The State You May Not Criticise 382


In the 15 year history of this blog, I have criticised the Human Rights records of states including Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, China, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Libya, the Maldives, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The only country of which criticism has resulted in substantial legal and political action against me and attempted censorship is Israel. Criticism of Israel also immediately results in heavy suppression of traffic to my site from the corporate gatekeepers of Twitter, Facebook and Google.

Now a group of witch-hunting UK MPs has written to Amazon to complain that Alexa has quoted my blog on Israel.

It is worth looking at precisely what the MPs are complaining of in my case. Let’s look at the exact passage:

“Question: Is Israel guilty of war crimes?
Answer: Here’s something I found on the web: according to www.craigmurray.org.uk, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale and serial human rights abuse, including war crimes, yes, Israel is guilty of these atrocities.”

The website in question includes numerous conspiracy theories.

Now the MP’s of the All Party Group Against Anti-Semitism do not attempt to say what is wrong with this answer. They do not say why it is untrue – in fact, they do not even claim it is untrue. They do not say why it is anti-semitic; presumably, although they do not say as much, they must believe it is anti-semitic for the All Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism to be complaining about it. In fact, they ground their objection entirely on an unsubstantiated claim that this website includes conspiracy theories.

I maintain that the answer quoted from my website is self-evidently true and highly capable of proof. It states fact which a large majority of the public would recognise as true. Yet I am told by a journalist from the Times who contacted me, that on the basis of this incoherent letter from self-selecting MP’s, Amazon have blocked Alexa from quoting my website. This is only a tiny example of the removal of access to dissenting opinions – dissenting as in not conforming to the wishes of the political Establishment, although not diverging from objective truth. The trend towards this censorship on the internet is massive.

I am particularly concerned that one of the signatories of the letter is Lisa Cameron, an SNP MP. The statement that “ethnic cleansing on a massive scale and serial human rights abuse, including war crimes, yes, Israel is guilty of these atrocities” is completely in line with longstanding SNP policy on Palestine. Lisa Cameron’s part in having my website blacklisted for an opinion in line with SNP policy is shameful.

But it is not isolated. As I feared, the SNP’s large cohort of MPs at Westminster have become very comfortable there with their life of privilege and large income, and they have been almost entirely captured by Britnat standards and Britnat attitudes. Last week, we had the official party paper on defence policy in which Stewart MacDonald MP and Alyn Smith MP directly jettisoned the party’s long term commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament in favour of “multilateralism” – a long word for no nuclear disarmament ever.

Along exactly the same lines of moving to align with the right wing obsessions of British Nationalism, the SNP’s Stewart Hosie had signed up to the off the wall Russophobic report of Westminster’s Intelligence and Security Committee, a report conditioned by the appalling list of war hawks who were the only ones asked to give evidence.

Land Reform has been reduced to the foundation of a Scottish Land Commission which can put public money towards other funds raised by community groups to buy out great landlords in specific tracts at an assessed “market price”. Yes, the market price. So the great success of the much touted land reform is that it has put £5 million of public money straight into the pocket of the Duke of Buccleuch, for some tiny and insignificant portions of his vast estates, marginal and despoiled moorland he was probably glad to be shot of. The Chair of Buccleuch Estates, Benny Higgins, is also economic adviser to Nicola Sturgeon.

There is much triumphalism at the new “realism” of the Blairite triangulated SNP and its positioning as a “safe” part of the Establishment. How much of the old radicalism of the SNP remains may, in small part, be measured by how many votes I garner in the election for President at the current conference. I fear it may not be a high number.

—————————————————–

 
 

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Etherium/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

382 thoughts on “The State You May Not Criticise

1 2 3 4
  • Ex-Carntyne

    I have found it nigh impossible to make an impression on those who claim I am anti-semitic when i criticise Israeli behaviour. Appeals to the history of atrocities on a large scale, or the deaths of Rachel Corrie or Gerald Bull, or the destruction of loved olive groves, for example, cut no ice.

    I resort to a simple challenge. Look at ’42 knees” on Google and note the source of the top reference. Is this the behaviour of what Pompeio describes as a normal country. It sometimes works.

  • Wikikettle

    To see what happens to Jews who criticise Israel, watch “Meet The Wrong Type of Jew, The Media doesn’t want you to know exists” on Double Down News on YouTube.

  • deschutesmaple

    Craig is spot on about the RAMPANT censorship on the internet. Yet another recent victim of USA/Israel censorship is the American Herald Tribune website. It was taken down a couple of weeks ago by the FBI! It was published by a Canadian professor from Alberta, and was critical of Israel and USA foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Philip Geraldi amongst other authors posted there. It was refreshingly independent in its outlook, i.e. it called a spade a space concering USA/Israel’s war crimes, assassinations, land stealing, ridiculous sanctions, character assassinations (of professors or public figures who openly criticize Israel), etc. It is plainly obvious that Israel has gone to great lengths behind the scenes to gain influence over Twitter, Facebook, Google/Youtube–not to mention the US government. In U.S. Congress it is considered political suicide if a new Congressman doesn’t not sign an oath of fealty to the state of Israel, and go on the mandatory Israeli indoctrination junket (this really happens!). In light of the FBI’s recent takedown of the American Herald Tribune website we can now conclude that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which heretofore protected freedom of speech for the press does NOT apply to websites which dare to criticize Israel. To illustrate the ridiculous and extreme nature of the ongoing Israeli movement to stifle ANY person’s criticism of Israel: now in the USA there are 32 states (!!!) that have ‘Anti-BDS’ laws in force. What do these laws do? For example, in Texas if you are a tradesperson like a carpenter or painter and you want to do some work on a customer’s home you are legally required to sign an ‘Anti-BDS contract’ that means you promise to never support any BDS boycotts of Israeli goods or services, or dare to criticize the state of Israel! So AIPAC and the Israeli government now control American tradesmen and corporations in USA. Your right to choose who to boycott is now gone. You must first sign the legal document pledging your fealty to Israel before you can get to work and put food on the table! It is an outrage how far the Israelis and their agents have creeped into every state legislature, now even writing their laws. What a brazen and utterly repulsive country Israel is, having caused so much injustice and misery in the world. When will somebody put a stop to them? Something must be done to rein in this madness and stop this egregious Israeli censorship.

