The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

OK this is hilarious:

Britain is being urged to help set up an international "contact group" to co-ordinate western and Arab policy towards the crisis in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad is defying mounting outrage over the violent suppression of mass unrest.

And guess who is doing the urging?

It has emerged that King Abdullah of Jordan raised the idea, borrowed from the recent Libyan uprising, in talks with David Cameron on Tuesday.

Do you want to tell me that this Hashemite Pinnochio came up with this brilliant idea all by himself? Seriously, I want the killing to stop in Syria, but getting the half-English king of Jordan who can't wipe his chin without permission, is probably up there with using the Arab League as the front for international pressure on the Syrian regime. I can almost see the puppet strings moving Abdullah's hands as he shakes hands with David Cameron.

If the situation in Syria wasn't so tragic and the Assad regime not so stupid, I would have a different position, but right now Syrians would probably shake hands with the devil. .

It's quite interesting to see the "historic" joint defence deal between the United Kingdom and France. I don't think anything says how broke these key European countries are than when they start to seriously consider joining forces for their jolly adventures around the world. The other point to consider is who exactly do they consider themselves threatened by, enough, at least, to form this highly cooperated synergy between the two armies. Terrorism doesn't need such massive armies, in fact the defeat of ISAF in Afghanistan shows the flaw in the logic of pitting large armies against mobile, highly motivated and lightly armed guerilla movements in favourable terrain. Perhaps they are worried about Russia, or perhaps they are worried about declining prestige. It will be interesting if Argentina again tries to reclaim the Malvinas (Falkland) islands to see the French reaction to such a scenario. The Elysees will have a tough time justifying the death of French soldiers defending a lump of rock in the middle of the ocean that is in Britain's national interest.

.

A flaw in the democratic process?

I wasn't quite sure what to make of the story in the news about the 21 year old student who stabbed her MP in London. Roshonara Choudhry has been imprisoned for life for stabbing the Labour MP Stephn Timm's of East Ham. Apparently he supported the war in Iraq and for that reason, Miss Choudhry felt it was her religious duty to stick a knife in the man's stomach. The timing of this story, so soon after it is alleged that bombs sent from Yemen had been sent by courier to the United States, strikes me as a bit odd. Anwar al Awlaky is again in the headlines, as a matter of fact a British politician has recently requested that US service providers remove his videos from their networks. But what is al Awlaky actually saying? Nobody seems to quote anything specific this man says which is against the United States, and secondly there are dozens, if not hundreds of clips on the internet where the speakers are far more blatant and explicit in their plans and intentions towards the United States, but it seems this man in particular is the subject of much attention.

Regardless of how serious a danger this person is perceived to be towards the West, one thing that I found perplexing about this whole affair was the idea the judge had of peacefully making known one's dissent with a political decision taken by a government. What can be done when the majority of a population, such as was the case in the UK, opposed an invasion of a sovereign country for no clear or legal reason, and yet the government did not take heed? What is there to be done when the political process, or the peaceful method of dissent is not sufficient in averting a political or humanitarian catastrophe? I don't really know the answer to that. The Nazi party in Germany took control through entirely democratic means and their government was entirely legitimate to start with, but they did the most horrendous things. What would the judge have said if this woman, however misguided she was, had stabbed a Nazi politician in 1939 for supporting the invasion of Poland? I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer to that. Britain prides itself on its "reasonableness" and the common sense of the "man on the Clapham omnibus", but, I notice from observation that its political and legal establishment are notoriously weakened with "shoe on the other foot" arguments and desperately try to avoid being trapped by that logic. British reasonableness should go both ways, and not just when it suits the status quo. This case brings up some difficult questions, not that there will be anybody in any of the main newspapers who will be posing them.

.

Sovereignty 101 for Arab countries

Scottish ministers and officials will not attend a US Senate hearing over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. I'm not particularly concerned with the details of the case, but I liked the response given to the United States, one which Arab states should take note of as it demonstrates what a sovereign country behaves like when its laws are questioned. Now compare this with the way Iraq's legal system is, the land where Hammurabi first passed his laws, and see the temerity with which the English or the American occupiers come to "teach" Iraqis how to govern themselves. It makes me want to cry. Well, not really. But I don't like it anyway.

"Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies.

"The Scottish Parliament's justice committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish affairs committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper."

.

