Jim Sillars: Blair stokes flames of jihad

Tony Blair wants to mould religious policies in the Middle East to the Western worlds views. Picture: Getty

• by Jim Sillars

Sponsored by

There’s a rich fool running round the world urging a Western Jihad in the Middle East. He is described as “demented” by Patrick Cockburn, a distinguished journalist who knows the region.

He’s got a record of getting it wrong, very wrong, costing lots of lives, and leaving a legacy of havoc. He has to be stopped. His name is Tony Blair.

In what was billed as a major speech, Blair set out to persuade the Western powers to engage in an unremitting struggle to conquer an enemy in the realm of Islam, and mould that religion to our view of the world. In short, the West must wage its own jihad against the Islamist jihadis.

Blair claims that at the “root” of the Middle East crisis is “a radicalising and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message”, and that we must engage in an “unambiguous struggle” on the side of those “with a modern view of the Middle East” and against those who “want to impose an ideology born out of a belief that there is one proper religion and proper view of it, and this should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and political economy”. He urges the West to take sides, to engage, to intervene, noting that this can come “at a cost”. We know to our cost, as do the Iraqis, what he means by “cost”.

Those in Blair’s eyes who have a modern view of the Middle East includes the military government of Egypt which deposed a democratically elected president and recently sentenced 600 opponents from the Muslim Brotherhood to death. Blair excuses this by condemning the Brotherhood as having been a bad government and seeking to take over the institutions of the country – precisely the mandate it sought and got in the first fair and free elections the Egyptians have ever had. This new Western would-be jihadi leader seems oblivious to the reasons why the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections – because while the corrupt Mubarak regime, and its supporting generals, robbed the country blind, the Brotherhood spent years defending and feeding the poor in Egypt.

Blair wants us to line up with “Jordan or the Gulf where they’re promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule-based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood”. This is where this man really shows himself in the grip of the jihadi mentality, where intelligence is defeated by blind stupid dogma that bears no relation to reality.

His claim that Jordan and the Gulf states are paragons of virtue, promoting religious tolerance and rules-based economies, is worthy of a certificate of insanity. “Honour killings” are regular in Jordan. Just try holding an open religious Christian ceremony in Wahibi-dominated Saudi Arabia, a place where the Al Saud ruling family owns the country and, when required to defend its own interests, will rig the economy accordingly.

Or try being one of the majority Shia in Bahrain, where doctors and nurses are doing 15 years in jail for tending to injured people the minority Sunni rulers don’t like. Or try being a Third World worker in Qatar building the 2020 football World Cup stadiums, with no health and safety, intolerable living conditions and slave labour wages. In all of them, whatever is written down as the law, it is only obeyed as long it does not conflict with the ruling groups’ interest. When it does, the law is meaningless.

Blair, and his pal George W Bush, pictured, have done more to stoke the fires of radical Islam than any others in this world, and proved to be the best recruiting agents al-Qaida and its offshoots have. With his defence of the Egyptian military coup, and his support for the decidedly undemocratic, corrupt regimes of the Gulf and Jordan he is telling the Islamic community of the Middle East that when their elections don’t go the way we want, they will be nullified and the old regimes re-installed. So, as the Muslim Brotherhood and others are bound to conclude, if democracy is denied them, they have nothing left but to use violence.

The Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq was a disaster from which, it would appear, Blair has learnt nothing. This man remains a danger to us all.

Thank you everyone

May I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have written to express their regret at the death of Margo. Our family has been overwhelmed by cards and letters; and it has been of some comfort, especially to our grandchildren, to learn how much their Grandma was loved and respected.

De plus en plus de Marocains partent pour le jihad en Syrie, les autorités tergiversent

HuffPost Maghreb  |  Par Sandro LutyensPublication: 30/04/2014 

Si le phénomène a davantage agité les esprits en Tunisie, et plus récemment en Europe, le Maroc semble de plus en plus concerné par le départ de ses jeunes pour le jihad en Syrie. Alors que deux des plus éminents jihadistes marocains sont récemment morts au combat, le royaume chérifien cherche la bonne solution pour contrer l'exode.