    • Franc

      To deschutesmaple
      Another professor, Robert Faurisson, who was born in England, to a French father and Scottish mother, eventually became a Professor of French literature at the University of Lyon, between 1973 – 1990.
      Having died in 2018, he is obviously no longer in a position to defend himself. Apparently he generated much controversy with a number of articles that were published in The Journal of Historical Review. See Wikipedia. After the Gayssot Act was passed, in France, in 1990, Faurisson was prosecuted and fined and subsequently dismissed from his academic post.
      There used to be much more information online about others as well, who questioned an aspect of history, which today, is deemed illegal in many countries.
      Noam Chomsky stated that, ” I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…..
      I see no hint of anti semitic implications in Faurisson’ s work “.

    • M.J.

      This struggle looks unfortunately just as difficult as the fight against legal racist segregation in the first half of the 20th century or against apartheid. As I recall Republicans in the USA (as Tories in the UK) supported apartheid South Africa, and Jimmy Carter started the pressure that proved constructive.
      So the Democrats will have to win the relevant states to enable people who wish not to do business with Israel to be able to make that choice.

  • Brian c

    It is not surprising. Plenty of Scots with no connection whatsoever to Israel have suddenly started professing great love for the place once they become ensconced in the Westminster elite. Gordon Brown being a classic example. It is a further sign the SNP has fully made peace with the status quo. Just one more set of grotesques.

  • Squeeth

    The Brutish (sic) state is copying the US empire in using zionist proxies to make promiscuous false allegations of antisemitism. Considering that zionism is inherently antisemitic, as its late C19th founders intended, this is a bit rich but since when did any state reflect a moral criterion? I’m surprised at how nauseating I find this, considering that I think that all states are fascist and that the only difference between them is what lies they tell about the people they murder. Perhaps it’s because two of the three of my uncles who fought nazis were killed, while zionists were collaborating with them?

    • M.J.

      The UN Secretariat apparently distanced itself from the first of these. I wonder why the lack of unity of outlook? The second one was a communication to the UN, not by it (though I’m not saying that it doesn’t speak the truth about the situation).

  • Mr Shigemitsu

    “So the great success of the much touted land reform is that it has put £5 million of public money straight into the pocket of the Duke of Buccleuch”

    However ineffectual the Scottish Land Commission may be, well done Mr Murray for twice avoiding the use of the term “taxpayers’”money in your critique.

    You’re learning! ; )

    • Tom Welsh

      Well, to be fair, a lot of the money governments throw around nowadays didn’t come from taxes. It’s borrowed instead.

      So instead of “taxpayers’ money”, it should be called “taxpayers’ debt”.

        • Loony

          Except he has done no such thing.

          MMT explicitly assumes that the economy is a financial system. It is not. It is an energy system. This is a fatal error, although not an error that will prevent the appearance of MMT working in the short term. Even in the short term it severs the nexus between the government and the governed. This both allows for and fosters the rapid increase in wealth inequality and the consequent suppression of dissent by any means necessary. Today we are discussing the suppression of dissent regarding Israel. tomorrow perhaps it will be Covid-19 or transphobia or Islamophobia or maybe something else entirely.

  • Clydebuilt

    The SNP need to win over 50% of the electorate. Is Radicalism going to do that! I doubt it.
    Currently the party are on course to achieve a big result in May. Now is not the time to rock the boat. Scotland needs it’s independence. Let’s not fuck it up!

    • Contrary

      The good thing that seems to be the case, Clydebuilt, is that opinion polls don’t seem to be shifting even with more public exposure of the Salmond affair issues, and with the entire MSM trying to claim the SNP have done badly on Covid – and people appear to be inured to the endless screaming headlines of ‘SNP civil war!’.

      We can’t tell until the actual vote of course, but I think it might be possible to clear out the leadership, even in plain sight, to get some more economically-friendly independence-supporting leaders (I mean ones with a shorter timescale on independence) in place, and advisors, without too much rocking any actual boats – the boat being the SNP popular support.

      Say you had to start campaigning for independence tomorrow, and you were asked the worn old question of ‘what currency will you use?’ – how would you reply?

      I know what SNP policy is on the issue of currency, and I know what seems to have popular support – and they tie up – but how many other people know what it is?

      I know I’m being fairly challenging with my questions – but I really don’t think we will fuck up, and that to get independence within the next century, we need to address the problems with the top of the SNP. If every one of us can answer the above question with absolute conviction (along with other questions like that – those addressing people’s ‘worries’), we give Scottish people confidence is us and the idea of independence, and crucial to that is the SNP leaders agreeing and promoting it.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      “Is Radicalism going to do that! I doubt it.”

      But what is and isn’t radicalism. Do Israel and neo-liberal policies enjoy wide support among ordinary Scots?

      • portside

        Dont you get it?

        Opposing cynical antisemitism smears, warmongering Russophobia or subsidies to great landlords is deeply unpopular and radical, radical, radical, radical.

        Clydebuilt gets it.

        • Shatnersrug

          The country desperately needs independence so don’t rock the boat. We must all accept unionism forever! It will help us bring the dream of independence closer.

          Hopefully the new year will bring us all news wars for peace

  • Geoff S

    Many people don’t realise but Kentucky Fried Chicken officially dropped the name in the not-so-distant past. They were already popularly referred to as KFC so the rebadging, whilst not ‘secret’, went largely unnoticed. It’s now incorrect to refer to them using the original name.

    I’m curious as to how long until the SNP do the same, relieving them of any tricky ‘national’ obligations.

    • Ort

      Yes, when Dietary Correctness became all the rage in the US, the heartwarming, mouth-watering phrase “fried chicken” instantly became anathema and taboo in Big Corporate marketing circles. I still mourn the day!