تحسبهم جمعا وقلوبهم شتى

There is a great article by the Independent today about the release of Megrahi. I know we can only speculate on what actually happened, but as the saying goes "there is no smoke without fire" and the alleged "deal in the desert" has left more than just a suspicion of what Mr Blair might have agreed on with the immortal Colonel. What is interesting, as it always is in such articles, is the timing of it all. You see in September last year there was an outcry, but the fact is that nobody was asking that Tony Blair be questioned in front of a US Sentate Committee. Fast-forward till today and you find the Americans are very unhappy about the whole Gulf of Mexico fiasco with BP, referred to erroneously by Obama as "British Petroleum".

We're being told that all of this is because British-American relations are at an all-time low. The reality is probably much simpler. There is a change of the guard in both the United States and the United Kingdom. It is no coincidence that a period of Republican rule in the United States largely overlapped with New Labour's dominance in the United Kingdom. Obama and his Democrats have no interest in the realpolitik of Bush, nor does Cameron appear interested in the pragmatic politics of Blair. This does not mean there will be a change of foreign policy for either country, only that, with the change of emperor, the old guard face either exile, the sword, or to drink poison. There is certainly nothing that dramatic on the cards for Blair or Bush's acolytes, but we can expect a metaphorical slap on the wrist.

The fact that BP has been "hung out to dry", so to speak, does not indicate any concern by the United States about the environment or making big-business accountable. It is about the bottom line, money. The United States has not been having a good decade and we can expect it to turn on more and more traditional allies if things get worse there. BP was also once known as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and it played a key role in overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadegh in the famous coup that brought the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, back to power. One journalist stupidly wrote that it is lucky the company doesn't have its old name, presumably because idiots like him will assume there is some connection to Iran. Kermit Roosevelt has some very interesting things to say about American and British collusion, and the assistance of the AIOC during that period.

The fact that BP's alleged involvement in all this is now the subject of American scrutiny tells us that nothing is permanent, and old friends could potentially become enemies again. But that is going too far. If the American's have any sense, they will wrap up this faux-pas, some matters must never be brought to light no matter how bitter an argument is, and this Megrahi affair is one of them. A quiet wrapping up of this story should be expected.

.

On universal jurisdiction

In a sign of how things will be under the new Con-Dem government, William Hague, the UK's new foreign minister has said it is unacceptable that Israeli officials can be threatened with arrest under 'universal jurisdiction'. This is where a complaint can be made in the UK against personnel who are not even British for war crimes that occurred anywhere in the world.

They can do this if they want, the UK is a dualist country, meaning that international agreements made by the government are only recognised by British courts if there is a statute enacted by Parliament that integrates the agreement into British law. If that does not exist, or if a later Parliament decides to repeal the Act, then it can remove it under what is known as the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. In that case international agreements are about as useful in a British court of law as a penis flavoured lollipop. Nice try in trying to arrest Israeli officials, but sadly this was never going to get far anyway.

.

On the British Elections

The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau writing in The Social Contract

.

The British Elections

As far as I'm concerned, Nick Clegg is the cleanest out of the three. Qunfuz pointed out that it was Clegg who was unequivocal in calling for an arms embargo of Israel. Of course policy-wise the Liberal Democrats are a joke but frankly an effective Conservative government will be a strong ally of Israel and no advantage whatsoever. At least the Liberal Democrats will try to approach the issue with an even-handed manner.

.

Britain and the United States defeated in Afghanistan

The year is 2010 and it has been almost nine years since the United States and her allies invaded Afghanistan searching for that elusive mastermind of the September 11 attacks. It was supposed to be different, righteous and it was supposed to bring change to Afghanistan permanently. Instead we see today a defeat that nobody will acknowledge. As John Kennedy once said, "Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan". Today we have an article in the Guardian blaring out loudly, "Revealed: UN in secret peace talks with the Taliban". Earlier we heard people saying that the Taliban must be paid off, to split the more radical elements off of it. Does this not sound ludicrous? Who would have imagined in 2003 that British or American officials would officially ponder negotiations with the Taleban? What has been accomplished in nine years there apart from untold death and destruction? The answer is - absolutely nothing.

What could possibly explain Hamid Karzai's recent visit to Britain and his photo-op with Gordon Brown on the BBC's Hardtalk? Has he come to plead with Britain not to withdraw? Perhaps to convey a message from the Taleban? Everyday we hear stories of British soldiers, many of them boys more than men, being blown to pieces in Afghanistan. The newspapers carry a short, one line quote from their commanding officers. It is almost predictable, "so on and so forth, they will never be forgotten, etc, etc". Nobody even bothers reading these stories as they trickle in, in fact living in London you wouldn't even think that British soldiers are fighting anywhere, it is simply not the concern of the average person here. And this is intentionally cultivated.

