahead with his war on terror.

Israel's liking for assassination goes back to pre-state days when such atrocities were committed against Arab and British targets by the Irgun, a Jewish terror organisation that resorted to murder and mayhem for removing obstacles to the Zionist cause and driving the Arabs off their lands.

The Israelis cleverly bumped off master bomb maker Yahya Ayyesh and Hezbollah's Imad Mughniyeh, 'the Fox', both in 1996.

In 1997 Mossad agents, apparently fans of Shakespeare's Hamlet, entered Jordan and injected a lethal nerve toxin into the left ear of Hamas boss Khaled Meshaal as he walked to his office. They were caught by the Jordanian authorities and King Hussein demanded the Israeli PM Netanyahu hand over the antidote. Netanyahu refused, but Bill Clinton intervened and forced the issue. Meshaal lived.

Assassination became official Israeli policy in 1999 to stop Yasser Arafat's militia, the Tanzim, firing on illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. "If anyone has committed or is planning to carry out terrorist attacks, he has to be hit. It is effective, precise, and just," said Israeli minister Ephraim Sneh in 2001, not caring too much about the frequent lack of precision, the collateral casualties and the possibility that intelligence is wrong.

That same year Israel's security cabinet gave the army carte blanche to kill anyone suspected of being involved in armed activity, meaning that mere suspects on a 'list' became targets for extra-judicial execution.

The Israelis' preferred method is the air-strike, which is often lacking in finesse. In 2002 an Israeli F-16 warplane dropped a one-ton bomb on the house of Sheikh Salah Shehadeh, the military commander of Hamas, in Gaza City killing not just him but at least 11 other Palestinians, including seven children, and wounding 120 others.

In 2004 Hamas's spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, wheelchair-bound since the age of 12, and nine innocent bystanders were killed in a helicopter gunship attack. Yassin had survived an F-16 bomb blast the previous year. Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon called him "the mastermind of Palestinian terror" and a "mass murderer", which was comical coming from a war criminal who ran Israel's death squad, Unit 101, and was found indirectly responsible for the massacres in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps.

Israel's Airforce massacred Palestinian Cops in airstrike.

According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem 238 Palestinians have been assassinated and more than 160 innocents have died in the process, along with heaven knows how many injured or mutiliated, since the second Intifada (uprising) in 2000. "The use of state assassinations by Israel against Palestinian suspects is undermining the rule of law and fueling the cycle of violence in the region," warns Amnesty International.

The finger of suspicion points to Israel for the murder of Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005. We've recently seen Mossad's assassination of the Hamas commander in Dubai (their hit team using stolen British passports) and the execution of several crew members of the Mavi Marmara while on a humanitarian mission in international waters.

The US State Department similarly describes its own hits on Al-Qaeda as "legal and necessary."

If universal jurisdiction is not made to work then other means will probably be found. Assassination may not remain the private playground of shadowy CIA and Mossad operatives for much longer, so war criminals had better start looking over their shoulder.

A lamp-post awaits them.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood – Law and justice first, Mr Mitchell. Peace comes later
• Stuart Littlewood: Israel’s ‘friends’ still shamelessly swinging from the chandeliers at Westminster
• Britain more interested in saving Israelis from garden shed rockets than British citizens from Israeli pirates – by Stuart Littlewood

"We have to be steeped in the Middle East, way back to historical matters. Because you can't understand it without the history."

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cameron and Hauge, Pinky and Brain

So I re-read William Hague's statement to the House of Commons on 2 June, and it struck me as something the Israeli government spin doctor Mark Regev might have penned. Here are some extracts:

* "Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza."

Just what Israel wants to hear. This "advice" serves to legitimize Israel's illegal sea blockade and use of lethal force against unarmed British citizens and other nationals peacefully going about their lawfully business in international waters.

* "We deeply deplore the loss of life..."

There must be stinging consequences for this latest barbaric act. The word "deplore" is for the spineless, do-nothing handwringers.

* "Their welfare [meaning the British nationals on board] is our top priority."

Mr Hague must have been alerted to advance warnings that Israel would go to any lengths, including violence, to stop the mercy ships but he took no precautionary action. Where is the mighty Royal Navy when not cruising the Caribbean or sunning itself in the Gulf? When consular access was then denied to some of the 37 Britishers abducted and jailed by Israel the Foreign Office meekly accepted the insult.

* "...those individuals who are allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding"

Mr Hague doesn't seem to grasp that the violence was committed by Israeli storm-troopers dropping from helicopters with guns blazing under cover of darkness.

* "Restrictions on Gaza should be lifted - a view confirmed in United Nations security council resolution 1860."

Resolution 1860 goes much further and calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, which provides for

Ø the reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank
Ø bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza
Ø the building of a new seaport in Gaza
Ø re-opening of the airport in Gaza

Nearly eight months ago the European Council repeated the EU's call for "an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza" and for "full implementation of The Agreement on Movement and Access".

What is the point of mouthing this stuff again and again and not backing it up with ACTION?

* "Hamas now has near total control of the economy".

Perhaps our Treasury people should take lessons from them...

* "We will, therefore, continue to press the Israeli government to lift the closure of Gaza, and plan early discussions... about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid."

The Foreign Office is exceedingly well practised at pressing and urging. However, "unfettered flow" is not going to happen without a naval escort and/or sanctions. If Mr Hague hasn't learned this he hasn't been paying attention.

* "The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. They continue to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region."

Mr Hague must take everyone for fools. Hamas won the 2006 elections fair and square and has been subjected to a relentless blockade, armed incursions, air strikes, sanctions, assassinations, an attempted putsch and a devastating 22-day blitzkrieg. Continually accusing Hamas of undermining prospects for peace is the ultimate absurdity.

* "Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response."

On the question of who provokes and who responds Mr Hague should consider how Israel violated the cease-fire to pave the way to the Gaza war of December 2008 and still carries out air-strikes on a daily basis.

* "We call on Hamas to make immediate and concrete steps towards the quartet principles - unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit."

Something like 11,000 Palestinian civilians are held (and believed tortured) in Israeli jails, many without charge. Why isn't Mr Hague calling for their release? Shalit is a tank gunner captured in 2006. In the three years following Israel's troop withdrawal to Gaza's perimeter in 2005 some 1,250 Gazans, including 222 children, were killed by tank gunners and other Israeli military personnel while 11 Israelis were killed by Palestinian rocket fire.

* "The only long-term and sustainable solution to the conflict which produced these tragic events is a two-state solution."

Politicians like Hague have stood back and allowed Israel to seize so much key Palestinian territory and establish so many ‘facts on the ground' that the chances of a viable Palestinian state are vanishing fast.

* "The proximity talks that are currently underway are more important than ever."

Is he serious? How credible are ‘talks' when one party has a gun to the other's head and continues to steal its land, colonize its territory and murder its citizens? What honest broker would be party to such a farce?

William Hague is our top international representative. He has the power to heavily influence whether Britain makes war or peace, whether we make friends or enemies, and whether our soldiers live or needlessly die. Yet he seems to have trouble interpreting intelligence. One can see how the poor chap got his knickers in a fearful twist over Iraq and voted enthusiastically to get us mired in that shameful war... And did anyone hear him speak out against the folly of invading Afghanistan when it was his duty, as a leading Opposition figure at the time, to hold our lunatic Labour government to account?

Now he rattles his sabre at Iran and wants to turn Britain into a safe haven for Israel's war criminals.

All things considered the guy is a big worry.

Prime minister David Cameron was a little nearer the mark when he called the blockaded Gaza Strip a "prison camp". That brought loud squawks from the usual suspects. Plain speaking earns him a cheer but Cameron, like Hague, is an avid admirer of Israel and calls himself a Zionist. He too only talked of "humanitarian access", failing to acknowledge that Gazans are not allowed to export anything and therefore cannot make a living.

He has nothing to say about the 3,500 licensed fishermen who are shot up by Israeli patrol boats whenever they put to sea. Or Gaza's students who are blocked from studying at their West Bank universities.

Or all the Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters who are prevented from worshipping at their holy places in Jerusalem.

Or even Gaza's marine gas field, which Israel has its greedy eyes on and Palestinians can't go near.

Mr Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told David Cameron as soon as he became Conservative party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial to his claims to be taken seriously as a statesman. "We have to be steeped in the Middle East, way back to historical matters. Because you can't understand it without the history. That's been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments."

Yes, but when is the history lesson, and the story of the West's betrayal, going to sink in?

Finally, Viva Palestina has just sent this message: "Despite the recent claims by Israel that they have ‘eased' the siege on Gaza, vital medical supplies and equipment are still prohibited from entering the besieged region. In June, the World Health Organization reported that Israel blocked the delivery of essential medical equipment, including a CT scanner, defibrillators and monitors.

"In addition, the Palestinian Health Ministry said Israel confiscated seven oxygen machines, donated by a Norwegian development agency, and refused to allow delivery of x-ray machines, claiming they could be used for military purposes."

Consequently, says the message, there is a critical shortage of vital medicines and essential life saving equipment, and other supplies are expected to run out very soon.

What does it take for Cameron, Hague and Britain's limp-wristed Foreign Office to run out of patience and forcibly smash this cruel blockade?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood: The Knesset comes to Westminster
• Stuart Littlewood: Israel’s ‘friends’ still shamelessly swinging from the chandeliers at Westminster
• Britain more interested in saving Israelis from garden shed rockets than British citizens from Israeli pirates – by Stuart Littlewood

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Nick Clegg - Britain's Deputy Prime Minister

A month ago, while reports were coming in that Israeli gunboats had "intercepted" the Free Gaza flotilla 90 miles out to sea and told the humanitarian workers they would be boarded and towed to an Israeli port, I emailed Clegg: "Where is the Royal Navy when it's needed to protect life and limb of the 30-odd British nationals?"

