Manufacturing Rebels: How the US and UK empowered HTS

by Kit Klarenberg (republished and somewhat reformatted with kind permission from his article in The Cradle) https://thecradle.co/articles/manufacturing-rebels-how-the-uk-and-us-empowered-hts
(Reading time: 7 mins.)

On 18 December, The Telegraph published an extraordinary investigation into how the UK and US trained and “prepared” fighters in the Revolutionary Commando Army (RCA).

This was a “rebel” force that collaborated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in the mass offensive toppling of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad weeks earlier. 

In an unprecedented disclosure, the outlet revealed that Washington not only “knew about the offensive” well in advance, but also had “precise intelligence about its scale.”

Washington’s now-confirmed “effective alliance” with HTS was described as “one of many ironies” emerging from the decade-and-a-half-long proxy war.

The Telegraph suggested this collaboration was inadvertent – simply a symptom of how Syria’s grinding, protracted civil war gave birth to “a bewildering array of militias and alliances, most of them backed by foreign powers.” 

US support of HTS: A ‘necessary’ alliance 

Alliances were fluid, with groups often splintering, merging, and shifting allegiances. Fighters frequently found themselves switching sides, blurring lines between factions.

Yet, ample evidence indicates the UK and the US maintained deliberate, long-standing ties with the dominant rebels of HTS.

(Photo cred: The Cradle)

For instance, in March 2021, President-elect Donald Trump’s former lead Syria envoy, James Jeffrey, gave a revealing interview to PBS, during which he disclosed that Washington secured a specific “waiver” from then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo to assist HTS. 

While this did not permit direct funding or arming of the UN/US-designated terrorist organization, the waiver ensured that if US-supplied resources “somehow” ended up with HTS, western actors “[could not] be blamed.” 

The fungibility of weapons on the Syrian battlefield was something Washington counted on heavily.

In a 2015 interview, CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why Pentagon-vetted fighters’ weapons were showing up in the hands of the Nusra Front (precursor to HTS).

Raines responded: “We don’t ‘command and control’ these forces – we only ‘train and enable’ them. Who they say they’re allying with, that’s their business.”

This legal loophole enabled Washington to “indirectly” support HTS, ensuring the group did not collapse while maintaining its designation as a terrorist organization.

This status was complete with a now-rescinded $10 million bounty on leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who now goes by his real name Ahmad al-Sharaa. 

Jeffrey rationalized this strategy, calling HTS “the least bad option” for preserving “a US-managed security system in the region,” and thus worth “[leaving] alone.” HTS’s dominance, in turn, gave Turkiye a platform to operate in Idlib.

Meanwhile, HTS sent unmistakable messages to their US patrons, pleading:

We want to be your friend. We’re not terrorists. We’re just fighting Assad.”

Safe haven’

Since Assad’s fall, officials in London have markedly taken the lead in legitimizing the HTS-led interim administration as Syria’s new government.

The group was added to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2017, its entry stating HTS should be considered among “alternative names” for the long-banned Al-Qaeda.

While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared it “too early” to rescind the group’s designation, British officials met HTS representatives on 16 December – despite the illegality of such meetings.

This likely signals an impending, highly politicized western rehabilitation of HTS. Throughout Syria’s dirty war, UK intelligence waged extensive psychological operations to promote “moderate rebels,” crafting atrocity propaganda and human-interest stories. 

These efforts were ostensibly aimed at undermining groups like HTS, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. Yet leaked documents from UK intelligence reveal how HTS remained intertwined with Al-Qaeda post-2016, directly contradicting media narratives.

In other words, throughout the decade-and-a-half-long crisis, HTS was officially considered on par with the most fundamentalist, genocidal elements in the country. 

British documents also make a total mockery of the common refrain that HTS severed all ties with Al-Qaeda in 2016. A 2020 file described how Al-Qaeda “co-exists” with HTS in occupied Syrian territory, using it as a launchpad for transnational attacks. 

The document warned that HTS’s domination created a “safe haven” for Al-Qaeda to train and expand, fueled by instability. British psyops against HTS spanned years but ultimately failed.

Instead, leaked files lament HTS’s growing influence, territorial gains, and re-branding as an alternative government.

[Al-Qaeda] remains an explicitly Salafi-Jihadist transnational group with objectives and targets which extend outside Syria’s borders. [Al-Qaeda’s] priority is to maintain an instability fuelled safe haven in Syria, from which they are able to train and prepare for future expansion. HTS domination of north west Syria provides space for [Al-Qaeda] aligned groups and individuals to exist.”

British-backed propaganda benefiting HTS

British intelligence psyops attempting to hinder HTS were in operation from the group’s founding until recently.

Yet, they appear to have achieved nothing. Numerous leaked files reviewed by The Cradle bemoan how HTS’s “influence and territorial control” had “dramatically grown” over the years. 

Its successes allowed the extremist group “to consolidate its position, neutralize opponents, and position itself as a key actor in northern Syria.” But HTS’s “domination” was secured in part by the group re-branding itself as an alternative government.

HTS-occupied territory was home to a variety of parallel service providers and institutions, including hospitals, law enforcement, schools, and courts.

The group’s domestic and international propaganda specifically promoted these resources as a demonstration of an “alternative” Syria awaiting roll-out across the entire country.

Ironically, many of these structures and organizations – such as the infamous White Helmets, who also operated in ISIS-run territories – were direct products of British intelligence, created for regime change propaganda purposes.

Moreover, they were aggressively promoted by London at enormous expense.

Repeated references are made in leaked UK intelligence documents to the importance of “[raising] awareness of moderate opposition service provision,” and providing domestic and international audiences with “compelling narratives and demonstrations of a credible alternative to the [Assad] regime.”

There is no consideration evident in the files that these efforts might be assisting HTS greatly in its own efforts to present itself as a “credible alternative” to Assad.

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Syrians in occupied territory would accommodate HTS “particularly if [they are] receiving services from it.”

Even more eerily, the documents note, “HTS and other extremist armed groups are significantly less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support” from the UK government’s Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund (CSSF). 

This was the mechanism through which Britain’s Syrian propaganda war and organizations like the White Helmets and extremist-linked Free Syrian Police were financed.

These UK-run governance structures and opposition elements, which were allegedly intended to “undermine” HTS, operated in areas controlled by the group safe from violent reprisals for their foreign-funded work, as they “demonstrably provide key services” to residents of occupied territory.

There is also the darker prospect that HTS was well aware these “opposition entities” were bankrolled by British intelligence, and they were unmolested on that very basis.

Coordinated offensive

As The Telegraph‘s report explains, “the first indication that Washington had prior knowledge” of HTS’s offensive was when its RCA proxies were given a rousing pep talk by their US handlers three weeks prior. 

At a secret meeting at the US-controlled Al-Tanf air base close to the borders of Jordan and Iraq, the militants were told to scale up their forces and “be ready” for an attack that “could lead to the end” of Assad. A quoted RCA captain told the outlet:

They did not tell us how it would happen. We were just told: ‘Everything is about to change. This is your moment. Either Assad will fall, or you will fall.’ But they did not say when or where, they just told us to be ready.”

This followed US officers at the base, swelling the RCA’s ranks by unifying the group with other UK/US-trained, funded, and directed Sunni desert units and rebel units operating out of Al-Tanf under joint command. 

According to The Telegraph, “RCA and the fighters of HTS … were cooperating, and communication between the two forces was being coordinated by the Americans.”

This collaboration proved to be of devastating effect in the “lightning offensive,” with RCA rapidly seizing key territory across the country upon explicit US orders.

RCA even joined forces with another rebel faction in the southern city of Deraa, which reached Damascus before HTS. RCA now occupies roughly one-fifth of the country, pockets of territory in Damascus, and the ancient city of Palmyra. 

Hitherto “heavily defended” by Russia and Hezbollah, Moscow’s local base has now been taken over by RCA. “All members of the force continued to be armed by the US,” receiving salaries of $400 monthly, nearly 12 times what Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers were paid.

It is uncertain whether this direct financing of the RCA and other extremist militias that toppled the Assad government continues today. What is clear, though, is that the UK and US supported HTS from the group’s inception, even if “indirectly.”