Over the past few months a concerted media campaign has been showing stories of what its like for "the boys" over there. I speculated a few weeks ago about whether they were gearing up for a withdrawal. This reality is now closer than ever. The Afghan war is ending, and whilst nobody will admit it, the Taliban have won.

.

"Foreign Office expresses 'outrage' as Hossein Rassam appears among accused at Tehran court".

:-)

.

A video on the Guardian about the mother of one of the British hostages held in Iraq since 2007. Notice there is no mention of who is holding these men, and that we are given a red herring by being made to ask why this issue is not high profile whilst others were - as if this is a failing of the Foreign Office. I still think these men will be released after the Americans let go the five Iranian diplomats made captive in 2007, just before these men were kidnapped. Let us see..tick tock.

.

Syria's strange love affair with Britain

For anybody who has been fortunate enough to visit both capitals, London and Damascus appear to stand at the poles of two opposing cultures and world views. Both of these cities were once the capitals of great empires. In Damascus, Salah el Din rides his steed to glory and victory whilst in London, the lonely figure of Richard the Lion Heart raises his sword one last time. Syrians in particular have a strange infatuation with the English. Their educational system is held in high esteem and is commonly (and accurately) believed to be better than the American one. Their president was also educated in Britain and ultimately married a Syrian woman from Acton, who was brought up and educated in Britain as well. Historically, we are told the tale of the Syrian trader who married a local woman, a tale repeated countless times till the present, living where today there is a border with Scotland when the Romans were still in Britain. The British have Lawrence of Arabia, a semi-legendary figure who 'helped' in the Arab revolt but strangely they were happy to leave Syria and Lebanon to the French during the "mandate" years.

Syria and Britain are two countries which should, by all accounts, be enemies. Yet strangely there exists a bizarre connection between the two countries which persists in spite of whatever political turmoil is taking place. In the eighties, the Syrians tried to blow up an El Al flight taking off from Heathrow. The man responsible is still in prison here, but the issue was hushed up and nobody remembers that anymore. Britain's pro-Zionism is also silently overlooked by Damascus in its relations, as is Syria's support for Palestinian resistance movements. Both countries hold special relationships with stronger allies, the United States for Britain and Iran for Syria, and both seem to act as the conduit through which much negotiation takes place between these two opposing powers. During the 1990 Gulf War, a member of the British Special Air Service managed to escape Iraq to the safety of Syria, then a member of the coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait, but in protest at the aggression of the United States against Iraq and its continued bombing, Syrian rioters 'managed' to completely trash the British Council's offices before proceeding to the US embassy, where one of the rioters was able to pull down the American flag and then duly urinate on it. British intelligence routinely "tips" Syrian intelligence services to pick up individuals of interest who fly to Damascus to learn Arabic or religion, to be tortured and interrogated, before the necessary diplomatic outrage allows for their release - or not. The incidents go back and forth, and yet there seems to be a silent 'understanding' between the two countries which has persisted over the years.

It is a very curious relationship...and one which I expect will produce strange offspring in the future.

.

Here you go....

"The group had asked that three "high value" prisoners – their leader Qais al-Khazali, his brother, Laith al-Khazali and a Lebanese Hizbullah commander, Ali Moussa Daqduq – should be turned over to Iraqi custody in return for freeing the captives. The Americans were apparently considering this (after a British request) until Iraqi officials said they were not prepared to prosecute the men."

.

Iran responds...two British hostages killed.

For ages I've been trying to work out why nobody kicks up a fuss about the British hostages that had been held for two years in Iraq. It was almost as if nobody cared, there would be a cursory news story about the latest video, a condemnation from the British Foreign Office, and then - nothing. These men were the forgotten.

I have to hand it to them, the Iranians are smart. When the Queen presented an award to Salman Rushdie a few years ago, the Iranians captured 11 British sailors and held a media circus with them that humiliated both Britain and the United States. On Friday, Ayotollah Khamenei called the British government the most evil on earth and Motaki has accused Britain and the United States of "interfering" with Iran's internal affairs. Then we hear of the deaths of two of the hostages. Nobody else would hold hostages for two years, feeding them and looking after them. If it has been al Qaeda or some crackpot movement in Iraq, they would have died a long tim ago. Instead, like winning cards they were held until it was prudent for them to be used. The Foreign Office knew it was the Iranians holding these five men but it did not make a big sensation of this as was the case with Ken Bigley for example. If you ask yourself why then you might begin to realise the scale of what is happening.

.

MI5 blackmails British Muslims...

"The whole time he tried to make it seem like he was looking after me. And just before I left them at my boarding gate I remember 'Richard' telling me 'It's your choice, mate, to get on that flight but I advise you not to,' and then he winked at me."