      Sadly, there’s no good local fried chicken source in my Philadelphia suburb. But in principle, I declare that they’ll have to pull that last fried chicken piece from my cold, greasy dead hand.

      On a related point: years ago the US “Public Broadcasting System”– so-called because it was allegedly supported by public contributions and government grants, not private corporations– announced that the acronym “PBS” was now a stand-alone identifier.

      As actor, comedian, musician, and social critic Harry Shearer wryly observed at the time, “It has now been officially confirmed that ‘PBS’ actually stands for nothing.”

      • Geoff S

        I like that line from Harry Shearer. Perhaps the SNP can adopt it as their motto when they do drop the long form name. Perhaps someone on the inside can suggest it?

        Regardless of how many hats you hang on Harry Shearer, or whatever he does, he’ll always, always be Derek Smalls from Spinal Tap as far as I’m concerned.

  • Glasshopper

    Slowly the penny is dropping that “independence” will look nothing like Mr Murray fantasises.

    And of course, neither will much else of “independence”. And that is why the Scots will not vote for it. Because Indyref3 – the decider of the 1-1 stalemate – will be a vote on the deal, which will have nothing whatsoever in common with The Moon On A Stick the SNP have peddled for years.

  • 6033624

    They are guilty of precisely what they are fighting against ie it is ant-semitic to conflate the actions of Israel with being Jewish.

    It’s a handy coincidence that this comes not long before your case at court..

  • Goose

    Free speech is certainly dead within the Labour party.

    Starmer and Rayner appear(?) to be naive enough to believe that the pro-Israel lobby – which seemingly has the party’s leadership grovelling at its feet – is acting in good faith and the party’s best interests. Do any of these demanding puritanical, exacting standards from the party’s membership (and strangely not of any other party’s membership), even vote Labour? Doubt it very much.

    What started as a fake PLP/press smear to demonise and demoralise Corbyn and his supporters, risks turning into an existential crisis for the party.

    • laguerre

      Starmer’s mistake is to be so strongly pro-Israel. It is understandable, given his family situation, but it is a mistake, as most Labour members, and voters, don’t much care about the supposed sufferings of the Jews, which are so slight as to be invisible to most people. He is destroying his chances for the next election.

      • Goose

        As many will know I’m not someone who’s hopelessly romantic about Corbyn…his many faults and lack of natural leadership ability/aptitude were obvious to any objective observer of the UK political scene, though to be fair, unlike David Cameron, he never had such delusions about his own leadership abilities; only running for the leadership to quote: “get the left’s voice heard” remember. As I’ve said before , had he somehow become PM after the close election of 2017, by forming a coalition propped up by the SNP, day to day party management would’ve been almost impossible due to the centre-right Blair loyalists’ the PLP malcontents(up to 80% of the PLP). Labour MPs who’d never accepted Corbyn’s democratic mandate and would’ve sought to undermine him at every turn leaving him unable to get manifesto legislation through and turning every vote into a vote of confidence.

        Back to the present and the risk now is the current leadership is forgetting what took Corbyn from ‘no-hoper’ leadership candidate to clear leadership favourite in 2015, subsequently overwhelmingly re-elected again in 2016. Labour were widely viewed as having lost their ideological underpinnings, their soul, as a hawkish pro-war, pro-privatisation, centralising; ultra authoritarian New Labour outfit. Ed Miliband was elected in the first step away from that New Labour era, Corbyn was the natural next step advancement on that.

        If charisma free zone Starmer and his “purge the left” Blair era hatchet man David Evans (a hugely divisive factional pick for Gen Sec btw) think going after the left and trying to turn the clock back to New Labour manifesto of 2005 is what people want they’re hugely mistaken. Thus far, opposition to Starmer is relatively muted, a minority, albeit large, Starmer can’t casually lose 40% of the Labour vote to disenfranchisement driven apathy and hope to win a general election. A task likely made all the more harder by boundary changes anyway. Currently this right wing shadow cabinet resembles the dog that has barked at and chased the Corbyn car for years, only to eventually catch it and upon being handed the keys doesn’t know what to do with them. A friendly press, including uncritical Starmer supporting guardian columnists, are keeping the policy vacuum that is the Labour party competitive with an utterly shambolic Tory outfit. But Tory ‘switchers’ won’t fill the void come an election.

        • laguerre

          I don’t much agree with that. The centrist part of the Labour party is not necessarily Blairite, and does not necessarily need to be labelled with his actions. Me, I was happy with Wilson, and Healy, Brown etc.

          Blairism is past. Starmer is not a Blairite, but he has a particular fault, and that is his family connection with Israel. Frankly he should have kept quiet about it, not put his support for Israel in front line. None of his voters care about the issue. He lost a lot of support there. Not that its an issue of anti-semitism; simply lack of interest in giving Jews special privileges.

          • Goose

            @laguerre

            “Starmer is not a Blairite”

            Really? I think he’s potentially worse than Blair. Early Blair was charismatic had quite a radical programme of constitutional reform in the 1997 manifesto, much of it legacy stuff, but nevertheless, radical. It was only after 2001’s GE and his defeat of Hague that he and his party started to take on a decidedly more sinister turn. Starmer seems less likeable than early(1994-1997) Blair; cold and arrogant, much more authoritarian and with recent whipped votes, less committed to upholding human rights. He’s also obsessed with New Labour type control freakery and national security – never a good sign.

          • Laguerre

            Goose

            “I think he’s potentially worse than Blair.”

            So you don’t think he’s a Blairite either. If you were to insist on the identification, you could only mean “someone in the Labour party I don’t like”, or “someone insufficiently far left to correspond with my ideological principles”, a portmanteau insult.

          • Goose

            I don’t consider myself far left.

            Just European center left. Look at the helpful guide someone posted on Twitter…

            A guide for Europeans following American [and UK] politics, translating common terms:

            “Extreme left wing” = center left
            “Left wing” = center right
            “Moderate” = right wing
            “Right wing” = extreme right
            “Extreme right wing” = fascists

        • Ken Kenn

          The thing is for all parties in the UK is that there is near Tsunami of consequences as a result of past politics/policies which are going to arrive at the door at the start of 2021.

