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

WHAT WE’VE LEARNED FROM SINWAR’S DEATH

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time main text: 4 mins.)

Yahya Sinwar, head of the Palestinian resistance organisation Hamas, was killed in action by an Israeli Occupation Force in what was for them a routine operation in Gaza on 16th October, his last moments captured on video and broadcast widely.

From that event alone there is much for us to learn about Hamas and the Palestinian Resistance in general as well as about Sinwar himself — but also about the IOF, the way it fights and the extent of its self-discipline.

For the bare details as publicly shared, Sinwar was in military outfit, in tac vest, armed with a pistol and automatic rifle and accompanied by two local Hamas commanders in the Tal as-Sultan, Rafah area of Gaza patrolled by the IOF, very close to the semi-permanent IOF front lines.1

One may assume Sinwar was on a reconnaissance operation.

Sinwar with Hamas comrades in 2021 (photo cred: John Michillo)

Something gave away their position to a passing patrol in an area where, as far as the IOF were concerned, nothing should be alive except themselves. Pursued, they split up, local commanders in one building and Sinwar into another so the patrol called a tank to fire into each.

The patrol attempted to enter the building into which the individual fighter had gone but two grenades beat them back, injuring one soldier,2 so they retreated and called for a tank to put another shell in the building.

Still wary in the aftermath, they sent a surveillance drone into the building and the image it captured was what was seen in the widely-circulated video: a Palestinian fighter, apparently unarmed, right hand mangled. As they watched, he threw a stick at the drone with his left hand but missed.

So the IOF patrol had another tank round fired into the building and they went on their way.3

The last image of Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar alive. Right arm mangled he stares at the IOF drone videoing him in house ruined by IOF bombing in Tal Al-Sultan, Rafah, before throwing a stick at it. Moments later the IOF call a tank to put a shell in the building, collapsing it on top of him.

But unusually,4 they came back. Perhaps someone thought they recognised Sinwar in the camera video? It was then they discovered that one of the three fighters they had killed was Yaha Sinwar, confirmed by test results matching his DNA records they had from his years in captivity.

According to ‘Israeli’ postmortem, although he’d been hit by shrapnel and his right hand was mangled, what killed Sinwar was a bullet to the brain – which raises other questions.5

Whatever he was doing at that time, it was clear that he was there as a commander and Resistance fighter, armed and dressed for combat in a highly dangerous area, regularly patrolled by the IOF and only a short distance from their secured front lines.

That alone spoke of courage but also his and his comrades’ resistance in the face of superior numbers declared their courage and determination. But Sinwar’s continuing to resist while badly wounded and his comrades dead, spoke of heroism.

Although only weeks from his 62nd birthday and after 22 years in a Zionist jail, Sinwar seems to have been quite fit. However, according to the results of a postmortem examination carried out by the IOF, Yahya Sinwar had not eaten in 72 hours prior to his death – a period of three days.6

The event was revealing in outlining how the IOF infantry is accustomed to fighting. They are fine with killing civilians but when confronted with armed resistance fighters, they hold for a short while if at all before retreating and calling up artillery or air strikes.

Their dead and wounded are picked up by helicopter and rushed to undamaged ‘Israeli’ hospitals, well equipped and staffed less than an hour away, a journey that is never fired upon by the Palestinian Resistance.

The contrast could not be starker, as the IOF fire on Palestinian paramedics and their vehicles, blockade Palestinian hospitals from receiving fuel and other essential supplies, even bombing and occupying them, kidnapping and killing medical personnel.

What people saw in the video of Sinwar’s last moments exposed Israeli lying propaganda about Sinwar, accusing him of living safe and well inside the tunnels and never emerging or, if he does, going about in a burka, disguised as a woman, also of intending to flee to Egypt with ‘hostages’.7

Iconic photo of Yahya Sinwar in May 2021, sitting in an armchair outside his home in Gaza, ruined by IOF bombardment. He went there directly after concluding an interview with words to the effect that he did not fear assassination by the IOF, that they knew who he was and the route he would take and if they wanted to kill him “Be my guest … I won’t bat an eyelid.”

The quick circulation of the video by the IOF exposed also the renowned indiscipline of their military and their total lack of comprehension of the mental and emotional processes of the people they have been occupying and oppressing for seven decades.

Their indiscipline is attested to by the thousands of videos on social media posted by the IOF during their genocidal operations as, contrary to orders, they film themselves blowing up buildings including a university, humiliating and brutalising prisoners, even on occasion raping them.