.

Binyam Muhammad to seek treatment on NHS!

"Before this ordeal, 'torture' was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways — all orchestrated by the US Government."

The Times has an interesting take on the way that they choose to report stories. Later in the article, they include just one sentence stating that he[Binyam Muhammad] will be entitled to NHS treatment. 

"As a foreign national, he has been granted temporary admission to the UK but his immigration status will be reviewed. He will be allowed to seek NHS treatment."

 I mean how relevant is that to the story? This is where an international story gets tied into the local issues which the British public are groomed with. The NHS is currently wracked with crisis, problems and mismanagement, due to decades of underfunding and poor management, all the fault of the government. Yet we have one man who was at the center of a torture scandal and in a typically English fashion, the Times wants to take out the calculator in the middle of the restaurant and see who is responsible for the extra 20 pence on the food bill and if some people chewed quicker than others. Oh, the fact that the man is brown and foreign is great too, especially since the economy is in recession. Things are going to get a lot worse here once the recession starts claiming more victims.

Still, they are only slightly less flippant in their coverage of this story than the rabidly American CNN. They reported the story as "Torture claim Gitmo detainee back in the UK". Yes oh wise American editors, it is a torture claim, because you are an impartial agency and you don't want to make any assumptions in your reporting. I also like how you affectionately call your governments torture and interrogation centre for Muslims "Gitmo".

.

My translation: Criminalising Muslims in Britain

The latest article by the brilliant Abd al Bari Atwan, of the London based 'al Quds newspaper' translated into English by Maysaloon:

18/02/2009

The British government is currently considering plans which target the Muslim community through categorising its members as either 'moderate' or 'extremists' as part of its anti-terror measures. This could result in the complete opposite of the intended effect and play right into the hands of the the phenomenon known as "Islamophobia" currently sweeping Europe and the United States, giving it an official capacity.

This new strategy, which will be announced officially next month, could turn into laws which reinforce current emergency legislation which has already taken effect, putting all the members of the Islamic community in Britain, which number between one and one and a half million, under surveillance and within the circle of suspicion. Those who will be considered "extremist" are all who fall under one or all of the following categories:

1. Whoever calls for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate or a unified Islamic nation.

2. Whoever calls for the establishment of Islamic law and promotes it.

3. Whoever believes in Jihad, or armed resistance anywhere in the world including the armed struggle to liberate Palestine against the Israeli military juggernaut.

4. Argues that Islam forbids homosexuality, and that whoever practices it will be punished by the Creator.

5. Refuses to condemn the killing of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Extremism" is another label for "terror" and whoever is stuck with this description could be treated as a terrorist in the worlds airports, harbours and in government agencies, and could be subject to arrest as a threat to national security. The lists of potential terrorists which have been compiled by the National Security Agency in the United States include the names of up to one million people, the vast majority of whom are Muslims, and who are subject to the most humiliating of treatment in American airports, this writers included amongst them.

The fact that they are even considering such lists, let alone plans to implement them, betrays a deep seated racist and exclusionary view of Muslims in Britain, reminding us of the Inquisition in Europe, or the McArthy witch-hunts in the United States, because they make every Muslim a suspect who has to prove their innocence, and condemns them beforehands for their beliefs and not their actions, labelling them as "extremists" because they exercised the right to think and committed themselves to the principles of their religion and its teachings.

This is a blatant intrusion into the religious beliefs of Muslims because their only crime was that they are Muslims who carry non-European names and faces. The Islamic law which is being criminalised by these proposals, and which sees that any who call for it or support it as an extremist, is one of the foundations of the Islamic faith. Even British priests known for their theological knowledge and insight, such as the Archbishop Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury called for their application in some scenarios and integrating some of its laws into British law. For this he was subject to the most vicious campaigns which almost led to his crucificion.

As for what is being said about homosexuality and Islams forbidding of it, that is not exclusive to Muslim extremists. Even the Christian faith is against homosexuality and forbids it, and there are millions of British Christians who deny it in the full light of day, and British law only decriminalised it forty years ago. Why are they [homosexuals] allowed their full rights, including marriage, and it is not allowed of others regardless  of their faith to oppose this in a democratic way?

We also do not understand why these British officials are opposed to the issue of calling for an Islamic caliphate and consider it a call to extremism. For Britain itself is a member of the European Union, with its own representatives in its parliament, as well as a member of NATO, then why does it forbid its Muslim citizens what it allows upon itself and its Christian citizens? Is the European Union halal and the Islamic Union pagan or heretical?

