Don't let Netanyahu finish Iran nuke deal. Instead make it the start

NETANYAHU scare tactic misfired.  So will he try again?


THE international agreement under which the Iranian government renounces the production of nuclear weapons and allows international inspection, in return for which it gets a relaxation of sanctions, is a major achievement for US President Barack Obama.

It is a humiliating setback for Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. From getting Tel Aviv children to crouch under desks in air raid drills, to treating the UN General Assembly as children, Netanyahu has done everything to whip up fear and hysteria about a supposed Iranian threat.  We were told Iran was near to having the bomb, and planning to use it, even though Israel's own intelligence chiefs doubted this was the case. Past remarks by former Iranian president Ahmadinejad about erasing the Zionist state were interpreted with the help of Israel's friends in the media as meaning the Iranians were intent on a nuclear Holocaust.

It would not take more than elementary knowledge of geography to realise that any such use of nuclear weapons against Israel would destroy al Aksa and slaughter large numbers of Muslims, leaving Palestine a radioactive wasteland rather than a homeland to which Palestinians could return.

But logic does not figure much in war psychology.  The threat from Iran was to be used not only for unity at home, circling the wagons, and stilling Jewish dissent by evoking a supposed new Hitler; but to let Israel pretend to the world it is the victim, threatened with annihilation, even as its bombs rained down on Gaza and Lebanon, and its government prepared new ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.

Besides which, Israel remains the one nuclear power in the Middle East, neither admitting nor denying it, but not allowing international inspection, nor allowing nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu the right to travel and speak abroad.    

Under the deal secured with Iran, its government agreed to:

• Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity.
• "Neutralise" its stockpile of near-20%-enriched uranium.
• Not install any more centrifuges (the machines used to enrich uranium).
• Allow international inspection of nuclear facilities. 

See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25080217

In return the six states which took part in the Vienna talks with Iran will:

• Not impose further nuclear-related sanctions.
•  Suspend certain sanctions on trade.
• Transfer $4.2bn (£2.6bn) to Iran in installments from sales of its oil.

In response to a complaint by Netanyahu that Iran was being "rewarded" with billions of dollars, opponents pointed out that Iranians were merely being allowed to receive the money they have earned, unlike the billions which Israel receives in US aid.

In Tehran suburbs, ordinary Iranians who have been suffering the effect of sanctions in scarcity, job losses, and price inflation, were celebrating the good news this Eid.
   
In Washington, President Obama said the deal “will make America and the world safer and more secure”. He used his weekly address to Americans on Saturday to build support among voters, ahead of a vote in Congress and against Republican opposition.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, who took part in the Vienna talks, told Parliament on Wednesday that "no agreement with Iran would have been enough for Netanyahu. Israel prefers a permanent state of standoff (with Iran)."  Hammond, due to discuss the deal with Netanyahu, added  the Israeli prime minister would try to undermine the deal through influence with the US Congress, but predicted this would fail. He said he was hopeful that the UK and Iran could reopen their respective embassies before the end of this year. 

While Netanyahu has been pre-occupied with the supposed threat from the Islamic republic in Iran, Western powers have shown increasing alarm at the real threat from the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", ISIL, or Da'esh. Whatever suspicions there were that the US and Saudis might sponsor Sunni and Wahabbi militancy as an asset, this ruthless and well-armed force has threatened the Saudi regime and carried out massive attacks on Egyptian forces in Sinai. And while Netanyahu and his mouthpieces could only attack ISIL in propaganda crudely lumping Hamas and Hizbollah together with this new barbaric force, we know that Hizbollah, an Iranian ally, is fighting ISIL in Syria, and that ISIL has threatened boastfully to destroy Hamas.

It was revealed this weekend that RAF pilots are flying combat missions against ISIL forces, not only in Iraq but in Syria too. Many people on the Left and in the peace movement have protested that this goes against the vote in Parliament last year not to intervene in Syria. But what we might note here is that back then the government wanted to go to war on Syria and oust President Assad, whereas now British forces are being deployed on the same side as Assad's backers, Iran, which also has forces fighting ISIL in Iraq.

Philip Hammond is not the only European Foreign Minister telling Netanyahu to calm down and behave. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told German broadcaster ARD in an interview on Wednesday that "this is a responsible deal and Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticize the agreement in a very coarse way.”

In Israel too, though Netanyahu's right-wing coalition partners and the "opposition" Labour Party might be drawn behind him, not everyone agrees. More than one said Netanyahu had already alienated the US government and continuing to interfere in Congress would only make things worse.
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/netanyahu-denounces-iran-nuclear-dealcriticism-israel


Veteran political columnist Akiva Eldar writes:

'A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, who has been closely following the Iranian issue in recent years, discussed with Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity Israel’s ability to influence ratification of the agreement by its signatories. “Bibi [Netanyahu] knows full well that the agreement was signed between Iran and six [world] powers, and not just with the US,” he said. “Everyone understands that Russia, China and Germany will not sign off on what Congress does.” He described Netanyahu’s opposition to Obama as “uncontrollable and political,” and that he is convinced that the prime minister’s moves in Congress will fail, as did the Israeli attempt in 1981 to thwart the sale of advanced warning AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

“I will tell you something that they don’t tell you in the Foreign Ministry,” the official said. “The agreement looks good to anyone not engaged in governmental public diplomacy. That includes the [military] chief of staff and many senior officials in the intelligence community. We understand that the Iranian threat has been deferred for a far longer time than we ever imagined in our rosiest dreams, with minimal danger for Israel.”

'He added, “Not only that, the agreement creates superb opportunities, which must be and can be used, if done correctly, of course. For instance, Iran will have a vested interest in maintaining calm in the near future, and Europe and the United States can be used to pressure it to rein in Hezbollah in arenas where it operates against us — on the Golan Heights and abroad.” '

Whatever Netanyahu and his sponsor in Las Vegas, Sheldon Adelson, are able to do by meddling in Washington, hopefully Britain and others - not least China and Russia - will make it clear that they are sticking by the Vienna agreement and not going to tolerate an Israeli war threat or a return to sanctions.

Here in London, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament welcomed the deal and said it showed how tensions in the Middle East could be reduced by diplomacy.

I'd take things further.  The best way to make this agreement hold, and convince Iranians and everyone else they've made the right move in renouncing nuclear weapons is to be consistent.
Make the war-torn Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone, as Mordechai Vanunu has long urged, removing this sword of Damocles from hanging over all its peoples, as part of aiming for a peaceful world for everybody.

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib.

Good news for Good Friday and maybe a good beginning

IT'S good news for the Easter weekend, and for the end of the Persian Spring festival Nawroz. A great power agreement with Iran has been reached, providing for limits on the country's nuclear energy development to prevent it obtaining weapon capacity. In return, the United States-led sanctions which have hit Iran's economy, and ordinary Iranians' life particularly, are to be lifted.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said a "decisive step" had been reached. The White House said its sanctions -"the toughest in history" -had brought Iran to the conference table, and negotiations had achieved a comprehensive agreement which President Obama called "a good deal".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal

In Iran, there was open jubilation on the streets of Tehran as the news of the deal came on Thursday night. This morning thousands gathered at Mehrabad airport to greet chief nuclear negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif and his team as they arrived back from the talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.

"Zarif, thank you,” people chanted while waving the Islamic republic’s green, white and red flag. Others took out their mobile phones to take pictures of a man who will become a national hero if a final agreement, due in June, is reached.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/03/iran-nuclear-mohammad-javad-zarif

The news should be brightening up Passover too; but it has not been welcomed by the Israeli government, which was opposed to the negotiations with Iran, and doesn't want to lose the Iranian bogeyman and its supposed nuclear threat, as a diversion from its own aggressive policies,  and to keep its own people -and international supporters -in line.   

Here are the details of the agreement, as reported in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz:

Iran, six world powers framework agreement: The main terms
Under comprehensive agreement to be signed on June 30, Tehran will continue to operate 5,000 centrifuges at Natanz, all sanctions on Iran will be lifted.
By Barak Ravid    | Apr. 2, 2015 | 9:15 PM
          

The United States, Iran and five other world powers say they've reached an understanding that will direct them toward achieving a comprehensive nuclear agreement within three months.