In turn, this covert backing played a pivotal role in positioning HTS financially, geopolitically, materially, and militarily for its “lightning” swoop on Damascus and assumption of government today.

Reinforcing the interpretation that this was the objective of London and Washington all along, following Assad’s ouster, Starmer promptly declared that the UK would “play a more present and consistent role” in West Asia as a result. 

While western and certain regional capitals may celebrate the apparent success of their lavishly funded, blood-soaked campaign to dismantle decades of Baathism, British intelligence had long cautioned that the outcome would grant Al-Qaeda an even larger “instability-fueled safe haven” for “future expansion.”

THE MISREPRESENTATION AND REPRESSION CONTINUES

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

Not only has the retaliation against the violence and racist and fascist provocation of a Zionist football team ultra thugs been misrepresented as ‘anti-semitism’ but the Dutch authorities send the provoked to jail.

And the western mass media continues to misreport the events. It’s an absolute disgrace.

What actually happened in Amsterdam is that many ultra fans of the ‘Israeli’ football team Maccabi, arriving in Amsterdam on 6th November, the day before the game, went on a provocative rampage through the city, celebrating the murder of Palestinian children and chanting anti-Arab slogans.

They armed themselves with bottles and material from a building site, chased people they identified as ‘Arabs’ and attacked a taxi driver’s vehicle. In addition they were filmed trying to tear down Palestinian flags from outside people’s houses, in one case successfully.

By and large the Dutch police did not intervene though one was later reported injured. The following day, that of the football match of Maccabi Tel Aviv Vs Ajax, the provoked responded and handed out retribution.

Separately, the city authorities had refused permission for a Palestine solidarity picket near the game and ‘dispersed’ those who attempted to demonstrate nevertheless1 which may have encouraged some rioting and some attacks on the police.

The media reports that 60 arrests were made of which only 10 had ‘Israeli’ addresses.2 Because of the clear bias in reporting and in the trials so far, one can almost guarantee that none of the latter will be handed prison sentences.

However the evidence of the true nature of the events was available in videos of the actions of the Maccabi Tel Aviv ultras and in reports of eyewitnesses and even in some media reporting, but usually far down the report after repeating the slurs of “anti-Semitism” and alleged crimes.

That follows the wide political media misrepresentation with such accusations of anti-Semitism by western political leaders from USA’s Biden to Amsterdam’s Mayor, Femke Halsema, (later admitting that accusation had been misused as propaganda in describing the events).3

However the Dutch premier Dick Schoof did not retract his accusations of “anti-Semitism”,4 even though he also referred to the violence and provocation by Maccabi ultras, conflating the retribution on the ultras or Israelis with attacks “on Jews” (as did the western media in general).

Of course, leader of the current ‘Israeli’ fascist and genocidal government Netanyahu was quick to make a similar accusation, even going so far as to compare it to the Nazis’ Kristalnacht in 1938, when Jewish businesses and homes were attacked and an estimated 91 Jews killed.

The German media had played its part assisting the climb to power of the Nazis in the 1930s, and the western mass media misrepresentation today also facilitates the repression of Palestinian solidarity and the continuation of daily Zionist genocide.

This is particularly egregious while Palestinian journalist colleagues risk their lives reporting the facts from the ground and over 141 have been murdered since October 2023.

Maccabi Tel Aviv ultras in Amsterdam for their team’s game against Ajax in which they were beaten 5-0. (Photo: AP)

The reputation of the Maccabi ultras did not contradict their actions in Amsterdam, having a name for violent behaviour and racist slogans.5 They were recorded in Amsterdam chanting in celebration that “there are no schools in Gaza because there no children left”6 and “Death to Arabs!”

The trials were in the context of wide-scale repression of Palestinian solidarity across the West, losing or threatening the livelihoods of academics, information technologists, journalists and the studies of students. Activists have been charged, fined, jailed or threatened by the authorities.

Despite the judge’s admission that the crimes alleged would have normally warranted sentence of community service, five of the accused were jailed because of “the seriousness of the offence and (in) the context … only imprisonment is appropriate.” 7

What is that if not a clear admission of political motivation and bias in the sentencing?

Why was the incident so blatantly misrepresented? What is the reason for the repression of Palestinian solidarity in the West? It is all simply so that the genocide in Palestine may continue without any obstruction from within the fortresses of western imperialism.

End.

FOOTNOTES

1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/24/amsterdam-football-violence-ajax-maccabi-tel-aviv-men-found-guilty

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4“The images and reports for Amsterdam and what we’ve seen this weekend of antisemitic attacks against Israelis and Jews are nothing short of shocking and reprehensible,” he told journalists. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78dzr432x7o No reports of attacks “on Jews” as such had been verified, though certainly passports were examined to establish whether people were Israelis. It was their origin from the Zionist state that was the issue in the context of its ongoing genocide and the fans racist, arrogant and violent behaviour the previous dayl

5https://www.left-horizons.com/2024/11/09/what-most-media-dont-tell-us-about-maccabi-tel-aviv/

6https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnFNkZB-RE0 and https://www.instagram.com/aljarmaq_news/reel/DCJobsZtQ1_/

7https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/24/amsterdam-football-violence-ajax-maccabi-tel-aviv-men-found-guilty

SOURCES

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/amsterdam-court-sentences-five-men-over-violence-linked-to-ajax-maccabi-game-1711453.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/8/israeli-football-fans-clash-with-protesters-in-amsterdam

Leader of the Dutch social-democratic minorities-based Denk party denounces the actions of the Maccabi ultras and the biassed response of the right-wing Government, also using the events for racist propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwobmhPNu2g

ZIONIST DUBLIN EMBASSY CLOSES TO REGRETS AND CELEBRATIONS

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

The Zionist state announced the closure of its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish Government of being anti-Israel.1 The broad Palestine solidarity movement celebrated the announcement while Harris for the Irish Government expressed regret.

The Zionist Embassy at 28 Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin has been without an Ambassador since she left Ireland last May in protest after the Irish Government, along with the Spanish and Norwegian governments, officially recognised the state of Palestine.2

D.B cartoon drawing of celebrations outside the block in which the Zionist Embassy was located (and under 24-hour Garda protection). Many of the other users of the building will be relieved at the departure also.

However the Irish State’s recent decision to join South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice3 seems to have prompted the closure of the Embassy and led once again to allegations of “anti-semitism” in Ireland which the President called a “gross slander”.4

Simon Harris, Taoiseach (prime minister equivalent) of the outgoing Irish Government5 expressed his regret at the ‘Israeli’ decision while at the same time rejecting vigorously the allegation that the Government is anti-Israel. He is absolutely correct in doing so.

Irish Governments have consistently been pro-Israel and colluding with Zionism, in contradiction to Irish popular opinion. The outgoing government6 has allowed military supplies for ‘Israel’ to fly through Irish airspace and the US military to land and depart from Shannon Airport.

One of the participants outside the Israeli Embassy yesterday celebrating its imminent departure. (Photo: D.Breatnach)

The Irish Government has also held up for years the relatively mild UN-compliant Occupied Territories Bill. These points were well made in an Al Jazeera Inside Story7 program by Mícheál Mac Donncha, Sinn Féin Dublin City Councillor and by Zoe Lawlor, IPSC8 Chairperson.

Both did well outlining the general attitude of the Irish people to which the government was – to an extent – responding and in refuting the slur of anti-semitism on the Irish people. Lawlor pointed to the Irish history of resistance as a motivator but appears unaware that we once supported Israel.

This is important (and I have written about it9) because it shows that we are capable of changing our position to a better one when presented with the evidence of the need to do so, which task the Zionist themselves carried out for us.

However both speakers failed to answer the interviewer’s question of why the Irish government did not go further.

This is an essential question for us and the answer makes sense of the current political landscape with crucial import beyond the issues of Palestine and Zionism. Mac Donncha seemed to avoid the question entirely and chose instead to talk about actions that the Government should take.

The interviewer however put it bluntly to Lawlor that the reason was a reluctance to offend the USA, though presenting it as a fear of putting off US corporations’ investments. Lawlor correctly replied that corporations make decisions based on profit but avoided giving the political answer.