          This is bigger than them all and answers ( not ‘ conversations’ ) will be required and demanded from the sufferers of these terrible policy decisions.

          The pre Corbyn Labour Party cannot be left out of these awful policy decisions and like the Lib Dem Coalition they facilitated austerity post 2008 and due to not wanting to look like just the party of the poor they abstained on the Welfare Bill in order to please the media who were big upping the Working Poor.

          Blair and Brown came up with policies – Uni fees – PFI and so on so they should not escape criticim either.

          So my view is that if Starmer wants to re-create Blairism/Clintonism in Covid – Brexit – recession riven Britain then he and all the other centrists may as well try to knit fog.

          It won’t work because it can’t work.

          The economic and political circumstances are not the same as in Blair’s time.

          The phrase Cometh the Hour Cometh the man ( or woman) is appropriate but I see no man or no woman who is coming with the answers.

          The questions will arrive be in no doubt about that and many answers will be posed.

          The question for myself is: who ‘s answers will be followed?

          The left or the Right?

          One answer I’m pretty certain of is that it will not be the Centre who come up with the answers – they don’t even have any questions never mind answers.

          Starmers role is to take on the left.

          Who’s role then is it to take on the right?

          Johnson and his idiotic but dangerous chums?

          They are the right – so they’ll take on themselves?

        • Johny Conspiranoid

          Goose
          Natural leaders, aintcha sick of ’em?
          If they continue with their purge they will have a very small party and voter base like the LibDems when they got rid of Charles Kennedy and brought in Blair clone Clegg, remember them? Still perhaps they don’t care. The monotonous regularity of such events suggests a conspiracy to me.

          • Goose

            The left just isn’t ruthless like the right.

            Corbyn’s leadership style was best described as laissez faire, he didn’t seek to punish even his harshest critics. Just imagine Corbyn quitting the party and sitting among Labour MPs, ranting at Starmer at PMQs , as Ian Austin did to Corbyn.

            Starmer insists Corbyn can’t even defend himself by saying opponents of his leadership exaggerated antisemitism. This despite the fact Telegraph journalist and political commentator Simon Heffer repeatedly claimed on LBC radio Corbyn “wants to reopen Auschwitz concentration camp” , and Margaret Hodge likened the present day to the 1930s saying on Sky News she had her suitcase packed in case they ‘came for her’.

            Why on earth shouldn’t Corbyn contest such obvious, highly offensive exaggerations?

          • Johny Conspiranoid

            “Cometh the Hour Cometh the man”

            Corbyn was the man but postal votes did for him.

    • Tom Welsh

      “Starmer and Rayner appear(?) to be naive enough to believe that the pro-Israel lobby – which seemingly has the party’s leadership grovelling at its feet – is acting in good faith and the party’s best interests”.

      Why would the pro-Israel lobby do that? It’s pro-Israel, not pro-Labour or pro-Starmer or pro-Britain.

      • Goose

        I’m not a Labour party member, nor would I want to be, but even as an outsider watching this unfold, it’s so obvious what’s going on.

        There are so many known Tory supporters and other assorted people who are linked to lobbying on behalf of the Israeli state making demands of the Labour party, it’s almost farcical. The agenda is : Either yield to our every demand, or we’ll destroy you. And quite frankly we don’t care either way.

        It’s pathetic that a major UK party is allowing itself to be bullied like this, simply because of the majority of its members’ views on Palestine. Tory members likely don’t care so they leave them alone.

        • laguerre

          Starmer’s correct response should have been to play the anti-semitism issue down. Admit that there were some anti-semites, but not very important. Now the issue has blown up, and it’s putting his electoral success in danger.

          • Goose

            What electoral success?

            Polling isn’t the same as people being arsed to vote. What do they stand for under Starmer, apart from purging the left?

            A Tory govt that can’t do anything right and Starmer looks unsure about whether to even criticise them. The way he won the leadership, promising unity and a continuation of Corbyn’s left-wing policy agenda with his ’10 pledges’ looks at best misleading, at worst, deliberately deceitful. Wouldn’t trust him at all.

          • Giyane

            Lauguerre

            Blair’s moulding of the Labour Party into a top down organisation instead of a collective of Left wing opinion has now incapacitated the Party purely because the Party has taken responsibility for controlling its members. That was his decision to enable him to override the Left.

            The Tories are still a collective of Right wing opinion. . Democracy means facilitating the taking of advice. Blair put a stop to the Labour Party being moderated by consultation. Until such time as the Labour Psrty drops the idea of conformity to the ruling clique, voters will see that it is undemocratic and therefore dangerous.

            I voted for Corbyn in December because he had removed the Blairite central control.
            Better to be called out for being a weak leader imho than to be forced to “” get real “” with critics of Israel and Angela Rayner puts it, which would in effect remove every single member of the Party

            Blair’s concept of democracy without democracy , just blind acquiescence, was totally wrong. Strangely enough, women are always saying that their style is more inclusive . So Where TF does the idea of the party leadership using a firing squad on the Party faithful come from?

          • Laguerre

            Goose

            “What electoral success?”

            Poor wording on my part. Should have added “future”. Though I’m sure you knew what I meant.

          • Laguerre

            Giyane

            I don’t much agree with your depiction of Labour, or the Tories for that matter. Labour is not a top-down organisation, the existence of Corbyn is the proof. More importantly the Tory party is no longer a “right-wing collective”. Since the purge of One Nation Tories last year, it has become a far right cabal, with no alternative views to Brexit permitted, a far more ruthless purge than anything in the Labour party, where the fights continue. You’re imagining a potential future situation that does not exist at the moment. The fights go on. I do think expelling Corbyn was wrong, but that has more to do with Starmer’s subservience to Israeli interests than anything else.

          • Goose

            @laguerre

            Labour HQ is trying to dictate to long serving adult members can and can’t discuss/debate at CLP meetings. Who’d want to belong to such an oppressive organisation and give subs to those attempting to stifle debate like that?