The most dangerous point in this racist and provocative plan is that which is related to Jihad and criminalising armed resistance, even in Palestine against Israeli bloody massacres which are carried out against innocent and unarmed Palestinians. Do the British officials wish for the Palestinians to present bunches of flowers to the killers of their children so that they would not be labelled as extremists? Jihad is an obligation to all Muslims if their land is under occupation by foreign invading forces. The British government itself supported Jihad when it was proclaimed by the Afghan Mujahideen to liberate their lands from the Soviet occupation, and the British capital London greeted the leaders of the Mujahideen as heroes and guests of its government such as Sheikh Subghat Allah Mujadidi for whom the red carpet was rolled out when he visited as head of a delegation of Mujahideen in the early eighties.

It is our right to ask the British government, and any other European government which follows in its footsteps, the same question but in a different way: What is its position towards members of the Jewish community who support the recent Israeli massacres in Gaza and justify it, after it resulted in the tearing apart of the bodies of 1350 people, amongst them 450 children? Will it categorise them as terrorist extremists too who stand in the trenches of a country which is perpetrating a war against humanity? The Islamic communities in the West generally, and in Britain in particular, are being subjected to a dangerous and provocative campaign which is no longer limited to only certain parties and extreme right groups, but is being directed by the highest of government committees too. This is sadly in complete contradiction  with the values of equality, justice, and democracy which count as the core of the modern European civilization whose proponents are trying to propagate and implement throughout the world and in the Islamic world in particular.

Islam is currently being used as a scapegoat, or one of the key tools which are being used by Western governments to promote a culture of fear amongst their own citizens, giving it the excuse and pretext to deny them the civic freedoms for which they have struggled for centuries to gain. These are the freedoms which played the greater role in the modern European rennaissence in all fields. Ms Stella Yemington, head of the British intelligence services (MI5), hit the nail on the head when she warned, in statements she had made recently,of turning Britain into a police state because of the interference of her ministers in the private lives of citizens and the surveillance of their telephone conversations and e-mail messages. Only three months before the British public awoke to news of a police search in the offices of an MP in the opposition shadow government, the confiscation of his computer and the examining of its contents, because he expressed doubts concerning the official figures regarding immigration and other issues, and this has been unprecedented here for centuries.

Such policies which gradually erode freedoms and civil rights for the citizen, converge in their results with the goals of terrorist groups which say that their hatred of the West is because their way of life which is based on freedoms, equality and justice. We are not exaggerating if we say that these policies serve terrorism, and increase the waves of extremism, sowing the seeds of hatred and a feeling of non-belonging in the midst of the Islamic communities, which would make some of their members an easy picking for those who might wish to turn them into human bombs. God forbid, unless this is what the present government is actually looking to achieve.

These proposals represent a grave danger on the security of the British citizen, as well as being in direct contravention to the most basic of human rights which are recognised by international treaties and agreements. For this reason it is important that all parts of British society join together to prevent them from being passed, for it will be considered as a black mark in their history, probably blacker than that on their American counterpart by events such as the torture in Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo in Cuba.

.

Ongoing protests in London

Please circulate widely and try to make it if you can, (more information on other locations here)

LONDON
Tuesday 30 December, 2 - 4pm outside Israeli Embassy, Kensington High Street, London, W4. Nearest tube Kensingston High Street (turn right out of tube station and walk along the main road.

Wednesday 31 December, 2 - 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

Thursday 1 January 2 - 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

Friday 2 January 2 - 4 pm. Outside the Egyptian Embassy, . 26 South Street, London, W1K 1DW. Call for Egypt to open the border immediately.

SATURDAY 3 JANUARY. DEMONSTRATION AND RALLY. Assemble 2pm Parliament Square, W1. Nearest tube Westminster

.

International Federation of Journalists: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today warned that journalists and media staff face serious risks during Israeli military operations the Gaza strip after a local photographer died of wounds sustained in an air attack two weeks ago.

.

London protests

From an e-mail I received today:

According to reports, ten people were arrested on 28 December 2008, after clashes with police in a London protest over raids in Gaza. Up to 4000 people reportedly joined the demonstration outside the Israeli embassy yesterday, and gathered with placards reading “End the Siege in Gaza ” and “Free Palestine.”

The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is very concerned about the clashes in yesterday’s protests and would request any participant affected by or who witnessed these clashes to contact IHRC with their experience. By recording individual experience, IHRC would like to assess the severity of the situation and make official complaints about the police’s heavy-handed approach with the demonstrators.

The IHRC operates in a confidential manner and will keep private, unless given permission, all information that may be provided.

Please contact the office on 020 8904 4222 or email massoud@ihrc.org and aishaabbas1@hotmail.com.

.