The Irish ruling class is a neo-colonial one and responds to requirements of its masters. These have been firstly the UK, followed by the US and more recently the EU. All of these are imperialist states and bound up with the interests of the colonial fort in the Middle East which is the Zionist State.

(Photo: D.Breatnach)

I am sure that Mac Donncha is aware of those facts and pretty sure that Lawlor is too but both declined to provide the explanation being asked for. One must suspect in Mac Donncha’s case the reason is that his party, Sinn Féin, is busily making itself acceptable to that very ruling class.

And Lawlor probably wants to keep the clean image for the ruling class which the IPSC leadership has been at pains to develop, particularly during this current genocidal offensive.

While the IPSC leadership has played an important role in mobilising national demonstrations much of the activism has been and continues to be by organisations on the ground. The Embassy itself was invaded some time back by such groups and has seen militant blockades.

Jimi Cullen yesterday performing his composition “We Are All Palestinians” during a modest celebration outside the Zionist Embassy. Cullen has been performing outside there for an hour every Wednesday afternoon for 41 weeks. (Photo D.Breatnach)

Axa Insurance has been picketed frequently and occupied at least once and the Foreign Affairs Department was splattered with red paint while the Department of Transport was occupied. The US Embassy was picketed for three days in a row by organisations from Galway without IPSC support.

Only one IPSC march since October last year had the US Embassy as destination and on that occasion the march was led up quiet suburban streets to the stage set up next to police barricades blocking access to the Embassy gates and the main road into Dublin.

Section of the crowd yesterday afternoon celebrating its imminent departure outside the Zionist Embassy. (Photo D.Breatnach)

The general Irish public and in particular of course the activists in solidarity with Palestine can justly celebrate the departure of the Zionist Embassy. It is their symbolic victory.

However, there is no doubt that the Irish ruling class needs to be put under much heavier pressure than has heretofore been the case, if we are to shut down the collusion of the Irish Gombeen state with the Zionist genocide of Palestinians.

Outside the Zionist Embassy yesterday, an Irish healthworker calls for more effective solidarity with the Palestinians, in particular with the healthworkers being targeted by the IOF in Gaza. (Photo: D.Breatnach)

End.

FOOTNOTES

1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/15/israel-to-close-dublin-embassy-after-ireland-supports-icj-genocide-petition

2https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/71936-ireland-recognises-the-state-of-palestine. While the decision of those states has enraged the Zionist state, it is not as progressive as may seem at first glance. The ‘state’ that is being recognised is a) in addition to the state of Israel, i.e “the two-state solution” (sic); b) grants the Palestinians around 20% of Palestine which would be under the constant eyes and guns of the Zionists and c) is widely considered not realisable due to the proliferation of Zionist settlements and their special roads connecting them. Currently the only ‘government’ of such a state is the undemocratic, repressive and corrupt Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

3Again this decision too has its deeply negative side since the Attorney General of the Irish State in his submission to the Preliminary Hearings on Genocide at the ICJ repeated the many times debunked Zionist propaganda of “mass rape by Hamas” during its breakout attack on October 7th.

4See Sources for link to the report,

5The elections of 29 November did not return any party with an absolute majority and discussions on forming a coalition government have been ongoing since the election results were confirmed.

6And many previous Irish governments too.

7See Sources for link to the program.

8Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

9https://villagemagazine.ie/opinion-ireland-and-palestine-a-late-love-affair/

SOURCES

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/15/israel-to-close-dublin-embassy-after-ireland-supports-icj-genocide-petition

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2024/12/16/why-is-israel-shutting-its-embassy-in-ireland

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41538359.html

LEBANON CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS – BY WHOM? News & Views No. 14

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 2 mins.)

“HEZBOLLAH FIRES AT ISRAEL IN FIRST STRIKE SINCE THE CEASEFIRE” reads the headline so it tells us all we need to know.

Of course those horrible Islamic terrorists are violating the ceasefire with those poor Israelis, which the good old democratic USA and France worked so hard to broker.

Ach ní mar a shíltear a bhítear, or at least not as the media headline would have us believing.

Further down, in the text, it actually gives a much fairer and accurate report and it turns out that this was the first

warning shot by Hezbollah after over 50 violations by the ‘Israeli’ Occupation Forces, which neither the ceasefire arrangers nor UNIFIL have done anything to stop.

But if you’ve only read the headline, as many do, it’s the message that remains in your head.

Even though the main text is fairly accurate, an important additional piece of information is missing. A Zionist source admitted that they are not acting in accordance with the actual text but rather in accordance with a “side document” of an agreement they have with the USA.

They still claim that they’re not violating the negotiated ceasefire agreement, however, even though the document upon which they’re relying was not part of the official ceasefire agreement, was not agreed with the Lebanese side or even disclosed to them at the time of signing!

You’d have to wonder whether Baron Munchausen, Charles Ponzi and Richard Nixon would be relied upon so uncritically by the western mass media today as are the ‘Israeli’ Zionist spokespersons who have been exposed time and time again in lying accusations and denials.

I suppose the answer is that a) it would depend on whether the lies in question suited their purposes or b) how long they thought they could get away with it.

After the some might say overdue missile response by Hezbollah, an official ‘Israeli’ source was quoted as saying that their artillery firing at Lebanon had come to an end. Well – for how long? And the airstrikes, drone flying, destruction of buildings and facilities?

By the way, this admission of “the side document” by ‘Israeli’ sources is not the first known reference to its existence; it was reported referred to in ‘Israeli’ media as soon as the ceasefire agreement was signed.

Over 54 IOF violations of the ceasefire agreement at time of writing, including:

○ Airstrikes on 11 different locations

○ Artillery shelling of four different locations

○ Raids from drones on five different locations.

Since the ceasefire agreement the IOF have injured and killed a number of civilians in shelling etc and drone-murdered a state employee on a motorbike, wrecked dwellings and a mosque, also a football pitch … and also advanced to occupy locations they were never able to during the war itself.

The agreement should have stipulated total Israeli withdrawal within a week – three months was unreasonable and asking for trouble.

End.

SOURCES:

The headline: https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/hezbollah-fires-at-israeli-held-border-zone-in-first-strike-since-ceasefire-1703150.html

The ‘side document’admission: https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/-israel–operating-in-accordance-with–side-document–not-un

NEITHER ELECTING ONE DALY NOR FIFTY

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

Clare Daly stood for election in the 2024 elections of the Irish State, in the Dublin Central parliamentary constituency, one with a tradition of independent representation going back to Maureen O’Sullivan and Tony Gregory before her.

Daly was standing as one of the loose Left coalition of Independents for Change in a heavy competition for the four-seat constituency.

Clare Daly has a track record as elected public representative and socialist political activist, also as a prominent Socialist Party activist, with which organisation she partedcompany in August 2012.

She was elected MEP for the Dublin constituency from July 2019 to July 2024, TD1 for Fingal from Feb. 2016-July 1999 and TD Dublin North Feb. 2011-2019; in recent years Daly has been better known outside Ireland due to her public interventions in the European Parliament.

Daly and her partner Wallace were both vilified by pro-imperialist liberals and ‘Left’ for publicly opposing US/NATO/ EU imperialist campaigns against Islamic regimes and the Russian Federation, being subjected to a host of unfounded allegations contrary to their actual record.

Tik Tok clips of Daly’s biting attacks on the EU’s complicity in the US-backed ‘Israeli’ genocide provided relief for many around the world from the Zionist sycophancy and insincere and ineffective concern for the victims of that daily genocide prevalent in the EU Parliament.

And who can forget Daly’s calling German politician and EU Commission President Ursula Van Der Leyen out as ‘Frau Genocide’ in the European Parliament in December last year!2

While an MEP, Daly also intervened in the discussion around the Irish Gombeen3 class’ attempt to push us towards NATO, further undermining a quite tattered Irish neutrality. And while a TD, she and her partner Mick Wallace TD were arrested protesting the foreign militarisation of Shannon.

To their credit both risked jail by refusing to pay the fines imposed but the Gombeen ruling class decided to restrict the damage of its exposure of collusion with US imperialism by also reducing the punishment of both to a few hours in captivity.