Environ 1500 Marocains seraient aujourd'hui au combat en Syrie. Quasiment la moitié d'entre eux font partie du groupe Harakat Sham al-Islam (Mouvement de l'Islam au Levant, HSI), où ils constituent la majorité.

Mort au combat début avril 2014, le fondateur et émir marocain du mouvement Ibrahim Benchekroun était auparavant passé par toutes les prisons de Bagram à Guantanamo. HSI est resté neutre dans la nouveau front opposant l'Armée syrienne libre et ses alliés, dont la branche d'al-Qaïda Jabhat al-Nosra, aux jihadistes de l'EIIL.

Dans les rangs de l'EIIL, l'autre Marocain connu Abou Oussama al-Maghribi avait gravi les échelons. Mort en mars, il est devenu "le plus célèbre martyr marocain de l’EIIL", indique l'expert du jihadisme Romain Caillet.

Derrière ces deux personnages, un réseau solide pourvoit les fronts syriens en combattants venus principalement des grandes villes dans le Nord et l'Ouest marocains (Tanger, Salé, Casablanca).

"Ces zones abritent des mouvement salafistes connus et affichent un important taux de chômage pour les jeunes", explique Mohammed Mesbah.

S'appuyant sur de nombreuses interviews avec des jihadistes, le chercheur a retracé pour Carnegie Endowment le parcours de certains d'entre eux.

La plupart des combattants marocains au sein de l'EIIL seraient ainsi des fantassins de bas rang. Et de nombreux jeunes resteraient par ailleurs actifs sur Facebook pendant les combats, "encourageant leurs amis au Maroc à les rejoindre".

Au Maroc, justement, le groupe HSI "a provoqué une dynamique accélérant la mobilisation des volontaire", note Romain Caillet. Face au phénomène, les autorités marocaines, favorable à la cause syrienne, peinent à prendre des mesures efficaces.

"Les autorités ont fermé l'oeil"

En juillet 2013, le ministre de l'Intérieur marocain avançait le chiffre "approximatif"de 80 Marocains partis pour la Syrie. A la même période, d'autres source en décomptaient déjà près de 1000.

"Les autorités ont fermer l'oeil sur les jihadistes qui partaient pour la Syrie", affirme Mohammed Mesbah, suggérant que le gouvernement était peut-être soulagé de se débarrasser d'eux.

Mais les autorités marocaines se sont rendues compte du danger que représente le retour des combattants. Un démantèlement de "cellules terroristes" est annoncé à intervalle régulier.

En mars, trois Marocains membre d'un réseau d'envoi de jihadistes en Syrie ont été arrêtés lors d'une opération conjointe avec l'Espagne.

Cela "montre clairement l’insistance d'Al-Qaïda et des groupes qui lui sont affiliés à porter atteinte à la stabilité du royaume et de ses alliés", avait alors affirmé le ministère de l'Intérieur.

En 2013, le même ministère avait déjà annoncé le démantèlement d'une autre cellule qui réalisait, selon un communiqué, "un travail de recrutement, endoctrinement, organisation et financement des voyages".

Les autorités se tâtent. Elles bloquent depuis plusieurs mois la libération de détenus islamistes, craignant qu'ils ne rejoignent les groupes jihadistes.

La plupart des jihadistes qui rentrent du jihad sont directement appréhendés à l'aéroport et condamnés à 4 ans de prison sur la base d'une loi anti-terroriste.

Pendant un temps, le royaume refusait le dialogue avec les salafistes marocains, indique Mohammed Mesbah. Mais les choses pourraient changer. Le Roi Mohamed VI aurait récemment assisté au prêche d'un ancien jihadiste, passé par la prison marocaine. Une première approche, selon Mesbah, vers une éventuelle solution à un problème grandissant.

Saudis parade nuclear missiles for the first time in defiance of US-Iranian nuclear accord

Saudi Arabia became the first Middle East nation to publicly exhibit its nuclear-capable missiles. The long-range, liquid propellant DF-3 ballistic missile (NATO designated CSS-2), purchased from China 27 years ago, was displayed for the first time at a Saudi military parade Tuesday, April 29, in the eastern military town of Hafar Al-Batin, at the junction of the Saudi-Kuwaiti-Iraqi borders.