Ministers received advanced warning of Israel's threats to stop the flotilla "by any means". What was needed was firm intervention. Just for a change the British people wanted their government to do them proud on the international stage and protect those brave souls on their peaceful mission to bring relief to Palestinians whose lives have been made a living hell by the bully-boys of the Middle East.

They were, after all, only doing the right thing... doing what the West's cowardly governments wet their pants at the very thought of doing.

Back in December when the parties were warming up for the general election, Clegg wrote in The Guardian:

"...And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.

No doubt the febrile sensitivities of the Middle East have deterred governments, caught between recriminations from both sides. No doubt diplomats have warned that exerting pressure on Israel and Egypt may complicate the peace process.

But surely the consequences of not lifting the blockade are far more grave?"

He certainly talked the talk. Would he walk the walk if given the chance?

Well, he now has the chance, and his reply has just arrived.

"The Government was very clear in its disapproval of the Israeli actions which ended in such heavy and tragic loss of life.

"We have underlined the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into the events of 31 May. We have made clear that we want to see a process that ensures full accountability and commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation.

"Israel's announcement of an inquiry headed by former Supreme Court judge Yaakov Tirkel is an important step forward. We welcome the appointment of Lord Trimble as an international observer. Clearly it is very important that this is a truly independent inquiry and a thorough investigation that the international community can respect.

"These events have captured the world's attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arose from the unacceptable and unsustainable blockade of Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the Government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted - a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there.

"It is essential that there is unfettered access - not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is an essential part of a viable state of Palestine which we hope will one day exist alongside Israel in peace and security.

"A solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is firmly in the national interests of the UK, as well as those in the region. We want the new generation of Palestinians to grow up in hope, not despair... We want the next generation of Israelis to live free from the fear of rocket fire... Whilst we cannot deliver this for either side ourselves, as friends to both Israelis and Palestinians we will seek to buttress the diplomatic initiative of President Obama's Administration and the proximity talks..."

So no, he won't walk the walk.

It is pointless calling for the blockade to be lifted. You have to smash it... with warships "exercising" nearby. Israel's promise to "ease" it is purely cosmetic. I hear that incoming goods have risen by a miserable 7 or 8% while the block on exports remains. That's all the West's feeble hand-wringing has achieved.

Clegg's choice of words is revealing... "the interception by Israeli forces". It was nothing less than a dead-of-night military assault with guns blazing and a pre-planned execution of civilians on a wanted list. His whole reply might as well have been scripted by Tel Aviv. It probably was, because it turns out to be word for word the same as the communication sent to other complainants by Israel's great friend now doubling as Britain's under-secretary of state in charge of Middle East affairs, Alistair Burt.

Clegg can call for "a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation" until he's blue in the face, but he won't get one. He welcomes the appointment of Trimble to this farce. Why? Trimble is a founding member of a new international "Friends of Israel Initiative".

The context for Israel's crimes on the high seas is, of course, the racist regime's belief that it can act with impunity. It never gets rapped for lawless conduct thanks to the abject failure of the international community - especially Britain, whose mandated responsibility Palestine once was - to enforce international and maritime law and the numerous UN resolutions (not just 1860).

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (America abstained on Israel's orders, according to Olmert) calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. There is still no sign of Israeli compliance.

Clegg claims that "we" are friends to both Israelis and Palestinians. Bollox. British governments have spent the last 93 years betraying the Palestinian people, and continue to do so while slavishly supporting the Israeli regime in its programme of occupation, oppression, ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Our last government and now this Coalition won't even acknowledge the Palestinians' right of self-determination or their democratic choice of government. Britain, to its shame, is complicit in those crimes.

To make matters worse, Labour and Conservative leaders are anxious to change our laws of universal jurisdiction to provide a safe haven for Israel's killers while denying visas to Palestinian footballers.

And please, Mr Clegg, spare us this endless nonsense about rockets. At least as many state of the art US-supplied Israeli missiles were launched into Gaza, usually from US-supplied F-16s, as garden-shed whizz-bangs were lobbed into Israel. And Israeli air-strikes and armoured incursions continue on a daily basis. Furthermore, no rockets come out of the West Bank, yet the West Bank continues to be occupied, sealed and under severe movement restrictions. Clearly, this is not about rockets or even about Hamas, which has already agreed to recognise Israel within its pre-1967 borders in accordance with the international community's position.

It's a well-known fact that America is a dishonest broker, so aligning Britain with the puppet Obama's diplomatic "initiative" simply hands Israel even more time to establish irreversible facts on the ground.

But the British public are wising up. They are beginning to know the score. Prime minister Cameron is a self-declared Zionist. Foreign secretary Hague has been a Friend of Israel since the age of 15. Under-secretary of state Burt is not just a Friend of Israel but an OFFICER of the Conservative Friends of Israel organisation.

The Knesset's stooges roost happily in Westminster.

And Cameron has just put his name to a G8 leaders' statement calling for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit but not the freeing of thousands of Palestinians abducted and rotting in Israeli jails.

Burt, in his letter, talks of our pledge of £26.8 million for humanitarian aid and early recovery activities in Gaza. Is that supposed to purge our negligence? The Palestinians wouldn't need £millions of British taxpayers' money year after year if they were left in peace. All this aid simply subsidises and reinforces the Israeli occupation at our (the public's) expense.

Now that Clegg is in a position to actually kick government ass, I hoped the Liberal Democrats would have a moderating effect on the rabid Conservative Zionists who devote so much of their energies to the service of Israel.

Instead, Nick and his party appear to have fallen in with them.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood: The Knesset comes to Westminster
• Stuart Littlewood: Israel’s ‘friends’ still shamelessly swinging from the chandeliers at Westminster
• Stuart Littlewood: What sort of Christians become Zionists?

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Britain's Conservatives talk the same bollox as Israel's Regev

The new line-up at Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office looks like this...

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - William Hague
Minister of State - Jeremy Browne
Minister of State - David Lidington
Minister of State - Lord Howell of Guildford
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Henry Bellingham
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Alistair Burt

Hague has been a Friend of Israel since the age of 15. Burt is an officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Naturally he's in charge of Middle East affairs. Lidington also frolics with the Israel flag wavers.

Before his elevation to the House of Lords Howell was MP for Guildford, in the south of England. His daughter is Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne's wife.

Here is Howell in action in a House of Lords debate on the Free Gaza flotilla a couple of weeks ago...

Lord Howell - My Lords, the United Kingdom is in regular contact with the Israeli and Palestinian Governments and our international allies regarding the current humanitarian situation in Gaza and the wider issues relating to the peace process. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said... it is essential that there should be unfettered access to Gaza, not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza but to enable reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place.

Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour) - My Lords, in the face of threats to intervene and break the blockade by Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval units, why cannot the United Kingdom Government announce that they are prepared to challenge the blockade by providing a naval escort for a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid into Gaza, aid which has been given prior clearance by the European Union in the way that Bernard Kouchner has suggested? Would that not be a far better way to proceed? The Israeli Government are far more likely to heed that kind of initiative.

Lord Howell - I recognise the noble Lord's strong feelings on this matter, but we simply do not think that that is the right way to proceed. We think that the right way is for the restrictions and the so-called blockade to be lifted beyond the present arrangements, by which some humanitarian supplies get in but not enough. We think that the right way forward is to put maximum pressure on Israel to do that. That is the sensible way forward...

Lord Hylton (Crossbench) - I agree entirely with the Minister about unrestricted access to Gaza, but are there not immediate questions to be discussed with the Government of Israel concerning the ships themselves, their cargoes, now under arrest, and possibly the personal possessions of persons who have been arrested?

Lord Howell - I cannot answer the noble Lord on the personal possessions issue. With regard to the humanitarian goods on these ships, the idea is that they should be shipped on into Gaza. However, unfortunately, it appears that the Hamas group has not been very keen on accepting all that aid at the moment. But that is the procedure that the Government of Israel are trying to adopt in the face of attempts to run the blockade or break the restrictions, which are apparently to be promoted by a number of countries, including some of the Iranian authorities.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Labour) - Does the Minister agree that, while there is a great need to improve the access for aid and commercial goods into Gaza, it still requires any new regime allowing new materials into Gaza to take great care not to allow in weapons that might be used against Israel?

Lord Howell - The noble Baroness is absolutely right. This is the dilemma. Israel does have the right to restrain the import of weapons, bombs and so on into the control of Hamas. At the same time, we all want to see the sufferings of the people of Gaza minimised and the maximum supplies of food, building materials, medical supplies and so on imported into Gaza. That is the dilemma that must be solved. The right way forward is along the lines proposed, with pressure on Israel to do that rather than creating some head-on conflict with Israel when it is the country with which we need to co-operate to achieve the two-state solution that we all want to see.

Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat) - In the mean time, my Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the peace talks and the proximity talks are proceeding apace, despite the continuing weakness of the quartet mechanism, which is deeply disappointing to all observers? Will he reassure us that the sinister rumours that George Mitchell is less than even-handed between Israel and Palestinian lobbies are not true?

Lord Howell - I can give that reassurance...

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour) - The Minister must recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns and cannot be expected to allow unfettered access. How, then, do the Government respond to the specific proposal from Bernard Kouchner that the European Union offers to provide some form of border monitoring for material entering Gaza to ensure that it is only for humanitarian purposes?

Lord Howell - There may well be something in that idea. Of course there is the other border on the Egyptian side, which was open temporarily and has now been closed. All these matters are to be pursued to see whether we can find that key reconciliation between the need to end the suffering of the people of Gaza and Israel's legitimate security concerns.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells - My Lords, while I recognise the appropriate need for Israel to be protected, the issue of building materials in relation to the people of Gaza is nevertheless important, given the recent campaign against Gaza involving bombing and the destruction of houses. What can Her Majesty's Government do in the interim to encourage the Israeli Government to allow building materials to go into that country? Surely they are fundamental to the humanitarian effort.