Daly has been one of the few TDs prepared to speak in public against the repression of Irish Republicans and to visit some of the consequent victims in jail.

In the EU Parliament, Daly also denounced the Spanish State’s police invasion of Barcelona and violence against voters there on 1st October 2017 during the referendum on Catalunya’s independence.

2024 Dublin Central election poster for Clare Daly.

In Ireland today

In her election flyer here Daly highlighted representation independent of political party for her electoral area, housing, health service, cost of living, Palestine, the endangered climate and Irish neutrality without any indication of how these issues might be effectively addressed.

Daly’s election flyer did not mention capitalism or imperialism, nor did she campaign on a platform of overthrowing the current neo-colonial and neo-liberal capitalist system in force, instead indicating her wish to “hold to account the people who’ve got us into this mess.”

“Holding to account” is something to which Daly is accustomed doing and does it well, eloquently, with passion and fluently, scarcely having to refer to her notes while doing so. But like ‘speaking truth to power’, it has little effect on those who are in control of the political-social system.

It can indeed have an effect on the victims of the system but we are left with the question of what to do about the situation. Refreshing as it may be to hear her again in Leinster House, neither voting Daly in — nor fifty Dalys — is going to change any of the conditions under which we suffer.

BY THE WAY,

in case anyone’s interested, I gave my first preference vote to Daly and hope she does get elected.

End.

1Teachta Dála, the title of a public representative elected to the parliament of the Irish State.

2Imperialist politician and proven plagiarist in her doctoral thesis.

3Vernacular term in Ireland for huckster, carpet-bagger-type capitalists, derived from the Irish language gaimbíneachas, profiteering, nowadays used to describe the neo-colonial Irish capitalist class.

RTE’s Biased Coverage of Palestine and Sinn Féin’s Call for a Review

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh (25 November 2024)

(Reading time: 8 mins.)

NB: Edited by RB from original article for formatting purposes

Sinn Féin has said that it would ask for a review of the national broadcaster RTE’s biased coverage of Palestine and other international conflicts.  They were criticised by almost all and sundry for doing so. 

They were accused of censorship and their own use of lawsuits to silence critics was raised once again.[1] 

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) came out with guns blazing, claiming it would be in breach “of the principles of the European Media Freedom Act and would set a dangerous precedent in terms of direct and indirect State interference in the remit of the existing regulatory body.”[2]

The NUJ has rarely challenged what it sees as state or private interference in the media before and less still at RTE.  RTE’s board is made up of cronies and business interests, people whose interest is served by limited coverage of financial and other issues. 

Many of them come from the financial sector.  Six of the eleven board members are appointed by the Minister for Communications, so there is already government interference in RTE.

The NUJ itself would not come out well of such a review, if the review were honest. For decades it implemented Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, censoring Sinn Féin, even when the party was standing in elections.

A brave RTE journalist Jenny McGeever was sacked because she broadcast one sentence from Martin McGuinness, “If that is ok with the Police, that is ok with us”, in reference to arrangements for the transport of three IRA volunteers’ bodies back to Belfast.[3] 

It was an innocuous statement.  The NUJ did next to nothing to defend her.  They did not defend her just as they meekly accepted the sacking of the RTE Authority in 1972.  Colum Kenny commenting on his time at RTE remarked that:

During my years at RTÉ, I became for a period what is known as ‘The Father’, or chairman, of the Programmes Chapel of the National Union of Journalists. I found no great appetite among its members, or indeed among the membership of another union representing many producers, for industrial action aimed at drawing public attention to the existence of the gagging Order known as Section 31.[4]

In other words, neither the union nor the members did anything about it.  They either agreed with it or decided the truth was not that important, not as important as their careers. 

The union will not look well, if coverage on Palestine is looked at, nor will it come out shining if coverage of Ukraine is also included, as on this issue, the union itself intervened directly in helping to shape a narrative at odds with reality.

It is as clear as day that on Palestine, Irish coverage has been very biased, in terms of who it gave interviews to, the issues it refers to and the kid gloves that apologists for genocide such as the Israeli Ambassador have been treated with. 

It is clear even in the language used.  The word ‘genocide’ is never used in reporting, unless quoting someone and even then, sparingly.  It is referred to as ‘the war’, ‘the conflict’ etc. 

It has mainly used the term when reporting on the case taken to the International Court of Justice and gave a succinct but incorrectly limited definition of what genocide is. 

It stated “In short, genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part.”[5]  The definition is actually a lot broader than that and Gaza fits the bill on various counts.[6]

When reporting on the murder of civilians in Palestine, it never uses such terms.  It says ‘killed’ and the casualty figures are always referred to as “According to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health”. 

The message is clear, that these figures come from an organisation that is considered to be a terrorist group and therefore the figures are not reliable.  But it is actually the elected government. 

The last time there was an election in Palestine, Hamas won, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, though it only assumed power in Gaza with the Vichy Palestine Authority appointed by Mahmoud Abbas undemocratically taking control of the West Bank. 

So, of course the Ministry of Health is run by the elected government.  This language is never used in relation to Israel, we are never told “according to the Likud-run Ministry of Defence”.  In fact, such caveats are almost never used, not even when quoting the most vile dictatorships in the world.

  At best, they state “according to an official government communiqué”, which is technically correct and does not have the same moral =laden judgement contained within it.

In Lebanon, they engage in a similar sleight of hand, referring to attacks on “Hezbollah strongholds”, which is the type of language they hope will give some justification to the bombings.  But what are Hezbollah strongholds?  They are areas in which the organisation has mass support.

You would be hard pressed to find in the media, in general, and RTE in particular any significant explanation of what Hezbollah is. 

Many viewers hearing about strongholds being bombed would not know and are never informed that what this means is areas in which the organisation has a support base, which is also electoral. 

We know which areas are Hezbollah strongholds because they are the areas where people voted for them.  It is an electoral and military force, increasing its number of parliamentary seats in the 2022 elections from 13 to 15, though its allies in parliament lost seats. 

But the point is, it is a force with a huge popular base.

Likewise, when Israel told Irish UN soldiers to leave, the President of Ireland described it as a threat — but the media was more hesitant. 

When Israel then used UN compounds as shields in their attacks, the resulting damage was described as damage caused by the exchange of fire between the two.  You would never guess that one of the sides deliberately used them as protective shields.

In terms of RTE bias and coverage, whilst it has reported on Palestine over the years, once October 7th happened, the official discourse emanating from RTE and most other media outlets was that history began on October 7th. 

No attempt was made to look at the history of the region, nor the context of Israeli aggression and crimes against humanity prior to October 7th.  Previous Israeli attacks and crimes were rarely if ever mentioned. 

It made one attempt at explaining what Hezbollah was in an article published on its site.[7] 

The article recognises that it has political support, but constantly refers to the fact that it is designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and that other bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have never been elected. 

Saudi Arabia, despite having a nominal parliament is led by a bunch of royal head-chopping kleptocrats.  Though RTE quotes them favourably as a source of analysis on the nature of Hezbollah. 

The organisation is according to RTE nothing more than a group that “…has risen from a shadowy faction to a heavily armed force with major sway over the Lebanese state. The United States, some Western governments and others deem it a terrorist organisation.”

The headline on the piece reduces Hezbollah to just being a group that supports Hamas. And that was about it from RTE on the nature of the organisation.

Likewise in Ukraine, though RTE had reported on the country previously, once again history started on a particular date, this time February 22nd 2022. 

They ignored the 2014 Maidan Coup, the breaking of the Minsk Accords by Ukraine, the repression of non-Ukrainian cultures, which included not just Russians but also gypsies and others. 

The promotion of WWII fascist Stepan Bandera, the fascist nature of the Azov Battalion were all ignored to favour a simplistic account.  Previous acts such as the burning to death of trade unionists in Odessa by fascists in 2014 were never mentioned again. 

RTE presenters even questioned why NATO wasn’t pushing for all-out war with Russia, and they included in that the possibility of going to the brink of nuclear war. 

The Irish Times has recently doubled down on this, basically resurrecting the “Russia will invade and attack everyone scenario” so common when the war began.