The DF-3 has a range of 2,650 km and carries a payload of 2,150 kg. It is equipped with a single nuclear warhead with a 1-3 MT yield.

Watched by a wide array of Saudi defense and military dignitaries, headed by Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister Salman bin Abdulaziz, the parade marked the end of the large-scale “Abdullah’s Sword” military war game.

Conspicuous on the saluting stand was the Pakistani Chief of Staff Gen. Raheel Sharif alongside eminent visitors, including King Hamad of Bahrain and Sheikh Muhammad bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi.
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report the event was deliberately loaded with highly-significant messages, the foremost of which was that the Middle East is in the throes of a nuclear arms race in the wake of the Iranian program.

1. The oil kingdom was saying loud and clear that it has obtained nuclear missiles and is ready to use them in the event of an armed conflict with Iran.

2.  The message for Washington was that Riyadh adheres to its adamant objections to the comprehensive accord for resolving the Iranian nuclear question which is racing toward its finale with the six world powers led by the US. The Saudis share Israel’s conviction that this pact - far from dismantling Iran’s nuclear capacity - will seal the Islamic Republic's elevation to the status of pre-nuclear power. The result will be a Middle East war in which the Saudis will take part.
3.  The participation of the nuclear DF-3 missiles in the “Abdullah’s Sword” exercise signified Riyadh’s estimate that the coming conflict will see the use of nuclear weapons.
4.  By showing off their ageing Chinese missiles, the Saudis intimated that they had acquired the more advanced generation of this weapon, which they are keeping under wraps.  debkafile’s intelligence sources report that in recent visits to Beijing, high-ranking Saudi officials negotiated the purchase of Dong-Feng 21 (DF-21), whose range is shorter, 1,700 km, but more precise and effective in view of its terminal radar guidance system. The West has no information about when the new Chinese missiles were delivered to Saudi Arabia.
5.  The presence of the top Pakistani soldier at the parade of military and nuclear hardware was meant as corroboration of Islamabad’s active role as the source of the Saudi nuclear arsenal.
6.   The Saudis no longer rely on the American nuclear umbrella. They are developing their own nuclear strike force with the help of China and Pakistan.  

OPINION: Douglas Alexander – Don’t point fingers over peace talks failure

By Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary 

Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander (2nd left) play football during a visit to the Khan al-Ahmar Bedouin community in the West Bank.

I am fortunate to have been able to visit Israel a number of times both in Government and in Opposition.

On these visits I have always been struck by the fact that for so many people who visit Israel – whether for business, pleasure of official engagements – at some point during their trip, there is usually a moment when they feel a connection that goes deeper than the original purpose of their visit.

It is no ordinary place. And while that sense of connection is obviously different for each individual, almost regardless of background, nationality or faith, the experience regularly seems to evoke in people a sense of something bigger than ourselves.

For me that moment came two weeks ago when I visited Yad Vashem with Ed Miliband on his first visit to Israel as Leader of the Opposition.I was struck by how a primarily political visit also involved profoundly personal moments of reflection certainly for Ed, but also for me and others accompanying us through the museum.

I know there will be those that say that to feel a connection to this history and this country is somehow to show a bias towards today’s Israeli government – I don’t agree. For me the establishment of the state of Israel reflected some very basic values to which that I feel personally connected and committed.

Of course that is certainly not to suggest that I agree with every decision taken by the present Israeli government, or that I support the view of every Israeli Prime Minister.

Only a matter of days after we returned from our visit, I was disappointed to hear that the recent round of peace talks seems to have stalled and is now at risk of collapsing totally.

I don’t believe however that it is the role of the international community to immediately start pointing the finger of blame for the latest stall in the negotiations. Ultimately there have been more than enough missed opportunities on all sides and so right now I believe that for countries like the UK there are other more constructive ways to help try and find a way forward.

That is why when President Obama was asked to respond to the reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas he was right to say that there have been a “series of choices that both Israel and the Palestinians have made which are not conducive to solving this crisis”.