Reading out a joint statement, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said a "decisive step" has been achieved. Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif read out the same statement in Farsi.

U.S. President Barack Obama, making a statement on the breakthrough in the talks, said U.S. and allies reached a historic nuclear deal with Iran, which he called, "A good deal."

The main points of the framework agreement reached:

The agreement term: The agreement will be in effect for between 10 and 15 years during which there will be strict limitations and oversight of the Iranian nuclear program. Some of the clauses of the agreement will be in effect for 20 to 25 years.

Uranium enrichment: Iran will continue to operate 6,104 out of the 19,000 centrifuges within its territory. All of the centrifuges in operation will of the oldest generation Iran has. Iran will deliver the 1,000 advanced centrifuges in its possession to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

For 10 years, Iran will be able to operate only 5060 centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

Iran pledged that for 15 years it will not enrich uranium to more than 3.5 percent – a level at which a nuclear weapon cannot be produced. Iran has pledged that for 15 years it will not build another nuclear facility besides the one at Natanz.

All additional enrichment materials – including 5,000 additional centrifuges that are at Natanz will be collected and placed for safekeeping under the oversight of the IAEA.

Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile: Iran agreed to do away with most of its stockpile of uranium enriched to the relatively low levels of 3.5, and which now stands at nearly 10 tons. This stockpile will be diluted to a level that cannot be used for making nuclear weapons, or will be taken out of the country. For 15 years, Iran will not be in possession of more than 300 kilograms of low-level enriched uranium.

The underground nuclear reactor at Fordo: This site will be converted from an enrichment facility into a nuclear physics research facility. Iran pledged that for 15 years it will not enrich uranium at Fordo and will not carry out research and development in the realm of uranium enrichment there. Iran pledged that for 15 years it will not store fissile nuclear material at the Fordo site. Out of 3,000 centrifuges currently installed at Fordo, 1,000 will remain operational there, though not for enriching uranium. The remaining 2,000 centrifuges will be conveyed for safekeeping to the IAEA.

The Arak heavy water reactor: Iran agreed to replan the reactor, in conjunction with the six world powers, so that it cannot produce material that could be used for nuclear weapons. The current reactor core, from which a large quantity of plutonium can already be produced, will be destroyed or removed from Iran. As long as the reactor is operational, Iran will remove from the country all the nuclear fuel it used at the reactor. Iran has pledged not to build another heavy water reactor for 15 years.

Research and development: For 10 years, Iran will not make use for uranium enrichment of the advanced centrifuges it is developing. Iran can continue limited research and development of advanced centrifuges in accordance with agreements it will reach with the world powers.

Oversight: The IAEA will receive free and regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and will be able to use advanced technology to monitor Iranian activity. The IAEA will follow up raw materials and parts that have been used in the nuclear program to ascertain that they are not being used for a covert nuclear program. The IAEA will monitor uranium mines in Iran for 25 years. The IAEA will monitor storage and assembly facilities for centrifuges in Iran for 20 years.

Iran will sign and ratify the additional protocol of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which stipulates that IAEA inspectors can conduct unrestricted random searches at any suspicious facility in Iran.

Iran will implement its agreement with the IAEA to clarify suspicions of the existence of military aspects to Iran’s nuclear program.

Sanctions: After implementation of the agreement by Iran, all sanctions that applied on Iran by the United States and the EU on banking, insurance, and oil will be lifted immediately. The UN Security Council will make a resolution that will replace six earlier resolutions that leveled sanctions on Iran, and will decide which of the sanctions will remain in place. If Iran breaks the agreement, the sanctions related to its nuclear program will be reinstated immediately. The American sanctions on Iran in the realm of terror, human rights violations and Iran’s missile program will remain in place.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.650335

Netanyahu has now tried to pull back the goal posts by demanding that sanctions should not be lifted on Iran until its leaders recognise the Israeli state's "right to exist". Coming after the Israeli leader's claim that Israel represents all Jewish people wherever they live, and his pledge during election to never accept a Palestinian state, this is a return to the lie that any questioning of the state's legitimacy or future is equivalent to an existential, even genocidal threat.

This used to make great play with former President Ahmedinejad's demagogy, quoting him as threatening to "wipe Israel off the map", although other accounts had him promising that the Zionist state would be erased from the history books - not quite the same. In any case it is the Israeli state that has done everything to wipe Palestine from the map, literally and through settlements and land-grabbing.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly denied the intention of developing nuclear weapons, and Ayatollah Khamenei says these are against Islam. As I have pointed out more than once, if Iran wants to help the Palestinians it would be crazy to use nuclear weapons against Israel, which would most probably destroy Al Aksa and inevitably kill huge numbers of Palestinians and devastate their country. Palestinians want to regain their homeland, not inherit radio-active ruins.

One Israeli who says he is not afraid of the big, bad Iranian bomb is veteran fighter and peace campaigner Uri Avnery.  He says if Israel really wants acceptance by Iranians it must stop repressing the Palestinians, and make peace with Palestine.     

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1428073739/

 Whether the Netanyahu government wants peace is another question.

It has been revealed that in 2011 Netanyahu pulled support from negotiations with the Palestinian leadership when they were near agreement, even though it would have been far from satisfactory for the Palestinians. He did not want any deal at all.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-pulled-out-of-deal-for-demilitarized-palestine-shared-jerusalem-in-2011/

This week, while the Iranians were negotiating in Iran, it was reported that the Israeli air force was operating alongside the Saudis against Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are linked with Iran. Although the Saudis and their allies say they want to avoid civilian targets they have so far hit at least one factory, and a refugee camp. The Houthis, of course, do not have an airforce, and from what I have seen so far they are neither as well-armed nor as murderous as the ISIL barbarians. They are after all fighting in their own country.  Whether or not Israel has anything to gain from joining a Sunni-Shia war, this is no way of pursuing peace with Iran.

One argument some people have made for Iran's right to develop nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent. I don't go along with deterrent theory myself. But it is a fact that if Iran relinquishes the production of nuclear weapons, that leaves one existing nuclear power in the Middle East, and that of course is Israel.

As a reward perhaps for Netanyahu's trip to Washington and attempt to stop the nuclear talks, the US State Department released previously classified documents about Israel's nuclear weapons. One of Israel's supporters - a UKIP candidate in Hendon - was so outraged he said Mossad should kidnap Obama for the crime of "revealing state secrets".  How a UK patriot claims the right to tell a US government its duty to guard Israeli government secrets, we won't ask. Vorwarts putz gefahren, as they say in Yiddish. And now he's an ex-UKIP candidate. Too much even for Hendon.

I'm one of the generation for whom mention of nuclear weapons at Easter time brings memories of the road from Aldermaston to London. It must be about 56 years since, together with a contingent of blueshirted Habonimniks who'd been attending an activity near Reading, I joined a section of the march, even managing to steer our lot behind some 'Keep Left' Young Socialists. Though some of us kept up our interest in CND, Habonim did not. Possibly the news that Israel, with then Defence Minister Shimon Peres, was acquiring nuclear weapons with help from France, might have dissuaded enthusiasm.

Not till 1986 did Mordechai Vanunu reveal the extent of Israel's nuclear weapons production, and for this he was kidnapped by Mossad and spent eighteen years in jail, 11 of them in solitary. Today Vanunu is not allowed out of Israel, nor supposed to speak to journalists, but he did manage to inspire an Israeli Committee for a Nuclear-Free Middle East, which argues for nukes and other weapons of mass destruction to be removed from this volatile region as a step towards world disarmament.

This would not of course be popular with Netanyahu, still less with some of the fanatical Christian Zionists in America for whom a nuclear armageddon in the Middle East is seen as one way of speeding the Rapture and Second Coming.