It argued in a piece written by Kier Gillespie from the right-wing think tank Chatham House that Ireland should abandon its “neutrality” and Europe should get ready for all-out war with Russia.[8]  Incidentally, a sentiment echoed to some degree by the “pro NATO left” in the Irish parliament.

The NUJ for its part, whose members push the narrative on Palestine and Ukraine were not content with the complicity of its members in a particular narrative but organised a protest to skew the debate altogether. 

Shortly after the war started the NUJ organised a protest at the Russian Embassy to protest the lack of press freedom and attacks on journalists by the Russian state.  The Russian state has a dreadful record on the matter, but so does Ukraine. 

Moreover, in its attempt to portray the Russians as the only threat to freedom of the press the NUJ invited ambassadors from other countries to join in with it at the protest. 

Fine, except with one exception, those ambassadors represented countries with a poor record in the matter, such as Georgia, Poland and Ukraine coming in 89th, 66th and 106th respectively in Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index for the year 2022. 

By doing this the NUJ set a narrative that the only threat to press freedom was Putin and whitewashed a number of regimes with dubious records themselves. 

Whilst it has condemned the deaths of journalists in Gaza it did not protest at the Israeli Embassy but held a vigil instead at an art gallery.[9]  You couldn’t make such cowardice up.

So, an investigation of bias in the coverage of conflicts would be welcome.  Neither Sinn Féin, RTE, nor the NUJ would come out of it well.  But the problem is political. 

The reason why RTE does that, is that it gets away with it because there is no challenge to its bias. Sinn Féin and the Irish left represented by such stalwarts of mediocrity like People Before Profit, applauded and egged on the push for war and bias about Ukraine.

They now find the media supporting those same reactionary forces (NATO, US, EU) in their assault on Palestine.  The penny has almost dropped for them, but not quite.  RTE was biased on Ukraine and they agreed with it, now it is biased on Palestine and it is too late. 

But RTE and the Irish media in general represent the interests of the Irish state and so it should come as no surprise that it is biased. 

This does not mean we should accept it lying down, but you can’t call for bias on one issue in favour of a NATO proxy (Ukraine) and against bias in favour of another proxy, Israel.  The two are linked.

In the case of Palestine, the NUJ is passive, passing resolutions and issuing communiqués. 

As with the Irish censorship law Section 31, the union is content to not take any industrial action on the issue and let its members lie, downplay the seriousness of it all, treat the Israelis with kid gloves and use language that deliberately distorts what is happening. 

Their role in echoing Their Master’s Voice should be exposed, though Sinn Féin is not the best -placed organisation to do so, given its prioritising of its relations with Washington and its own attempts to censor Palestinians in Ireland who did not follow the Palestine Authority line.

NB: For more articles by Gearóid see https://gearoidloingsigh.substack.com


[1] Irish Examiner (19/11/2024) LIVE: Election 2024 — Sinn Féin promises ‘peer review’ of RTÉ’s Gaza coverage if elected. Paul Hosford and Cianan Brennan. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41519792.html

[2] RTE (20/11/2024) McDonald defends Sinn Féin plan to review RTÉ’s Gaza coverage.  Tommy Meskill. https://www.rte.ie/news/election-24/2024/1120/1481906-ireland-politics/

[3] Sunday Business Post (20/04/2003) How RTE censored its censorship. Niall Meehan.  Archived at CAIN https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/media/meehan/meehan03.htm

[4] Colum Kenny (2005 ) Chapter 5 Censorship, Not ‘Self-Censorship’ https://doras.dcu.ie/24076/1/Kenny,%20Colum.pdf

[5] RTE (11/01/2024) Explained: Ireland’s position on the genocide case against Israel. Juliette Gash. https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0111/1425974-genocide-case/

[6] See Genocide Convention https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2?activeTab=undefined

[7] RTE (31/10/2023) What is Hezbollah, the group backing Hamas against Israel? https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2023/1031/1413861-hezbollah-lebanon/

[8] Irish Times (23/11/2024) If Russia is indeed planning an attack against a Nato state, distance and neutrality will provide no defence.  Keir Gillespie.  https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2024/11/23/if-russia-is-indeed-planning-an-attack-against-a-nato-state-distance-and-neutrality-will-provide-no-defence/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGxRsdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVXgrcEEXPDpG2Am4EF_a_67yPZPmEio-r1l3dlQxOftB3W7EWIxEl8S_w_aem_LGtv72o-qvSLNNgSLdrWrw

[9] NUJ (30/04/2024) Dublin vigil for slain journalists. https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/dublin-vigil-for-slain-journalists.html

TO VOTE FOR WHOM OR NOT – AND DOES IT MATTER?

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 7 mins.)

The elections for a government in the 26-County state are only days away now and, while many are advocating a vote for this or that party or candidate, some are opposed to voting at all.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST VOTING

An amusing take on abstention advises: Don’t vote – it only encourages them! Anarchists have long been opposed to voting in national elections and I recall a poster in Britain exhorting people to Vote for Guy Fawkes – the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions. 1

Revolutionary marxists have also often called for a boycott of elections.

The position that they hold in common is that changing this or that party in government does not change the system and that it is that which is in need of change; as Connolly2 famously declared capitalist governments to be “committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class.”

However, it is possible to hold that opinion but yet to vote – and even to advocate voting – in some circumstances. However among some Irish Republican circles there has been a trend maintaining that voting in these elections is a recognition or acceptance of their alleged legitimacy.

A massive spoiling of ballot papers is often advocated by those who wish to ensure that the boycott may not be interpreted as apathy among the electorate. The number of spoiled ballot papers is supposed to be recorded and the papers available for inspection.

ARGUMENTS FOR

Those arguing in favour of voting in elections come at the question from a variety of points, including that voting is a democratic right for which our ancestors fought; that if we fail to vote we have no right to complain about government actions (or inaction).

They may maintain that not voting for some parties is equivalent to voting in favour of their opponents; or that voting a particular party into power can be used to overturn undesired legislation or conversely to promote desired legislation or to put them in power so that they may be exposed.3

The reformists and social democrats (often presenting themselves as revolutionaries) advocate for reforming or at least controlling capitalism under a Left Government. Despite the impracticability of the latter in many historical experiments, the hopeful and deluded keep advocating it.

Then of course, there is the ‘Lesser Evil’ argument, which is probably the most seductive; we witnessed that during the Harris-Trump USA Presidency competition. The Greens in Europe even appealed to Stein of the USA Greens, running against Harris on an anti-Genocide ticket, to desist.4

The claim that we might as well use our votes to elect a ‘lesser evil’ government is seductive precisely when we feel that no other option is available, combined with fear of worse economic and social conditions to be imposed upon us by the ‘worse evil’ party or candidate.

To follow the ‘lesser evil’ road is not only to perpetuate the system in one form or another but also fail to recognise our potential strength as the producers of all wealth; to fail to strengthen our energies to break firstly the mental chains, then the physical ones; to make fundamental choices.

THE TACTICAL VARIANT

Some argue that although in general national elections don’t change the system, they can be used at times to effect a tactical change: show rejection of a specific government position or individual.

They sometimes argue in favour of voting to put a specific individual or group of individuals into parliament for tactical reasons.

Can it be of use to have a few individuals in the Irish parliament who will attack the government and ruling class in speeches? Or to put specific issues forward on which to expose the ruling elite? Or to ask questions to gather government information? I am sure that it can and has been at times.

Can it be useful to have a handful of individuals elected to the Irish parliament who are prepared to seek entry to prisons to talk to political prisoners? Or who will head an investigation into some kinds of abuses and publish the results? Such can be and has been of use at times.

The important thing is to ensure that the message we give is that useful though such people and positions may be at times, they are not the solution, which can only be the overthrow of the system and the establishment of a socialist system with power in the hands of the working people.

ELECTIONS IN A CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY

What are known as ‘democracies’ are states concentrated across ‘Western’ regions, i.e western Europe and its former colonies of the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with varying degrees of effect upon states on the African and Asian continents, along with ‘Latin America’.5

These are without exception, regardless of variety, systems of governing their working people without having to resort to wide-scale constant repression and suppression. For that project, the illusion of choice is essential, hence the regular elections and different political parties.

