The draft Your Party constitution is for a highly centralised, London-based party which echoes the Labour Party. It “devolves” – they literally use the word – power from the centre to non-autonomous entities in Scotland and Wales.

We need a Federal party – a completely different approach – where authority lies with the members, and is granted to the executives firstly of the Scottish, Welsh and English parties, and then to the Federal executive, as the members wish.

The current draft reflects the British nationalist ideal that the UK is essentially England and that Scotland and Wales are some sort of add-ons for which special provision must be made. Therefore there are supposed to be Scottish and Welsh subsidiary – not equal – parties, whereas England does not have a separate party but is presumed to be the main body of the organisation.

Scotland and Wales are treated separately as “nations” while England isn’t. It is just assumed to be identical with the party as a whole. This is typical of the unthinking Anglocentrism of the authors.

I do not see how any Scot can respectably subscribe to the party on its currently drafted constitution.

I have therefore sent my written suggestion for Amendment to a true Federal format.

This is the original:

This is the amendment which I have submitted:

The draft constitution does not include the north of Ireland at all. I do not know if the party plans to operate there. I assume the omission means not.

I would urge members – not just those in Scotland and Wales – to support this fundamental change in the way the party is structured. Unless there is a genuine federal structure, Your Party will be dead in the water in Scotland. The pledge it will not be a “branch office” needs to have concrete form.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

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
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

I am taking the plunge into Your Party. My worries remain about its centralist tendencies and lack of democracy, but I will work against those from within.

Your Party is not a unionist party. It does not yet have a policy on Scottish Independence. I shall of course be striving for it actively to support Scottish Independence. I feel fairly confident that this will succeed.

The Left in Scotland is overwhelmingly pro-Independence, just as the Right is overwhelmingly anti-Independence. There do exist Scottish unionist socialists, but they are a small and shrinking minority. It may turn out they are disproportionately represented in Your Party, but I do not believe that is likely to be the case.

More to the point, for years opinion polls have shown that at least a third of Scottish Labour voters support Independence. There is now a major and consistent gap in opinion polls between support for Independence – averaging around 52% – and support for the SNP – averaging around 31%. 21% of Scottish voters support Independence but will not vote for the SNP. That is a significant source of potential support for a viable alternative pro-Independence Party.

It is worth recalling that ten years ago support for the SNP and support for Independence were very tightly correlated. That is now absolutely not the case, for the simple reason the SNP pays no more than lip service to Independence.

A Corbyn-linked, pro-Independence Party in Scotland would have the capacity to destroy the Scottish branch of the Labour Party – which is already in deep trouble and polling around 15%.

There have been a number of attempts to provide a home for the Independence voters disillusioned with the SNP. The Scottish Greens currently show good polling figures, but they are a rather strange party, entirely separate from the English Greens, and far more interested in gender issues than in anything else.

I was a member of the Alba Party until the leadership made very plain I was unwanted, for reasons that don’t seem any more profound than their personal ambitions. While led by Alex Salmond, Alba was the obvious vehicle for Independence support, but since his demise it has torn itself apart. There are others – including the Independence for Scotland Party and Liberate Scotland – which contain some great people, but are currently very small.

Your Party can become a vehicle for a socialism that, as part of its universal commitment to anti-Imperialism, supports Independence for Scotland and Wales and supports the reunification of Ireland. I see that as a transformative position in British politics and a truly radical response to the need for fundamental change in the British state.

I might add that I have never heard Jeremy Corbyn express any personal opposition to Scottish Independence. He supports self-determination and anti-Imperialism around the globe and supports Irish reunification. I think those who note he did not support Scottish Independence whilst leader of the Labour Party are being obtuse. It was not the position of his party. He now has a different party, and I am very confident he would follow the party position.

The rather shadowy leadership cadre of Your Party is anxious to fudge the issue by adopting a policy of “the right of the Scottish people to decide”. This is basically to say that they support a second independence referendum. That is slightly useful, but it is a peculiar abnegation of responsibility – and very easy to say in the knowledge Westminster will not agree.