Ultimately, despite the recent setbacks, the overwhelming feeling I had at the end of my most recent visit, was that the status quo is simply unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for the millions of Palestinians trapped under occupation, in particular for a young generation who have spent their whole lives deprived of basic freedoms and opportunities that are today breeding a deep sense of frustration and despair.

It is unacceptable for many Israelis who still today live with the terror of rocket attacks from Gaza, forcing their children into fortified nurseries and bomb-proof classrooms – as well as those who increasingly fear a growing sense of being isolated from those countries that Israel rightly sees as its natural allies.

And it is not acceptable for the international community who have for decades committed to helping facilitate a peace process, but too often have been left with no peace and no process to support.

As I returned from the visit with Ed Miliband, and as we witnessed the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks enter into yet another crucial stage, I was reminded of the words of Dr Martin Luther King delivered on April 4, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated.

He said – “We are faced with the fact… that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.”

King was a man with a profound commitment to changing the world around him by peaceful means. He was not willing to simply accept that because something had existed and persisted for decades in our past, it needed to necessarily go on to define our future.

Many of those that I met during my most recent visit had much of this same sense of commitment to change and progress. Now in the crucial days and weeks ahead it is vital that we see a generation of political leaders on both sides live up to that expectation and show willing to embrace together that same sense of the fierce urgency of now.

EU’s Ashton backs Palestinian unity government amid Israeli concerns

European Union (EU) foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton yesterday expressed support for a new Palestinian unity government which adheres to Quartet requirements, fuelling Israeli concerns over ‘back door’ international recognition of Hamas.

It was announced last week that the Fatah faction led by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas will form a unity government, prompting Israel to suspend peace talks with the PA. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has since then made it clear that there will be no negotiations with a government backed by Hamas, unless it repudiates violence and embraces peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and is classified as a terror organisation by the United States and EU.

However, Israeli leaders are reportedly concerned that the international community may demand recognition of Israel from the new Palestinian government but not Hamas itself, constituting ‘back door’ recognition of Hamas. PA President Abbas has indicated that he will form a government of non-political technocrats which recognises Israel. In a statement yesterday, Ashton said that she “consistently supported intra-Palestinian reconciliation, but on clear and certain terms,” similar to Quartet requirements whereby, “The EU expects any new government to uphold the principle of nonviolence, to remain committed to achieving a two-state solution and to a negotiated peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accepting previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times quotes an Israeli official who said Israel has a “specific commitment from the American administration” backing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s refusal to talk to a Hamas-backed government. Although US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki last week said, “It’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.” However, previous Fatah-Hamas unity agreements have in the end not been implemented and it remains unclear who exactly would sit in such a government.

Kerry clarifies ‘apartheid’ comment, regrets use of word

State Department photo/ Public Domain

29/04/2014

Kerry clarifies ‘apartheid’ comment, regrets use of word

US Secretary of State John Kerry dispelled the idea that he in any way considers Israel to be an apartheid state and expressed regret for use of the term during a recent closed meeting.

Kerry had told a closed forum of international leaders at the Trilateral Commission forum on Friday that if peace between Israel and the Palestinians does not materialise, Israel is in danger of becoming an “apartheid state.” A leaked recording published by the Daily Beastwebsite quoted Kerry warning that, “a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens — or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.”

Serving senior US leaders have invariably refused to use such language regarding Israel, with President Obama calling it “historically inaccurate” in 2008. A Times editorial this morning criticised Kerry’s choice of language, saying it was “guaranteed to cause offence to Israel.” Although there was no official Israeli comment, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki looked to diffuse the situation yesterday, explaining that, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister Livni and previous Israeli Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state.”

Late last night Kerry was even more vehement in rejecting any suggestion comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa, issuing a rare personal statement. In it he said, “I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one.” He explained, “If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way” to have “a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution.” Kerry added, “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone.”

Anti-fascist campaigners stage protest outside Thor Steinar, North Finchley

Anti-fascist campaigners stage protest outside store associated with neo-Nazis

Pulses rose during a heated protest against a “disturbing” clothing store which has links to neo-Nazi groups in Germany.