But the illusion of any fundamental choice is failing. Increasingly, governments in many European ‘democracies’ are becoming coalitions between a number of political parties and in Ireland, the main Government-Opposition parties for decades have exposed the reality by governing together.6

The effect of such exposure of the lack of real choice is impacting upon the consciousness of the populations concerned so that progressively less of them are willing to participate in the charade. In Ireland now more than one-third of the population do not vote.

This situation is of great concern to the ruling classes and to their intellectuals who are busy trying to devise schemes to offset the drift such as advocating voting from home, spectacles such as televised confrontations between competitors and ‘Citizenship’ programs in schools.

Clearly revolutionaries should not assist in any attempt to justify the system or to perpetuate the illusion of elections in capitalist ‘democracy’ being anything else than a periodic choice for slaves between the overseers employed by their masters.

DOES IT MATTER ANYWAY?

The nub of the question as to whether to vote boils down to what we hope to achieve and its prospects. If there were a massive abstention from the polls then of course that would be seen as a huge vote of no confidence in the parties standing and perhaps in the system itself – but from what perspective?

From the Right? From the Left? From apathy? In any case at the moment that looks like a moot question since there’s a likelihood of a turnout of around 60% of the registered voters.7

Will abstention make people more politically aware or conversely will participation in the elections turn people away from the possibilities of organising on the ground and ultimately of revolution? Perhaps for some – but overall, I think not many in either case, not on a longer-term basis.

From a revolutionary point of view, does it matter whether people vote or not? Or even sometimes who they vote for? Surely what matters is organising and supporting the movement for fundamental progressive change? Can that be done by people who vote as well as by those who don’t?

I’d say that is at least as likely.

During capitalist state elections the best we can do, I think, is to point out the inadequacy of the choices presented to us and to advocate stronger and more militant organisation as an alternative to the calls to vote for one party or another.

Whatever party or individual gets elected to Leinster House, the principal struggles remain: for a free united independent Ireland, for a socialist system, against the imperialist world system, against environmental destruction. It is on that we need to concentrate.

The newly-elected management committee of the capitalist class should be savaged mercilessly for its inevitably broken promises and its continuing attacks upon the economic and social conditions of the working people, and on Irish national neutrality.

Most of all, we need to improve our organising, strengthen our ranks and find ways to strike blows against the system to win victories in our march towards the overthrow of the neo-liberal and neo-colonial Gombeen ruling class and its foreign masters.

End.

1While amusing as a caption, given that Guido Fawkes plotted to blow up the English Parliament on 5th November 1605, upholding Guido Fawkes as some kind of historical hero is problematic, as he was a militant Catholic and the date of capture, Guy Fawkes’ Day, was a regular occasion for the exhibition of anti-Catholic prejudice even into the 20th Century in Protestant Britain, which more often than not, manifested itself as anti-Irish racism.

2James Connolly (1868-1916), revolutionary socialist activist, theoretician, journalist, writer and trade unionist, leading participant in the 1916 Irish Rising for which he was sentenced to death and shot by British firing squad.

3Lenin famously advocated voting the British Labour Party into government for the first time to ensure their exposure, supporting them “as a rope supports a hanging man”, advice misused by social democrats and others on the electoral Left and about which revolutionaries have argued ever since.

4https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/european-greens-ask-jill-stein-to-stand-down-and-endorse-kamala-harris

5And of Eastern Europe.

6Throughout the existence of the Irish State, the Fianna Fáil party has been the longest in government, with Fine Gael second, both socially conservative parties with strong loyal electoral bases. However now they are governing in coalition, along with the Greens. It is worth noting that there has not been a government of absolute majority by any party in the Irish state since 1981, when Irish Republicans stood as H-Block (e.g. hunger strike) candidates and two were elected with another having a near miss.

7Despite a trend of dropping percentages of the potential voters actually participating, in 2020 the turnout was a little over 62%.

SCRAPPING CARRIERS SINKS BRITISH WORLD POLICEMAN PLAN

Kit Klarenberg (republished with author’s kind permission from Al Mayadeen)

(Reading time: 6 mins.)

On November 15th, The Times published a remarkable report, revealing serious “questions” are being asked about the viability of Britain’s two flagship aircraft carriers, at the highest levels of London’s defence establishment.

Such perspectives would have been unreportable mere months ago. Yet, subsequent reporting seemingly confirms the vessels are for the chop.

Should that come to pass, it will represent an absolutely crushing, historic defeat for the Royal Navy – and the US Empire in turn – without a single shot fired.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales first set sail in 2017 and 2019 respectively, after 20 years in development.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in dock and at anchor.

The former arrived at the Royal Navy’s historic Portsmouth base with considerable fanfare, a Ministry of Defence press release boasting that the carrier would be deployed “in every ocean around the world over the next five decades.”

The pair were and remain the biggest and most expensive ships built in British history, costing close to $8 billion combined. Ongoing operational costs are likewise vast.

Fast forward to today however, and British ministers and military chiefs are, per The Times, “under immense pressure to make billions of pounds’ worth of savings,” with major “casualties” certain.

Resultantly, senior Ministry of Defence and Treasury officials are considering scrapping at least one of the carriers, if not both.

The reason is simple – “in most war games, the carriers get sunk,” and are “particularly vulnerable to missiles.” As such, the pair are now widely perceived as the “Royal Navy’s weak link.” 

Matthew Savill of British state-tied Royal United Services Institute told The Times that missile technology is developing “at such a pace” that carriers are rapidly becoming easy for Britain’s adversaries to “locate and track”, then neutralise.

“In particular,” he cautioned, China is increasing the range of its ballistic and supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Meanwhile, Beijing’s “hypersonic glide vehicle”, the DF-17, “can evade existing missile defence systems,” its “range, speed and manoeuvrability” making it a “formidable weapon” neither Britain nor the US can adequately counter.

Savill advocated “cutting one or both of the carriers,” as this “would free up people and running costs and those could be reinvested in the running costs of the rest of the fleet and easing the stresses on personnel”.

Nonetheless, he warned that scrapping the carriers would be a “big deal for a navy that has designed itself around those carriers…and that the £6.2 billion paid for them would be a sunk cost.”

That the Royal Navy has “designed itself” around the two carriers is an understatement.

For just one to set sail, it must be supported by a strike group consisting of two Type 45 destroyers for air defence, two Type 23 frigates for anti-submarine warfare, a submarine, a fleet tanker and a support ship.

British aircraft carrier as part of allegedly “strike force” but in reality sailing with its necessary escorts. (Photo sourced: Internet)

This “full-fat protective approach”, Savill lamented, means “most of the deployable Royal Navy” must accompany a single carrier at any given time:

‘You can protect the carriers, but then the Navy has put all of its eggs in a particularly large and expensive basket.’

‘National Embarrassment’

March 2021 saw the publication of a long-awaited report, Global Britain in a Competitive Age – “a comprehensive articulation” of London’s “national security and international policy,” intended to “[shape] the open international order of the future.”

The two aircraft carriers loomed large in its contents. One passage referred to how HMS Queen Elizabeth would soon lead Britain’s “most ambitious global deployment for two decades, visiting the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific”:

She will demonstrate our interoperability with allies and partners – in particular the US – and our ability to project cutting-edge military power in support of NATO and international maritime security.

Her deployment will also help the government to deepen our diplomatic and prosperity links with allies and partners worldwide.”

Such bombast directly echoed the bold wording of a July 1998 strategic defence review, initiated a year earlier by then-prime minister Tony Blair.

As world naval policeman: HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier docked in Cyprus (where the UK has two military bases)

Its findings kickstarted London’s quest to acquire world-leading aircraft carriers, which culminated with the birth of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Britain’s explicit objective, directly inspired by the US Empire’s dependence on carriers to belligerently project its diplomatic, economic, military and political interests abroad, was to recover London’s role as world police officer, and audaciously assert herself overseas: 

In the post-Cold War world, we must be prepared to go to the crisis, rather than have the crisis come to us. So we plan to buy two new larger aircraft carriers to project power more flexibly around the world…

This will give us a fully independent ability to deploy a powerful combat force to potential trouble spots without waiting for basing agreements on other countries’ territory. We will…be poised in international waters and most effectively back up diplomacy with the threat of force.”

