People did not at all understand what they were voting for in the referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.

This is now coming through with a vengence in the totally iniquitous trial of Geert Wilders in Holland. More on that later but first of all these are the statutes that has got Geert Wilders (and the rest of us that live in Europe) well and truly snookered

These are the statutes from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 52, we should say the notorious Article 52, which goes like this:


1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

2. Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in other Parts of the Constitution shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by these relevant Parts.

3. Insofar as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.

4. Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.

5. The provisions of this Charter which contain principles may be implemented by legislative and executive acts taken by Institutions and bodies of the Union, and by acts of Member States when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise of their respective powers. They shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such acts and in the ruling on their legality.

6. Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter.

It is on

There follows legal mumbo jumbo, as if we can not read the above, but we can.

The above statutes, voted on by the Irish and some others, even though it took two goes, and passed without vote by most of the countries of Europe, are what means that Geert Wilders even if he argues his case from now till doomsday, cannot win.

It has already been decided in the above laws

In fact you do not need to go beyond 1 above, in which it says that peoples liberty, for example, the liberty to free speech, can be limited in the following condition:

genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others


In those conditions free speech can be limited.


Now as we shall show and place in an overall context, it does not in the slightest mean if that speech is truthful or not.


This is the entry into the Dark Ages.



The prosecution against Geert Wilders stated that it does not matter whether what Geert says about Islam is true or false. What matters is whether it is “offensive” to Muslims and to Islam

This turns on its head Habeas Corpus, all the fought for basic rights in European countries, especially England from 1640 on, and gets very close to the Hitlerian dictatorship.

The fundamental defence against libel is on whether or not it is true. If what a person says or writes is true then there can be no libel.

This new issue of the Geert Wilders trial (actually not new but more later) is that what Geert says may be true but even so it still may be libellous.

It can be libellous, indeed will be libellous, which fact is due to the existence of the EU law on Human Rights above.

It may be correct, but that no longer matters, it will be termed libellous because the EU law above has stated that it hurts a particular section, or religion, as in the case of Islam

It is interesting and important to understand how did we get here. This has not just happened overnight.

  1. The surrender of national rights to Europe
  2. Article 52 of the European Human Rights Act
  3. The hounding of Enoch Powell out of English politics
  4. The lies against Milosevic until his murder in The Hague (prison)
  5. Following on from Milosevic the astounding judgement against Marxism Today by the English Judge in the ITN Libel Case
  6. The El Dura stitch-up of Israel by the Media
  7. The Qana stitch-up of Israel by the Media
  8. The acceptance of these attacks on their nation by a Jewish traitorous class in Israel itself, and by a traitorous Diaspora
  9. The promotion of the idea (lie) that Stalinism and revisionism is synonymous with revolutionary socialism (Trotskyism)

The above 9 points can be magnified easily into hundreds, but I hope they help to show that we are living in a veritable ocean of lies.

One of the most important conditions for these lies to exist and flourish is the campaign to end nationality and to impose this great bureaucracy of “Europe” upon us.

As is shown in the trial of Geert Wilders this greatly lessens the ability to speak freely which is bound to have a huge effect on education and especially science.

It is the end of bourgeois freedoms and bourgeois science as we have known it, the end of a process of fight for basic democratic rights that has went on from the Middle Ages, which actually surfaced with the Printing Press in Holland (how ironic is that?), which was fought for by Cromwell, carried on by Rousseau, aided greatly by the magnificent American Revolution, then the French etc

All of the above therefore can be seen as a plague of liars with their product, lies, which has swamped all of Europe and most of the world.

We are actually in the “End Times”, the end times of the capitalist system , as an organizational force that can advance humanity and its needs.

But it will not go peacefully. To save itself it will enslave us all.

From capitalism there will be only darkness.

All of this takes place as the world capitalist system plunges deeper into economic crisis and instability and where although taking different forms (Iranian, Hizbullah Syria, Palestinian fascism) the parallels are clear



Robert Spencer makes this very important point concerning the campaign that is on to discredit pamela Geller:

any storefront clairvoyant can read tea leaves, and mothers are experts at evaluating tones of voice, but Jeffrey Goldberg is neither. He is supposed to be a serious writer, so instead of trafficking in what people are “insinuating,” he would be well-advised to stick with what they actually say

Here we have being repeated once again the serious crisis that the Media of our world is in.

We on 4international followed this very closely in relation to the lies told about the Serbs during the 1990s.

In fact Jared Israel of Emperors New Clothes made it a speciality to expose this method of lying, not just lies, by the Media.

He was followed on this by the writer, Professor Francisco Gil White, of

These writers emphasised the great importance of finding out the facts, not somebody´s opinion on what the facts should be.

There were many writers in the Media involved with Yugoslavia and one which comes to mind, always comes to my mind, possibly because she was from Dublin, was a lady called Maggie O´Kan e.

O´Kaner was educated in a Catholic Convent. Does that matter? Perhaps, but what is for sure is that O´Kane filled her reports with quotation from one side, the side of the poor repressed (in her mind) Muslims of Bosnia.

The name for this is emotive or emoting journalism.

It is most important to grasp this, that there has been a big change in journalism. Away from the old fashioned journalist who say covered a local murder trial, went to the trial and sought in the most detached manner to find the facts.

Now many journalists seek the facts to confirm their conclusions, which they reached through their own emotions.

This does horrible damage.

In this great piece by Robert Spencer. whpo althoiugh he is a ca`pitalist and I am a socialist, I have great time for.

He is taking up a guy called Goldberg who is highly famout, part of the in crowd at the moment you could say.

What Robert Spencer says on this is rivetting.

The cartoon is funny but has the most serious message, and is linked also to the trial lynching of Geert Wilders at present.

I am confident that many people, especially youth, will follow Pamela and Robert, and not Goldberg.

Reuel Gerecht and Jeffrey Goldberg vs. Pamela Geller: Geller wins

It is testimony to the effectiveness of my colleague Pamela Geller, in raising awareness of the issues surrounding the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero and Islamic supremacism in general, that the mainstream media is gunning for her with relentless fury. The cartoon above is apt, and applies to Jeffrey Goldberg’s vicious and ignorant attacks upon her in The Atlantic. Even though this present piece isn’t an interview, the principle is the same: a full-out campaign is on to discredit her, and the truth be damned in the process.