Of course the Scottish people have the right to decide. That must be the starting point for any socialist party. But that is not a policy. You might as well state that the people have the right to decide whether utilities should be renationalised. Of course they do. But our policy is to renationalise utilities.

A party that just says “we believe in the will of the people – whatever that may be. We don’t actually have an opinion” is not much of a political party.

Which leads me on to the question which I think is driving Your Party’s lack of discernible structured democracy and voting process so far: Israel.

The leadership seem desperate to avoid a commitment to a single state of Palestine, from the river to the sea. The reason for this is that Jeremy is still surrounded by the same group of “soft” zionists who wrecked his leadership of the Labour Party, by continually attempting to placate the zionist lobby through apology after apology. They committed expulsion after expulsion of lifelong antiracists and socialists.

The preferred formula of proponents within Your Party of the Bantustan two-state solution is: “Let the Palestinian people decide”. Often accompanied by the plausible-sounding “it is not for us to decide for the Palestinian people”.

The problem is of course the Palestinian people have a gun to their head. Literally. They have no free will to decide anything. And of which Palestinian people are you going to take the word? Universally reviled Abbas and the Palestinian Authority? Some US-installed puppet administration under the Gaza fake Peace Plan?

No. The only solution any socialist should support is a Palestine free, from the river to the sea. Then it should indeed be for the Palestinian people to decide. Within the free, secular, democratic state of Palestine for which we should strive – and which now has more support from the people of the world than ever. If the free people of Palestine voluntarily then decide to give some land for a Jewish ethno-state, so be it.

Finally, it seems to me that Your Party needs to support massive socio-economic change.

Late-stage capitalism has resulted in inequalities of wealth which are simply staggering. These are not the natural order of things. They are a result of deliberate, state-imposed structures, including the creation of currency within the banking system, the state paying banks interest on currency of which the state itself licensed the creation, taxation structures where the burden of payment falls upon the poor, enterprise ownership structures that promote wealth accumulation, and a housing market tending to ever-greater concentration of capital and the permanent subservience of working people to a landlord class.

The economic changes required are profound. The Greens have adopted one idea I have consistently promoted: limits on CEO pay and benefits relative to the workforce. They have I think suggested 10 x the average salary in the enterprise, whereas I suggested 8 x the lowest salary in the enterprise, but it is the same policy.

Rather to my amazement there was a really good editorial in the Observer yesterday suggesting some policies that directly start to tackle a number of the problems I have outlined, not least the state borrowing its own currency from the banks.

I used to favour a modified capitalism where share ownership lay largely with workers, but as states have evolved into far more complex financial systems where huge volumes of financial transactions do not relate to the purchase of goods and services, that approach is now only a small part of the answer, and the role of the state needs to increase. I am not sure I have quite finished reconciling this with my libertarian instincts, nor yet fully integrated those parts of modern monetary theory which are self-evidently true. But I am working on it.

To return to Your Party, I profoundly distrust the “Assemble” model of meetings split up into little groups. These avoid votes or any genuine effort to actually determine the will of the meeting. Instead they give the power of divining the “consensus” to unseen central figures. I have been told this system combats patriarchalism. That is obvious nonsense – I am pretty sure you will find patriarchs behind the curtains, dictating what was “decided” by the touchy-feely groups. And if they are matriarchs, that would be no better.

The national Conference is to be on the basis of sortition. The key question is this: Who gets to be there without going through the sortition process? How many and who are they? That seems to me essential to know. I have already seen direct evidence that a very large number of the little political groups who are dictating matters behind the scenes will avoid sortition by being present as “stewards”. As though stewards could not have been forthcoming from among those selected by sortition.

There are also officially going to be “VIPs” not subject to sortition. Who chooses them? Will a list be published?

The sortition itself, according to the documents circulated to members, will be fixed to make sure groups are fairly represented. What sort of groups? Ethnic? Gender? Political? This undermines the entire basis of sortition itself.

I have the deepest possible reservations about the manipulation of “democracy” within Your Party. But there are bound to be teething troubles at the start, and while there is plainly a huge amount of plotting for control, I don’t see anything we the members – and I am now one – cannot sweep aside as we get the party going.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

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
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

This is more video of me than anybody would ever want to see, but here are three interviews I did over the weekend.