Lord Howell - The answer has to be that maximum pressure and encouragement must be placed on the Government of Israel to do what is actually in their own interest, which is to minimise the restrictions, to lift the blockade as far as they can consistent with their security and to continue to expand the amount of provisions already going into Gaza from Israel as well as from Egypt. That is the way forward and we should not be deflected from it.

He veers from saying there should be unfettered access to Gaza to saying the blockade should be lifted only as far as it suits Israel's "security". He thinks pressure on the Israeli government rather than action will work when decades of experience tells us it won't. He fails to understand how Israel sees its own interest. He says Israel has the right to "restrain" the importation of weapons. Is he sure about that? I don't think he knows international law or the UN Charter or the Geneva Conventions as well as he should. Palestinians, as an illegally occupied people, have a right to take up arms to defend themselves.

And why can't he make it his business to answer the simple question about the personal property of British nationals stolen by the Israelis on the high seas?

The Knesset comes to Westminster

Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs are claimed to be signed-up Friends of Israel. Now, for your entertainment, let's see how their website reports a recent House of Commons debate on Middle East Policy ...

Supporting Israel

• Conservative MPs voice support for Israel in House debate on Middle East Policy.
• On Monday, the Government held a debate in the House of Commons on UK policy towards the Middle East.
• The debate was well attended by Conservative MPs, and provided an excellent opportunity for MPs discuss events surrounding the flotilla incident of Monday 31 May, as well a wider issues of the Middle East Peace Process.
• Israel received positive support from a number of Conservative MPs, with many contributors displaying a considerable understanding of the wider issues at play in the region such as the Iranian smuggling of arms into Gaza, Hamas ideology of violence and the need to bolster the moderate Palestinian Authority.
• Alistair Burt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, led the debate for the government and presented an even-handed case, whilst expressing support for Israel.
• Alistair Burt began by reassuring the House that the government would "engage with as much energy as we can in the Middle East Peace Process" to bring about a lasting two-state solution to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"The only long-term solution to the conflict is a secure Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. We will continue to press for progress, working with the US and through the EU, while supporting Prime Minister Fayyad's work to build the institutions of a future Palestinian state... The UK is a committed friend of Israel and a friend to the region".

• Re-stating the government's resolve to continue pressuring Iran to end her nuclear programme, Burt welcomed the UN Security Council resolution recently passed.

"We remain resolved to address concerns through a twin-track process of preventing a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran while reaching out with an offer for constructive engagement. We cannot allow Iran to act with impunity".

• CFI's Parliamentary Chairman and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP presented an authoritative account of Israel's predicament and began by praising Israel for embodying many of the values that exist with Britain.

"Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. Israel [has] become a bastion of the rule of law, democracy, free speech, business enterprise and family values. If that is not what this country also stands for, I am disappointed."

• Applauding "Israel's determination to stand up for its continued right to exist in peace and security", Arbuthnot lamented at the difficult position Israel faces as a result of Hamas' belligerency.

"When peace is destroyed by Hamas kidnapping Gilad Shalit and continuing to hold him prisoner for years, nobody should expect Israel just to accept it. When that peace is destroyed by rocketing from Gaza, nobody should expect Israel to say, 'Yes, flotillas can be allowed to import whatever they like into Gaza, including perhaps explosives and rockets'."

• James Arbuthnot also spoke of Israel's difficulty in preventing smuggling of weaponry into Gaza, citing the case of Karine A.

"On one ship, the Karine A, which was not involved in this convoy, the Israelis found tons of weapons for Hamas. Were they simply to assume that this particular flotilla contained no such weapons to be used by Hamas against both Israel and the population of Gaza, whom Hamas treats so cruelly? Surely not. So obviously the flotilla was going to be stopped and boarded".

• James Arbuthnot also cited the fact that Israel's military had not sought violence, as seen by the peaceful boarding of five of the six flotilla ships.
• He noted that the flotilla was a deliberately calculated attempt to create publicity and that violence resistance aboard the Mavi Marmara had been premeditated.

"Given that the flotilla was designed to be provocative and to end in violence, we should not blame Israel for the violence against which it failed to guard itself; the blame lies with those who went on to the flotilla expressly seeking martyrdom."

• Bob Blackman MP assessed the problematic role of Hamas, which presents a considerable obstacle to not only the peace process, but progress for the Palestinian people.

"We are challenged on the position of humanitarian aid, yet the state of Israel allows some 15,000 tonnes per week of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. However, there is the role of Hamas: it holds up the aid. It uses it as an incentive to control the people of Palestine, and as a means of repression. Until it ceases its repression, the people of Palestine will not see the benefit of having a properly, democratically elected Government who truly represent them."

• Bob Blackman urged the House to be clear on the dangers of negotiating with Hamas without pre-conditions.

"It is very difficult to negotiate with people whose fundamental aim is to destroy one's Government and one's very being".

• Lastly, Nick Boles MP gave the House a fascinating speech on Israel's excellent record of democracy, freedom and human rights.

"In Israel, Israeli Arabs have always had all rights-the same as Israeli Jews-except for one: they do not have to serve in the armed forces, because the state of Israel recognises that it would be unfair to set them against their Arab brothers. However, they can vote and be elected, and many have been. There is even an Arab-Israeli serving on the Supreme Court in Israel... Israel is an oasis in a desert-an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights in the Middle East".

• Robert Halfon MP was not called upon by the speaker but had prepared a fantastic speech, which he has since published on his online blog.

The whole thing can be seen at http://www2.cfoi.co.uk/Briefings/WeeklyBriefing/ where you'll also find the comical "Israel's legitimate right to impose the blockade".

I offer no comment other than to say that Mark Regev, Israel's crapaganda specialist, must be exceedingly proud of his pupils. They now speak it fluently. Readers with only the slightest knowledge of the situation in the Holy Land will be aching with laughter and howling in derision at the tosh these stooges put around.

Yes, the Knesset has come to Westminster.

Let's end with Halfon, the former political director of Conservative Friends of Israel, who is especially well versed. Here's a flavour of that "fantastic" speech he so wanted to make:

• In 2005 when Israeli PM Ariel Sharon oversaw Israeli withdrawal from every inch of the Gaza Strip...
• Gaza has become a terrorist state. Over 5,000 missiles have been fired into Israel since Hamas takeover in June 2007. Terrorists continue to infiltrate Israel from Gaza to execute brutal terror attacks. Weapons and explosives - supplied by backers Iran and Syria - are continuously smuggled into the Strip to be used against Israeli citizens and territory. This sort of situation is untenable. No country can be expected to live under this sort of pressure.
• It must be noted that 5 of the 6 ships were peacefully intercepted and safely docked at the Israeli port of Ashdod without incident. Unfortunately, a significant minority of 'activists' on the Mavi Marmara reacted with extreme violence to the Israeli military personnel... it has become apparent that these 'activists' had prepared for violence by accruing various weapons, amongst which were knives and sharpened metal bars.
• Security footage on the boat shows these men preparing their ambush and television images have shown these same individuals chanting horrific anti-Semitic songs. Before the incident, various spokesmen for the flotilla stressed that the intention was to make a political statement and "break the siege" rather than delivering the aid itself.
• Flotilla or no Flotilla, blockade or no blockade, we must never forget that Israel, a democratic state, is battling for its survival against an enemy that seeks its destruction. The West faces the same enemy on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. A free and just Palestinian State and a secure Israel will only come about, when these terrorist movements have been vanquished...

Every line a gem. Vintage Regev...almost.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood: Israel’s ‘friends’ still shamelessly swinging from the chandeliers at Westminster
• Spotlight on Palestine: an interview with Stuart Littlewood
• Stuart Littlewood – Law and justice first, Mr Mitchell. Peace comes later

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

It's been one atrocity after another, so you'd think that Israel's cheer-leaders scattered about the upper echelons of the British Establishment would have the decency to keep quiet and "consider their position".

But no. In the wake of the Free Gaza flotilla hi-jacking this letter appeared in The Daily Telegraph...

We must not forget what Hamas, which controls Gaza, stands for: it is intent on violence, smuggles arms, colludes with other rogue states, and thumbs its nose at the international community.

To achieve long-term security in the region, Hamas must accept the Quartet Principles – to renounce violence, accept the existence of Israel, and abide by previous agreements.

Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and the West have a shared interest in preventing Hamas from being strengthened, ensuring that a moderate national unity government is established in Gaza and the West Bank, and supporting ordinary Palestinians to secure a two-state solution.

The international community must be very careful not to do anything that emboldens Hamas to pursue its course of aggression and rejection. To hand such a propaganda coup to Hamas would pave the way for future conflict. Hamas needs to know that the British Government will not reward its terror tactics, and that getting it to abide by the Quartet Principles will form the core of our policy.

signed by:

James Clappison MP (Con)
David Amess MP (Con)
James Arbuthnot MP (Con)
Bob Blackman MP (Con)
David Burrowes MP (Con)
Douglas Carswell MP (Con)
Mike Freer MP (Con)
Robert Halfon MP (Con)
Gareth Johnson MP (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe MP (Con)
Matthew Offord MP (Con)

It's OK, of course, for the British Government to reward Israel for its terror tactics… These MPs would paint a much truer picture if they substituted Israel for Hamas.

Who are they anyway? Never heard of them? Don't be surprised. With 650 MPs in the UK parliament it is easy to vanish into the woodwork. Some have been there for years and never been noticed. But the name Robert Halfon gives the game away. He is former political director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. James Arbuthnot is chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel and, worryingly, chairman of the Defence Select Committee. It would seem therefore that the rest of the group are similarly allied to the Israel admiration society.

What they propose is certainly no path to peace but a sure way of keeping strife on the boil, which is Israel's true purpose, as we've seen these last 62 years.