But success in the nuclear limitation talks with Iran must raise the issue of the next step. Opening Israel's nuclear industry to international inspection, and removing the Zionist state's nuclear weapons, and with them any temptation for other states to follow that road to disaster. 

America has the power to bring this about, if it wills, and even talk of sanctions could be persuasive.                  




https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal

Fears for life of Iranian trade unionist

INTERNATIONAL demands are being renewed for the release of Iranian bus workers' leader Reza Shahabi. The campaign has been given fresh urgency with the news that Shahabi is seriously ill after a hunger strike in prison.

Below are two of the calls going out for Rez Shahabi's freedom.
    

Free Reza Shahabi now!
Reza Shahabi – an Iranian labour activist member of the executive committee of the VAHED Bus Union - has been on hunger strike for almost 40 days in prison in Iran. According to the latest reports from Tehran, his protest is now having grave physical effects on him and he has become paralysed down the left side of his body.

Shahabi has spent the last four years in prison, accused by the Islamic state in Iran of “gathering information and colluding against state security, spreading propaganda against the system and ‘Moharebeh’” (translated as “enmity against god”). Over the last few years, his state of health has deteriorated markedly. Vindictively however, the authorities have not allowed him access to appropriate medical treatment.

Shahabi is an anti-war, anti-imperialist worker activist. In his defence, Hands Off the People of Iran is joining forces with the veteran labour activist, Ali Pichgah (a former leader of Iran's oil workers’ strike) to call for his immediate, unconditional release.

As a matter of urgency, Reza Shahabi now needs hospital treatment. His life is being endangered by the Iranian authorities’ refusal to allow him proper medical care. We hold the government of Iranian president Hassan Rouhani directly responsible for Reza Shahabi's life. This brave working class leader has taken a stand against capitalist exploitation and oppression in Iran – as well as any attack on the country by the west or Israel - and it is incumbent on all anti-imperialist/anti-war activists to support Shahabi in these extremely difficult days, when he is putting his life on the line for his beliefs.

What you can do:

• Support the demand of Hopi and Ali Pichgah for the immediate release of Reza Shahabi! Publicise this protest widely!
• Email your name/your organisation to Hopi at office@hopoi.info and we will add your details to the protests we are coordinating (please indicate whether personal capacity or not)
• Invite a speaker from Hopi to a meeting of your organisation to explain our anti-war/anti-imperialist work and the situation of the working people in Iran
• Write to the European embassy for Iran (notify us if you do):
  

Ambassade de la Republique Islamique d'Iran
4 avenue d'iena
75116 Paris, France

• Or email the newly opened UK embassy (copy us in): iranemb.lon@mfa.gov.ir
  

In solidarity,

Hands Off the People of Iran
Yassamine Mather, Persian contact – 07590 429 226
Mark Fischer, Hopi secretary – 07950 416 922
Hopi, PO Box 54631, London N16 8YE
www.hopoi.org, office@hopoi.info

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Hands Off the People of Iran <office@hopoi.info>

---

__,_._,___

 

 

 

Iran: Free jailed trade union leader Reza Shahabi now

In partnership with the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), a global union federation representing some 4.5 million transport workers in around 700 unions in over 150 countries worldwide.

Reza Shahabi, treasurer of the Syndicate of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, has been in custody in Iran since June 2010 on charges that result solely from the legitimate representation of his union members. Reza Shahabi is suffering from a number of health problems, which appear to result from the brutal treatment he received when he was arrested. Unions and other organisations, including the ITF and Amnesty International, have made numerous appeals for his freedom, and for him to receive the medical attention he needs. The ILO has stated that it, 'Urges the Government to secure without further delay Mr Shahabi’s parole, pardon and immediate release from prison, the dropping of any remaining charges.' Tell the government that no worker should be imprisoned for his or her trade union activities, much less be treated in a way which amounts to deliberate torture, and demand that Shahabi is released immediately and unconditionally from prison.

Tanks for the Memory

BRITISH Chieftains on parade. Argument over where they went and bill that was twice paid.

BACK in the early 1980s when circumstances forced me to take a security job, which was all I could get, about the only privilege for working long, boring hours, was entrance to some interesting buildings. Among the larger ones was a stately pile on Millbank, near Parliament Square, housing the offices of the Crown Agents, who supplied anything from postage stamps to pharmaceutical storage systems to overseas governments. It is now a private company with headquarters in Surrey.

Not far away, on Great Smith Street, was a neat, more modest unmarked building belonging to an offshoot of the Crown Agents, International Military Services(IMS). When I spent a night there my instructions included to check all desks in the reading room for any materials or documents that had been left out, and if I found any, to make a note of the location, then remove the items to a safe in the office. Had I been there during the day I might have seen visitors from various countries perusing manuals and catalogues of military hardware for export, much like you or I looking through an Argos catalogue.

At that time the Argentine junta had a naval purchasing mission in Victoria, as it seems HM government was very sportingly helping them prepare for the Falklands/Malvinas war. Other visitors who came on shopping trips had included both Iranians and Iraqis.

IMS, which also had a much larger modern building in Abbey Orchard Street, had been set up by Harold Wilson's Labour government in 1974, but its first chairman was Sir John Cuckney, a former director of Midland Bank, whose name later cropped up in the controversy over arms to Iraq. It was Midland Bank which had a special section devoted to military equipment sales, and which loaned large sums to Saddam Hussein's government. Any losses made when the regime defaulted or was brought down were covered by the British Department of Trade and Industy's Export Credit guarantees, in other words, the public.

However, our current story concerns arms to Iran.

Between 1971 and 1976, the Shah of Iran had ordered 1,500 Chieftain tanks and 250 repair vehicles costing £650 million. The shah's regime paid up front, which must have come in handy for the British government. But then in 1979,  with only 185 tanks delivered,  the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah, and installed an Islamic Republic. The massive arms deal came apart, and the Iranians asked for their money back. But the British government had other ideas.

"We chose not to return the equivalent of £450 million that Iran had paid us," said Tory MP Ben Wallace. "Instead we sold the tanks to Saddam Hussein who then proceeded to use them against the people of Iran."

In 2010 it was reported that the Iranian government had won a longdrawn out court case ove this, and that Britain, more specifically IMS, was waiting for the Iranians to apply for their money, and would then pay it back. But by last year the money had still not been paid, possibly because of sanctions against Iran. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office granted visas to a group of Iranian officials to come and pursue their case for the funds in the courts here. But no sooner had the Iranians touched down at Heathrow than their passports were seized, their visas revoked, and themselves locked up as supposed asylum-seekers.

(This reminds me incidentally of another case, when a British diplomat who had been working in Iran was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and his home was searched, although he was never charged. It looked as though MI6 and MI5 might have been working at cross purposes).+

Ben Wallace, MP for Wyre and Preston North, is a former Army intelligence officer who also served as overseas director for QinetiQ, the now privatised MoD research and development company. He is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Iran. Speaking in a Westminster Hall debate on March 11, he urged that the money owed to the Iranians be released now that relations were improving. The MP also expressed concern that while the US government was issuing letters of comfort to assist US banks wishing to trade in Iran after sanctions were eased, British banks had no such protection from the long reach of Congress.

IMS is fairly dormant as a company now that arms sales are left to private companies, but it is being kept going to deal with cases like the Iranian claim, which could reach court here in June.

Meanwhile, according to Private Eye, the Treasury has Iran listed as owing the UK money on this deal, because the Shah borrowed part of the money for the deal from British banks, which were paid £28.44 million under our old friend the Export Credit Guarantee Department.  

http://jancom.org/JANCOMIMS.html

http://www.8bitmode.com/rogerdog/lobster/lobster30.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7632836/Britain-to-pay-back-Iran-400-million.html

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/04/26/britain-has-to-pay-back-nearly-400-million-to-iran%E2%80%99s-defence-ministry/

+
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/diplomat-in-bribe-dismissal-alleges-coverup-by-mi6-1575054.html

Saying "No!" to Netanyahu, No War Against Iran!