In “Reuel Gerecht on Pamela Geller’s Foul Anti-Muslim Ideology,” by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, October 13, Goldberg explains that he sent some assertions Pamela Geller made about the Qur’an and Islam in her recent New York Times interview to Islamic scholar Reuel Gerecht:

In a recent New York Times interview, the blogger Pamela Geller leveled many serious charges against Islam; she stated that Muslims curse Jews and Christians during their five-times-a-day prayer; that the only good Muslim is a secular Muslim; and most perniciously, she said that the Qur’an has never been properly translated, insinuating that it contains dark secrets about Muslims and their religious responsibilities. This last bit struck me as outrageous, because, as a Jew, Geller should know that anti-Semites have spent nearly two thousand years insinuating that the Talmud contains secret instructions guiding the alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world. To make the same unsupported charge against Islam is egregious.

Note that it is Jeffrey Goldberg, not Pamela Geller, who is talking about Muslims having “secret instructions” directing them to try to “dominate the world.” All that Pamela said was that the Qur’an hasn’t been properly translated; Goldberg then proceeds to excoriate her for what he thinks she was “insinuating.” Well, any storefront clairvoyant can read tea leaves, and mothers are experts at evaluating tones of voice, but Jeffrey Goldberg is neither. He is supposed to be a serious writer, so instead of trafficking in what people are “insinuating,” he would be well-advised to stick with what they actually say.

I sent some of Geller’s quotes to my friend Reuel Gerecht, a genuine expert on Islam, to see what he thought of them. Reuel, as many of you know, is no apologist for radical Islamism; quite the opposite. He believes we are at war with a dangerous ideology. But he also has respect for Islam, and a great deal of knowledge of it. Here is what he says about Geller’s assertions:I have to plead an embarrassing ignorance about Pamela Geller. I was well aware of the Internet-driven opposition to Feisal Abd ar-Rauf’s Ground Zero/Park 51 mosque, but had not entered her name into my memory. I don’t read blogs much–except Goldblog and those that publish me–and I was more than a little taken back when Jeffrey sent me a note containing comments by Ms. Geller about English translations of the Qur’an. The intersection of politics, public policy, and scholarship isn’t always pretty, and we are most often fortunate that scholars don’t write our domestic and foreign policies. However, there is a certain deference that activists must give to scholars when they tread on what is clearly academic terrain.


Deference? Is that an argument from authority? How about we have a certain deference for the truth and accuracy, instead of just pulling rank?

A good cause–and Ms. Geller’s general concern about the harm that violent Islamic militants can do is an estimable fight–is no excuse for agitprop and what amounts to a slur against some of the greatest scholars of the twentieth century. According to the New York Times, Ms. Geller has stated:

Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to. That’s deeply troubling. And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.

Let’s take the Qur’an first, Muslim prayers second. Concerning the translation of the Muslim Holy Book, who might these Islamic scholars be? Since Ms. Geller is without Arabic, it’s impossible for her to compare the original to a translation. She must depend upon others, who, if I follow Ms. Geller, are involved in a conspiracy to hide the ugly truth about Islam. If the translations were more “accurate,” we would all see what’s apparent to Ms. Geller, who ascertained the truth despite the blinding scholarly conspiracy. One has to ask whether Ms. Geller has perused the translation masterpiece by Cambridge’s late great A.J. Arberry or my personal favorite, the awesomely erudite, more literal translation and commentary by Edinburgh’s late great Richard Bell? Both gentlemen are flag-waving members of Edward Said’s most detested species–Orientalists. Now if you look at these translations–especially if you look at Bell’s, which is blessed with exhaustive notes in a somewhat complicated formatting–even the uninitiated can get an idea that Muhammad had trouble with Christians and especially Jews during his life. If you look at the Qur’anic commentary by Edinburgh’s late great William Montgomery Watt (another Orientalist), who was always attentive to Muslim sensibilities in his writings, you can also fine [sic] in clear English Muhammad’s unpleasant ruminations about Christians and Jews.


Note again that Pamela Geller only said that “a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to.” No dark conspiracy theories about hidden content. That was all she said.

Now — is it true? Gerecht takes her to be casting aspersions on the work of the great scholars A. J. Arberry and Richard Bell. Both are indeed great scholars, and the integrity of their Qur’an translations cannot be impugned. I have loved Arberry’s for many years, and wrote this about it here several years ago:

For years I have liked Arberry’s for its audacious literalism and often poetic English. Compare, for example, 81:15-18:فَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِالْخُنَّسِ الْجَوَارِ الْكُنَّسِ وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا عَسْعَسَ وَالصُّبْحِ إِذَا تَنَفَّسَ

…in Pickthall and Arberry: Pickthall: “Oh, but I call to witness the planets, the stars which rise and set, and the close of night, and the breath of morning…” Arberry: “No! I swear by the slinkers, the runners, the sinkers, by the night swarming, by the dawn sighing…” Shades of the Symbolists. Arberry gives a hint of how the book sounds in Arabic, in which it is full of beguiling rhymes and rhythms.


Arberry’s is an outstanding and accurate translation. Arberry, however, was not a Muslim, and accordingly his translation is not often used by Muslims, and when a non-Muslim cites it or other translations written by non-Muslims (such as N. J. Dawood’s excellent edition for Penguin), Islamic apologists tend to dismiss it with the palpably false mystification that a non-Muslim cannot be trusted to render the Qur’an accurately or adequately. Thus in order to take that rhetorical weapon out of their hands, I generally use translations written by Muslims and for Muslims in my work, and these are the ones generally also used and cited by Muslims themselves.

For example, the USC-MSA’s popular and useful online reference site now disingenuously entitled “Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement” offers three Qur’an translations by three Muslims: Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and M. H. Shakir. All of these are flawed in various ways. Shakir’s depends heavily on Pickthall’s and Ali’s. Ali’s is the most transparently apologetic whitewash: in Qur’an 4:34, the verse enjoining the beating of disobedient women, he has “beat them (lightly),” although “lightly” does not appear in the Arabic. Both Ali’s and Pickthall’s are written in a stilted pseudo-King James Bible English that frequently cloaks in obscurity passages that are hair-raising in Arabic.