The first covers the legal action against the proscription of Palestine Action, Starmer’s summary courts for peaceful protestors charged with “terrorism”, UK and US efforts to legalise the Israeli occupation of Gaza through the UN Security Council, and French colonial occupation of New Caledonia.

The second covers the campaign to further the cause of Scottish Independence through the United Nations.

and the third covers the Gaza Trump peace plan and the future of the “ceasefire”

Should anyone have the time to download and clean up the YouTube transcripts I will gladly post them (they usually have a lot of errors).

Fundraising for the challenge in the Scottish courts to the proscription of Palestine Action is not going as fast as I would hope. Through all routes it is totalling £13,120, which will just get about get us to the starting line but not much further. The freedom of thousands of peaceful protestors could hang on this action, so please donate if you can, though as ever we do not want anyone to cause themselves hardship.

We now have a crowdfunder which pays money direct to the legal team. I understand that most people of goodwill have donated and donated to numerous causes in these terrible times. If you cannot donate, please help by spreading the crowdfunder.

You can also donate here:

Alternatively by bank transfer:

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

Or crypto:

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Those charged with terrorism for supporting Palestine Action will have no jury in trials limited to 36 minutes each, with prison sentences up to six months. These are the plans for Starmer Courts for mass trials of anti-Genocide protestors.

The plans are devised by Justice Michael Snow. He is the epitome of judicial prejudice. When Julian Assange appeared before Snow in the first hearing after being dragged from the Embassy, Snow called Assange a “narcissist” even though Assange had said nothing but to confirm his name, and no evidence had been led.

Snow has now decreed that those 2,000 people charged under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act with supporting Palestine Action, will be tried in batches of five at the rate of ten people a day – giving 36 court minutes for each defendant. This is a farce, a spectacle of mass show trial. The 36 minutes includes both prosecution and defence cases and cross-examination.

At a scheduling hearing on Wednesday, one of the accused, 72 year old Deborah Wilde, objected that these trials would be far too short to present a proper defence.

Snow snapped back “I’m satisfied that the time is sufficient. I am not going to give more time. Your only remedy is the High Court”.

As I am sure Snow realises, ordinary people cannot afford to go to the High Court. The worrying thing is that the trials will be held before judges including the appalling Snow, with no jury.

Here is the relevant part of Section 13 of the Terrorism Act.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this draconian legislation is that arousing suspicion is actually the offence. It does not matter if the suspicion turns out to be well-grounded or not. The suspicion could be totally wrong, but if you aroused the suspicion on “reasonable grounds” in a policeman’s head, you are guilty.

It is an offence of strict liability. Your intent is not considered; you may have been most concerned to stop a Genocide, or to oppose the destruction of free speech. Judge Snow and his ilk will not care. They only want to know if some half educated cop suspected you of supporting a terrorist organisation. There is no jury to whom you can explain your actions – and which would be highly likely to sympathise.

I have seen it, as an offence of strict liability, likened to possession of Class A drugs. But actually it isn’t. The correct analogy would be a crime where the offence was arousing a suspicion you possessed Class A drugs, whether you actually had any or not.

The experience of watching 2,000 upstanding citizens, most of them elderly and many of them infirm, hustled through this slaughterhouse queue of mass justice and into prison, with little opportunity to defend themselves, will be a defining moment in the UK’s headlong slide into fascism.

The best available way to fight this ridiculously unjust process which has been directly opposed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, by Amnesty International and by Liberty, is through the legal challenge to an absurd and oppressive law. This is being done in both England and Scotland, which are separate jurisdictions. I am the “petitioner” in the Scottish case.

There are precedents for different decisions in the different jurisdictions. The Scottish courts found Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament illegal; the English courts, legal. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Scottish courts. It is also possible that Palestine Action should simply operate legally in one jurisdiction and not the other – the law is frequently different in the two countries. The rationale of the legal case is explained here.