 A JEWISH peace campaign group in the United States has joined others warning against new sanctions on Iran, and is urging supporters to petition senators to resist the drive towards war.

"As I write this, the U.S. Senate is just eight votes shy of a veto-proof bill that could send the U.S. to war over Iran," writes Stephanie Fox, of the West Coast-based Jewish Voice for Peace(JVP) organisation. "This AIPAC-backed bill would torpedo ongoing diplomatic efforts and open the way to military action and further draconian sanctions. The results could be disastrous—for everyone." 

The Obama administration wants to ease sanctions in return for Iran's agreement to curb nuclear development. Israeli prime minister Netanyahu has rejected the Iranian pledge even though his own intelligence chiefs advised that it was a good agreement.

AIPAC, which the peace campaigners see backing the bill to keep up hostility to Iran, is the well-heeled American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful Zionist lobby in Washington which has been used to getting its way.

Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports Palestinian rights and opposes Israeli occupation, has the watchword "Israelis and Palestinians, Two Peoples, One Future", but right now it sees the threat of war on Iran as looming large, just when there's a chance of detente. 

  "The good news is that outrage is growing, and 21 senators have come out against pro-war bill S.1881.", says JVP's Stephanie Fox. " But there is a chance it could reach a veto-proof majority. Unless we act now, the 20 senators who have not signed yet could succumb to the march to war. Can you sign this petition to tell them to stand strong?

"This legislation is being pushed by Israel lobby groups who want a pretext for Israel to take military action against Iran. Remarkably, it would pre-commit the United States to military involvement should Israel attack.

"An interim deal brokered by the U.N. Security Council has already begun implementation, with Iran taking steps to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief.  But S.1881 (the "Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act of 2013") has the support of 59 of 60 co-sponsors needed for it to pass. Eight more and the President won’t be able to veto."


JVP is hoping for at least 15,000 signatures on its petition, and says it will take out ads in a major political news outlet "to show that American Jews and our allies oppose the bill, and support diplomacy over war. "
 
http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/blog/jvp-joins-62-organizations-to-warn-senate-against-new-iran-sanctions

Jewish Voice for Peace may be only one small voice from American Jewry, and it certainly enjoys but a tiny fraction of the resources and publicity which AIPAC and other lobby organisations command.
But how far can the bigger and better-known organisations claim to be speaking for American Jews on this issue?

In a recent article in Ha'aretz, Chemi Shalev pointed out that in demanding Palestinians recognise the "Jewish" character of the State of Israel as a condition for peace, the Israeli premier was not just denying the rights and status of non-Jewish Israeli citizens, but blurring the distinction between the Israeli nation and the Jewish people worldwide.

'That’s why Netanyahu can tell the U.S. Congress “I speak on behalf of the Jewish people,” That’s how he can openly call on U.S. Jews to “stand up and be counted” in his campaign against U.S. policies on Iran. That’s why he made no effort to correct David Gregory who anointed him “Leader of the Jewish people” on Meet the Press last year.'

(Ben Gurion didn't recognize Israel as the nation state of the entire Jewish people
And why Lieberman’s proposals on ceding 300,000 Israeli Arabs only strengthen Palestinian suspicions of the demand to recognize Israel as a 'Jewish State.'

By Chemi Shalev    Ha'aretz | Jan. 8, 2014  )
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.567665

This was something Ben Gurion, the founder of the State, was diplomatically careful to avoid, though it became inherant with the Zionist declaration that Israel was the state "of the Jewish people", and insistence on the centrality of Israel to Jewish life. It may be acceptable, or go without complaint for AIPAC and other bodies claiming to lead Jewish people, but the Iran sanctions and war threat is good as any a time to call their bluff.

Here is an opinion piece in Ha'aretz from Peter Beinart:

The only 'leader’ who speaks for American Jews on Iran is Barack Obama
Most American Jews support Obama’s policies on Iran - so in whose name are their so-called 'leaders’ sabotaging his nuclear diplomacy?

Why does this matter? Because in recent months, the press has been filled with headlines like: “White House Briefs Jewish Leaders on Iran Nuclear Deal,” “American Jewish Leaders Censure Nuclear Deal,” and “Obama Urges Jewish Leaders Not to Back Iran Sanctions.”

The implication is that there’s a conflict between the White House, which want a softer line on Iran, and American Jews who - represented by their “leaders” - want a tougher one. It’s an influential storyline. And it’s utter nonsense.

In truth, the only person who can legitimately claim to speak for American Jews on the subject of Iran is the very guy American Jewish “leaders” oppose: Barack Obama. Look at the evidence. In 2012, Mitt Romney slammed Obama for not supporting tougher sanctions against Iran and for not more explicitly pledging that, if sanctions fail to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, the U.S. will attack. In so doing, Romney road-tested the critique leveled by Benjamin Netanyahu and many American Jewish “leaders.”

The result? Obama won 69 percent of the Jewish vote. According to an exit poll by J Street (the only organization to ask such a question), Jewish voters preferred Obama to Romney on Iran by a margin of 58 to 26 percent.

More recent surveys reveal basically the same thing. A Pew Research Center poll last October found that 52 percent of American Jews approve of Obama’s Iran policy while 35 percent disapprove.

An American Jewish Committee survey that same month found that American Jews support Obama’s “handling Iran’s Nuclear Program” 62-36 percent.

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.569957?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.223%2C
6
       
   


So maybe JVP from being a small minority can claim to be speaking for the "silent majority" this time, at least!

Keep up the call for Nuke-free Middle East!

 DIMONA nuclear complex in Israel can't be exempt from talks

DESPITE the grumbles from Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, and rumbles from the war party in Washington, the Iranian government's agreement to curb nuclear development in exchange for reduction of sanctions, is arousing hopes for this to be a new start.

"Across the globe, headlines pronounced that a 'breakthrough agreement' had been reached in Geneva. Iran's atomic ambitions had been curbed in exchange for limited sanctions relief, thus deflating the long-standing military standoff.

"The deal hammered out between Iran and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia stipulates that Tehran will halt progress on enrichment capacity, stop developing its heavy water reactor at Arak, and open access to international weapons inspection. While this deal paves the way for Iran's reintegration into the family of Western nations, and can therefore be conceived as a real milestone, in terms of the Middle East nuclear problem, any robust agreement,however, will have to include Israel."


This was Israeli professor and peace activist Neve Gordon.speaking to Al Jazeera at the weekend. But Gordon, who teaches Politics at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev at Beersheba, not all that far from Israel's Dimona nuclear complex, knows what he is up against. 

"Within Israel, speaking about the nuclear programme in Dimona is taboo. Mysteriously, however, there is also a broad-based agreement to keep silent about it in Washington and in most European capitals. Despite claims made by independent analysts that Israel likely has around 80 warheads, and is believed to be the only state in the region that has produced separated plutonium, and possibly highly enriched uranium, the two key ingredients in nuclear weapons. Indeed, it may now have enough plutonium, including the plutonium already in weapons, for up to 200 nuclear warheads.

Creating a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East is actually not a new idea. Ironically, it was first proposed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 by no other than the major 'culprit' in the recent fray - Iran.

"So why are politicians and mainstream media outlets concentrating on Iran and its decision to embark on a nuclear programme instead of adopting a more ambitious framework that considers the steps needed to make the Middle East a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction? To be sure, I am against Iran developing a nuclear weapon, but I am also opposed to Israel having a nuclear arsenal, which at 200 warheads, would be larger than the arsenal of Britain. There is, after all, a connection between the two and this connection needs to be spelled out, if a broader framework is to be adopted".

The call for a nuclear weapon free Middle East was raised by Israel's long imprisoned nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu from the moment he could speak out on this issue. And the demand that Israel give up its nuclear weapons as part of an agreement was raised by new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani when he addressed the UN General Assembly, well before the latest agreement.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-nuclear-free-zone-in-the-middle-east-why-israel-will-not-join-the-non-proliferation-treaty/5351738

Intriguingly, it was also reported before the Iranian agreement was announced that
Israeli, Iranian and Arab representatives attended a preliminary meeting in Switzerland.

in preparation of an international conference. The Israeli government then denied that its representatives had actually met with the Arabs and Iranians. Were the talks in Switzerland held to make it easier for President Obama to persuade the Iranians, then played down so Netanyahu could help Obama's opponents keep the talk of war against Iran going?