Another common Muslim translation, that of Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, is more of a Saudi Wahhabi political tract than a translation. Note, for example, their revealing and anachronistic parenthetical gloss in Qur’an 8:60: “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom God does know.”

What’s more, even the best, most literal translation of the Qur’an does not give the full flavor of some phrases and passages, since the general English reader will not be aware of their precise theological significance in Islam. For example, the phrase “strive in the path of Allah,” which appears in numerous places and various permutations in the Qur’an, refers in Islamic theology specifically to fighting hot war, with weapons, not metaphorical verbal conflict or some other kind of conflict. But unless one is reading along with commentaries, this phrase will look more like a pious exhortation to be more religious than a call to take up arms.

Now what did Pamela Geller say? “Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to.” That is a general statement made in conversation and not in a scholarly setting with any intention of forensic precision; nonetheless, it is generally true: ask any honest native Arabic speaker and they’ll tell you that Qur’an translations in English in the main do not convey the full martial flavor of the original, and the principal translations have the defects noted above. As she was speaking in context about what Western non-Muslims as well as Western Muslims generally understand about Islam, the existence of largely accurate translations like those of Arberry, Bell and Dawood does not render her statement false: she was speaking about popular understanding, not about what is known among academics.

Gerecht continues:

Now what all of this means to contemporary Islamic militancy is a very long discussion, for which I suspect that Ms. Geller doesn’t have abundant patience.

He said at the beginning that he hadn’t heard of her, and suddenly he is a judge of her character. I expect this sort of cheap shot from sleazy Islamic supremacists like Reza Aslan, but not from someone of the stature of Reuel Gerecht.

Islam has been having awful problems absorbing modernity; its travails so far–let us underscore–have been less bloody than what we witnessed as Christianity modernized.

While this assertion is taken for granted among scholars of a certain ilk, it is by no means proven, and stems largely from a much greater familiarity among Westerners with the conflicts in Christian Europe in recent centuries than with the history of Islam. When one examines the history of jihad wars, the picture begins to look quite different.

Any non-Muslim certainly has the right to study, question, and criticize the Islamic faith, as Muslims have the (well-exercised) right to let loose against what they see as the imperfections of Christianity, Judaism, and humanist secularism (the West’s dominant faith). As Iran’s robust, astonishing intellectual wars over the last twenty years have shown, it’s good for Muslims and non-Muslims not to pull their punches. Muslims should never be treated as children, which is a debilitating disposition found widely now on the American Left. (President Obama has not helped.) But the great Islamic scholars of the past did not lie. There is no conspiracy. We are blessed with illuminating English translations of the Muslim Holy Book. Ms. Geller might consider blogging less, and reading more.

Gerecht’s haughty arrogance toward Pamela Geller is as unbecoming as his presumption, noted above. In any case, I have established above that some of the principal English translations of the Qur’an are distorted in various ways (and there are plenty more examples of such distortions), and that some of its key concepts cannot be immediately grasped by the uninitiated reader. Thus Pamela Geller’s point — in which she said nothing about any kind of “conspiracy” — was made. Mr. Gerecht might have considered her own words more carefully, and not Jeffrey Goldberg’s poisoned and tendentious packaging of those words.

And about Muslim prayer: I certainly have no perfect way of knowing what Muslims think when they pray, but I really do think they know what they’re doing.

That is a very large and vague assertion. Muslims “know what they’re doing” when they pray, and yet Gerecht must know that most Muslims are not Arabs, and yet no matter where they are and what language they speak, they must pray in Arabic; huge numbers recite syllables by rote without having any precise idea of what they’re saying. They may know what they’re doing, in terms of engaging in Islamic prayer in a general sense, but is Gerecht saying that they know all the details of what they’re saying and the theological and political implications thereof? I have spoken to many non-Arab Muslims who have confirmed this, and it has been widely reported, particularly in connection with the madrassas in Pakistan. Is Reuel Gerecht really interested in denying it?

If westernized Muslims are facing the Almighty, they know what’s in their hearts. Devout Muslims need not hate Jews and Christians to worship the Creator.

Pamela Geller didn’t say they did. She said, “And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.” That is not the same thing as saying that Muslims must “hate Jews and Christians to worship the Creator.”

Christians have slaughtered Jews through the centuries. But it would be theologically atrocious to believe that the Christian message requires Jewish blood. (Christians’ killing Jews so often did provoke some Christians to question the foundation of their faith–a theologically estimable exercise.) The Prophet Muhammad is certainly a different kind of historical figure than Jesus, but it should not be startling to discover that Muslims through the centuries have not seen the prophet’s slaughter of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina as a mainstay of their creed.

In this Gerecht is saying that just as Christian doctrine doesn’t require Christians to slaughter Jews (although he seems to harbor an immense distaste for Christianity, far exceeding any revulsion he may feel toward Islamic jihadists and supremacists), so also Islamic doctrine doesn’t require Muslims to slaughter Jews. This is, again, a red herring, since Pamela Geller didn’t say that it did, but Gerecht has perhaps forgotten this key hadith, in which Muhammad says that the wholesale slaughter of Jews by Muslims will usher in the end times: “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

There is, by the way, nothing like that in Christianity.

In my experience–and I’m intuiting here–most Muslims do not think about Jews and Christians at all when they pray.

What Muslims think about when they pray was not what was at issue. Look again at what Pamela Geller said: “And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.” Not only did she not say anything about what they were thinking about; what she actually said was that many Muslims in the West do not know that their prayers involve curses of Christians and Jews.

So if they don’t know it, how could they be thinking about it? Gerecht’s response to Geller sounds as if he read what she wrote very hastily and carelessly, or only through Goldberg’s venomous spin.

Now — what about those prayers? In the course of praying the requisite five prayers a day, an observant Muslim will recite the Fatihah, the first surah of the Qur’an and the most common prayer in Islam, seventeen times. The final two verses of the Fatihah ask Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.

This is not my interpretation; it comes from the classic Islamic commentaries on the Qur’an. The renowned Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”

Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation.”

Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians” into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur’ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, and indeed the whole idea of Qur’anic hostility toward Jews and Christians. They found it inconceivable that Muslims all over the world would learn as a matter of course that the central prayer of their faith anathematizes Jews and Christians.

But unfortunately, this interpretation is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology. The printing of the interpretation in parenthetical glosses into a translation would be unlikely to affect Muslim attitudes, since the Arabic text is always and everywhere normative in any case, and since so many mainstream commentaries contain the idea that the Jews and Christians are being criticized here. Seventeen times a day, by the pious.

The Hadith also contains material linking Jews to Allah’s anger and Christians to his curse, which resulting from their straying from the true path. (The Jews are accursed also, according to Qur’an 2:89, and both are accursed according to 9:30). One hadith recounts that an early Muslim, Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail, in his travels met with Jewish and Christian scholars. The Jewish scholar told him, “You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah’s Anger,” and the Christian said, “You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah’s Curse.” Zaid, needless to say, became a Muslim.

So once again, what did Pamela say? “And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. I don’t think they know that.” There appears to be abundant foundation for that idea in the content of Islamic prayer and the ways those prayers have been understood by mainstream Islamic theologians.

Suffering, in all its merciless variety, takes center stage, I suspect. When I’ve watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq, I’ve not seen a conquering people. I’ve usually just seen misery and the human hope that good fortune will come with a better heart. I’ve seen fraternity among a men who live in lands where fraternal behavior is rare. Ms. Geller would do well to travel more. It’s a very good and essential cause to fight jihadism, but such a struggle should not incline us to maul Islamic history or to treat Muslims as if they were merely a walking version of this surah or that legal treatise. Christians and Jews and atheists are much more than the sum of their parts. So, too, are Muslims.

No amount of travel will change the contents of Islamic prayers or the nature of English translations of the Qur’an. Reuel Gerecht would have come off better if he had taken care to be less condescending — his superciliousness is especially unbecoming since the facts are not on his side.


The following is from a story on BBC News this morning:

US actor George Clooney has called for the freezing of assets held by Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir.

Mr Clooney told the BBC that freezing his bank accounts would be a good way of putting pressure on Khartoum.

The Hollywood star has just returned from Sudan in his role as a UN messenger of peace ahead of January’s referendum on secession for the south.

The vote was part of a 2005 peace deal to end the two-decade north-south civil war – separate from the ongoing conflict in Darfur in the west of Sudan.

There has been growing international concern that the referendum could be delayed, sparking renewed violence.


The aim of Mr Clooney’s trip was to push the US government to take measures to prevent a new cycle of violence in Sudan.


After meeting US President Barack Obama this week on his return from Sudan, Mr Clooney said the international community had been inconsistent in its dealings with the Sudanese leadership.

“Real diplomacy, robust real diplomacy means you get the British, the French, everybody together,” he told BBC Arabic.

He also said other Arab states should get more involved.

“It would be nice to have as much involvement as we could from an Arab state. It would make a very big difference in the negotiating and Egypt is certainly a huge player in this.”

Mr Clooney, who spent several years trying to raise awareness on the situation in Darfur, urged all countries to close ranks.

Bashir isn’t saving his money in Sudanese pounds, you know. They are in euros or they are in English pounds or they are in dollars. They are somewhere,” he said.

“We should be freezing those assets, if you really want to deal with it, if you really want to put pressure on them.”

An estimated 1.5 million people died in the civil war between the mainly Muslim north and Christian and Animist south.

The UN estimates the six-year conflict in Darfur has cost the lives of 300,000 people and driven a further 2.7m from their homes.

The government puts the death toll at 10,000 and has said the problems in Darfur have been exaggerated for political reasons.

4international is vitally interested in this issue of the Sudan. The above, with very useful map, is from the vast resources of BBC this morning.

As I understand, elections for the Assembly are coming up in November, and for the Presidency early in the New Year.

There is also a Referendum due, I think in January, and there is every chance that the South will vote to secede.

Also as I understand it, the South of Sudan is Christian, the North is Islamic, and Darfur is Black Muslim and Animist.

I will have to study later the Wikipedia offering on this situation.

Pamela Geller has featured on her blog a Sudanese man, who became a champion swimmer, and who has been staging a walk in America, I think between Boston and New York. The salient point about this man is that he was a slave when he was a young boy.

On this I have met black people here in Spain and they have been very hostile to Muslims, and I wonder if this can be a connection to this practice of slavery of the Muslim North in Africa towards the South, whether animist, or Christian.

In any case this is a vital issue. I admire George Clooney, I am unsure what his relationship is to the United Nations, an organization I detest, because of its inbuilt antisemitism, but he probably works as he can.

There is much to learn on the issue of the Sudan.

What is at stake, I feel, is the nature of Islam as it expanded out of the Arabian Peninsula in the period of Mohammed and his successors. How did this happen? Did it happen in a peaceful fashion or was it a brutal conquest?

We have writers like the ex-nun Karen Armstrong who paints Islam in the softest colours, with especially emphasis that Islamic Spain was a land of great tranquility, with Muslim, Chritian and Jew living so happily and productively together, so much so that in the writing of Armstrong you can hear the sound of water bubbling in the Creek behind her

Is that the truth?

There is much evidence that this is lies.

That in fact Islam as it expanded was all about the putting down by extreme force of all minorities, not just Jews, but many national minorities, the Kurds, the Berbers, the Serbs, the Christian Copts come to mind.

This today is entangled with a capitalist system which is plunging into a very deep crissi.

It is in the interconnection between these two facts, Islam as a religion cum political system with inbuilt tendencies towards violence, and the capitalist system itself, in a deep structural crissis, that most people get confused.


4international is proud to be a Trotskyist organization and we have warned and warned over again about the great danger to all of Stalinism, which is carried forward today by many groups on the Left, and especially by countries such as that of China, aspects of Russian policy, and by Chavez among others.

The most dangerous of all of these by far is China which is based on the Stalinist philosophy of Mao Zedong, or in English the usual is Mao Tse Tung, who was indeed a NATIONAL NOT SOCIALIST revolutionary, but was also caught up in the bankrupt programme of Stalinism, especially the stupid idea that it is possible to build socialism in one country, and a backward country at that.