Anti-fascist campaigners gathered outside the one Viking Thor, which opened in in Ballards Lane last month, to put pressure on its owner to shut up shop.

It is an outlet for Thor Steinar, which has been was in Germany for using similar symbols similar to those worn by the Nazi SS men.

Echoes of “hey ho, Thor Steiner has got to go” travelled down the North Finchley street and passing motorists beeped their horns in support. Gary McFarlane, who organised the protest, told the Times Series: “It sends out an awful and disturbing message as it helps make the fascist movement more respectable and acceptable.

“We need to keep protesting otherwise its going to undo all the good work in stamping this out in the last 50 years. By exposing them, we’re knocking them back.

“They’re hiding the real essence of their politics behind a fashionable brand of clothing. It’s a disgrace.”

Undeterred by the rain, around 30 people from different cultures gathered outside the shop to show their support for the campaign.

They held placards bearing the words 'racist shop not welcome here - Thor Steinar has got to go'

The shop was closed during the protest.

Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis is based a few doors away, as is the Islamic Association of North London, a mosque which serves the large local Muslim population.

Mr McFarlane, who lives in Clyde Road, Tottenham, will hold another protest next week and is urging Jewish people to get involved.

He added: “We got our message across yesterday, but we need to do more. The ideology behind this is awful.

“We don’t want nazism to wake up again but shops like this contribute to the problem. We must stop that.”

The store’s owner, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Times Series he did not understand the controversy around the brand and denied its links to the far-right.

BBC’s Bowen promotes BDS and apartheid analogy on main TV news programme

Presenter: “What is America’s plan B then?”

Bowen: “You know I don’t think they have one particularly. Eh…Mr Obama’s in his second term and he’s running out of time to try and make the big changes which, as a candidate, he really wanted to make in the Middle East and he’s said that he doesn’t think they’d be able to make the hard choices necessary for a deal within six months. Now; more than six months: they’ve been talking about this – about trying to build a Palestinian state alongside Israel – for more than twenty years and they haven’t got anywhere. It’s a long record of failure.”

Bowen makes no attempt to clarify to viewers why previous attempts to bring about a peaceful conclusion to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have failed. He refrains from mentioning the wave of Palestinian terror which followed the signing of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority’s decision to scupper those agreements by initiating the second Intifada, its failure to even reply to the deal proposed by Ehud Olmert in 2008 and much more. Bowen continues:  

“Now that is one reason I think why Fatah went for that unity deal with Hamas, because they’re not getting what they want out of talks and also because there’s a current within the PLO that says they need to try a different strategy…ah…building internal unity and also what they call non-violent resistance, which includes the movement for ….ah….for the boycott, disvestment… disvestment [sic] and sanctions; in other words, trying to isolate Israel in the way that South Africa was isolated in the 1980s.”

Here Bowen fails to clarify to viewers why any PLO claim of adoption of a policy of “non-violent resistance” is patently at odds with its latest initiative to join forces with Hamas; a group which is recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation and which repeatedly makes abundantly clear in both words and action its unwavering commitment to the annihilation of a UN member state through violent means.

Although incapable of pronouncing it correctly, Bowen gives context-free promotion and amplification to the BDS movement, failing to clarify to viewers what the end-game of that political campaign actually is and providing it with back wind through his context-free analogy which inaccurately – yet deliberately – herds audiences towards linkage between Israel and the apartheid era in South Africa. He continues:

“Now as for the Israelis, Mr Netanyahu seems pretty happy with the status quo; keeping a lid on things, expanding settlements, Israelis are making good money. But he’s also been warned that long-term, if there’s no Palestinian state, he might well be forced to…ah…ultimatelyIsraelis might be forced….ah….to give Palestinians who live under their control the vote and since most likely Palestinians would be in the majority, that would open up a whole new range of electoral possibilities….ah….which many Israelis would certainly fear.” [all emphasis added]

Bowen’s reference to the finances of Israeli citizens of course has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, but it certainly reveals much about his own mindset and the depths to which he is prepared to go in order to try to convince audiences that Israel is the party not interested in a peace deal. That framing continues with his failure to inform audiences of the dramatic rise in Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians since this latest round of negotiations began and his predictable insertion of a context-free reference to “expanding settlements”. Bowen then goes on to introduce the familiar ‘demographic threat’ argument, but fails to inform viewers that the vast majority of Palestinians live not under the “control” of Israel, but under the Palestinian Authority or Hamas and that they have voting rights within their own society.