Whatever the dangerous game he is still playing, neither Netanyahu nor his allies, from Senators Kirk and Menendez in Washington to gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas, have succeeded in stopping the advance towards an anti-nuclear deal or the optimism this arouses.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/11/339484/senate-hawks-pushing-for-antiiran-bill/

In the British House of Commons at Westminster the following exchages took place on November 25:
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):
The European Union, the Government and the United States are to be congratulated on this brave and bold step towards reducing tension in the middle east. Would it be right for the Government now to approach Israel and ask for a reciprocal gesture and for it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection, in order to denuclearise the whole middle east?

Mr Hague:
Politics is the art of the possible, as I think we all know in this House, and it has turned out that this agreement is possible. The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me into something that it would probably not be possible for us to obtain.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab):
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), Secretary Kerry, and all others involved on achieving this exceptionally important agreement. It must be hoped that not only will it lead to Iran re-entering the international community, but that it will ameliorate oppressive aspects of its internal policies. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Prime Minister of Israel, who yesterday said that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons in the world—he should know because he has a stockpile of several hundred nuclear warheads and the missiles with which to deliver them—and who in addition refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that any attempt to damage or attack the agreement in any way will be unacceptable and will be opposed?

Mr Hague:
As I have said, we would strongly discourage any country from seeking to undermine the agreement, but I have not seen any sign that any country will do so in any practical way. Every country in the world understands how serious that would be. Some may disapprove of the agreement, but they know it has been made by, among others, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and that it must be given its chance. I believe it will be given its chance.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab):
Those who mocked Lady Ashton’s appointment—they certainly do not include the Foreign Secretary—may wish to apologise accordingly.
Is there not a kind of unholy alliance, certainly including Israel, but also including Saudi Arabia and possibly elements within the Iranian regime, that would want to undermine or destroy the agreement? Should we not be very much on our guard against that.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and draw his attention to what he said about momentum in the process in the region. I obviously hope that a detailed agreement is reached within six months. Will he now turn his attention to the need for a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and the importance of reconstituting the conference, which Finland was supposed to have held, involving all countries in the region? Without an agreement on a nuclear-free middle east, somebody will develop nuclear weapons or Israel will go on being unchallenged as the only nuclear weapons state in the region. This is urgent.

Mr Hague:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are keeping our focus on that. I pay tribute to him for keeping his focus—relentlessly—in his questions in Parliament, but we are also keeping our focus and continuing our work to bring the conference together. If we can carry our success on this agreement through to the success of a comprehensive and final settlement, it will be a big advance towards what he has been campaigning for and remove more of the excuses of other nations against such discussions. I think, therefore, that he can view this as a step forward in that regard.

Posted on November 25, 2013

Now is time to press for a nuke-free Middle East

MORDECHAI VANUNU and (right) Plutonium reactor at Dimona. Whistleblower who wants to free region of nuclear threat.  

PRESIDENT Obama has urged Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu not to try and wreck the agreement which the United States and other powers have reached with Iran, to ease off on sanctions providing the Iranians limit their nuclear development so it does not approach weapon-making capability.

So far the only governmental opposition to the agreement has come from Netanyahu, who is still threatening war with Iran, claiming the Iranians want to "destroy Israel"; and from the Saudi rulers who are already supporting a proxy war against Iran's sole ally Syria, and who don't want to see Iran's economy recover or restoration of its oil trading position.

The suicide bombs outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut last week, killing 23 people and injuring 167, are assumed to have been the work of a group linked with the Saudis. That the bombs killed passers-by in a mainly Shi'ite neighbourhood (or as BBC calls it "Hizbollah stronghold") is unlikely to have troubled forces that have carried out bombings against the Shi'ite communities in Iraq and Lebanon and murdered numerous civilians in Syria for being non-believers or the wrong sort of Muslim. (Hence the description "Takfiri" for jihadi fanatics who treat other Muslims as "kefir", heathen, and therefore legitimate targets).

Despite the provocations, it was announced at the weekend that peace talks between the Assad regime and its Syrian opponents will begin on January 22 in Geneva. Both the United States and Russia are reportedly backing these talks, aimed at producing an interim government, which could be seen as bad news for the Saudis, and the ally they keep denying, the government of Israel.
     
 Meanwhile in Iran, news of the agreement reached over nuclear development and relaxed sanctions seems to have been greeted with relief by most people.
 

With fuel and food prices climbing again in the past month, the news is a much­ needed breath of fresh air for a population stifled with polluted air, medicine shortages, currency devaluation, unemployment, and a host of other sanctions­-related realities that have broadly impacted daily life. As it reaps the political benefits of its success in the international negotiations, the administration of President Hassan Rouhani can thus return its attention to the country's immediate economic problems.
In return for significant Iranian concessions on its nuclear enrichment programme, the interim agreement signed in Geneva on 24 November provides Iran with up to $7bn in sanctions relief over the course of the next six months. The relaxations also include a suspension of sanctions on precious metal trade as well as the shipping and auto industries, and notably lift the European Union's ban on insuring ships carrying Iranian oil.

Some comments by Iranian experts overseas contained a hint of another angle:

 "The relief itself is modest and its expected duration uncertain, but it gives the Iranian government time to improve the management of the economy, stabilize the foreign exchange market, and regain the trust of the private sector in government ability to deliver in their promises of a greater involvement of the private sector in economic activities," says Hashem Pesaran, professor of economics at Cambridge University.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/in-iran-big-symbolic-payoff-in-sanctions-relief


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25082486 

Interestingly, the stock markets rallied at the news of an agreement both in Tehran and Tel Aviv, despite Netanyahu's war posturing. While Netanyahu's mouthpieces in the United States, the AIPAC lobbyists and following were screaming that Israel had been betrayed ("Munich", said the injudicious Harvard lawyer Dershowitz),and Senator John Bolton was howling for his war, Israel's own military and security experts seemed to be agreed that, actually, what has happened was not a bad deal. http://972mag.com/under-the-radar-israels-security-establishment-supports-new-iran-agreement/82421/

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has cautioned Netanyahu against launching an attack that would scupper the deal:

 As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly announces Israel is not bound to nuclear deal signed between world powers and Iran in Geneva, the West now cautions Netanyahu of carrying out an operation that would challenge the deal he dubbed "a historic mistake".

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Monday that Israel should avoid taking any action that would undermine the interim nuclear agreement reached between Iran and world powers.

Urging world leaders to give the interim deal a chance, Hague said it was important to try to understand those who opposed the agreement. But he urged Israel and others to confine their criticism to rhetoric.

"We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that very clear to all concerned," Hague told parliament.

Hague, who gave an update on the nuclear talks in Geneva, added he had not seen any signs that any country opposed to the agreement would try to disrupt it "in any practical way", but said Britain would be "on its guard".
The British top diplomat said however that he understood why Israel and Saudi Arabia are concerned with the deal. "They do all have very legitimate concerns about Iran's nuclear program and it's not surprising that people will be skeptical about any agreement. After all, Iran also has a history of not revealing the truth about its nuclear program to the rest of the world."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4457902,00.html

That last sentence leads me to an important point. As Hague well knows, the one country in the Middle East which is known to be a nuclear power is Israel, which certainly has a history of not revealing the truth about its nuclear program to the rest of the world.

The late David Ben Gurion lied about it to the Knesset, and nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, 11 of them in solitary, for blowing the whistle about Israeli development and manufacture of nuclear weapons. In recent years Vanunu has twice been returned to the cell for having broken his parole by talking to foreigners.

Nevertheless, Vanunu has continued to raise his voice as best he could, both against Israel's forcible rule over the Palestinians and its nuclear madness. He has said that as a step towards making the world safe, such a volatile region as the Middle East should be free of nuclear weapons.