Now today these Stalinists are most dangerous because in exchange for oil they will operate only on the basis of financial gain, and will create alliance with Fascists. Which is what they are doing with Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Fatah of Abbas.

Nothing stands still and as Ahmadinejad today visits the Lebanon, and as the Lebanon is pulverized by Iran and the Hizbullah, who should now pop up but the Chinese Stalinists-

As this report on DEBKAfile makes very clear:


The arrival of a new Middle East player startled Washington and Jerusalem: debkafile’s military sources disclose that when Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan met Syrian president Bashar Assad in Damascus Monday, Oct. 11, they talked less about the Kurdish question and more about the role China is willing to play in the military-intelligence alliance binding Syria, Iran and Turkey.

Erdogan took the credit for China’s unfolding involvement in the alliance in the role of big-power backer. Two recent events illustrate Beijing’s intent:

1.  From Sept. 20 to Oct. 6, the Turkish Air Force conducted its regular annual Anatolian Eagle exercise, this time without US and Israeli participation. Israel was not invited and America opted out. However, their place was taken by Chinese Sukhoi Su-27 and Mig-29 warplanes making their first appearance in Turkish skies.

Our military sources report that the Chinese warplanes began touching down at the big Konya air base in central Turkey in mid-September for their debut performance in the Middle East and Europe.
Konya has served NATO and the United States for decades as one of their most important air bases.

2. Our sources add that the Chinese planes refueled only once on their journey to Turkey in… Iran. When they touched down at the Gayem al-Mohammad air base in central Iran, their crews were made welcome by the Iranian air force commander Gen. Ahmad Migani.

It was the first time Chinese fighter-bombers are known to have visited the Islamic Republic.

The Gayem al-Mohammed facility, located near the town of Birjand in South Khorasan, is situated directly opposite the big American base of East Afghanistan near the Afghan-Iranian border town of Herat.  

The Turkish prime minister painted the military alliance binding Tehran, Ankara and Damascus in rosy colors for Assad’s benefit as more central to the region and more powerful than Israel’s armed forces after overcoming the IDF’s military edge.




Put “honour killing Wikipedia” into google and see what you get. First impression will be that this is a huge issue in today´s world.

It is hard to know where to start there is so much material available. I happened to open up the following facebook site

Honour Killings: The Killing Must End!!!


Wikipedia describes a Honour Killling as:

The murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, when the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community, normally by
(a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to certain people or (b) engaging in certain sexual acts.
These killings result from the perception that defense of honour justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonours their clan or family.
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honour-killing victims may be as high as 5,000.

With this Group I hope to reach millions of people who are against this horrible tradition…
These atrocities are happening all over the world while we stand by and do nothing.
It’s time for us To Wake Up and face the truth, Honour Killings Do Exist and need to Be banished…

Imagine The Person That Is murdered being Your brother, your sister, your cousin, your daughter, your son or even your best friend….Could You live with Yourself knowing that the killing was your fault… Think about it, It’s not Honour that comes out of it but Shame, only SHAME and the DEATH of a Human Being that Did Nothing Wrong… To take someone’s life is only God’s Task and not Ours!!!

Their Story Must Be Told To The World!


The Facebook site above seems most interesting.

The question I wish to ask is: does the issue effect mainly Muslim families, that is is it mainly a product of the religion of Islam?

Is it exclusively so? Does it effect other tribal societies in the world?

But mainly if it is not exclusively Muslim then is it mainly

These are important issues.

On the Pamela Geller website Pamela opens up today with news that she pamela is being sued for a colossal amount, the reason being that Palela and Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch were involved in helping a young Muslim woman escaping from that Muslim family, which the young woman thought were going to perform this act on her, in other words kill here. An honour killing in action!

As they say: No good turn does not deserve punishment!

Please do follow this on

Please also keep an eye on because although not up yet Robert Spencer or Marisol will be surely covering this, and the comment section on Jihadwatch is particularly sharp.

For ourselves on 4international we think this is only the start. The issue of the use of the courts against Free Speech is really one of the main issues that we all face, and this is especially the case in Europe, above all in Britain, where the ñlibel laws are particularly reactionary and against Free Speech, where the defendent is always at an (in-built) disadvantage.

We urge all readers of 4international. and all sites we are in contact with, to support Pamela Geller to the utmost, and urgently


Latest on Mosque

“Blind bigotry,” says Rauf. No, not blind at all, and not bigotry. Our eyes are wide open, Rauf. We see the implications of your advocacy for Sharia, your call for restrictions on the freedom of speech, your refusal to denounce Hamas, your backing of the jihad flotilla, your dissembling about whether the place would be a mosque or not, and all the rest of it. We see it all too clearly.

“Anti-mosque lawsuit slammed as bigotry,” by Annie Karni in the New York Post, October 11:

The developers behind the proposed mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero are blasting a $350 million lawsuit filed by a 9/11 first responder as “blind bigotry.” Vincent Forras, a former volunteer firefighter from Westchester, has sued Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Park51 — the complex that includes the mosque — charging that they’re fronts for “interests tied to terrorism.”

Forras says he deserves to be compensated for the “psychological terrorism” and emotional distress he suffered when he learned of the mosque plans.

He calls the development a “monument to the jihadists’ victory over American ideals of freedom and democracy, [and] a desecration of the terrible sacrifice made by those innocents attacked.”…

In a countersuit, Rauf and Park51 seek to dismiss the filing as a publicity stunt motivated by “blind bigotry.”

They are also seeking $50,000 in damages and lawyers’ fees.

The attorney representing the developers, Adam Leitman Bailey, is seeking to have Foras’ lawsuit dismissed based on the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Jihadwatch should be read closely by all who read this site.

In response to the above entry by Robert Spencer there are the following, and much more.

The image that those behind this Mosque is that they are seeking to build bridges between Islam and other religions in America. But what happens when 80 per cent of those Americans see it as an insult to the memory of 9-11? How can there then be a bridge in that manner. The actual practice of the issue shows how this is fraudulent. If they were seeking to build bridges they would immediately withdraw and seek another avenue.

But the strength of Jihadwatch is that they go straight to the pivotal writings of Islam, which are full of sayings and urgings of the “Jihad”.