We desperately need funds. We now have a crowdfunder which pays money direct to the legal team. I understand that most people of goodwill have donated and donated to numerous causes in these terrible times. If you cannot donate, please help by spreading the crowdfunder.

You can also donate here:

Alternatively by bank transfer:

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

Or crypto:

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

I have started legal action in Scotland against the UK government over the proscription of Palestine Action, in coordination with Huda Ammori and her team in England. The petition has been accepted by the Court and served on the Solicitor General. They now have 16 remaining days to respond.

The rationale is well explained in this article by Gabriel McKay from The Herald newspaper:

“A former British diplomat has filed a legal challenge seeking a judicial review, under Scots law, of the decision to proscribe the group Palestine Action.

A petition has been lodged to hear a case in the Court of Session over the decision by the UK Government to make being a member of, or expressing support for, the group a terror offence.

If the court agrees to hear the case, and if it then declares the proscription unlawful, it would cease to apply in Scotland while remaining in place in England and Wales unless the High Court in London makes the same finding in a separate challenge.

Craig Murray is the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, an ex-rector of the University of Dundee and a political activist who was jailed in 2021 for contempt of court relating to the trial of Alex Salmond.

He has served notice to the Advocate General for Scotland, Baroness Smith of Cluny KC, as the law officer representing the interests of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Shabana Mahmood, in Scotland.

In his submission, Mr Murray argues that he has standing as someone who, prior to its proscription on July 5, expressed support for Palestine Action and took part in protest activities organised by the group.

A petitioner must show “sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application”, usually interpreted as being directly personally affected or raising an issue of general public importance.

Scottish courts are generally seen as taking a liberal and pragmatic stance on the issue of standing. For example, in the 2012 case Walton v Scottish ministers, Scottish Ministers and local councils argued that environmental campaigner William Walton lacked standing for a judicial review because he was not personally affected by plans to build a new Aberdeen bypass as he did not own property near the road or suffer direct loss.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he did have standing as it “is sufficient that the applicant has a genuine concern about the legality of the act or decision, and that the issues raised are of general public importance”.

Mr Murray’s petition for judicial review asks the Court of Session to declare the decision to proscribe Palestine Action ultra vires (beyond the legal power or authority of the home secretary) and have it reduced, i.e to have the order annulled in Scotland as it relates to the group.

It rests on three arguments: that the passing of the order was procedurally unfair; that it violates article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression); and that it violates article 11 of the ECHR (freedom of association).

On the first, the petition argues that Palestine Action was not consulted ahead of proscription, thus depriving the group of the chance to argue for proscription being unnecessary which undermines the requirement for “a high degree of procedural fairness”.

The second ground argues that Mr Murray previously expressed support for Palestine Action but is now legally prevented from doing so, interfering with his right to freedom of expression.

The petition compares the direct action tactics of the group to those of Greenpeace and Just Stop Oil, namely that it “is not an organisation engaged in acts of violence to the person” and therefore proscription is disproportionate and a violation of the right to freedom of expression.

The third ground argues that Mr Murray’s freedom of association has been infringed due to the decision to criminalise both being a member of Palestine Action and engaging in meetings with members or supporters of the organisation.

The petition points to case law which found a measure which will cause the outright dissolution of an association may only be taken “in the most serious cases”, and the court must assess whether it is “exceptionally justified” by “relevant and sufficient reasons”.

Mr Murray’s legal challenge is separate to the Judicial Review in England and Wales brought by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, which is taking place in the High Court in November 2025, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

If the Court of Session hears the case, and reaches a different decision, campaigners say this would provoke a ‘constitutional crisis’.

There is precedent in that area in the decision by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks in 2019.

An appeal to the High Court ruled it was not justiciable as it was a political matter, but the Court of Session found the prorogation unlawful as it prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions.

That was ultimately ruled on by the Supreme Court which upheld the verdict of the Court of Session, finding that the decision to prorogue parliament exceeded the government’s constitutional limits.

While national security, including terror laws, are reserved a Scots court can still review how UK laws are applied in Scotland, for example under things like human rights compliance.