The rationale behind the creation of the role of Middle East Editor in 2005 has been described in the following terms by the BBC:

“Jeremy Bowen’s new role is, effectively, to take a bird’s eye view of developments in the Middle East, providing analysis that might make a complex story more comprehensive or comprehensible for the audience, without the constraints of acting as a daily news correspondent. His remit is not just to add an extra layer of analysis to our reporting, but also to find stories away from the main agenda.”

As this interview demonstrates once again, instead of “analysis”, BBC audiences are actually being fed context-free selected slivers of information which in fact hinder their comprehension of the region’s events, but serve to advance the framing of the issue according to a specific political agenda.  

When the person ultimately responsible for the BBC’s Middle East content allows himself to exploit his platform for the promotion and amplification of one-sided political messaging in such a blatant manner, it can hardly be surprising that much of the rest of the BBC’s Middle East coverage looks the way it does.  

ACTION ALERT: SIGN THE LETTER OF PROTEST NOW TO STOP EFFORT TO EXPEL ISRAELI ARCHITECTS FROM INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS

April 24, 2014

On March 19, the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] voted to call on the International Union of Architects [UIA] to boycott Israel and suspend it from the prestigious international union because of Israel's allegedly “illegal” activities in the West Bank.   The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS), RIBA's sister organization,passed a similar resolution.  Both were engineered by RIBA's Angela Brady.

In short, RIBA backed BDS (the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement) whose goal is to demonize Israel, isolate it as a pariah, and eventually eliminate the Jewish state.

This resolution is irrational and fundamentally anti-Semitic. 

Support the renowned Jewish, Israeli, and international architects who oppose this bigoted resolution.

You can help STOP UIA from adopting the resolution.

Please act now and sign the StandWithUs  letter.   It will be delivered to the UIA trustees.

More than 3300 people have already signed.

 

Background on the RIBA resolution

The resolution and the process for passing it had all the usual hallmarks of BDS manipulations and deceptions.

The resolution is based on false accusations, half-truths, distortions and ignorance.

•  Speakers included  RIBA member Abe Hayeem, a virulently anti-Israel Israeli who is chair of the BDS group Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine. Angela Brady, past RIBA president, who pushed the resolution, falsely claimed that Israel was guilty of “land grabs, forced removals, killing the state and human rights, and reinforcement of apartheid.”

The resolution is anti-Semitic. It uniquely discriminates against only one nation in the world: the Jewish state.

• Precisely for that reason, RIBA felt compelled to include a disclaimer in its press release that ““It is not the case that the RIBA is in any way anti-Semitic.”

• There are 74 member countries in UIA, but RIBA felt no need to suspend membership of some of the most egregious human rights abusers, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Congo, China, North Korea, and Mauritania.

•  As British architect Steven Games wrote, "To demonise Israel at the expense of all other parties lacks a necessary even handedness and it ill behooves a statutory royal body to behave in this way. If RIBA means to stand by this decision, it should either now call for masses of bans against other countries or renounce its royal charter.... No one could want to belong to a body that can be characterised as antisemitic, nor is it appropriate that an institutionally antisemitic body should retain its royal charter."  

• Architect Daniel Leon denounced the resolution, “'To single out Israel can only be seen as discriminatory and prejudiced.”  He added that it “demonise[s] a section of the profession without warrant”.

Boycott proponents manipulated the voting process by silencing opposition.

• RIBA's international committee had discussed a related resolution in January, but rejected it because “it was unlikely to make a constructive contribution to the wider discussion.”  Boycott advocates were not deterred.

• Opponents of the motion were not allowed to attend the Council meeting if they were not Council members. Twenty RIBA architects had written a letter condemningthe resolution as “misguided” and “dishonourable,” and 26 others had written a letter urging rejection of the resolution.  They complained that they had not beenforewarned about the resolution and were not allowed to attend the meeting.