Even on this word there has been so much dissembling by such as BBC reporters and commentators, as is the case with the Jewish New York Major also, Bloomberg, but this word “Jihad” is easy to deal with because one of the foremost historians of the Arab world, Bernard Lewis has dealt with it, as per the comment on Jihadwatch below:


He writes on page 72 of his book The Political Language of Islam, that

…the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [Muslim specialists in the Qur’an, hadiths, life of Muhammad, and Islamic law] … understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.

Lewis also writes, on page 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam, that

For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power.




In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection, Muhammad said,
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

“I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.”


In other words, Muhammad says that if you are non-Muslim, your right to live (your “blood”) will not be sacred to Muslims, nor your right to property.


Similarly in Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 031, Number 5917:

…Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people? Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger, and when they do that then their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law and their reckoning is with Allah.



In a canonical hadith collection, Sahih Muslim:

Book 4, Number 1062:

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.



In Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:

Book 019, Number 4294

…the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him)…would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [“polytheists” to Islamic scholars generally includes Christians and Jews, because of, for example, Quran 9:30] invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. [1] Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. …[2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [protection money non-Muslims must pay to Muslim overlords for the right to live, and as an indication of non-Muslims’ “state of subjection” spoken of in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. [3] If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…

Qur’an Chapter 8, Verse 12:

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 123:

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).


Abu jahl said to them: “Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell.” The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: “I do say that.”


What is the position in British and European Law about supporting Hamas, as it is clear that George Galloway does?

The following was a report made by David Toube on Harry´s Place some months ago.

From the Guardian:

Alykhan Velshi, Kenney’s spokesman, said that the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.

“We’re going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to this infamous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving ‘financial support’ to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada,” he said. “I’m sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won’t be one of them.”

Canada is right.

Galloway has indeed given money – £25,000 – to Hamas. Here is a picture of him doing it.


He knows that funding Hamas is a criminal offence:

Galloway said he personally would be donating three cars and 25,000 pounds (35,000 dollars) to Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya as he dared the West to try to prosecute him for aiding what it considers a terror group.

“I say now to the British and European governments, if you want to take me to court I promise you there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me. They will convict you.”

Galloway made the announcement at an outdoor conference in the presence of several senior Hamas officials, and his words were greeted by shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great).

I disagree. I think Galloway would be convicted, were he tried.

There are only two reasons I can think of that he has not yet been arrested. The first is to deprive this absurd man of the publicity that he so craves.

The other is official concern about the effect of such a prosecution on “community cohesion”.


(AFP) – Mar 10, 2009

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Firebrand British MP George Galloway on Tuesday donated thousands of dollars and dozens of vehicles to the Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip after arriving in an aid convoy.

“We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of their contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say. We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine,” Galloway said at a press conference in Gaza City.

Galloway said he personally would be donating three cars and 25,000 pounds (35,000 dollars) to Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya as he dared the West to try to prosecute him for aiding what it considers a terror group.

“I say now to the British and European governments, if you want to take me to court I promise you there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me. They will convict you.”

Galloway made the announcement at an outdoor conference in the presence of several senior Hamas officials, and his words were greeted by shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great).

Taliban kill British aid worker held hostage since late September

From Jihadwatch

Marisol adds this post

Doing their part to build that promised paradise under the sword of Sharia… which somehow keeps winding up squalid and miserable. Somehow. “UK aid worker Linda Norgrove killed in Afghanistan,” from BBC News, October 10:

A UK aid worker held hostage after being kidnapped in Afghanistan has been killed during a rescue attempt, the Foreign Office has said.

Linda Norgrove, 36, from Lewis in the Western Isles of Scotland, was employed by US aid group DAI. She was seized with three local staff on 26 September.

Their two-car convoy was ambushed in the eastern province of Kunar.

Ms Norgrove was killed by her captors on Friday during a rescue mission by US forces.

Her colleagues were released unharmed last week.

The Briton is believed to have been taken by her captors from village to village as British, Afghan and other intelligence agencies worked in the remote and mountainous area of Kunar province to locate her.

Both the prime minister and Foreign Secretary William Hague were kept fully informed and British approval was given for a rescue mission to be mounted on Friday night, involving US forces with British officials offering advice.

In a statement, Mr Hague said the aid worker was “killed at the hands of her captors in the course of a rescue attempt”.

He said: “Working with our allies we received information about where Linda was being held and we decided that, given the danger she was facing, her best chance of safe release was to act on that information.

“Responsibility for this tragic outcome rests squarely with the hostage takers….

There are at present 86 comments on Jihadwatch, and I thought this one was important

No good deed goes unpunished.

I’m almost certain that UK aid worker Linda Norgrove would have sided with our enemies against us.
Perhaps Yvonne Ridley should have taught her a trick or two about ‘suviving the Taliban’….. (or something)”

More on Linda Norgrove from the Guardian

Linda Norgrove in a snapshot from her Facebook page Linda Norgrove in a picture from her Facebook page.Linda Norgrove dedicated her life to helping others, not least in Afghanistan, a country that she loved.

Born in the village of Altnaharra in Sutherland in 1974, Norgrove grew up on a croft on the isle of Lewis before being educated at the University of Aberdeen.

Her taste for travel to the developing world had been fostered by her parents, John, a civil engineer, and her mother, Lorna, who would take Linda and her younger sister, Sofie, on regular long trips abroad. After school she worked for a year at a trotting horse stable in Belgium before travelling around Spain and France. A keen cyclist, she undertook two long and adventurous trips, cycling over 4,000 miles across the US in 1994 and a year later for three and a half months through China, then from Lhasa in Tibet across the Himalayas to Kathmandu in Nepal.

It was perhaps inevitable her later studies and research would focus on environmentally sustainable development, which she would pursue in further studies in Mexico and research in Uganda before joining the United Nations in Afghanistan.

After a spell working in Laos, Linda Norgrove returned to Afghanistan in February this year as a regional director for Development Alternatives Inc, where she was working when kidnapped. So fond was she of Afghanistan and its people that last year, while still working in Laos, she returned to the country for her holidays, trekking for three weeks in the north.

On her return Norgrove, who spoke Dari, a form of Persian, was in charge of a project designed to persuade local farmers to abandon poppy production and move to legal crops, which required operating in the communities where poppies are grown. A large part of the effort was focused on rebuilding local infrastructure, part of a programme seen as key to denying the Taliban its support among the Afghan population.