They clearly don't respect Palestinian democracy or humans rights but they love Israel's racist ethnocracy. They still enthusiastically bat for Israel regardless of its long crime-sheet, even thought doing so puts British interests and British citizens in danger.

A hundred years ago people siding with a foreign power at British expense could have found themselves swinging by the neck. Three hundred years ago they risked their heads on pikes for what used to be called treason.

Lord David Trimble

Trimble is remembered for his connection with the fanatical and extremist Orangemen Order in Northern Ireland. As a member of the Henry Jackson Society he now hob-nobs with the likes of Robert Halfon.

A flagship publication of the society, The British Moment, calls for a new way of thinking about British foreign, security and defence policy and argues that it is time for Britain, and indeed the rest of Europe, to reclaim the tradition of interventionism across the globe. This is generally taken to mean the bully-boys can cook up daft excuse (like a country not having western-style democratic government) to help themselves to the world's goodies – like Iraqi and Iranian oil and Afghanistan's mineral wealth.

The British Parliament now has so many Zionists and Friends of Israel that these admirers of the rogue state are still swinging from the chandeliers despite the non-stop killing sprees, mega-maiming and wholesale destruction.

Over in the Labour camp there's a struggle going on for the party leadership. Interest is centred on the Miliband brothers, front-runner David (former foreign secretary) and Ed. The prospect eventually of a Jewish prime minister after the Zionists Brown and Blair is too depressing. Is the Labour party really going to saddle us with that?

The Conservatives meanwhile are bulging with Israeli flag wavers. The prime minister David Cameron, has declared himself a Zionist. His foreign secretary and defence secretary are both leading Friends of Israel. Indeed, 80 percent of Conservative MPs and MEPs are thought to belong to the pro-Israel lobby, according to a recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme.

After recent scandals the British people have been promised a major clean-up of politics. In the pipeline are constitutional changes that will give voters power to force an MP who engages in serious wrongdoing to face another election. All they'll need is the backing of 10 per cent of constituents in a petition.

As well as the power to get rid of corrupt MPs, changes include a clamp-down on lobbying in Parliament, a statutory register of lobbyists and a clean-up of party funding.

But could any of this bring an end to infiltration by agents of a foreign power?

The three main political parties in the UK each have a 'Friends of Israel' lobby organisation that ensures pro-Israel members are embedded at all key levels in Parliament and government. These adherents to another flag inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on issues such as Israel's murderous and unlawful blockade of Gaza and continuing illegal occupation of the West Bank.

As the parties show no sign of cleansing themselves of these obnoxious groups, an obvious way of dealing with them would, in theory, be to engage the Committee on Standard in Public Life, a standing committee which says that 'Seven Principles' should apply to everyone in the public service. These are:

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

I produce them here in full because they are a beacon of good practice and a splendid basis on which to build solid and reliable government. These principles are now included in the Ministerial Code, a document setting out "rules" and standards for government ministers.

So why aren't they enforced? Especially the one about Integrity?

In 2005 it was reported that the UK Government was considering bringing prosecutions for treason against a number of British Islamic clerics who had publicly spoken positively about acts of terrorism against civilians in Britain, or attacks on British soldiers abroad. That does not seem a million miles away from speaking encouragingly about Israeli thugs carrying out acts of lethal violence against peaceful activists, including British nationals, in international waters.

The Standards Committee is essentially a parliamentary sleaze watchdog, but two years ago it turned down a request by a group of 20 top academics, surgeons and others to investigate the influence of Israel lobby organisations like Friends of Israel at the heart of British government.

The group maintained that "the man in the street is entitled to look at the Seven Principles of Public Life and say that the activities of lobbies like Friends of Israel are against the intentions, both in word and spirit, of those Principles".

No-one will be surprised to learn that the sleaze watchdog had itself been infiltrated by Friends of Israel. The Jewish Chronicle reported a "smear" on Israel lobby MPs, one of whom suggested that if the Committee failed to investigate it might be accused of being part of a Jewish conspiracy. But the then political director of Conservative Friends of Israel, none other than Mr Haflon, confidently predicted there would be no investigation, his cocksure attitude leading one to suppose that he and others of similar persuasion were a protected species within the Westminster village.

There wasn't an investigation; and they are.

At the time Liam Fox, now Defence Secretary, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: "...We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided."

Dr David Halpin, a trauma surgeon who had led a team of 7 UK doctors to Gaza, said: "Dr Fox presumably speaks for all Friends of Israel in the party that hopes to form the next government. He would have Parliament and the public believe that Israel's enemy, Iran, must become Britain's enemy. Such dangerous and irresponsible nonsense could lead this country to disaster."

That is even truer today. The group observed that British people should not have to tolerate dual allegiance in their Parliament and Government, since obviously it put national security at risk.

Today, the Jerusalem Post reports that a study by B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, shows that 95 per cent of Gaza's factories are closed, 93 per cent of the water is polluted and Israel's blockade has caused an economic collapse. B'Tselem's executive director Jessica Montell sums up by saying that the ongoing occupation both violates Palestinian rights and poses clear dangers for Israel's democracy. "For this reason we as Israelis must demand accountability for actions taken in our name in the occupied territories and work to change policies that infringe human rights."

Words are simply not adequate to describe those who perpetrated this evil and those who encourage, support and cheer from the sidelines like the stooges hiding behind the respectable trappings of Westminster.

We'll have to see whether our bright new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government really means to abolish sleaze, as it says, or is just a 'big girl's blouse' – a bunch of wimps – when action is needed.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood – Tame the Israel lobby with the Seven Principles of Public Life
• Spotlight on Palestine: an interview with Stuart Littlewood
• Stuart Littlewood – What festive cheer will the West bring to the Holy Land this Christmas?

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I must have got it all wrong.

I thought the first duty of a government was to protect its citizens from assault while going about their lawful business.

"There is no greater priority, no more important responsibility than the safety of all our citizens..." Didn't our previous prime minister, Gordon Brown, say so?

To my way of thinking, that means protecting from armed thugs any British subjects sailing peacefully and lawfully on the high seas. The Israelis advertised their threats. The government had plenty of warning. So where was the Royal Navy?

Probably horsing around in the Gulf protecting foreigners who would rather be left alone. Or chasing pirates along the Somali coast. Or cruising the Caribbean showing the flag. Brown had also promised Royal Navy ships to thwart arms smuggling into Gaza, so if the flotilla was suspected of carrying arms you'd think jolly Jack Tar would have been on hand in a flash.

It seems our ships were just too busy on other chores like protecting Iraqis and Afghans to bother defending our own people from being murdered or abducted on their way through the Mediterranean on a noble humanitarian mission.

So new prime minister David Cameron fails his first test.

His foreign secretary William Hague told the House of Commons that he would stress to the Israeli Government the need for restraint "given that their actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportionate. We need to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks, or to reduce the number of deaths and injuries."

Meaning that the assault would have been OK if less blood on the decks?

He also wanted the Israelis to observe UN Resolution 1860, which calls for "sustained delivery of humanitarian aid" and calls on states "to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation". The fact that it has not happened, he said, was "a tragedy".

More than a tragedy - it's a dereliction of duty on the part of Britain and the rest of the international community. Their cowardice and moral bankruptcy has allowed Israel to defy dozens of other UN Resolutions.

"We will therefore continue to press the Israeli Government to lift the closure of Gaza," said Hague, "and plan early discussions with Israel as well as with our other international partners about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid while also ensuring that aid reaches those who need it and is not abused."

Press away... There is only one way to "alleviate" the situation and that's for the world's navies to land supplies on Gaza's beach.

Hague ducks and weaves

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the forthright Jewish MP, pointed out that any one of the 37 UK citizens might have been killed when the Israelis "committed a war crime of piracy in international waters, kidnapping and murder-and all in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on Gaza that amounts to collective punishment..." He asked Mr Hague for his assurance that further steps would be taken if the Israelis failed to comply with the modest request that had been made.

But Hague sidestepped, saying: "It is our strong advice to British nationals, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, not to travel to Gaza-let me make that absolutely clear-as they would be going into a dangerous situation, but it is absolutely wrong to maintain the blockade."

By advising us not to travel - now and in the future - and failing to take action to break the illegal blockade, he chickens out and hands the Israelis an amazing victory. They of course don't want witnesses crawling all over their major crime scene.

Jeremy Corbyn asked if it wasn't time for sanctions such as revoking the EU-Israel trade agreement. Hague replied that he did not think imposing sanctions was the right policy. So no consequences.

Frank Dobson suggested that Britain and the other European members of NATO should give naval protection if another flotilla sets off for Gaza, with the Royal Navy reverting to its traditional role of protecting the freedom of the seas. Hague dismissed this too.

Does this mean that, after all that's happened, we're going to abandon the Rachel Corrie to her fate? She was too late to join the main flotilla and is steaming towards Gaza independently and due to reach Israel's killing zone any day.

Mr Hague has been a Friend of Israel since his school days. Prime Minister David Cameron reminded MPs that he too counted himself a Friend of Israel. Why on earth do they and so many others in government champion a racist, rogue state? Why are they friends of Israel and not Palestine, not Lebanon, not Syria, not Iran? Why are they supportive of the Israeli government, who are proven terrorists, but hateful towards the democratically elected government of Gaza?

Should such people have their hands on the levers of power in Britain? In this new era of sleaze-free politics they owe us an explanation.

A very bad smell

Which brings us to the issue that few people seem to have questioned - Israel's sea blockade and its legality. I've heard Israel's apologists say the answer is to allow humanitarian supplies in by road through Israeli-controlled crossings while maintaining the blockade, and the US would probably agree to that.

Like everything else Israel does, and America supports, you have to look for the ulterior motive. Why did the belligerent party set up the blockade in the first place?

One reason is Gaza's marine gas field, which lies 25 to 30 km offshore. It is estimated to hold 1 trillion cubic feet of gas worth around $4 billion in revenue. It would last 15 years and Israel wants it, so nobody talks about it.