 

• The resolution passed only by a vote of 23 to 16, with 10 abstentions, a tiny percentage of RIBA's 40,000members worldwide.

 

• The boycott campaign was not spontaneous nor a response to recent events. As BDS leader PACBI (Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) proudly wrote, “The campaign initiated and worked for over seven years by Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine (APJP) was brought to fruition by great teamwork and by the courageous action of the RIBA's past President Angela Brady.”  The resolution was part of a long term strategy to isolate and demonize Israel.

The resolution violates core UIA principles of non-discrimination and non-politicization.

• “The UIA's goal is to unite the architects of the world without any form of discrimination." --UIA website

•  Prize-winning American architects condemned the RIBA resolution.

• “I find this incredible that the RIBA which I thought of as being an extremely honourable institution would vote or agitate for sanctions against Israel." -- Renowned American architect Richard Meier

• The Riba resolution has been “fiercely” criticized, including by the UK's own “Solo Practitioner's Group.”

 

Scottish gallery cancels Israel embassy sponsorship funds

April 24, 2014
Follow The JC on Twitter

Nothing better illustrates the warped mindset of the Jew-haters who push for a boycott of Israel than the experience of the Stills gallery in Edinburgh. Earlier this year, the Israeli embassy handed over a small sum to the gallery to support an exhibition by video artist Yael Bartana. Ms Bartana is a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. You might think that the activists who profess their support for the Palestinian cause would welcome such an exhibition. But you would be wrong, because that assumes they are primarily motivated by support for Palestinians. Their actions in Edinburgh show that it is in reality blind hatred for Israel which lies behind their campaign. The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign told the gallery it would disrupt the exhibition with protests every day unless the Israeli embassy’s money was returned. They would rather prevent an exhibition by a prominent advocate of the Palestinian cause than allow Israel to facilitate such an exhibition. Remember that next time you hear them pretend that this is about aiding the Palestinians rather than attacking Israel.

Scottish gallery cancels Israel embassy sponsorship cash

By Marcus Dysch, April 24, 2014

 

 

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/117573/scottish-gallery-cancels-israel-embassy-sponsorship-cash

 

A Scottish art gallery has cancelled the Israeli embassy’s sponsorship of an exhibition after anti-Israel activists threatened to mount a 90-day protest.

The embassy had paid around £1,300 to support video artist Yael Bartana’s contribution to a project on diaspora communities. The money had been provided by the embassy despite Ms Bartana’s well-publicised criticism of the Israeli government’s policies towards Palestinians.

Her work went on display last week at the prestigious Stills gallery in Edinburgh. The gallery returned the money and removed the embassy’s logo from promotional material. The exhibition will run until July 20.

A Thousand of Him, Scattered: Relative Newcomers in Diaspora features the work of seven international artists, looking at minority groups in countries including Togo, Finland and China, as well as Israel.

The embassy said it was ironic that the boycotters had demanded the money be returned, despite Ms Bartana’s stance towards her own government, and its willingness to support her regardless.

An embassy spokesman said: “The role of culture is to open channels of understanding and foster dialogue. We regret that a divisive minority has in effect blackmailed a reputable cultural institution into withdrawing the embassy’s support.”

The British Embassy in Tel Aviv also condemned the gallery’s decision. But the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the gallery’s action, which came after the group told Stills it would “mount a sustained protest against Israeli government involvement every day of the three-month run”.

A Stills spokesman would not discuss the reasons behind the return of the money, but said: “Despite the change in funding, the list of exhibiting artists and works has remained unchanged.”

Born in Afula, Ms Bartana studied photography at the Bezalel Academy in Jerusalem and in New York. She has said she is not “an Israel hater” or a political activist but accepted that her work had “a more critical point of view”.

Netanyahu leaves door open to peace following suspension of talks

25/04/2014

Netanyahu leaves door open to peace following suspension of talks

Israel’s security cabinet voted unanimously yesterday to suspend peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the wake of Wednesday’s announcement that the Fatah faction, led by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, had agreed to form a unity government with Hamas.