            Starmer comes across as totally shifty. At this point last year he was trying to make Corbyn PM, now, without evidence of any serious wrongdoing on Corbyn’s part, he’s vetoed him from sitting as a Labour MP? If members had had any hint Starmer would behave like this he’d have not got anywhere near the leadership.

            The tabloid press are of course urging Starmer to take on the left Kinnock style, because to the tabloids it’s still the eighties; fighting the old battles with the then powerful unions and militant. But it isn’t the 1980s, and the modern day left – and a huge chunk of Labour’s 2017 vote – were idealistic younger voters deprived of free tuition and other things previous generations enjoyed, rallying to Corbyn’s Labour.

        • Giyane

          Laguerre

          Seems to be some confusion about what I meant. There’s no problem with a small clique removing people from a Party. The problem is threatening members or non-members about what to think.

          If brexit is a disaster Boris will be escorted from no 10 in short shrift and the one nation Tories will be ushered swiftly in. Similarly if Starmer forces Labour leaders never to criticise Israel that will create no choice except for a ” Real Labour Party ” to come into existence immediately.

          Starmer or Johnson swimming in a dew drop MSM fantasy on a rose petal of Zionist purity just won’t work. Using female MPs to savage civil servants or party members, because of our societal respect for the fair sex is scraping the bottom of the barrel already.

          Nobody will forget Starmer or Rayner’s bullying , nor Cummings nor Patel’s. You can’t defend an apartheid state using the barking of Guard dogs.

          .

          • Goose

            @Giyane

            Rayner’s atrocious. There were already signs she’d offer no resistance to Starmer’s crew before being elected for those who were paying attention. She’s clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed and her elevated position immensely flatters her. Despite supposedly being ‘of the party’s left’ I don’t think Starmer will see her as posing any threat to his leadership whatsoever. She’s certainly not going to be a thorn in Starmer’s side, as Tom Watson, as deputy, was in Corbyn’s. Even though that’s precisely the role the membership thought she would fulfil.

            Picking her as deputy has compounded the problem the membership have trying to influence Starmer. Labour members don’t half know how to pick wrong’uns, jeez.

  • Tom74

    True up to a point but you don’t in fact have to look very far online to find vitriolic criticism of Israel and even Jewish people as a whole. OK, that’s not in the mainstream media but nevertheless, there are well-funded websites and quite prominent people accusing Israel of all kinds of conspiracies, without anyone stopping them..
    What is much harder to find is people who take that to the logical conclusion and ask how could a small, isolated, almost friendless country be responsible for so much mischief-making and interference in the affairs of other countries?
    And of course it couldn’t. Israel is a vassal of the United States, and it is the United States that is using Israel as a proxy for its own purposes, whether that is in Palestine, the Middle East as a whole or in the UK. The ‘anti-semitism’ witch-hunt is simply a cover for the American state to manipulate elections, and prevent independently-minded and leftist politicians from winning power, as they have been doing for decades around the world. The Americans knew they couldn’t be open about why Corbyn was ‘unelectable’, so instead they hid behind Israel, using right-wing Conservative politicians, corrupt Labour MPs and a bought-and-paid-for UK media to peddle an evil smear campaign against a decent man.
    And we see the same with the letter to Amazon. Rather than questioning why American corporations like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Zoom, Microsoft and the rest are being allowed to (potentially) spy on both British individuals and businesses on an industrial scale with no apparent regulation, and why British politicians are destroying British businesses under a cover of a virus to clear the way for them, we have these politicians getting the vapours over ‘anti-semitism’.
    It is ‘dead-cat-on-the-table’ stuff so that people don’t understand that their real masters are not Israel or the Jewish people but the American state and crony corporations, and that UK politicians and the media are lying and cheating about ‘public health’ to con people into accepting this heinous power grab,

    • Tom Welsh

      “What is much harder to find is people who take that to the logical conclusion and ask how could a small, isolated, almost friendless country be responsible for so much mischief-making and interference in the affairs of other countries?”

      Is that a serious question?

      How could a tiny six-inch diameter periscope sink a huge aircraft carrier?

    • laguerre

      There are well-funded websites attacking pretty well everybody, not merely the Jews. Israel is not isolated, it is defended by nearly everybody.

      I don’t agree that Israel is merely a vassal of the US. It’s been often said that the reverse is the case, that the tail is wagging the dog. US policy isn’t good, but Israeli policy is in no way subordinate to it.

      • Watt

        laguerre,

        you propose…’that the tail is wagging the dog.’. Indeed. Alison Weir writes eloquently in ‘Against Our Better Judgment’ (2014) on exactly this subject.

        Cheers

    • Bramble

      Oh, poor ickle Israel. Only supported by the USA, the UK, Germany, Canada, France etc etc etc. How anyone can stand the true situation on its head and inside out like this absolutely baffles me. Which is the little, friendless country that needs our solidarity? Palestine, of course. The UN supports it, but that has damaged the ability of the UN to do its job in the world, since it pits against the imperial power of the USA. But even expressing that opinion would get you kicked out of Labour.

    • Annie McStravick

      Tom74
      You ask “how could a small, isolated, almost friendless country be responsible for so much mischief-making and interference in the affairs of other countries?”
      You forget that the rogue state is the fourth military power on the planet and the sixth nuclear power.
      As for being “almost friendless”, the israelis aren’t looking for friends, they wish to be feared, as is a mad dog.

  • Republicofscotland

    An interesting article in the National newspaper.

    Here’s a snippet.