In 2005, at the time of Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians decided to drop plans to sell their gas to Israel and talked with Egypt instead. The position changed again when Tony Blair, Israel's faithful dogsbody and special envoy of the Quartet, personally intervened on Israel's behalf.

The plan cooked up was to pipe the gas from the sea-bed to an on-shore terminal at Ashkelon in Israel. A separate pipe would run from the terminal to Gaza, with Israel providing a raft of assurances about uninterrupted supply and an uninterrupted flow of profits to the Palestinians.

How laughable. This is the same Israel that's starving Gazans into submission, blitzing them in their prison-home and trashing their economy... The same Israel that continues to murder and imprison whomsoever it wishes and steal whatever it wants... The same Israel that has no regard for international law or human rights... The same Israel that has blocked the flow of Palestinian tax and customs revenues, humanitarian aid and hospital supplies... The same Israel that will not recognise Palestine or its right of democratic self-determination.

Nobody in the Middle East believes that an assurance or guarantee by Israel is worth the paper it's written on... especially in this case where it mounted a challenge to Palestine's right to own and control the gas field, and lost. Their plan, apparently, is get their hands on Palestine's precious energy resource in much the same way as they stole Palestine's water. Israel would siphon off the gas in ever-increasing quantities while keeping the Palestinians in a state of bankruptcy and unable to use their share. Alternatively they'll provoke endless 'security' alerts, as is their style, and block the pipeline anytime they choose as a collective punishment.

If Gaza's gas is brought ashore in Israel, how can Palestinians benefit in terms of business contracts and job opportunities?

Would they ever get a whiff of their own gas?

Indeed, should the Palestinians be thinking of selling their gas to energy-greedy Israel in the first place? After 62 years of occupation and ruination isn't every cubic foot needed to fuel their own economic recovery? It will be a long haul taking far more than 15 years.

Gaza itself ought to reap the full benefits and supply the West Bank direct. And maybe pipe some to Israel if it behaves itself.

Unfortunately an Interim Agreement signed in 1995 allowed the Israelis to weave a tangled web of security zoning in Gaza's coastal waters leaving Israel in charge and dictating what happens off-shore and who comes and goes. It's the sort of agreement no Palestinian would have signed unless under extreme duress.

It allowed fishing boats from Gaza to go 20 nautical miles from the coastline, but after Israel's so-called 'disengagement' and the capture of Corporal Shalit, Israel unilaterally reduced the fishing area to three miles.

Being 'interim' these restrictions were not expected to last beyond 1999. But they are still in force. Why?

The nasty whiff is not just gas. So here's an immediate and urgent task for the international community. It must untangle this sea blockade and restore to Palestine free unfettered use of its territorial waters.

As for the land blockade, if it is "wrong", as Mr Hague says, and illegal as everyone else believes, it has been wrong and illegal for 4 years. It is not enough to say it must end. Action must be taken to bring it to an end.

Hague was no help in opposition. Now he's in power, he is off to a poor start. The message to him and his fellow dining room loafers in the EU is clear: Cut the cackle and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING... NOW!

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Gaza blockade is ‘human rights crime’: Carter
• Israeli blockade strangling Gaza agriculture
• Gaza robbed of the most basic human right: the right to health

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

At that rate Muslims would have 200 seats

'Proportional Representation' is a big buzz-word in the UK these days. It implies fairer voting and fairer government. It is claimed to give minorities a better chance of being heard and therefore, they say, it should be incorporated into the "new politics" our shiny new Coalition government has promised us.

But one minority group needs no help in that direction.

The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 - Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats 2.

I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the JC's figures.

The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46%. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only 3 seats.

With 24 seats they are 8 times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.

The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93%. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only 8 - a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. 8 times) they'd have 200 seats.

All hell would break loose.

Yes sir, in the name of fairness there's plenty of work here for proportional representation. Bring it on!

Meanwhile two Jews - the Miliband brothers - are battling for the leadership of the beaten Labour Party. Ed Miliband (former Energy Secretary) is 40 and David Miliband (former Foreign Secretary) 44, both far too young to lead this country especially when neither has achieved anything worthwhile in the real world outside politics.

It's a reflection of the generally poor calibre of MP talent when such people, although academically gifted, can rise to the top. And indulging the young has had disastrous results. Think of Blair and the cult of arrogant youth he brought onto the political scene. Men of 40, especially politicians, think they know everything. They know nothing, as David Miliband (who backed the Iraq war) demonstrated in his blundering approach to the Middle East in Gordon Brown's government.

Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life. They swell the pro-Israel "lobby" to such a phenomenal extent that it accounts for an enormous 80% of the Conservative Party, which is now in power with the Liberal Democrats in tow as their junior Coalition partner.

Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack. These 'Israel-firsters' refuse to condemn the illegal occupation, the racist policies and the war crimes. As Israel's interest often clashes with Britain's their defence of the indefensible inevitably raises questions about loyalty, a deadly serious issue given the number of Zionists in public life.

And still we are cursed with the cult of youth. Cameron, 43, had no significant achievement under his belt but was able to manoeuvre himself, with the help of Jewish backers, into Britain's PM slot. He is also a self-declared Zionist and voted for the war in Iran, so how can he be trusted?

William Hague, who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was 15, is the new Foreign Secretary. Alistair Burt, an officer of the Parliamentary group of Conservative Friends of Israel, has been appointed Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, and David Lidington is now the Foreign Office minister for Europe. He has spoken of being a "staunch defender" of the State of Israel. So the stooges are safely installed and activated.

Nick Clegg, Cameron's Liberal Democrat Coalition partner, is also 43. He at least had a useful career before becoming an MP, as did his right-hand man Vince Cable, a person of more mature years and far greater stature than the two Coalition leaders put together.

In their "programme for government" our new Coalition has precious little to say about the stolen Holy Land except "We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state". Note it's a secure Israel and only a viable Palestinian state, not the other way round or even equal status. And there's no mention of action to end the Gaza blockade which Clegg called for in The Guardian last December.

So stooging for Israel has made the transition from Labour to the Conservative-led Coalition with seamless smoothness. It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state's amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them
• George Galloway’s speech to Parliament, January 2007
• Greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Conservative leader David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron didn't win the election but has managed to seize power by slipping between the sheets with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. This distasteful union should give them enough votes to survive in Parliament for the five years they have set themselves.

The glamour-boy duo, Cameron and Clegg, come from similar privileged backgrounds - top public schools and "Oxbridge". Cameron is a product of Eton, the infamous Bullingdon Club and Oxford, Clegg arrived via Westminster and Cambridge.

Cameron, of course, is the boss of the coalition. Clegg is merely Deputy Prime Minister, a post usually regarded as a non-job. "Birds of a feather: Cameron hires a new fag," quipped one blogger.

For those unfamiliar with the peculiar practices of the English public school (public here meaning expensively private for the upper-class), "fagging" is where junior boys do menial tasks and act as a general dogsbody for senior boys such as lazy prefects eager to practice their bullying techniques and hone their cruel streak in preparation for later life.

I suspect Clegg is too rebellious to make a useful fag. The spectacle we are more likely to be treated to is Cameron and his trusty lieutenant William Hague, fagging for the US and Israel. Within hours of taking office Britain's new Foreign Secretary Hague was summoned by Washington to receive instruction on polishing Obama's shoes and ironing Clinton's slip.

No doubt he'll soon be in Tel Aviv pressing Netanyahu's suits, dusting his mantlepiece and filling the coal scuttle.

Cameron's "new era" politics

In agreeing to support the most pro-Israel party in Britain Clegg said nothing about Middle East policy while Cameron promised a "new era" in British politics.

As everyone knows, Mr Cameron and most of his party voted for the Iraq war. They, in my view, are not fit to govern. They say they "were misled". Ordinary citizens, however, were not misled and found ample information freely available to contradict the lies the warmongers were telling them. The truth is that the Conservatives, like the Labour government at the time, failed to exercise due diligence and go the extra mile to make sure of the facts before taking this country into a war we could ill afford against people who posed no threat. Or, you might suppose, they obeyed orders from a foreign power.

Either way, a few did their duty to Britain, the majority didn't.

What is even more disgusting is the way Cameron's Conservatives constantly preach family values while happy, apparently, for innocent families elsewhere - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine - to be vaporised, blown to smithereens and terribly maimed in their countless thousands, or terrorized and starved into submission by sanctions and blockades.

Now, incredibly, they are considering inflicting the same collective punishment on Iranians for developing a domestic nuclear programme which they are perfectly entitled to.

Furthermore Cameron has failed to clean up his party, and I don't mean the scandalous expense-fiddling. Thanks in large part to the Channel 4 'Dispatches' programme on TV we know that the Conservative Party, like Labour, has its palm greased by the Israel lobby. Cameron is a self-declared Zionist pledged to defend the state of Israel come what may. It seems he's more concerned about the security and prosperity of Israel's murdering land-grabbers than the plight of their victims, the Christian communities in the Holy Land and their Muslim neighbours.

He's a very confused fag.

An organization called the Conservative Friends of Israel claims it "works to promote its twin aims of supporting Israel and promoting Conservatism. With close to 2000 activists as members - alongside 80% of Tory MPs - CFI is active at every level of the Party." Cameron endorses it enthusiastically: "I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party."

Back in 2006 The Jewish Chronicle reported on the backers bankrolling Cameron's bid for power. That report was sent to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as an example of how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and undermines the very principles the Committee had been established, as the nation's watchdog, to uphold. The Committee ignored it. Corruption runs deeper than you think here.

It is bad news all round that Hague is the new Foreign Secretary. He is, in his own words, "a longstanding friend of Israel and someone who joined Conservative Friends of Israel at the age of 15". He once said: "The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue."