US withdrawal leave Christians’ fate in Iraqi hands


 Congregations have dwindled through fear and exodus

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Congregations have dwindled through fear and exodus

As the United States steps up its military withdrawal from Iraq, the Christian minority is forced to look at the Iraqi security structure for protection. However, the prospect of being protecetd by the Iraqi police and armed forces fails to instill any confidence in the Christian minority.

“The greatest concern about a US pullout is that extremists will exploit any lapses in security and attack vulnerable groups, including Christians,” Samer Muscati, an Iraq expert from the Middle East division at Human Rights Watch, told Deutsche Welle. 

“Although the Iraqi government publicly condemns violence against Christians and other minority groups, it has not taken measures to bolster security in areas where minorities are particularly vulnerable to attacks, and it has not thoroughly investigated attacks,” he added. “Iraqi security forces rarely apprehend, prosecute and punish perpetrators of such attacks, which has created a climate of impunity…,,6052335,00.html

Britain’s secret war on the Jews … Operation Embarrass

A new book gives us more information about British antisemitism in the Holocaust period

Jewish refugees on the deck of the immigrant ship Dov Hoz at Haifa in May 1946.

Jewish refugees on the deck of the immigrant ship Dov Hoz at Haifa in May 1946

British spies staged covert operations to sabotage Holocaust survivors’ attempts to reach Palestine between 1946 and early 1948.

Among the tactics used by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in Operation Embarrass were the bombing of five ships used by potential immigrants, intimidation and the creation of a fake Palestinian defence group.

The British government gave the go-ahead to the campaign to slow illegal immigration into Palestine, provided there was “no risk of casualties being incurred” and no link could be traced back to the government.

The revelations come in the first authorised history of the SIS, MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949, by Professor Keith Jeffery. The book was published on Tuesday.

I just stumbled on it – it was like a spy novel

Prof Jeffery said: “Operation Embarrass was one of the most amazing stories I found. I just stumbled on it. It was like a spy novel. These are astonishing operational stories. Uncovering them made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.”

Before searching the archives, he had to agree to keep certain stories secret for national security reasons, but Operation Embarrass is revealed in full.

Prof Jeffery said: “It’s quite explosive and you can see why the anxiety levels might go up, not just in the agency but in Whitehall as well. A lot of stuff in the archives was destroyed, so finding this tale was a reassurance. If it had been me, I would have shredded stuff like this.

“There is the possibility it could make things difficult for the Foreign Office. But I dug my heels in, and said it was very important this was revealed.

“It says a lot about the organisation of the SIS at that time, about the government’s Palestine policy and about relations between the agency and the government.”

In late 1946, the government asked the SIS to develop “proposals for action to deter ships’ masters and crews from engaging in illegal Jewish immigration and traffic”. Around £13,000 was spent on the operation.

A SIS report stated: “Action of the nature contemplated is, in fact, a form of intimidation, and intimidation is only likely to be effective if some members of the group of people to be intimidated actually suffer unpleasant consequences.”

Options put forward for the campaign included the use of sabotage devices, tampering with a ship’s fresh water supplies and crew’s food, or setting fire to ships in port.

SIS chief Sir Stewart Menzies suggested blaming the action on a specially-created Arab organisation. The agents were instructed to devise failsafe reasons for their presence abroad and were told that if rumbled, “they were under no circumstances to admit their connection with the government”.

Prof Jeffery said: “The book really does show the James Bond side of it. Embarrass is closer to the perception of the spy image than other stories in the book.”

In summer 1947 and early 1948, the plot led to attacks on five ships in Italian ports. The British made it a priority that no one was on board in order to avoid casualties. One ship was a a “total loss” and two others were damaged.

The British set up a notional organisation – Defenders of Arab Palestine – which claimed responsibility for the work against Jewish immigration.

Operation Embarrass ended in April, before the UK pullout from Palestine the following month. But Prof Jeffery concludes that the campaign had little or no effect. One SIS officer wrote that the failure to carry out a planned operation to disable the President Warfield ship in the summer of 1947 had been the biggest missed opportunity.

Instead, the renamed Exodus set sail with 4,500 Jewish refugees, leading to one of the most infamous episodes in the battle to create Israel. British forces seized the Exodus off the coast of Palestine. Three people died and the immigrants aboard were forcibly returned
to Europe.

“The cost,” said one SIS officer, “both direct and indirect to the government, must have been enormous. All of this could have been spared if the Foreign Office had permitted the SIS to take the appropriate action against the President Warfield.”

Prof Jeffery said: “After the disaster with the Exodus, the SIS guys pretty much said ‘we told you so’. They could have blown its rudder off and averted the crisis.

“This was a fantastic job for me. I was like a child in a sweetshop. But I also feel this is part of the accountability process. British taxpayers funded these operations. You might say after 60 years what difference does it make, but you can tell it does. People will look at this and put the record straight..”



I intend to read this article with some care.


There is a term called “taqqiya” which is sort of like “strategic lying” and since it is strategic it is excused in the Koran and in Islamic thought.


Let me refer the reader to the article by Daniel Pipes and I will come back to it later.


I find that Pipes is always good value because his articles are so well researched



Readers may also have a look through the comments on the following





I would refer readers of 4international to the following article

I would further point the reader to a contribution a few comments down by a Mr Robinson which is based on the thinking of a Mr Jeff Halper.

It is a long time since I first met the writing of Halper. I probably first saw him on the website of a man from Belfast called Anthony McIntyre, the website being called “The Blanket”, obviously a connection to the Republican “Blanket” protest by provisional Sinn Fein and IRA prisoners in The Maze Prison, in Lisburn, some 15 miles outside of Belfast.

McIntyre expressed this hatred of Israel which was and is contained inside that Provisional (and Stalinist Official IRA as well) movement.

Why this should be is for another article. Suffice to say now is that these Republicans tended to read certain books inside the Maze. That is good but the question is WHAT books? In any case they did not know, and do not know to this day, the history of the Jewish people, the history of the Arabs, associated with the latter the history of Islam.