    “the continued pedalling of the Andrew Wilson nonsense on the Sustainable Growth Commission. How is it possible that Denmark using its own krone and New Zealand with its homegrown “kiwi dollar” can cope with the same vicissitudes of a pandemic yet Nicola Sturgeon proposes we go cap in hand to the money markets of London for her sterlingisation plan?”

    https://www.thenational.scot/politics/18907391.first-minister-true-leader-just-effective-manager/

  • doug scorgie

    deschutesmaple
    Nov 29 09:25 2020

    “It is plainly obvious that Israel has gone to great lengths behind the scenes to gain influence over Twitter, Facebook, Google/Youtube–not to mention the US government. In U.S. Congress it is considered political suicide if a new Congressman doesn’t [sic] not sign an oath of fealty to the state of Israel, and go on the mandatory Israeli indoctrination junket (this really happens!). In light of the FBI’s recent takedown of the American Herald Tribune website we can now conclude that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which heretofore protected freedom of speech for the press does NOT apply to websites which dare to criticize Israel. To illustrate the ridiculous and extreme nature of the ongoing Israeli movement to stifle ANY person’s criticism of Israel: now in the USA there are 32 states (!!!) that have ‘Anti-BDS’ laws in force. What do these laws do? For example, in Texas if you are a tradesperson like a carpenter or painter and you want to do some work on a customer’s home you are legally required to sign an ‘Anti-BDS contract’ that means you promise to never support any BDS boycotts of Israeli goods or services, or dare to criticize the state of Israel! “

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    deschutesmaple do you have any links to sources of your information? I’d like to look deeper into this. Thanks

  • Carolyn Zaremba

    The only time I was ever blocked from posting to Facebook was once time when I criticized Israel. This nonsense that criticism of the State of Israel, even when entirely justified on the basis of its crimes against the Palestinians which are fully documented and have been for years, has to stop. Israel should not get a “get out of jail free” card just because of the existence of actual anti-semitism, which the accusations against the Israeli military and its policies of crimes against Palestinians are NOT.

  • james

    if people are stupid enough to invite amazon into their home – they get what they deserve…. boycott the company.. they don’t deserve anyone’s biz… ps – thanks craig for your posts..

    • Stevie Boy

      Of course, let’s not forget when discussing Israeli political influence the other aspect which is their technical influence. A large majority of the cyber tools used by the west for spying have been developed and used operationally by Israel. Various computer viruses have also been developed and disseminated by Israel (stuxnet is one well known example). Also, Israel is a major designer and producer of computer chips (intel) in every PC. Virtually all Israeli technical companies have direct links with the military. Their political influence is backed up by a massive spying capability. This is not made up, the facts exist.
      Peace and harmonious coexistence with their neighbours appears to be a foreign concept in Israel.

  • James Hugh

    The online censorship is intensifying as we move ever closer to a technocratic totalitarian state.

    Seems more obvious each day that 2020 cv19 is one big pebble thrown in the pond to create fear, hysteria, chaos and economic melt down so as to usher in the agenda of Klaus Schwab and his world wide network of Zionist cronies.

      • Ray A

        There seems to be enough evidence to show “the virus” is not a real threat though: recovery rates; age and underlying conditions of those who have died; medical whistleblowers; censorship of covid wrongthink; number of most people’s immediate friends and family who have suffered; …

    • Tony_0pmoc

      N_ was it you who posted the link?

      tonyopmoc
      Nov 29, 2020 7:56 PM

      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters-1.8632555

      As I see its firewalled…after one read..

      “I know exactly how many knees I’ve hit, says Eden, who completed his service in the Israel Defense Forces as a sniper in its Golani infantry brigade six months ago. For much of the time, he was stationed along the border with the Gaza Strip. His assignment: to repel Palestinian demonstrators who approached the fence.
      “I kept the casing of every round I fired,” he says. “I have them in my room. So I don’t have to make an estimate – I know: 52 definite hits.”

      But there are also “non-definite” hits, right?

      “There were incidents when the bullet didn’t stop and also hit the knee of someone behind [the one I aimed at]. Those are mistakes that happen.”

      Is 52 a lot?

      “I haven’t really thought about it. It’s not hundreds of liquidations like in the movie ‘American Sniper’: We’re talking about knees. I’m not making light of it, I shot a human being, but still …”

      Where do you stand in comparison to others who served in your battalion?

      A Young Gazan’s Dream, Amputated
      He Thought if He Just Ran Fast Enough, He Could Get Out of Gaza
      UN Council: Israel Intentionally Shot Children and Journalists in Gaza

      “From the point of view of hits, I have the most. In my battalion they would say: ‘Look, here comes the killer.’ When I came back from the field, they would ask, ‘Well, how many today?’ You have to understand that before we showed up, knees were the hardest thing to rack up. There was a story about one sniper who had 11 knees all told, and people thought no one could outdo him. And then I brought in seven-eight knees in one day. Within a few hours, I almost broke his record.”

      Tony

      • Spencer Eagle

        The movie ‘American Sniper’ really polished up Chris Kyle, ‘the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history’, in reality he was nothing more than a psychopath shooting civilians. The majority of his 255 ‘kills’ were most likely as a result of a highly controversial and classified ‘baiting program’ developed by the US army’s ‘Asymmetric Warfare Unit’. Basically, ‘bomb making materials’ were placed in locations overlooked by the snipers, anyone passing by who stopped and picked the item up would be deemed a threat and shot. Over time the ‘bomb making materials’ became less and less specific and included rolls of wire or batteries. In a country with all sorts of shortages it was inevitable that someone would pick up whatever they could find, men, women and teenagers were shot, one account states that picking up a pack of Duracell batteries was sufficient reason to shoot.

  • Wikikettle

    Abby Martin on Empire Files goes to Israel and in rare glimpse of Israeli citizens views on Palestinians and what to do with them.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    When such censorship takes over, there is of course the opportunity to start to develop parallel channels of communication.

    Exactly what they will be is as yet unclear. It would be pretty hard to replicate an ‘internet’ system without accessing either mobile- or landline-based communication systems, so the question is whether those infrastructure providers are also gatekeepers for new social media channels run on more egalitarian terms.

    I am tempted to say that the world needs a new communally owned search engine; social media channels not listed on Wall Street, the LSE or junior exchanges; new ‘news aggregation services’ sourcing material from independent free-spirited journalists; and new political parties not owned by billionaires, GCHQ and Israel.