Blair’s reverie appeared to finally come to pass in May 2021, when HMS Queen Elizabeth set off on a grand tour of the world’s oceans, escorted by a vast carrier strike group.

Over the next six months, the vessel engaged in a large number of widely-publicised exercises with foreign navies, including NATO allies, and docked in dozens of countries. Press coverage was universally fawning.

Yet, in November, as the excursion was nearing its end, an F-35 fighter launched from the carrier unceremoniously crashed

The F-35’s myriad issues were by that point well-established. The jet, which has cost US taxpayers close to $2 trillion, entered into active service in 2006 while still under development. It quickly gained a reputation for hazardous unreliability.

In 2015, a Pentagon report acknowledged its severe structural issues, limited service life and low flight-time capacity.

Two years later, the Department of Defense quietly admitted the US Joint Program Office had been secretly recategorising F-35 failure incidents to make the plane appear safe to fly. 

Despite this, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales were specifically designed to transport the F-35, to the exclusion of all other fighter jets.

However, Britain has all along struggled to source usable F-35s, which produces the ludicrous situation of the two carriers almost invariably patrolling seas with few if any fighters aboard at all, therefore invalidating their entire raison d’être.

In November 2023, the Daily Telegraph dubbed these regular “jet-less” forays a “national embarrassment”.

‘Carrier Gap’

An even graver embarrassment, rarely discussed with any seriousness by the British media, is that the two aircraft carriers have been plagued with endless technical and mechanical issues as long as they’ve been in service.

Flooding, mid-operation breakdowns, onboard fires, and engine leaks are routine. Both vessels have spent
 considerably more time docked and under repair than at sea over their brief lifetimes. In 2020, an entire HMS Prince of Wales crew accommodation block collapsed, for reasons unclear.

As the elite US foreign policy journal National Interest acknowledged in March 2024, “the Royal Navy remains unable to adequately defend or operate” its two carriers “independently” – code for the Empire being consistently compelled to deploy its own naval and air assets to support the pair.

This is quite some failure, given British officials originally intended for the vessels to not only lead NATO exercises and deployments, but “slot into” US navy operations wherever and whenever necessary.

The Empire’s inability to outsource its hegemonic duties to Britain has created a critical “carrier gap”.

Despite maintaining an 11-strong fleet, Washington cannot deploy the vessels to every global flashpoint at once, grievously undermining her power and influence at a time of tremendous upheaval worldwide.

In a bitter irony, by encouraging and facilitating London’s emulation of its own flawed and outdated reliance on aircraft carriers, the US has inadvertently birthed yet another needy imperial dependent, further draining its already fatally overstretched military resources. 

Frame 2 of a DB cartoon depicting US Navy aircraft carrier sailing to teach Ansar Allah (‘Houthis’) a lesson but instead getting chased out of the Arabian Sea by Yemeni missiles in June this year. (Image source: DB cartoons)

Several Royal Navy destroyers were originally part of abortive US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian, launched in late 2023 to smash Ansar Allah’s righteous anti-genocide Red Sea blockade.

Almost immediately, it became apparent the British lacked any ability to fire on land targets, therefore rendering their participation completely useless.

Subsequently, photos emerged of areas on Britain’s ships where land attack cruise missiles should’ve been situated. Instead, the spaces were occupied by humble treadmills, for use as on-board gyms.

It transpired that the appropriate weapons hadn’t been purchased, due to a lack of funds – the money having of course been spent instead on constructing barely operable aircraft carriers, which now face summary defenestration.

By investing incalculable time, energy, and money in pursuing the mythological greatness associated with carrier capability, Britain – just like the US Empire – now finds itself unable to meet modern warfare’s most basic challenges.

Meanwhile, its adversaries near and far have remorselessly innovated, equipping themselves for 21st century battle.

Days after The Times portended the impending death of London’s aircraft carriers, mainstream media became awash with reports of savage cutbacks in Britain’s military capabilities, in advance of a new strategic defence review.

Potentially a huge pile of scrap or to be dumped on an ally …

Five Royal Navy warships, all of which had lain disused due to staffing issues and structural decay for some time, were among the first announced “casualties”. What if anything will replace these losses isn’t certain, although it likely won’t be an aircraft carrier.

End.

Source: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/collapsing-empire–rip-royal-navy

SOLIDARITY WITH THE RESISTANCE ON DUBLIN PALESTINIAN SOLIDARITY MARCH

Clive Sulish

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

While thousands marched once again in Palestine solidarity in Dublin, a section of the demonstration marched as a bloc in specific solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance with banners, flags and slogans declaring their position.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign with a number of branches has been for many years the major organiser of Palestinian solidarity events and had once again called for a national march in Dublin, again to Leinster House, home of the Irish Parliament.

Section of the front of the Palestinian Resistance Solidarity Bloc in Dublin on Saturday. In this photo may be seen the flags of three factions of the Palestinian Resistance and, left foreground, the flag of Irish revolutionary socialist Republicanism, the Starry Plough (Photo: R.Breeze)

This has become a pattern of the main IPSC street activity in Dublin, along with holding a rally on the central pedestrian reservation in Dublin’s O’Connell Street, with occasional marches to the Department of Foreign Affairs (though in the past it organised boycott pickets of ‘Israeli’ products).

The US Embassy seems to have become out of bounds for the IPSC. This is despite the clear responsibility of the USA for supplying most of the armament, political and financial backing for the genocide being carried out by the Zionist state against the Palestinians.

Some believe that the IPSC leadership is complying with the wishes of the Irish police, the Gardaí, not to have Palestine solidarity marches go to the US Embassy. The offices of the EU, Germany and the UK, major contributors to the genocide, have also been given in effect a waiver.

The national march called by the IPSC at its destination in Molesworth Street last Saturday. The photo is taken from the platform and PA lorry facing the crowd, with its back to Leinster House (of the Irish Parliament) which also has crowd barriers erected behind it. (Photo sourced: IPSC)

Neither the march last Saturday nor any organised before it by the IPSC was going to promote solidarity with the Resistance, despite their former chairperson having once said of them in public that they are ‘freedom fighters’. Of course, to the ‘Israelis’ and EU they are ‘terrorists’.

Section of the front of the Palestinian Resistance Solidarity Bloc in Dublin on Saturday (Photo: R.Breeze)

The IPSC has organised only one public meeting during this year’s genocide to highlight the terrible conditions of the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners in ‘Israeli’ jails and rarely mentions them, nor in solidarity with the Samidoun1 organisation being banned in USA and Canada.

In October last year, as this phase of the genocide began, the IPSC dithered over whether to call for the expulsion of the ‘Israeli’ Ambassador to Ireland, as did the Sinn Féin leadership until a near revolt of the party’s members forced them to return to their previous position. As did the IPSC.

Clearly the IPSC leadership is trying to keep itself somewhere around the ‘middle road’ in Palestinian solidarity, probably in order — as it sees it – to remain with influence among the ruling circles. However, the actual results among those circles do not bear testimony to their effectiveness.

NO CHANGE

The Irish state continues to permit US military planes and personnel to violate the State’s nominal independence through Shannon International Airport, to permit Zionist armament overflights of its air space (similarly with the RAF) and to permit British Navy docking in Irish ports.

The relatively mild Occupied Territories Bill, long approved through Leinster House, remains not brought into force, blocked by the Coalition Government of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party. It could not be clearer that the ruling class in Ireland do not feel under enough pressure.

This is despite a clear popular feeling among the public in Ireland of solidarity with Palestine and revulsion at their genocidal attacks by the Zionist state.

There is a long-established train of thought that maintains that solidarity with the Palestinians is not just calling for the genocide to stop – that alone is charity and that actual solidarity means solidarity with the people’s resistance and the political prisoners.

If the IPSC were to adopt that position they might find it easier to support more radical action to pressure the Irish state to break with the western powers’ consensus of support for the ‘Israeli’ state and consequently for its genocide against the Palestinians.

Perhaps that is one of the very reasons that the IPSC leadership will not take that stand and that its stewards have at times even tried to convince people to remove their flags supporting various Resistance factions.