If the Court of Session agreed to hear Mr Murray’s case and found in his favour, there could arise the possibility of a territorial split in the application of a UK-wide anti-terrorism order, an inconsistency which would then have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

He said: “It is a maxim in Scots law that the law cannot be absurd. To claim that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation is plainly absurd.

“This proscription is a politically motivated action in support of a genocide and it is poisoning Scottish civil society. Entirely peaceful protestors are being arrested and charged as terrorists.”

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries added: “The proscription of Palestine Action has already spectacularly backfired on the Westminster Government, with the world looking on in dismay at the sight of thousands of elderly and disabled people in Britain being dragged away by police for holding seven word cardboard signs.

“Labour’s anti-democratic crackdown on domestic direct action groups leading to international condemnation, from global human rights experts and the United Nations. Over 2,000 people have been arrested across Britain, including people in Scotland detained only for wearing t-shirts which say ‘Genocide in Palestine. Time to take action’.

“We wholeheartedly support this legal challenge and the Scottish people’s right within their legal system to seek to overturn this absurdly authoritarian ban which has been imposed by Westminster.

“With Scotland’s legal system prioritising the rights and sovereignty of the people rather than the English doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, this legal challenge is on strong legal footing. The potential for a constitutional crisis created if Scottish and English courts reach different decisions, further demonstrates that this ban is simply not enforceable.

“Defend Our Juries will be escalating the mass defiance of the ban next month, with peaceful mass sign-holding actions taking place from 18th-29th November across Britain.

“Throughout history civil disobedience has been used to overturn unjust laws. The movement against this draconian proscription is growing day by day – there are too many thousands of people who refuse to accept this unjust law and will not stop defying it until it is lifted.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving not just sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, but also intimidation and, more recently, alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. That kind of activity puts the safety and security of the public at risk.

“Violence and serious criminal damage has no place in lawful protests.” ”

I thought that article was worth considering in full because it is balanced and introduced a couple of things I did not know myself, such as the Supreme Court decision on standing in Walton vs Scottish Ministers.

Yvette Cooper had a duty in law to consult before the proscription. She consulted the Israeli Embassy, Jewish groups and weapons manufacturers. She did not consult any Palestinian individual or organisation, human rights groups or consult with Palestine Action themselves.

What is more, Cooper consulted nobody in Scotland. Not the Scottish government, not Police Scotland. Nobody in Scotland.

Here is an extract, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, from the Scottish CONTEST (counter-terrorism strategy) programme board meeting of May 2025. The Scottish CONTEST programme board consists of the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, MI5, COSLA and others.

Note the wording; “has not been close to meeting”.

Crucially this assessment was made after the action at the Thales plant in Scotland and the consequent convictions. Yet although both Police Scotland and the intelligence services assert Palestine Action in Scotland has “not been close to meeting” the bar of terrorism, Yvette Cooper cited the Thales action as one of three (out of 385) events which she asserted did meet the bar of terrorism.

Following its proscription of Palestine Action, the UK government has now intimated its intention to place further restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, notably proposing to ban “repeated” protests.

The proscription of Palestine Action has led to mass arrests. Being charged with a terrorist offence is life-changing. It leads to loss of employment, debanking with loss of savings, and travel bans. This is being visited on those engaged in non-violent protest against Genocide.

We have to fight back using whatever avenues we can exploit. This Scottish legal action is one. However legal action costs money, and I have to appeal to everybody who supports this fight to help me fund it. To date I have personally contributed £5,000 and Liberation Scotland has contributed another £5,000 to uphold the Scottish people’s historic legal rights to freedom from oppressive and arbitrary government.

The sums needed to mount a successful legal challenge to the power of the state can be eye-watering. But we are the many. Every penny helps, but please do not cause yourself hardship.

Alternatively by bank transfer:

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

Or crypto:

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

We have discussed with crowdfunders including those which pay the money direct to our lawyers, but compliance issues re a proscribed organisation have held this up for several days. We hope to be able to offer that further donation option soon.