    Whether all those things happen sequentially or in parallel is unclear. But the time has come to basically say: ‘we will not tolerate your way of operating, so we will withdraw and set up our own, independent ways’.

    • Carmel Townsend

      I like that idea . The trouble is how do we go about it, without the means and the knowledge and skills?
      There is also the problem of getting people to accept that there’s an alternative narrative and READ what is written.
      Too often, any alternatives to the prevailing orthodoxy, are dismissed as “conspiracy theory”.
      But let’s stay optimistic that such a thing might happen . One day.

    • Goose

      The EU just needs to pass laws forcing absolute transparency on Twitter, Facebook and the other tech giants.

      Many politicians support the principle of net neutrality(data equality), the same principle should apply to free speech on social media platforms. The fine grained manipulation through algorithms and human interventions : promoting political views and suppressing others, needs to end. We don’t need nannying, not if there are disclaimers. And yes, I view them as social media platforms not publishers, they shouldn’t be held responsible for expressed opinions. Incitement and criminal speech etc should be flagged removed, as it always was, but nothing else.

      Politicians have created this mess through threats: threatening antitrust and tax investigations, this has forced these billion dollar tech giants to buckle. Along with tabloid (old media) demands – the moral panic around alleged disinformation(guardian).

      • Johny Conspiranoid

        “The EU just needs to pass laws forcing absolute transparency on Twitter, Facebook and the other tech giants. “

        And why would the EU do that?

      • Bayard

        Are you sure the social media giants din’t want to be seen as publishers, allowing them to remove anything that might upset their advertisers? After all what’s in it for them to be bastions of free speech?

        • Goose

          @Bayard

          Interesting.

          I never really thought about it like that – the idea of them not really wanting an open flow of information and expression. Of course, that would go against their publicly stated positions. Being classed as publishers would legitimise behaviour that would otherwise be viewed as blatant bias and censorship were it revealed. They are very secretive about their ‘promotion/suppression’ algorithms and flow of human moderation issued direction.

    • Spencer Eagle

      There’s a lot smart people beavering away at alternative communication methods. Have a look at Meshtastic which offers worldwide secure communication via it’s own network of Lo-Ra nodes. There are also secure mobile phone applications such as Elements riot.im.
      Here’s a guy who sounds like Bond’s nemesis, Blofeld, explaining Meshtastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY6m6fS8bxU

  • T

    Is Dr Lisa Cameron MP (Vice-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism) in the pay of some Israel lobby group or other, like so many of her parliamentary colleagues? If not, why would she be spending her time – at public expense – defaming people as antisemitic for stating indisputable facts about a far-off apartheid state? What is going on here?

    • J

      What’s going on: Anti-Semitism as a part of a ‘strategy of tension’.

      1. An attempt to smear Craig as anti-Semitic by mere act of creating association with other examples on their list. The act of compiling it, and complaining about it is enough to create a false impression of fact for some and may lodge in the minds of all those trained to be outraged on cue, through engagement in identity politics.

      2. The fact of compiling the particular list above demonstrates prior intention to conflate accurate, articulate criticism of Israel and or Zionism, with anti-Semitism. This conflation is a priori completely anti-Semitic: to do so implicitly assumes all Jews support Zionism and Israel or that Zionism is a article of faith among all Jews, which is not remotely true. This implicit insistence by the ‘All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism,’ that ‘all Jews are of one mind’ is one of the very tropes we’ve been warned to look out for.

      3. Note the precise formulation used in the letter: “antisemitic websites and conspiracy theories” which not only attempts to conflate anti-Semitism and ‘conspiracy theory’ but also attempts to implicate Craig in both of these activities.

      Also note that by using Anti-Semitism and ‘conspiracy theory’ to function as epithets in this instance, as evidenced by their indiscriminate use when quite demonstrably, neither is descriptive of definite category in the APPGAA usage, the phrase itself becomes nothing more than an insult to be hurled, regardless of facts.

      4. This latter point is especially worrying and leads to a final inevitable consequence. By effectively devaluing the meaning of the phrase until accusations of anti-Semitism become mere insult, this process can only serve to create a climate wherein anti-Semitic speech may prosper without stigma.

      5. Via points 2. and 4. it would be reasonable to assume that Israel might expect to see an increase in emigration to their country and converts to the cause of Zionism by actually fostering anti-Semitism elsewhere. Creating the perception of widespread anti-Semitism, despite evidence to the contrary, has already been achieved. If making transparently indiscriminate accusations of anti-Semitism may actually lead to further anti-Semitism, then covertly interfering in the electoral process other countries* as a matter of policy will surely do so, once this fact becomes widely understood by the respective populations.

      *Here I cite the 8 part Al Jazeera series The Lobby US & UK, as only the most transparently obvious example to hand.

      6. What’s going on is part of a longer term strategy. We have seen what is effectively an orchestrated negative Public Relations campaign, designed to increase, not decrease the level of racism in our societies. The ultimate aim is to pursue global imperial, colonial politics in the age of corporate feudalism. At this level, many seemingly contradictory moving parts can be better appreciated as a fairly co-ordinated and coherent whole.

      • Coldish

        J: (14.53): thank you for this perceptive analysis. Anti-semitism (in the sense of anti-Jewish feeling and discrimination) certainly exists, and has done so for centuries. Thankfully there’s less of it about than in the past. What Starmer and co are doing is in effect trying to revive anti-Jewish feeling by conflating justified criticism of the barbaric policies and practices of the current Israeli regime with prejudice against Jewish people as such. Starmer is a menace, not just to the Labour Party, but to all those who value peace and harmony between peoples.
        I have Jewish friends in Israel who, without altering their own views one iota, have during the last 20 or 30 years moved from somewhere near the social democratic centre of the political spectrum, to become ‘extremists’ of the left. People like that deserve our support, not our rejection.
        Thanks also to Goose, Laguerre, Giyane, Tom Welsh and many others for contributing to the high standard of debate on Craig’s superb site. Please keep it up!