Surely now that Iran has agreed to dispel any suspicion that it intended producing nuclear weapons, and Syria has handed its chemical weapons over, it would be an especially good time to convince the Iranians they have done the right thing, and confirm the cleaning of the Middle East; by blocking any threat by the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and demanding that Israel dismantle its nuclear capacity under international supervision too?. Now is the time to press for a nuclear weapon-free Middle East!  

 http://www.armagedon.org.il/dimona_english.htm

Five Leaves Opens Shop

January 15, 2014, will be the twentieth anniversary of the attack by a gang of fascists on the Mushroom Bookshop in Nottingham. They knocked down shelves, scattered books and assaulted staff members. Among the shop's staff who stood up to the thugs was Scots-born Ross Bradshaw.  More than two dozen Nazis from several towns took part in the attack, and many were soon arrested. Among them was a police inspector's son.

About 1,000 people marched through Nottingham in solidarity with the Mushroom Books workers. Mushroom survived the attack by fascists, and stayed in business, a centre both for readers and left-wing activists, though cynics complained that more visitors accepted buckshee tea and coffee than spent money on books. Like many bookshops around the country, Mushroom did not survive changing times and a decline in the trade, which together with a director's illness and disputes over ownership led to it entering liquidation in 2000.

By then Ross Bradshaw had already taken a job with the council, and taken up publishing, which he'd first tried at Mushroom with a book on allotments which still sells. Five Leaves still boasts that it's the world's biggest publisher of books about allotments, but that's along with crime fiction, poetry, books by regional authors, social and Jewish interest.


Another venture while still publishing as Mushroom Books was "You Are, Aren't You?", a book of poems by Michael Rosen published jointly with the Jewish Socialists' Group(JSG). More recent books under the Five Leaves imprint included Battle for the East End, by JSG member David Rosenberg, which was launched with others on related themes as part of the event commemorating the Battle of Cable Street.

There were also well-attended launch events in London for Mike Gerber's labour of love Jazz Jews (2010),  and last year for From Revolution to Repression, an anthology of Soviet Yiddish writing in translation.

But notwithstanding its expansion and bold forays into the capital, Five Leaves remains Nottingham based and focused on the region. Besides publishing, the company jointly organises Lowdham Book Festival in Nottinghamshire and sponsors an annual fiction prize for MA students at Nottingham Trent University. But tomorrow publisher Ross Bradshaw, who started his career and political perspectives like Sir Alex Ferguson, as an engineering apprentice, though with slightly different results, return to his love of selling books direct to the customer.

  Five Leaves is opening a new bookshop in Nottingham.  
   It is at 14a Long Row, in the city centre.

Ross says “When I came to Nottingham in the late 70s there were several independent bookshops and in subsequent years various chains were represented, but for many years there has only been Waterstones in the city centre. It's a great shop but there's plenty room for an independent as well.”

The new bookshop will specialise in history, politics and landscape; fiction and poetry; lesbian and gay books; and international writing, with an emphasis on independent publishers. Initial events will include a memorial evening for the Nobel Literature Prize winner Seamus Heaney and a speaker from the peace movement in Israel.

By sheer coincidence, tomorrow happens to be the 75th anniversary of the Nazi pogrom and state-organised orgy of destruction and violence which became known as Kristallnacht. Of that I will have more to say shortly. Meanwhile, what better way to mark it than by the creative act of opening a bookshop! And just in time for folk to buy their Chanukah and Christmas presents!

http://fiveleavespublications.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-leaves-is-opening-bookshop-in.html


http://fiveleavespublications.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/twelve-questions-about-bookshop.html

http://www.fiveleaves.co.uk/

Waging "Lawfare" Down Under

NOT content with misusing Australian passports for dirty operations in the Gulf and elsewhere, Israel's Mossad spying agency is behind a phoney "human rights" outfit that is trying to use Australia's courts to silence and intimidate people who oppose what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

The Israeli law center Shurat HaDin has filed a law suit in the Australian federal court against an Australian academic, Jake Lynch, director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Sydney University, for supporting the the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Claiming that Lynch’s support of the BDS movement violates Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act, they hope to focus on his refusal to sponsor Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic Dan Avnon for a fellowship. But whatever the unfairness or otherwise of this application of the boycott (friends of Avnon say he has a good record and is not a racist), Lynch argues that it was just an individual decision, and did not prevent Avnon from obtaining other sponsors. He also points out that his Centre has more than once hosted Israeli and Jewish speakers.

Shurat HaDin is seeking a court order requiring Lynch to apologize and renounce his BDS campaign, stating that his participation in and support of the BDS movement has led to “adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations,” reported The Australian.
Lynch dismissed the accusations against him, saying he is certain that “we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism.”

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2013/10/30/shurat-hadin-files-suit-against-australian-academic-for-bds-campaign

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2012/12/13/anybody-else-like-to-speak-out-against-a-courageous-academic-challenging-israeli-apartheid/  

The Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper recently seized on two isolated incidents - a violent late-night attack by some drunken yobs on two Jewish couples at Bondi, and three stupid students singing Springtime for Hitler, to claim that Australia was becoming more antisemitic, and link this to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Critics said it was the newspaper which was encouraging antisemitism by equating ordinary Jewish people with the Israeli state.   

It is worth noting that the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), regarded as the highest representative body of Australian Jewish communities, and affiliated to the World Jewish Congress, has issued a statement dissociating itself from the Israeli group's lawsuit.  The ECAJ, which has campaigned to oppose BDS, says it regards the academic boycott as "repugnant", and wants to encourage more academic contacts. (Most boycott supporters would point out that their tactic is directed against institutions, not individuals, but this gets ignored). However the Australian Jewish leaders say the way to oppose BDS is with argument, not litigation.

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/bds-litigation-inappropriate-saysecaj/37925  

They may well have born in mind the ignominious collapse of  an ill-advised case brought by Ronnie Fraser, a member of the University and Colleges Union in Britain, against his union.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/tribunal-slams-academic-for-bringing-anti-semitism-case/2002841.article

http://www.bricup.org.uk/

At any rate, ECAJ argues that litigation can be counter-productive, especially if it is pursued for political ends.
http://www.jwire.com.au/news/shurat-hadin-ecaj-disagree-on-skinning-the-bds-cat/38048

But the Israeli organisation Shurat HaDin is no bunch of amateurs. Claimed as a "civil rights" organisation - a description accepted by The Australian and other newspapers, it more accurately describes its actions as "lawfare" - waging war by using law.  When it has not been looking after the "rights" of soldiers accused of using excessive force, and officers charged with war crimes, it has increasingly turned to legal harassment of political opponents and boycott supporters.

A leaked US embassy cable revealed that in 2007, Shurat HaDin's director Nitsana Darshon-Leitner confided to a US official that her group  “took direction … on which cases to pursue” and still “receives evidence” from the Mossad and from Israel’s National Security Council.

The leaked cable was one of those passed on by Bradley Manning and published by Wikileaks. The cable’s author quotes Darshan-Leitner as explaining the government’s rationale for using a proxy rather than going to local courts directly: “The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do.”

“Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key [US] Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation,” wrote the unnamed official who apparently authored the cable after meeting with Leitner in 2007. At the time of the cable was written, the NSC’s head was Ilan Mizrahi, a former deputy chief of Mossad.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Shurat HaDin did not reply to an email sent yesterday seeking comment on the issues raised in this article.

Besides its actions in the courts, Shurat HaDin runs an annual tour of Israeli military bases, courts, prisons, settlements and “the controversial Security Fence.”  It is called "the Ultimate Mission to Israel", and at a cost of about $3,000 per person, it offers the chance to meet Israeli soldiers and officers, undercover collaborators, cabinet ministers and to “observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court.”  Also promised are “briefings by Mossad officials and commanders of the Shin Bet.”

Claiming to take action against "terrorist" regimes and organisations, Shurat HaDin has been guided by the Israeli state and Mossad in pursuing legal actions against bodies deemed as handling funds for them.  