In not quite one year since the ceasefire deal in Lebanon, Israel has broken the ceasefire 4,600 times. It has killed hundreds of people, including infants, demolished tens of thousands of homes and annexed five areas of Lebanon. It was supposed to withdraw completely.

After a series of attacks throughout the night, the Israelis today at dawn bombed a café in the town of Houla, Lebanon, reducing it to rubble. This is an act of terrorism and further ethnic cleansing. pic.twitter.com/loNvRPhmuI

— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) October 8, 2025

This situation is being replicated in detail in Gaza. In particular, the ceasefire in Lebanon is “guaranteed” by the USA and France and overseen by an international committee referred to as “the Mechanism”. The “Mechanism” is chaired by the USA. Accordingly the guarantors have refused to acknowledge a single breach of the ceasefire because the US-controlled “Mechanism” calls them counter-terrorist operations aimed at disarming Hezbollah.

The United Nations defers to “the Mechanism” and thus to the USA, and the presence of UN peacekeeping troops in Southern Lebanon is therefore useless. Lebanon is now under control of the US/Israeli puppet administration of General Aoun and effectively being run by US Special Envoy Tom Barrack.

Barrack stated that the borders of Israel and Syria are meaningless and that “Israel will go where they want, when they want, and do what they want to protect the Israelis and their border to make sure on October 7th it never happens again”. This is from the “guarantor” of the Lebanese ceasefire agreement.

There can be no doubt that Trump’s US-chaired “Board of Peace” for Gaza will take exactly the same line as “the Mechanism” in Lebanon. It is axiomatic that Israel will never honour any agreement. They never have.

BREAKING! “Ceasefire”, in Israel’s dictionary: you cease, I fire.

Just hours after the deal – as in January – Israel shoots at Palestinians waiting to return home.
Before any next step, member states must ensure that Israel honours the ceasefire. https://t.co/ne0YvhrVOj

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) October 9, 2025

What we know from Lebanon is not just that the Israelis will break any agreement, but that the American “guarantors” will support their continued violence as “counter-terrorism”. While the Gaza peacekeeping force may not be UN blue-helmeted, it will also almost certainly have terms of engagement that defer to the US-chaired “Board of Peace”.

Back in February I discussed the failure of the Lebanese ceasefire agreement with the UN spokesman in Lebanon, and the primacy of the “Mechanism”. In light of the Gaza agreement negotiations, it is worth revisiting that interview.

Hamas were right to enter the ceasefire negotiations and the prisoner exchange is a good thing. I am not supportive of Hamas’s policy of taking prisoners, other than active service personnel, and I do not believe it has done their cause any good these last two years, particularly as Israel had taken more hostages than they have released in exchanges. The “hostage” narrative, however twisted and unfair, has muddied the waters and hurt the Palestinians. So I shall be pleased to see the end of that phase, and of course welcome the release of Palestinians.

Israel will still hold over 9,000 Palestinian hostages after the releases, and possibly many more.

I will not go through the 20 points of the Agreement, all of which are just headings requiring the substance. But the Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza is of course fundamental, and entirely obscure in its timing and completeness. The “first stage” still leaves the Israeli military in over 60% of Gaza.

Netanyahu has made plain to the Israeli public that he has no intention of the Israeli military leaving Gaza, or of agreeing to a Palestinian state. That this agreement is a phoney is not hidden at all – Israel is not pretending it will honour it.

But if the process gets three things into Gaza – food, journalists and peacekeepers – that will be a major improvement. I do not think you should underestimate the impact on world opinion once journalists can actually get into Gaza, witness the destruction and interview people. There is nobody more cynical than I about the mainstream media, but they are not going to be able to prevent the truth from bleeding into their coverage.

The victory for Palestine will take a few years. Israel is now a pariah state in the eyes of the majority of the inhabitants of this globe, and that will accelerate. Hamas are negotiating from a position of weakness, it is true. We are apparently going to see formal colonialism restored in Gaza for a while. There is more pain to be endured. But the balance is shifting.

I have two quotes for you, one from the West and one from the East.

The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.

They plan, and they plan, but Allah is the best of planners.

 
———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

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
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a