Hague's appearance bears a startling resemblance to a neo-con skinhead, so he must fit into the Washington scene nicely. He said in an interview during the election campaign that the most urgent issue facing him, should he find himself in the Foreign Office, would be the Iranian nuclear programme. "We have consistently been the party arguing for tough sanctions and a strong European approach over the last few years, and are very frustrated that this hasn't emerged strongly enough." He wants Britain to give Iranians a good kicking by adopting the same sanctions regime against Iranian financial institutions as the United States and seeking European agreement on blocking investment in Iran's vast oil and gas fields.

So why isn't he just as eager to put the boot in against Israel on account of its massive nuclear weapons stockpile, which is a grave threat the region and even Europe, and the regime's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (which Iran has signed)?

He's a very confused skinhead.

Another thing. All states which are party to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to court.

"Grave breaches" means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war... the sort of atrocities that are committed wholesale by Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

But in order to protect the unsavoury foreign prefects they fag for, the Conservatives, like Labour, are planning to abandon our solemn obligations under international law. Their shadow Attorney General said, before the election, that the Conservatives "will change the law if this government [i.e. Labour] doesn't... There is support for this from David Cameron and William Hague downwards."

In short, Cameron and Hague hope to create a safe haven here in the UK for all psychopaths and bloodthirsty guttersnipes wanted for war crimes... especially Israel's top brass.

On the all-important foreign affairs front Nick Clegg therefore will have an almost impossible task trying to keep the Cameron/Hague wing of the coalition in check and focused on Britain's best interests.

Is there a silver lining?

I'm sorry to be the bringer of such gloomy news. However, there may yet be a glimmer of hope beneath this unremitting black cloud.

The Liberal Democrats' stated policy on Gaza is to...

• prosecute and compel the appearance of witnesses to investigate war crimes arising out of Israel's attack on Gaza, whether by Israel, Hamas or any other party;
• the existing EU Israel Association Agreement should be suspended since Israel has continued its illegal blockade of Gaza;
• the update for Israel's Association Agreement with the EU should also continue to be suspended;
• the EU should review whether Israel is in enduring breach of Article 2 of the Association Agreement; and
• there should be an arms embargo on Israel by Britain and the EU.

What's more, Nick Clegg wrote a punchy article "Lift the Gaza blockade" last December in The Guardian. In it he said:

"What has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis...

"The EU has huge economic influence over Israel, and it believes the blockade must be lifted. At the same time as exercising leverage over Hamas, it should make clear that the web of preferential agreements which now exists between the EU and Israel - from Israeli access to EU research and development funds to recently improved access for Israeli agricultural products - will be brought into question if there is no rapid progress...

"Gordon Brown and the international community must urgently declare that enough is enough. The blockade must end."

The question is, does Clegg have enough leverage to shame his new work colleagues, Cameron and Hague, into taking the action Brown neglected to?

Of course, that would infuriate the nasty prefects. But without the Liberal Democrats Cameron's Conservatives are doomed. So it will be interesting to see how far Clegg's lads can go in neutralising the Zionist Tendency that stains our politics.

I assume Clegg has taken note of Israel's threats to attack the Free Gaza flotilla, which soon sails to deliver humanitarian aid and break the evil blockade. Is it too much to ask that he insists Cameron orders the Royal Navy to provide an escort in order to guarantee the freedom of the seas and protect British and other nationals who are doing what he, Clegg, has been urging, what the world wants to see and what the contemptible international community should have done long ago?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Israel’s stooges battle for British votes
• “Cabbing” for Israel?
• General Election: Shhh. don’t mention the Occupation

By Dr. Salman Abu Sitta* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

To maintain a façade of moral code, you do not kill a friend, you kill an enemy. You do not rob another man's house, you recover your long-forgotten property. These are the principles adopted in all wars and conflicts. That is why it was always the mission of the aggressor to depict the target of killing, i.e. the enemy, as an evil, bad person or people who deserve to be defeated, and if killed, that would be a natural end for their bad behavior. Similarly it was the mission of the occupier to claim that he is not robbing someone else but merely recovering back his property which he neglected to do for centuries.

Nobody perfected this art of deception, or double-speak, better than the Zionist agents. How else could you explain the success of a Hungarian man, like Herzl, sitting in a Vienna Café, and professing that a Jews' State will be established in 50 years in a faraway land he had never lived in? His success, almost solely in Europe at the time, was manifested by convincing colonial powers of the advantages of supporting his colonial project and convincing their people, the Europeans, that this conquest, killing, plunder and destitution of a people is a divine will, a miracle and a victory for western civilization.

Nobody had to create so many myths and falsehoods in their endeavors more than the Zionists. The reason is simple: they did not have credible facts to prove their case, so they had to invent dubious alternatives, relying on the readiness of the gullible people and the opportunistic politicians to believe them.

Take the slogan: "Palestine is a land without people". It was terra nullius, they say. Of course, Zionists knew that people lived there and built over 1000 towns and villages, most are 2000 years old, according to Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea (313 AD) who recorded them. Yet Zionists submitted a map to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, showing Palestine as 'a grazing land for nomads'. They presented this map to the colonial powers, particularly the British and the French. The irony of course is that the British had finished their voluminous survey of Palestine, 40 years earlier, in 10 volumes, listing 12,000 historical sites including towns and villages, and the French finished their survey through their scholar, Victor Guerin, in 1863, who produced 8 volumes of his journey to almost every Palestinian village. Yet they chose to believe the Zionists and hoodwinked their public to support this 'noble and moral' conquest, in churches, newspapers and public debates.

What then is the meaning of terra nullius? It does not mean (to them) an empty land. It means that those who live there do not matter, they are worthless. It is like clearing woods from dry bushes and insects.

These are the exact words of Herzl,

"If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which Jews are not accustomed – big snakes etc. – I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries [read: expulsion], for the extermination of these animals."

Of course he did not say this in his published book, only in his then unpublished diary.

Balfour said as much:

"... in Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. Zionism [is] of profounder impact than the desires and prejudices [not the rights] of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit this ancient land."

How was this colonial project in Palestine packaged in the diplomatic language? In Balfour Declaration, they called it a "home" for the Jews, national at that, not a state to the exclusion of the inhabitants of the country, in Palestine, not of Palestine. What about those inhabitants? Of course, there is a reference to them: "without prejudice to the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", all 92 percent of them. A civilized afterthought indeed.

If your home and family are threatened by an unwelcome flood of (Jewish European) immigrants and you rise to fight it, you are called a "bandit". Your house is destroyed, your supplies are burnt, your son and father are killed or imprisoned. That is what the British did in 1939.

Ten years later, when the Zionists depopulated 675 Palestinian towns and villages and committed over 70 massacres, during al Nakba ethnic cleansing, some people naturally tried to return home, at least to rescue an old father, to water the garden or to feed the animals left behind. No one believed the exile would last over a couple of weeks. These returnees were shot by Israelis on the spot. Complaints were made to the Mixed Armistice Committee that those killed were "infiltrators", by the very same people who "infiltrated" Palestine only a few years earlier.

Thus conventional wisdom would have it that those who waded into the shores of Palestine from a smuggler's ship in the darkness of night are not "infiltrators", they are the masters of the land, and the real house owners who were expelled from their homes and tried to return home are "the infiltrators".

Twenty thousand five hundred days later this ruse is still applied. At the time of writing, Israel issued Military Order No. 1650 (Second Amendment) in which seventy thousand Palestinians residing in the West Bank from other parts of Palestine are liable to be deported as "infiltrators". By the same analogy, an Italian from Napoli found living in Rome under the Nazi occupation in WWII would be liable to be deported to Albania as an "infiltrator". One must concede that the crime of ethnic cleansing, regularly described by the Israeli propaganda machine as "transfer of population", has now reached new heights of sophistication. It is now called "Prevention of Infiltration".

A story is often told about Ein Haud, a lovely small village south of Haifa, with beautiful stone houses. Its population was expelled but they managed to remain within Israel. They built shacks on the opposite hill, looking every day at their houses, now occupied by artists from Romania who turned it into an "artists colony". Their land and houses were confiscated under the Absentees Property Law of 1950. "Absentees" means the expelled refugees.

The logic is that the state of Israel takes over the property of those who are "absent", because they "abandoned" their property, probably to spend their lovely exile days at the Riviera, not a refugee camp. Hence it is the duty of a "democratic" state to take care of their property (to use, rent, utilize) for the benefit of Jews only. This logic does not allow for the fact that they are absent because they were expelled. If they returned, they will be shot as "infiltrators".

The irony has no end. If somehow the village inhabitants remained in the area conquered by Israel, they have to be counted and given IDs. Therefore they are "present". But their property must be confiscated because they are "absent". Hence they acquired the oxymoron appellation of "present-absentees".

Wonders never cease. One of those "present-absentees" from Ein Haud could not bear it. So one day he walked across to the opposite hill and knocked on the door of his house. A Romanian artist answered. The owner asked who he was:

- I am Ephraim

- Where are you from Ephraim?

- From here of course, Ein Haud. Why do you ask? Who are you any way?

- I am Abu Ahmed, from Romania.

The massive ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which took place in 1948/49, the year of al Nakba (Catastrophe), unprecedented in modern history, has to have an appropriate name in the Zionist lexicon which hides its ugliness. They called it "War of Independence", which is precisely what the Palestinians were engaged in since Balfour's Declaration of 1917, that is, since the betrayal of the Allies and the collusion with the Zionists to deprive them of their homeland. This Zionist term was adopted, by Jewish immigrants who infiltrated Palestine, to describe the ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants of Palestine. It was widely accepted by the West. Mercifully, cracks now started to appear in this edifice of deception. Now it is against the law in Israel to mention al Nakba. The monopoly remains exclusively for the deception.