Section of the front of the Palestinian Resistance Solidarity Bloc in Dublin on Saturday (Photo: R.Breeze)

On Saturday independent activists joined those of Saoirse Don Phalaistín, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland and Queers For Palestine in forming a sizeable bloc on the march with banners, flags and call-and-answer slogans advertising its solidarity with the Resistance.

This seems a welcome trend likely to grow.

End.

FOOTNOTE

1Palestinian political prisoner support and advocacy organisation.

IRAN – WILL IT OR WON’T IT?­

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 5 mins.)

Opinions seem divided on whether ‘Israel’s’ recent attack on Iran did much damage and whether Iran will retaliate. On the first, the Zionist Government and its allies claim great success while Iran claimed most missiles shot down and minimal damage.

One takes it for granted that all sides in a war will have an eye to useful propaganda. During the attack, while Zionist and western mass media were claiming numerous ‘Israeli’ strikes on Iran, allegedly real time videos of a quiet Tehran were being posted on line.

It must be said that no satellite photos of any real damage to Iranian installations have been posted on the internet and one of a military facility seeming to show a huge crater appeared later intact on the Internet with a claim that the earlier photo had merely shown a shadow.1

The Iranian authorities did admit to the deaths of four soldiers and a little minor damage, the latter quickly repaired, according to their updates. They also claimed to have shot down all but a few of the incoming missiles.

It seems that none of the manned Zionist aircraft entered Iranian airspace but a few approached the border from Iraq in order to launch their missiles from there, which raises another issue regarding the violation of Iraqi sovereignty by the US military.

According to Alastair Crooke, commentator on Middle East affairs, former British diplomat (then probably MI6 asset) on Judge Napolitano’s Youtube site,2 the first of three planned ‘Israeli’ attack waves encountered something unexpected in the Iranian air defence and the rest of the attack was aborted.

Narratives from each side would be tailored to suit their own propaganda needs but even some of the ‘Israeli’ media and other commentators were critical of the effectiveness of the attack, some saying Iran was hardly damaged while others said economic targets should have been included.

It also does seem that the Zionist attack was unusually restrained in restricting its targeting to military installations.

The speculation has been that the reason for that restraint was the US being quite firm with Netanyahu that the oil etc. installations were not to be hit as Iran’s retaliation would have engulfed not only the Zionist colony but wider western interests in the region and the world economy.

Whichever side is correct in its damage estimation may be relevant or may not. Iran has reiterated its right to defend itself but seemed not to be saying that it would definitely retaliate.

But on Wednesday Admiral Ali Fadavi, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran was quoted in some media stating that his country’s military will retaliate, stating that such “is inevitable”, today backed by the Director of the Supreme Leader’s Office.

Michael Jansen, a correspondent on the Middle East in the Irish Times wrote that because Iran was allegedly hard hit in the ‘Israeli’ attack, it will not retaliate and claims that Iran’s previous retaliation was a flop. If that is Jansen’s main basis for her opinion, it is to my mind an unsafe foundation.

In the past I’ve had respect for Jansen’s analysis of the war in Syria and the positions of different factions but this time I think she is very wide of the mark. The previous Iranian retaliations swamped the Zionist air defence system3 with cheap drones but hit many targets with missiles.

It seems to me that Iran WILL retaliate and the only thing that might hold that off or at least moderate the strength of its attack would be if the ‘Israeli’ Government ties up a peace deal with the Palestinian Resistance, led by Hamas. And that looks extremely unlikely, for a number of reasons.

The Resistance is sticking to the terms that were announced by Biden back in May, which he claimed were the ‘Israeli’ Government’s and to which the Resistance agreed, only to see the talks sabotaged again and again by Netanyahu in proposing additions and deletions.

The basics of the Resistance position are:

  • Immediate end to the ‘Israeli’ attacks now and in future
  • Total withdrawal of the IOF from Gaza (including the Nezarim Corridor and Rafah)
  • Total removal of all obstacles to arrival of humanitarian food, medicine etc. supplies
  • Return of all displaced from parts of Gaza as they wish
  • Exchange of prisoners (including bodies of dead Israelis and to include Palestinians nominated by the Resistance, without Israeli veto)
  • Reconstruction of infrastructures and buildings: housing, medical, educational, social, commercial

None of those terms except the exchange of prisoners has been agreed and even there, Netanyahu wanted to exclude some Palestinian prisoners from the exchange. Most fundamentally, he insists on the IOF staying in Gaza, in particular in the “Nezarim corridor”.

It is frequently commented that Netanyahu cannot afford personally to end the attacks in defeat as a postponed court case for alleged fraud and bribery awaits him and, without a victory in his belt, his political fascist friends would abandon him to be savaged by his enemies in the Zionist entity.

However, the continuing Zionist massacres of civilians and wide-scale urban destruction is intended in large part to force the Resistance to accept terms with which the Zionist state agrees, to gain in negotiations what it has been unable to win on the battlefield against the Resistance fighters.

No doubt there are some who think that the Resistance should abandon its demand about total IOF Gaza withdrawal, just to end the massacres. That kind of thinking results in a partial peace to which the enemy will return again and again with violence.

The Palestinian Resistance has clearly decided that they will tough this out in the sacrifice of their people, fighters and leaders in order to get a more stable position for the Palestinian nation, from which to go forward to self-determination – and peace, should that be obtainable.4

US Imperialism in the form of Bill Clinton supervises handshake between Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of US proxy’Israel’ and Yasser Arafat, then leader of Fatah in control of the PLO at the conclusion of the Oslo pacification process. The Agreement spawned the Zionist-colluding and repressive Palestinian Authority but never gained the Palestinians anything. (Image sourced: Internet)

The last time the Resistance caved in to Zionist and imperialist demands was with the Oslo Accords in 1993, signed for the Fatah leadership by Yasser Arafat. Since then not only did the Palestinians not make any advances but additional Zionist settlements have grown apace.

And every few years have seen new genocidal attacks on the Palestinian people.

The Axis of Resistance considers the Zionist State to be a constant threat to the Arab states and indigenous people of the Middle East, in addition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The history of the Zionist state’s wars with its neighbours and its backing by imperialism seems to bear that out.

Looked at soberly, the Palestinian Resistance has inflicted a huge defeat on the IOF and the Zionist military mystique on October 7th and, notwithstanding daily genocidal massacres, the Resistance has gone on for a year to deny the IOF a victory in Gaza or on the West Bank.

Hezbollah’s bombardments have cleared much of north Palestine of settlers in addition to hitting targets in central ‘Israel’ and they’ve also fought the IOF to a standstill on Lebanon’s borders. Missiles and drones of the Iraqi Resistance and the Yemeni State have also hit the Zionist State.

The balance of battlefield supremacy is tilting against Israel, thanks to the adaptability, courage and sacrifice of in particular the Palestinian people but now also the Lebanese — and world popular opinion is against the Zionist European settler project as never before.

Iranian drones, one launching, Iran 4 October 2023 (Photo cred: Reuters)

It is necessary to continue the process both to inflict an unmistakeable defeat on the Zionist State and to win substantial advances for the Palestinian people and, incidentally, for the people of the Middle East. These advances entail in addition setbacks for US and western imperialism.

It is important to hammer that nail home, lest it works itself loose before long. I think that at some point Iran will likely retaliate against the Zionist state for its own dignity and defence but also as part of the Axis of Resistance, striving to rid the area of an extremely dangerous infestation.

End.

FOOTNOTES

SOURCES

1The imperialists have Iran constantly under satellite surveillance and it beggars belief they would not have posted photos of significant damage were such to exist.

2Crooke claims that the first wave was to destroy the air defences but failed and encountered something which put all the rest of the attack in danger so they called the attack off and then claimed a victory. Crooke is speculating up to a point about the reasons but claims the facts about the attack are from ‘Israeli’ sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkNk76E3SI

3Both ground-based, as with Iron Dome and David’s Sling but also airborne with US and European allied aircraft.

4A similar position was outlined with respect to Hezbollah by Sheikh Naim Qassem in his first speech on Wednesday since his election to the General Secretaryship of the organisation.