      • T

        Interesting thoughts, J. Yes, I noticed the insidious way they tryi and smear this site. Really nothing is beneath them. After the past few years with Corbyn the title MP is just synonymous to me with unscrupulous liar.

        It’s the first time I’ve seen it suggested the free and easy use of the antisemitism smear is intended to corralle more Jews into Israel. Is that just a hunch of yours or have you seen it posited elsewhere?

  • Olly Perry

    Sadly, the suppression of free speech is happening on all fronts. It is a highly alarming trend. Any dissent seems to be snuffed out – this particularly applies to any common sense approach to the pandemic or the vaccine. Anything that disagrees with the mainstream narrative is often dismissed as a ‘conspiracy’ theory. I am genuinely worried that unless we reclaim the narrative and bring some balance back that we are heading towards a totalitarian future.

    • Spencer Eagle

      The term ‘conspiracy theory’ only came to media prominence when the CIA weaponized it as a means of discrediting anyone who opposed the Warren Commission Report findings on the JFK assassination. It’s been used the same way ever since, to stifle dissent around official narratives you aren’t meant to question. Amusingly there are even people who claim attributing its widespread use to the CIA is in itself a conspiracy. However, dig deep enough and you will find CIA document “1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report” does reveal that the CIA coined the term, which includes the CIA’s intention: “Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.”

      • J

        “does reveal that the CIA coined the term, which includes the CIA’s intention…”

        CIA did not coin or mint the term, it’s been cited earlier. But they did indeed ‘weaponise’ it exactly as you say.

  • Peter

    ~”Question: “Is Israel guilty of war crimes?””

    The question assumes that to answer ‘yes’, as the UN has done, is to be antisemitic, which is, of course, utter nonsense. Such is the mindset of those who have promoted the antisemitism smear campaign.

    And if anyone thought the moral hysteria would come to an end with the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn, think again.

    Speaking at the weekend, on the UN’s Day of International Solidarity with Palestinian People, to the Labour Friends of Israel (you couldn’t make it up), Angela Rayner (Deputy Leader of the Labour Party) warned that “thousands and thousands” could be expelled form the Labour Party on the grounds of antisemitism.

    Dark days indeed.

    https://skwawkbox.org/2020/11/29/rayner-says-she-will-suspend-thousands-and-thousands-to-because-injury-to-one-is-injury-to-all-shell-have-to-start-with-herself/

  • bevin

    Jeremy Salt has a good article at The Palestine Chronicle.
    This quote is a beauty:

    “…Speaking to the House of Commons after the murder of Lord Moyne, Churchill, a strong advocate of Zionism all along, remarked that “If there to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism these wicked activities must cease and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch.” These wicked activities have never ceased, those responsible for them have never been destroyed root and branch, the smoke of the assassins’ pistols now hangs over an entire region and Zionism has produced generations of criminals fully worthy of Nazi Germany. .”

    • bevin

      This one too:

      ““If our dreams for Zionism are not to end in the smoke of assassins’ pistols and our labor for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained for so long in the past.”
      — Winston Churchill, November 1944, from his address to the House of Commons on the murder of Britain’s Resident Minister in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, by two members of the zionist terrorist organization, Lehi

      • BrianFujisan

        Good Quotes Bevin, Thanks I hadn’t heard them.

        You might like a look at this article by Miko Peled –

        ” Most, if not all, speakers who are invited to speak on campus on the issue of Palestine have experienced the hateful, vicious attacks by Zionist groups who campaign to silence the Palestinian voice. Granted, some experience this more and some less, but the Zionist reach seems to have no boundaries and they are more vigilant and hateful than ever before.

        This is true everywhere, but perhaps nowhere more than on university campuses. As an event is planned, and sometimes immediately after an event, Zionist organizations express their displeasure to university authorities in an attempt to either cancel an event altogether or, if the event had already taken place, to demand an apology or urge authorities to reprimand the organizers for allowing what they refer to as an “anti-semitic” voice to be heard on campus.

        The time has come to change this dynamic. Rather than wait for the attacks by Zionist groups and then explain and apologize, those who stand for justice in Palestine would do well to expose Zionist groups and the hateful racism which they represent.

        https://www.mintpressnews.com/how-hasbara-trolls-reacted-to-my-campus-appearance/273348/?

        • bevin

          Thanks, Brian.
          I really believe that the way to deal with this campaign to whitewash war crimes is to insist on the Palestinian issue- which as I pointed out a couple of days ago is very much a result of British political decision making- being discussed and monitored. The only issue of racism involved is that of the appalling treatment of Palestinians as Arabs- something that goes back at least a century and is a genuine disgrace to all political parties. And Labour-long the Zionist party- in particular.
          Starmer and his crew are reviving a shocking habit of racist treatment of Arabs and muslims which was very much part of the culture of Labour in 1948 and explains the casual resignation of the mandate and the subsequent insouciance with which it regarded the terrorism of the Naqba at the hands of, inter alia, the Labour Party of Israel.

    • Tom Welsh

      Very nice – but of course Churchill didn’t mean a single word of it.

      It was just what he was obliged to say until, after a week or so, everyone forgot about it.

  • Giyane

    The meaning of life, or rather the reason we have been given life, automated body controls , intelligence, memory, logic, manual and physical dexterity, sight, hearing this could get boring, is, according to the monotheistic scriptures , to be tested.

    Thus the accumulation of power is pretty irrelevant to the Owner of existence itself. All that the Zionists can achieve by their power is dig themselves deeper into the quarry they have already worked for many thousands of years, the quarry of Divine displeasure. Not I think necessarily in this life.

    Life is precious because it is short, and quite a lot of time is spent in sleeping , procreating, paying mortgages, eating etc , so the dedication to the accumulation of Divine displeasure might be considered a waste.
    None of the favourite Zionist activities, banking interest, racial persecution, land theft , murder and imprisonment, spying, corruption, weaponry of mass destructive threat, or propagation of pornography, actually reduce the principle crime for which they are convicted, the crime of rejecting the prophet ‘Esa pubh and boasting they had crucified him, which they had not.

1 2 3 4