In contrast with its defence of Israeli soldiers accused of crimes, it tried to obstruct negotiations for the release of captive Gilad Schalit, according to Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz in the online .972 magazine.

As for deciding what constitutes "antisemitism", in 2011, Max Blumenthal discovered that a major funder for Shurat HaDin was Pastor John Hagee, the Texan evangelist who says Hitler was the "hunter" sent by God to drive out Jews and make them go to Israel. But Pastor Jack, apart from denouncing "half-breed Jews, descendants of Esau", is founder of Christians United for Israel, condemns Islam, and has given money to Im Tirzu, which witch-hunts Israeli academics considered left-wing and traitorous. So that's alright then.

http://972mag.com/the-israeli-governments-official-lawfare-contractor/80659/

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-lawyers-group-shurat-hadin-unmasked-mossad-proxy

Retreat at Grangemouth is Dangerous for All

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

Rudyard Kipling 

THE 11th-hour surrender deal agreed by my union at Grangemouth undoubtedly represents a blow not just to the workers there but to those throughout Scotland and Britain.

Responsible for a vital part in Scotland's industry and economy, the Grangemouth workers were among the best-paid, and well-organised. Unite is the biggest union in Britain, and under Len McCluskey's leadership it has advanced to the fore not only of workers' struggle to defend their rights and living standards but of the fight for working-class politics in the labour movement.

Threatened with closure of the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant by a billionaire capitalist, Jim Ratcliffe, sitting on his yacht off the South of France, McCluskey and Unite have agreed to a three year wage freeze, which amounts to a pay cut as inflation continues. They have surrendered the final salary pension scheme. And they have given up facilities for union convenors and the right to strike for three years, so the Ineos company management can resume attacking workers' rights and jobs without worrying about resistance.

Trivialising this episode as just another union "sell out" or blaming Len McCluskey just to score points in Facebook discussions hardly bears up to the seriousness of the issues. But it would be foolish to claim this as a victory.

As one of Len McCluskey's critics from the Left (he still has opponents on the Right) notes: "On Friday 25 October the workforce cheered the announcement of a deal that will keep the plant open. That was a natural feeling of relief but it was hardly an endorsement of the terms or the actions of their union’s leaders. Their sense of relief will be short-lived".

 "This defeat without a fight – the very worst sort of defeat – gives a green light to every boss, CEO and manager in Britain to go on the offensive. If even an exceptionally skilled workforce, like the one at Grangemouth, and a mighty union like Unite with its left talking general secretary, can be forced to eat humble pie, then aggressive managers everywhere will be tempted to follow suit."

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/2013/10/grangemouth-too-big-to-fail-unite-too.html?spref=fb 
 Comment by Jeremy Dewar, on Jerry Hicks' blog. 

Writing from a very different angle, Iain McWhirter in the Herald agrees:

' THE spontaneous cheers of the Grangemouth workers on Friday at the news of their capitulation said it all.

This has been one of the worst industrial relations disasters of modern times and has disturbing implications for trade unionism, the Labour Party and Scotland. The workforce only narrowly escaped with their jobs, but had to accept all of Ineos's terms - a promise not to strike, a three-year wage freeze, zero bonuses, the end of final salary pensions. It was game, set and match to private equity.

The result will have been noted by every industrial employer in Britain, as the highest-paid and best-organised (in a trade union sense) industrial workers in Scotland have been humbled. Indeed, at times Grangemouth felt like a speed-dating version of the miners' strike.' 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/trade-unionism-the-labour-party-and-scotland-will-pay-price-for-the-grangemouth-i.22524694

Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million?

25 Oct 2013 07:38

ANALYST Richard Murphy is baffled by the company's books and he revealed to the Record that the company actually made £7million in profit last year.

Newspapers and politicians who like to accuse unions and their members of "holding the country to ransome" were a bit more restrained in commenting on Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe doing just that. Nobody demanded that Ineos, a private equity company which became Britain's biggest chemical firm and biggest private company, and moved its HQ to Switzerland to avoid tax, should open its books. But both City commentators and government officials wondered about its deals and accountancy techniques. Not least accountants hired by Unite.    

"Rather than losing money, as the company claim, the chemical plant at Grangemouth delivered £7million in profits last year, analyst Richard Murphy told the Daily Record.
His claims fuelled speculation that Ineos used smart accounting techniques to paint a bleaker
future for the plant and secure taxpayers’ cash.
Murphy said the plant made £6million profit the year before, even after a pension fund shortfall was factored in.
Ineos claim it loses £10million a month.

Murphy, of Fulcrum Chartered Accountants, studied the Ineos accounts on behalf of the union Unite. He says the plant was making a fortune until Ineos apparently set out to make it appear loss-making.
He said Ineos, unlike any other company, decided to factor in their investment in the plant as a loss.
Yesterday, Treasury officials involved in negotiating a £125million infrastructure loan to Ineos said they had to ask for more information from the company over the complex financial structure.
The Scottish government have also chipped in with £9million of grants, making a total of £134million.
Ineos appeared to have presented their accounts in a way which emphasised their need for an urgent injection of finance to underwrite future infrastructure costs."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

With Grangemouth there was more than the 800 jobs of  refinery workers at stake. As Jeremy Dewar notes:

"Grangemouth supplies 70 per cent of Scotland’s petrol pump supplies as well as a considerable amount in the North of England and the North East of Ireland. It processes 200,000 barrels a day and powers the Forties pipeline which transports a third of the North Sea’s output. At least 10,000 Scottish jobs depend on Grangemouth, which accounts for £1 billion of trade and makes up 8 per cent of Scotland’s manufacturing output..

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/

As McWhirter tells us, "Grangemouth is key to the North Sea's biggest oil field - the BP-operated Forties field 110 miles east of Aberdeen. Up to one-third of the North Sea's entire crude oil production is fed directly into the Grangemouth site. During the strike in Grangemouth in 2008, 70 North Sea platforms were forced to shut down or reduce production. It is hardly surprising therefore that BP - former owner of Grangemouth - was heavily involved in this week's rescue and helped underwrite the new business plan."

There was also a complex political dimension to this battle. While the workers were still locked out and Ineos was pleading poverty, Labour MP Michael Connarty offered to take them at their word. "I would buy the plant for £1!", he told a rally outside the gates, adding that if Ratcliffe got a pay freeze and government subsidy he would be printing money. 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a922-Grangemouth-workers-stay-strong#.Um1nLRDYqzl

But Ineos had already been making its own use of the Labour Party connection. In the run up to the attack on pay and pensions they used the row over Falkirk Constituency Labour Party to victimise Grangemouth convenor Stevie Deans, who is also chair of the CLP, and was accused of encouraging Unite members and friends to join the Labour Party. (A serious offence!) Why should a Swiss-based company be concerned with Labour's selection processes?  One might as well ask who told Ed Miliband that he should ask the police to investigate whether there had been a Labour Party rule infringement?  As it was there were no charges to answer, and after Unite balloted members for strike action Stevie Deans was reinstated.

But Ineos had got its diversion, and opportunity to probe the union's defences and undermine its solidarity. And now, as workers return to a no strike deal, the Murdoch press heralds a renewed witch hunt against Deans in the Labour Party. 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8211-why-the-ssp-will-support-the-grangemouth-workers

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/27/labour-falkirk-vote-rigging-inquiry

A lot of people were quite rightly raising the call to nationalise Grangemouth. With so much public money going in, and a private company ready to close down Scotland, why not? But who would do it? If the Con Dem coalition were unlikely to nationalise, how about the Scottish government? I'm not sure what powers it has, but has it the will-power?

With the independence referendum coming, and the Scottish National Party(SNP) concerned to fight off any challenge from Labour (to whom it has just lost the Dunfermline by-election), would its leader act boldly to save jobs and the Scottish economy, not to mention the SNP's radical and progressive image?

 Salmond spoke not about nationalising but about finding buyers for Grangemouth.  (Apparently the Chinese already have a share).