The Green Line is often used to describe the line dividing Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in the West Bank and Gaza. What is this line? Why it is green? Its proper name is the "Armistice Line of 1949". It is the line at which Israeli invading forces stopped in 1949, whereby 78% of Palestine was conquered. That was a big jump from 5.5% Jewish-owned land during the Mandate and in excess of 24% over the suggested allocation of the Partition Plan. Israel signed 4 Armistice Agreements with Arab countries. Article 2 of these agreements states clearly that this line does not confer or deny rights to either party and has no legal meaning. No military forces are allowed to cross it, hence the armistice. It is simply a line separating Palestine that was occupied in 1948 from that occupied in 1967. Israel did cross it in 1967 in violation of international law. To obscure the legal meaning of the line and its crossing, it was dubbed by Israel as the Green Line, the colour of the pencil used by Israel on its maps. This simple device of renaming the line enables Israel to imply in its media machine that it has not violated any law and has not conquered any land. Thus, Netanyahu can announce boldly in CNN interviews that Jews should be able to live anywhere (in Palestine) without fear of contradiction. Now Israel removed this line altogether from its maps.

How could you steal a whole cake and eat it? You first steal half a cake. With no deterrent, you steal the other half. You eat the whole cake under the 'principle' that the two halves must be "unified" (in your stomach).

Israel occupied West Jerusalem in 1948 and East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel claimed that the city must remain "unified" under its control. The "unification" tag is meant to disguise the fact that both acts are not only illegal in view of international law, but, surprisingly, they are contrary to Israeli founding laws.

Israel's Declaration of 'Independence' states that its international legitimacy, feeble as it was, rests on the Partition Plan recommendation. But this Plan never puts Jerusalem under Israel. Israel occupied West Jerusalem, Lydda, Ramle, Galilee and parts of the south in violation of the Partition Plan. Israel's admission to the UN membership was conditional upon its compliance with the Partition Plan and the return of the refugees' resolution. It never complied. Needless to say that the occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is a clear violation of "the inadmissibility of military conquest". Yet the "unification of Jerusalem" is touted by Israel and AIPAC as the justification to build anywhere (for Jews only) "in Israel's eternal capital, which is not a settlement".

Similarly, occupation of the West Bank is labeled as "liberation of Judea and Samaria". The Apartheid Wall, condemned by the International Court of Justice, is named the "security fence". The redeployment of occupation forces is described as "withdrawal".

Nothing can be more misleading than the withdrawal from Gaza Strip. Israel controls its land, above it, below it and around it. Gaza starvation has been described by Israeli officials as "putting the population on diet", a new device for slow death designed not to make world headlines.

The real name of this tragedy is "war crimes" and "genocide" according to articles 6 and 8 of the Rome Statute of 1998 creating the International Criminal Court. These two articles describe exactly the situation in Gaza.

The Gaza Palestinians are promised water, food and medicine and (partial?) removal of the blockade if they comply with the Quartet conditions: recognizing the Israeli occupiers and ceasing the resistance to them. Blair did not spare a media microphone without bleating into it that $ 4.5 billion are waiting to rebuild demolished Gaza if only Palestinians accept the Quartet conditions.

Blair is a patent liar. The media believed him or acted so. No official, no journalist, no learned 'expert' tells him he is lying. Only one man. Alvaro de Soto, the UN Mediator, in his End of Mission report, in May 2007, says in para 79, that the Quartet never imposed any conditions. These are US and European Union conditions based on their own policies, using UN and Russia as a shield for their demands.

A familiar name on TV screens is Sderot, the Israeli settlement, the victim of kitchen pipe projectiles which broke a window and killed one person in 8 years. Sderot mayor expresses his perennial fear of the unbelievably crowded Gaza Strip, the hotbed of terrorism, and is visited by dignitaries from European capitals and US Congress.

None of these dignitaries know, or wish to declare, that Sderot is a settlement built on the land of Najd village, whose expelled population lives mere two kilometers away in a refugee camp. They are throwing their home-made projectiles on their own land, at its occupiers, in a symbolic gesture to assert their right for their homes in the occupied land.

Those dignitaries lament the crowded conditions in Gaza, the misery, the poverty and the hopelessness. They shake their heads in sorrow. The brave ones visit Gaza in a whirlwind tour of two hours, with no contact with the real people, huddled by UN relief officials, to protect them from being devoured by the hungry people.

Did any one of those distinguished visitors ask why is Gaza Strip crowded and miserable? It is crowded because it is where the population of 247 Palestinian villages, the victims of ethnic cleansing in 1948, were crowded in an open air prison with an area of 1% of Palestine. They are crowded at a density of 6,000 persons per square kilometer whereas Sderot mayor and co. roam their land at a density of 6 persons per square kilometer.

Let them go back to their land and you will have no crowd, no poverty and no "terrorism". If you do not like that, give them what the Israelis have: F16 and Merkava tanks. "Terrorism" will stop and a nice lovely war will begin.

Israel gives itself the license to destroy any village and kill its people under the rubric "pre-emptive operation", sometimes called "retaliation". Under this principle, you are allowed to think that your neighbour has nasty looks and he may one day decide to kill you. So you decide to take action at once by catching him unaware and kill him. You do not need to see advancing tanks. You do not need any proof. Your mental mindset is enough, especially if you are a racist. That was the explanation given by Israel for the killings in Bureij camp, Qibya, Samou' and a dozen other places. This policy entered the language of international diplomacy as a respectable word. You see it now splashed on the newspapers' headlines, although it is in stark violation of the word and spirit of the UN Charter.

From the above examples, it is clear that the media manipulation and the loaded terminology are the undeclared army of the Zionists. This kind of army cannot be pinned down by Goldstone, Dugard or Falk. But it commits crimes just the same.

The Hasbara, fabricating Israel's lilly-white image, is a refined art. Its tools have been exposed recently in the Israel's Project's Secret Hasbara Handbook at the link:

No need to elaborate. But for those who are keen to know the facts, and they are luckily increasing in number, for those good people around the world who are guided by their moral compass and for the Palestinians of course, carriers of the burden of untold truths, for all those, the Israeli Hasbara is best described by a similar sounding Arabic word, Za'bara, which means: meaningless, convoluted loud words.

The world will be a better place, and justice will have a chance to prevail, when Hasbara is recognized as it really is: merely Za'bara. When truth shines, it expels the clouds of myths.

* Dr. Salman Abu Sitta (born 1938 in Bir-al-Saba' in Southern Palestine) is considered one of the greatest Palestinian researcher and writers on the issue of the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return. His published works include:

Dr. Abu-Sitta wrote this article for the Palestine Think Tank

Related posts:

• Israel and the “de-legitimization” oxymoron
• William A. Cook – Walled in by Myth and Deceit
• Palestine and The Demise Of Conscience

The Israel lobby dominates Labour and owns most Conservative MPs and other politicians

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

We can already see how disastrously the US election turned out, not just for Americans but the rest of us also. "The US president is simply the voice of the Zionist parasite," writes a friend in Norway. "It is sickening and frightening that Obama is seen toeing the Zionist line."

"Zionism has the US administration and other western governments by the balls."

Well, that's certainly the way it looks. Last month Israel's prime minister Netanyahu slapped America in the face by approving more illegal settlements during vice-president Joe Biden's visit. What did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do? She repeated the pathetic mantra: "We have an absolute commitment to Israel's security. We have a close unshakeable bond between the United States and Israel and between the American and Israeli people".

Clinton completed her surrender to the Israeli terror machine by sharing the AIPAC Conference platform with a triumphant Netanyahu.

Whereupon over half of America's lawmakers topped Clinton's performance by signing a letter committing to the US's "unbreakable" bond with the racist regime.

Nine months earlier, speaking in a BBC interview, Obama said he believed the US was "able to get serious negotiations back on track" between Israel and the Palestinians. And when asked about Israel's defiance when called on to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, he urged patience. "Diplomacy is always a matter of a long hard slog. It's never a matter of quick results."

The fact is, diplomacy doesn't work with the Israelis. Everyone knows the problem: Israel's contempt for international law and UN resolutions. And now we see Obama's contempt too. In this wobbly leader's mind Israel is somehow exempt from the laws, conventions, codes of conduct and respect for the rights of others that apply to everyone else in the civilised world.

Forcing negotiations is immoral

And Obama should know better than to keep harping on about peace negotiations. It is absurd to put a weak party and a strong party together and expect fair results when the strong party is in permanent occupation and has its military boot on the weak party's neck.

It is immoral to expect the weak party to negotiate while the strong party is in flagrant breach of international law, commits acts of piracy, maintains a crippling blockade, carries out daily air strikes on civilians and continues to steal the weak party's land and resources.

It is immoral for sponsors of negotiations to be so partisan as to refuse to recognize the democratically elected representatives of the weak party or its right to self-determination and territorial integrity.

It is immoral to force negotiations without first establishing a level playing field and ensuring both sides are compliant with international law. The international community has shirked this responsibility for decades, not because the peoples of the community of nations lack the will but because their leaders are gutless and corrupt.

Then there's the scandal of the US government's aid to Israel which runs at nearly $3 billion annually and totals well over $100 billion since 1949. The money helps pay for Israel's costly occupation of Palestinian territory, its F-16s, helicopter gun-ships, tanks, ordnance, Caterpillar bulldozers, and all the other tools of military oppression and territorial grand theft.

Israel gets more $billions in indirect aid - military support, loan write-offs, rich technology transfers and special grants. Before George W Bush left office he agreed an assistance package of $30 billion over the next ten years.

So the US taxpayer has been cheerfully funding Israeli operations to destroy Palestinian infrastructure (which in many cases has been paid for by British, EU and - yes - US taxpayers) and bring the whole civil society to its knees.

Most of this aid violates US laws that stipulate US-supplied weapons can only be used for "legitimate self-defense" and military assistance is prohibited to any country that engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". Military assistance is also banned to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. But thanks to the "unbreakable" bond with Israel these inconvenient laws might as well not exist.