The words of McIntyre in his articles are still seared on my mind. This is because continually he pushed the totally antisemitic claim that the Zionists of Israel in their treatment of the “Palestinians” were the new Nazis.

Now this is a thought to me that was and is profoundly disturbing, if not infuriating.

I was brought up too in an atmosphere in the left that the Palestinians were the victims of history.

But when I began to think seriously about the various propaganda stances being taken on the left in Britain, by all of the left groups there, Stalinist CP and “Trotskyist” SWP, Militant and WRP etc, SOMETHING DID NOT MAKE SENSE!

How could the Jews so grievously wounded by the Nazis suddenly in 1945 as if turning on a sixpence become in turn the Nazis, as described by McIntyre. (In fact they did not! McIntyre was simply lying)

At first this was a thought…along the lines of…This is not logical.

But this thought was to soon turn into hatred for these like McIntyre, and in this case Halper, who argued that the Jews of Israelis were the new Nazis.

That kind of hatred that finds on investigation that they were and are telling lies about the Jews.

So in this Guardian piece I refer to Dr (let us give him his full title) Brian Robinson is using the thoughts of Jeff Halper (he is a “Professor” by the way) and without overquoting (Because I am hopeful that the reader will study this) I include the following comment from Robinson, based on Halper:

  • I’ll end with a quotation from the Jewish theologian Prof Marc Ellis. He has written: “”Could a Jewish future be fashioned with integrity and ethics if we did not confess our sins against the Palestinian people?”
    See <>

So in response to that, as the basis of the thinking of 4international on the issue, consider this:

  1. In history there is NO Palestinian people
  2. The Jewish people have a right to a piece of land somewhere in the Middle East, somewhere in that area which is connected to their original Homeland, where they were initially driven from by the Roman conquerors, but which they did not succeed in driving out completely, and which place the Jews never dropped from their consciousness.
  3. And the Arabs came into this area as conquerors and with the very worst imperialist practices and colonialist mindset


And there we on 4international more or less just leave these like Halper and Robinson to their fate. We tend to go our own way and not bother TOO MUCH with their mental gymnastics.

And so we say the following

  1. The Jews have been a horribly persecuted and abused people
  2. As a true Trotskyist movement we on 4international will at every point stand alongside the Jews
  3. We feel that a future society will have to make amends for that past


Jews have decided to go in one direction, which is to have within their state about 1 million of the enemy, who are “Islamicised” Arabs.

4international believes that is a big mistake. Jews must live in a place which is free from antisemitism.

That is they must live alone as long as antisemitism exists in the world, and anybody who lives in their midst must be a guest, meaning a friendship and not an enmity.

Also they muist live in a space which is defensible, meaning it CAN be defended.

Consequently, apart from the “West Bank” being really JUDEA, it is lunacy to have an enemy in a state overlooking Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport, that is within spitting distance, and these Islamics will spit, that is for sure.

I am a socialist. I do not mean the above in the context of a future socialist society, I mean it now, immediately, like 2 hours ago.

It is long past the time when a single Jew on earth should or can be molested for being a Jew.

Finally I intend to buy this book that the Guardian here reviews (Trials of the Diaspora, by Anthony Julius)


US Demanding Multinational Force in Israel’s Heartland

by Sagit Levi

Jerusalem is reportedly concerned about a recent American demand to establish a multinational force in Judea and Samaria as a means to expedite an Israeli withdrawal from the territory following negotiations with the American-backed Palestinian Authority.

The idea is being aggressively promoted by United States National Security Advisor James Jones, who served as Washington’s security coordinator to the region under former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

Jones also served as the top NATO commander in Europe, and is therefore believed to be a general proponent of using multinational forces to solve conflicts.

Last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, viewed by most analysts in the region as an American-puppet, endorsed the concept of an international force in an op-ed piece for The New York Times.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has voiced reservations about such an international deployment and the IDF is officially opposed to the idea. Ahead of renewed negotiations with the PA, which opened at the start of September in Washington, the IDF’s Planning Branch drafted a paper outlining Israel’s security needs regarding Judea and Samaria, which – in addition to being Israel’s historic heartland – constitute the mountains overlooking the country’s densest population centers.

“Experience shows us that we cannot trust multinational forces to do the job like in Lebanon,” one senior defense official said, referring to the United Nations force in Lebanon that not only permits Hezbollah to arm itself
with sophisticated weaponry but also actively prevents Israel from taking defensive measures.

L’Herut Tzion activist Benny Katz told IndyNewsIsrael that in principle there is no difference between Israel surrendering its heartland to the PA or to a multinational force. “The entire reason why we are against the establishment of a Palestinian state in our land is because we demand that our country be free from foreign rule. It doesn’t matter whether that rule be Arab or Western. Our problem is that it is foreign. Any military force controlling portions of our homeland will be regarded by the people of Israel as foreign occupiers, no different from the Greeks or Romans in ancient times or from the British before the re-establishment of our state.”

Katz further stated that, in his view, there would be no difference between American-trained PA troops or Western soldiers comprising a multinational force. “The PA is armed, funded and trained by the West. The PA leadership in Ramallah receives its orders from Washington and Brussels. A multinational force would just mean that the Western powers would have to send their own boys to steal our land instead of using Arab pawns to do their dirty work. Maybe this would be more fair. But in the end its really six of one or half-dozen of the other.”

We on 4international, a true Trotskyist movement, could not agree more with katz above.

At stake here truly is the independence of the jewish Homeland.

The US Government wants to control the world and it seeks to do this NOT AT ALL BY FORCE OF ARMS but by seeking allies.

Now of what use is the tiny Jewish nation and people, some 5 millions or so, sitting on a tiny postage stamp, able to be wiped out by one suicide bomber and one Nuclear device planted in the centre of a city, say Tel Aviv

But of great use to US control of the world would be a couple of billions of Muslims, organized in states which are close to the Hitlerian Reich, with women suppressed, with science stunted, with freedom of thought weighed down by medieval superstition and cruelty.

That is why the US Governments, all of them, not just Obama, although Obama is also a product of  the propaganda of groups like Palestine Solidarity Campaign and George Galloway…He thinks that way automatically, as do Jewish self haters around him.

The above is a great article by a great website.

We on 4international send our thanks for writing the above which is so enlightening to us and our readers.