"At the same time, Salmond was on the line to Unite general secretary Len McClusky trying to persuade him that industrial madness had afflicted his Grangemouth office and that he had better have a word with them. The consequences might not only be a collapse of union membership - that's happening anyway - but serious damage to the Labour Party in Scotland. Johann Lamont is a Unite member and the union backed her leadership campaign in 2011.

Some Labour people might have been content to see the plant close, the better to damage Salmond, but the people of Scotland were looking for a solution, not another 1980s industrial horror show. This alerted Labour leader Ed Miliband, who has of course been in dispute with Unite over the Falkirk selection fiasco.

There were also direct appeals to the Grangemouth workers who had been divided on the action, about half having voted against it. By Wednesday night, confident of the workers' agreement, Salmond had persuaded Ratcliffe and brokered a deal which involved Ineos reopening the plant, investing £300m (most of which was effectively underwritten by the government) to provide a 20-year future for Grangemouth as a global player turning shale gas from America into plastics."

So now we can better understand Len McCluskey's reference to the "security of Scotland" when he announced his surrender plan.

Could there have been another way? It seems to me that in the present political situation, workers have to be prepared to occupy and take over plants, offices, banks and anything else, rather than being advised to wait passively for government -and a hostile government at that - to nationalise. At the same time I'm aware that's not easy, and saying "just like UCS", referring to an occupation more than thirty years ago in pre-Thatcher Britain, will not suffice to give confidence.

According to Jerry Hicks' supporters, "Unite could have altered the whole history of the dispute by organising the immediate occupation of the plant as soon as the lock out was threatened in mid-October. Its members would have been called on to close down the refinery; with union backing they could have refused and the workforce seized control of the equipment and the dispute.

Flying pickets and solidarity action around Britain’s other refineries would soon have had an effect in the petrol stations across the country. From a position of strength, the  British and Scottish governments should have been faced with the demand that Grangemouth be nationalised ..."      

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/  

Just like that?

Even if Len McCluskey had felt able and willing to call such action, there is no guarantee it would have been supported. As Jeremy Dewar notes elsewhere the union was only able to get 60 per cent support for opposing the Ineos plans.

Dewar speaks of the need to build a rank and file movement and "wrest control" of the union, but I think focussing on elected officers (at a time when many union reps are victimised), official's salaries and leadership ballots, even if you are right, is not confronting the all-round political class consciousness which we need. Not that the political 'left' as it manifests itself these days is that much help.   

Could it be the end for Copland?

IT's almost a year since I went to a quiz night in Wembley, and teamed up with a trio of teachers. While we didn't win, I learned from them an interesting piece of information, namely that the former head of Copland School where they taught was to appear in court with five associates on charges of fraud and money-laundering.

Since the long-running affair at Copland had at one stage seen the suspension of the teachers held responsible for whistleblowing, and the school and its pupils are suffering from lack of funds, one could hardly accuse my informants of being vindictive when they nodded satisfaction that the head and his team looked like facing custodial sentences.

But this month, as teachers throughout the country joined action to defend their pensions, the news from the court and from Copland school was a bit of an education.

First,  the knighted "superhead” Sir Alan Davies and five former colleagues walked free from court on October 3, when prosecutors dropped charges that they had plotted to defraud Brent Council of £2.7m in bonuses.

Davies, 65, had been accused of authorising illegal  payments over six years while he was headmaster of Copland School in Wembley. He was said to have received more than £900,000 in “inappropriate payments” himself.

But the conspiracy charge against him and five other senior figures was dropped. Instead he pleaded guilty to six counts of false accounting between April 2007 and June 2009.

Judge Deborah Taylor sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment suspended for two years.

“I take into account your achievements but your dishonesty represents a very great fall from grace,” she said. He had failed to ensure transparent management at the school and had lied to protect himself. “What sort of message does that send out as head of a school when you resorted to lies?”

Davies has admitted tampering with dates on payroll forms but insisted the cash was honestly paid to and received by him. He was also acquitted of a further count of money laundering for allegedly flushing more than £270,000 of dirty money raked in from the scam from a NatWest bank account into a Spanish account in May 2008.

Davies’ alleged co-conspirators were formally cleared.They included Dr Richard Evans, 55, a former deputy head and education advisor to PM David Cameron, who had been accused of pocketing £600,000.

Also in the dock were the former chair of governors, Dr Indravadan Patel, 73, the former school bursar, Columbus Udokoro, 62, HR manager Michelle McKenzie, 53, and ex-vice chair of governors, Martin Day, were also accused of being involved in the alleged fraud on Brent Council.

Brent Council may now seek compensation through the civil courts.


Copland school was placed under "special measures" this year after an Ofsted report said it was  inadequate in almost all areas.  Headmaster Graeme Plunkett who took over in September 2010was reportedly told he would have to go. 

Teachers and students at Copland may have wondered whether Mr. Plunkett was taking blame for problems not of his making. Among the criticisms outlined by Ofsted was the state of the school building which it said provided an “unacceptable environment for learning.”

A Copland school student directly confronted David Cameron on the neglected state of the school buildings.


Dilapidated classrooms at Copland were due to be rebuilt with money from the Building Schools for the Future fund, but Tory Education minister Michael Gove scrapped that programme. Copland was the only local authority controlled secondary school in the borough but within weeks it was announced it would be converted to an academy.

Many fear Copland's  future has been settled, and it hasn't any.    

Now a correspondent calling theirself 'Mistleflower' has written in the blog Wembley Matters on October 16  drawing attention to further developments:

The cull in the summer resulted in the end in Copland losing around  60 staff, most taking ‘voluntary’ redundancy either because they were desperate to get away from the last regime’s shambolic mismanagement or they saw the way the wind was blowing with the new one (cut Copland to the bone, close it down, flog it off). Many of the teachers who left were happy, like myself, to do supply teaching rather than stay.

I now hear that Phase 2 of the process has begun. Around 50  support staff have been informed that 32 of them are to be made redundant. These include such people as library staff, pastoral support workers, science technicians, mentoring staff, caretakers, ICT technicians and, ( in the week that ex-Copland footballer Raheem Sterling was included in Roy Hodgson’s England squad for the World Cup qualifier), the football coach. Apart from the obviously essential nature of their work, people like these liaise with parents at difficult times, help motivate students, keep them on track and generally promote the social cohesion which is at the heart of any school community. ( Those wielding the axe might need  to look up those two words ‘heart’ and ‘community’).

As in July, in all of this, agreed procedures are being ignored, possibly illegally.

Phase 3, it has apparently already been announced, will take the axe to the Teaching Assistants, the staff who provide in-class support for children with special learning, language or emotional needs, ( Every Child Matters is soooo last century).

After that? Well, what remains of the place is still sitting in a very nice location and the few staff who remain can maybe get jobs helping to clear the site for the next Carpet Warehouse. One way or another, it looks like it will be an Absolute Return for someone, but clearly  not for the current kids and staff at Copland.

I don't know how much it will cost Brent to try and recover some of its money. Maybe I will meet up again with my teacher friends on Monday when I go to another quiz match - one of a series being held by the Save Preston Library campaigners, who fought Brent council over the closure of their local library, another affect of government austerity and the council's cuts.

If not there, then maybe some teachers will come to the public meeting which Brent Trade Union Council is holding on Thursday evening at the Methodist Church in Harlesden. Guest speaker is Kingsley Abrams, a member of the Unite union national executive, speaking on the fight against Austerity. Kingsley made his name as a Labour councillor in Lambeth, by refusing to vote for cuts. That lost him the Labour whip. But it could win him the Labour nomination for the Brent Central parliamentary constituency. And if Brent Labour party has the sense and spirit to nominate him he could get in.  But that's a big if, mind. 

Wednesday 23rd October

The Fight Against Austerity

Speaker: Kingsley Abrams   National Executive member, Unite the union, and Lambeth Labour Councillor

7.30 p.m., Harlesden Methodist Church Hall, 25 High Street Harlesden,  London, NW10 4NE