Israelis fiercely attack any attempt to 'de-legitimise' their ill-gotten gains while more and more people argue that the state of Israel had no legitimacy in the first place. Nevertheless the Zionist menace now has nuclear fangs and the capability to target most European cities... and, as we have seen, has no sense of restraint whatever.

Gee, thanks, America. Before you go accepting any more peace prizes, Obama, how about bringing to heel this monster the US has been nurturing?

Israel's 'Voices' compete for British vote

Here in Britain we have our own version of AIPAC. The Foreign Office has been under Zionist influence for decades. Our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee – are headed by Israel flag-wavers. They have embedded themselves in nearly ever nook and cranny of parliamentary life.

Right now these stooges are battling for our votes in a general election.

Before the election campaign the main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, were so wedded to the Zionist cause that both wished to change our laws to protect Israeli leaders from arrest on war crimes charges and provide them with a safe haven in Britain.

Now they keep very quiet about their pro-Israel antics, no doubt hoping the question won't be brought under the public spotlight or need explaining.

Labour has been in power 13 years and is now under Blair's successor Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund. The party's 115-page manifesto barely mentions the fate of the Holy Land except to say: "We support the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can live alongside a secure Israel." Note that it's a secure Israel but only a viable Palestine. Israel must remain comfortably secure while continuing its ethnic cleansing and thieving.

The Conservative Party is favourite to win the election – or was until its leader, David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron, flunked a televised leaders' debate. Cameron too is a dutiful patron of the JNF. His party's 118-page manifesto says nothing about Britain's responsibility towards the Palestinians apart from promising support for a two state solution to the Middle East Peace Process. That's all, full stop.

80% of Conservative MPs and MEPs, it is claimed, are passionate admirers of racist Israel. But they don't shout it from the rooftops at election time. No, they are furtive because they know deep down that it is a grubby, indefensible position and the public would react with revulsion if the party's allegiance to a foreign military power that makes war of Christian communities was exposed in the mainstream media.

Sad to say, then, there is no sign of Labour or the Conservatives deviating from the path of betrayal.

Thankfully a third party, the Liberal Democrats, is emerging strongly. Its leader, Nick Clegg, is no rabid Zionist though readers will remember he recently sacked Baroness Jenny Tonge to appease the Israel lobby. However, the Liberal Democrats at least believe Britain and the EU must put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza and talk of borders "which are secure and based on the situation before the 1967 conflict".

This party looks less corruptible than the others and less likely to worship at the altar of Zionism. Not being considered serious contenders till now, Clegg and his team probably haven't been groomed by the US administration's spivs and pimps. So we can expect big efforts to discredit them in the days ahead.

In my simple way I see a glimmer of hope here.

When a proper history comes to be written, Americans will struggle to explain how the most powerful nation on earth was so easily conned and mugged for countless billions of tax dollars to finance the ambitions of a bunch of extremists bent on defiling the Holy Land and spreading their tentacles into every crevice of the western world.

The British also will have some explaining to do.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Alan Hart – How Zionist lobby stooges in Congress brought shame to their institution
• “Cabbing” for Israel?
• British Jewish Group Slams Israel

By Christopher Bollyn | Sabbah Report | www.sbbah.biz

The discovery by Professor Steven Jones of tiny chips of super-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center has greatly improved our understanding of what happened on 9-11. With this evidence in hand we have a much better understanding of how the Twin Towers were pulverized. The crucial questions about 9-11 remain: Who made this nanotech super-thermite? And who put it in the Twin Towers?

Seeing that an advanced nano-composite form of thermite was used to demolish the buildings, we can now understand why the clean-up was really a well-planned operation to remove and destroy the evidence of the crime. Every aspect of such a well-planned false flag terror atrocity is completely controlled and compartmentalized, a hallmark of an Ehud Barak operation. Every part of the operation is carried out by people and companies that are controlled. They are all essentially part of the same team - the Israeli terror team - and can be controlled and trusted, from the top down. With this in mind, we begin our review of the people who cleaned up the World Trade Center.

THE RESCUE CHIEF - From September 12, 2001 until July 11, 2002, Martin Seigel of Freehold, New Jersey, was 'rescue chief' and director of field operations for Bovis Landfill, which won the contract to clear the debris of the World Trade Center. Photo from Aftermath by Joel Meyerowitz

"From 12 September until 11 July," Martin Seigel (sometimes written Marty Siegel), "was director of field operations, overseeing the rescue on behalf of Bovis Landfill, which won the contract to clear the debris," The Observer (U.K.) reported on August 18, 2002. How was Bovis chosen so quickly, one might ask. Martin Seigel began working on the pile of rubble already on September 12, 2001? How did a subsidiary of Bovis Lend Lease, a British-owned company headed by Frank Lampl ("Life President" of the company) win the contract in less than one day?

One has to understand that 9-11 was planned well in advance, which means that the removal and destruction of the evidence was also planned to be assigned to companies that could be trusted to follow orders and keep secrets. There is no way that the architects of the false flag terror of 9-11 were going to let honest engineers anywhere near the evidence of the crime. The World Trade Center is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey so it stands to reason that Bovis Lend Lease was chosen by Lewis Eisenberg then director of the Port Authority (until December 2001).

Frank Lampl, a Czech Jew, is 'Life President' of Bovis Lend Lease

Frank Lampl, the "Life President" of Bovis Lend Lease, is a Jew from Brünn (Brno) who emigrated to Britain in 1968. According to his biography, his son Thomas was studying at Oxford University in 1968 when Frank and his wife decided to leave Czechoslovakia. He joined Bovis in 1971 and rose quickly to become chief executive of Bovis Internatiional in 1978. Bovis has done many large jobs in the United States, including the construction management contract for the Atlanta Olympic Games.

Sir Frank Lampl (knighted by the Queen) is the first Honorary President of the Czech British Chamber of Commerce, a position he has held since March 2009. He has also established a branch of Bovis in Brno, his hometown in the Czech Republic. Bovis has two locations in Brno, one at the hospital and another near the technical university, where nanotechnology is developed.

Lampl's Bovis Lend Lease is a company that has long been engaged in nanotechnology research as well. Since the 1990s, Bovis has been involved in the development of nanotechnology labs, such as those in which the super-thermite used on 9-11 was made. Bovis company archives indicate that the company has been involved in nanotechnology since at least October 2000. See: Bovis Lend Lease Launches New Pharmaceutical Business, October 30, 2000. Did Bovis produce the super-thermite that pulverized the Twin Towers? It's possible.

The CV of design manager Richard Paley, former Principal Architect at Bovis Lend Lease, indicates that he was designing nanotechnology clean rooms for Bovis Lend Lease for the better part of a decade, starting with a 4 year stint from October 1990 until October 1994:

Senior Architect
Bovis Lend Lease
(Public Company; LLC; Construction industry)
October 1990 — October 1994 (4 years 1 month)
[Employed by Tanvec Ltd , bought by Bovis Lend Lease in 1999] - Role involved design of cleanrooms , laboratories and production facilities for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and process industries. Responsible for compliance with planning and building regulations and compliance with MHRA and FDA regulations.

See: Richard Paley CV

Sir Frank Lampl is also a friend of Ehud Barak, the Israeli minister of defense who is responsible for the war crimes committed in Gaza in Israel's operation "Cast Lead" of December 2008 and January 2009. Some 1,400 Palestinian civilians were killed in this criminal assault on the people of the Gaza Strip. In October 2009, Sir Frank Lampl, a partner of Forum 2000, sponsored an international conference in which Ehud Barak was one of the key speakers. Why would Ehud Barak, an Israeli terrorist who should be arrested for war crimes, be allowed to speak at an international forum in Prague? What is the real connection between Israeli criminals and the Czech Republic?

Ehud Barak, indicted for serious war crimes by the Goldstone Report, spoke at Forum 2000 in October 2009, an event sponsored by Sir Frank Lampl.

Frank Lampl's connection with Ehud Barak is most telling. This is the inner circle of 9-11. These are the key suspects in the false flag terror atrocity of 9-11. Barak is the senior architect of the terror attacks and Lampl was the loyal Zionist Jew who helped destroy the evidence.

(to be continued...)

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Sir Frank Lampl, Czech British Chamber of Commerce Honory President, March 2, 2009
http://www.cbcc.org.uk/Events-Promotions.aspx?News=20

Bovis Lend Lease Launches New Pharmaceutical Business, 30 October 2000
http://www.lendlease.com.au/llweb/bll/main.nsf/all/news_20001030

"Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister and Former Prime Minister" by Pierre Tristam
http://middleeast.about.com/od/israel/p/me090102.htm

"9/11 - one year on - 'Butterflies rose out of the debris'", Sean O'Hagan, The Observer, 18 August 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/18/september11.usa1

Richard Paley’s Experience, Design Manager & Chartered Architect
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/richarddpaley

Source: Rebel News

Related posts:

• War business: How this works?
• No Business as Usual with Apartheid Israel
• Donald Macintyre – Israel’s Dirty Secrets in Gaza

By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

For readers who may not be intimately familiar with English terminology, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which contradictory terms are combined to form an expressive phrase or epithet such as cruel kindness and falsely true. (It's derived from the Greek word oxymoros meaning pointedly foolish).

For my contribution to the De-legitimizing Israel series, I'm going to confine myself to one question and answer.

The question is: How can you de-legitimize something (in this case the Zionist state) when it is NOT legitimate?

Leaving aside the fairy story of God's promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who "returned" in answer to Zionism's call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state's assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly's partition plan resolution of 1947.

The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British don't possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.

Zionism's assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal - meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine - after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away - was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ..... Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah's intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was "the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force."

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball's chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel's right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Related posts:

• The Choice for Israel – Civil war for peace or the end of Zionism?
• US concern about Israel’s illegal settlements is 42 years too late
• So When Are You Going to Make War on Israel, Mr. Brown?