The seven-member security cabinet met for up to seven hours yesterday in Tel Aviv, following which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement, announcing that negotiations had been suspended. He said, “Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction.” Netanyahu noted that Hamas “calls for Muslims to fight and kill Jews” and has fired more than 10,000 rockets at Israel. The statement also said that “Israel will respond to unilateral Palestinian action with a series of measures.”

US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki stated that the unity agreement “certainly complicates the [peace] process” and that, “It’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to sit down and negotiate with a group that denies its right to exist.”

Speaking to Channel Two, Israel’s Justice Minister and lead negotiator Tzipi Livni called the decision to suspend talks, “the right one” and commented that Abbas had, “made bad decisions for the peace process.” Later in the day, during a series of media interviews, Netanyahu emphasised that peace talks could resume if Abbas changes course. He toldMSNBC, “I will be there in the future if we have a partner who is committed to peace. Right now we have a partner who has joined another partner committed to our destruction.”

Some commentators speculate that Israel’s government is leaving the door open to talks until it becomes clear what impact the Fatah-Hamas unity agreement will have on issues such as Israeli security cooperation with the PA. Given several unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation since Hamas violently expelled Fatah from Gaza in 2007, it has been suggested in the media that Wednesday’s agreement may not in fact be implemented.

Hamas wins, Abbas loses

Hamas is the reconciliation agreement's biggest winner. The Islamist group controlling Gaza is currently facing a severe economic and political crisis, and is unable to meet the needs of the Strip's 1.5 million residents. 


After it turned its back on Syria and Iran, Hamas also lost Egyptian support following the ascent of the current regime there, which views it as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood and as a group that threatens Egyptian security. As such, General al-Sisi's forces are actively destroying tunnel after tunnel connecting Gaza to Egypt, and only occasionally open the Rafah crossing.

The unity deal signed Wednesday gives Hamas international legitimacy, which could allow it to receive aid and donations to help it extract itself from the crippling crisis threatening both its rule and the wellbeing of Gaza's people. Today, even Turkey and Qatar are fulfilling their pledge of sending aid to Gaza.


But even more importantly for Hamas, the deal makes Abbas the person responsible for the welfare of Gaza's impoverished residents. The PA president is already footing the bill for Gaza's gas stations – Israel, of course, supplies the gas itself. Abbas has also been paying the wages of Fatah-affiliated teachers in Gaza, who have been sitting idle since 2007.

But now Abbas is responsible for everyone. He will have to figure out how to raise funds from the Americans and Europeans – funds that will have to reach Hamas and other Gaza-based institutions.


Another perk for Hamas is that they and other Gaza groups such as Islamic Jihad will be offered membership in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a move that could allow Hamas to take over the organization that is the legal representation of the Palestinian people. It is important to bear in mind that Abbas derives most of his legitimacy from the fact that he is the leader of the PLO. If Hamas manages to seize power of the organization, it will take on a new, militant tone.


In contrast, Abbas and his Fatah party do not get that much out of this newfound unity. They get brownie points for actually reaching the deal, which is highly popular in the West Bank and the refugee camps. Abbas also gains an additional whip to wave at the Israelis and Americans regarding the renewal of peace talks.


One should note that, despite his statement on the lack of incongruence between the Hamas-Fatah unity and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian talks, if the conditions Abbas recently laid out for extending negotiations with Israel are met, he can still scupper this deal with Hamas just as he has done before.

Conversely, should Israel fail to meet his demands, he can blame them and the Americans for pushing him into the arms of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees. This aside, he has more to lose than to gain.


Abbas has good reason to be displeased with the agreement. He knows that any thaw in ties between him, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will be a cause for concern around the world, specifically in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are increasingly hostile towards the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk.

But above all, the deal with Hamas poses a real threat to Fatah's rule in the West Bank. Hamas could take over and drag the West Bank into a violent conflict with Israel, thus exporting the economic turmoil currently plaguing Gaza to the West Bank.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4512703,00.html
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76e_1398336974#4KI3OyvZiXC7eprm.99