The IOF are renowned too for leaving graffiti inside occupied houses and for prancing around houses they have destroyed, often wearing the intimate underclothing of Palestinian women, whom they have at least turned into refugees and may have killed.

In those circumstances their release of the video before discussing it with their intelligence and propaganda department is not surprising but doing so underlines their failure to understand their enemy. They thought that killing Sinwar would undermine Palestinian morale.

They, colonialists and other oppressors in general fail to take account of the human will to resist and the potency of the memory and example of martyrs. This is an aspect we understand well in Ireland.

The Zionist intelligence services would surely have preferred not to have Sinwar’s last moments shared publicly and possibly would have liked the opportunity to lie about them.

Yahya Sinwar gives the victory sign with both hands while speaking from a rally in Gaza.

Sinwar was clearly a remarkable individual, Palestinian Resistance fighter, thinker and leader but the IOF made him a martyr and in their arrogance showed his heroism not just to the Palestinians — nor to Arabs alone — but to the world.

End.

APPENDIX: HIGHLY ABBREVIATED BIOGRAPHY (Reading time: 2 mins.)

Yahya Ibrahim Hassan Sinwar (Arabic: يحيى إبراهيم حسن السنوار, romanizedYaḥyá Ibrāhīm Ḥasan al-Sinwār; 29 October 1962 – 16 October 2024) was a Palestinian resistance fighter, former political prisoner and subsequently politician who was killed in action.

Sinwar served as chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau from August 2024 and as the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip from February 2017, until his death in October 2024, succeeding Ismail Haniyeh (assassinated by Israeli strike while on a fraternal visit to Iran) in both roles.

He was born in the Khan Yunis refugee camp in Egypt-ruled Gaza in 1962 to a family who were refugees from Majdal (Hebrew: Ashkelon) during the 1948 Palestine War. He gained a bachelor’s degree in Arabic studies at the Islamic University of Gaza.8

Sinwar’s first arrest was in 1982 for ‘subversive activities’, serving several months in the Far’a prison where he met other Palestinian activists and dedicated himself to the Palestinian cause. Though arrested again in 1985, upon his release he continued his organising trajectory.

Israeli propaganda has claimed that during this period his work in internal security against Zionist agents and informers earned him the nickname “Butcher of Khan Younis” but no-one who knew him or seriously studied him even heard of that alleged nickname until after his death.9

Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the Hamas politburo, welcomes Sinwar with a kiss after the latter’s release from jail in the prisoner exchange of 21 October 2021 (Photo cred: Abed Rahim Khatib/ Flash 90)

Sentenced to four life sentences in 1989, Sinwar spent 22 years in prison until his release among 1,026 others in a 2011 prisoner exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to John Elmer10 Sinwar wanted others released before him but the prisoners insisted he be one of those leaving.

The prisoners had elected Sinwar as their leader in the prison11 and he was known for encouraging prisoners to use their time productively and to study – in particular to study the enemy. He certainly practised what he preached, becoming fluent in Hebrew and studying IOF tactics.

And also, incredibly, in writing a political novel, The Thorn and the Carnation.12

Sinwar (centre photo) photographed carrying the son of Mazen Faqha, a Hamas leader who was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Gaza at martyrs’ memorial 27 March 2017. Another photo of Sinwar shows him carrying the child and an automatic rifle; yet another, carrying an automatic rifle and a child who might be a girl, perhaps the child of another martyred fighter. The child and the gun may be seen as symbolising the future through resistance.

On 21 November 2011, a month after his release, Sinwar married Samar Muhammad Abu Zamar and the couple had three children. Sinwar’s wife received a master’s degree in theology from the Islamic University of Gaza. His brother Mohamed remains active in the resistance and is being sought by the IOF.

Re-elected as Hamas leader in 2021, Sinwar survived an ‘Israeli’ assassination attempt that same year.

FOOTNOTES

1At their ‘Philadelphi Corridor’

2According to Jon Elmer, admittedly only days after the event, this is not mentioned in most reports or discussion on line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj43mbQ3AiE

3All of this is according to the Israeli Occupation Force.

4 According to Jon Elmer, blogger and weekly podcast military analyst for the Electronic Intifada, also in discussion with Justin Podur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj43mbQ3AiE (at 1.23.3), that was so unusual because the IOF don’t usually go back to carry out battle analyses for intelligence.

5https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-death-autopsy-report-idf-israel-13827027.html Not that carrying out field executions would be any stranger to the IOF

6https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-death-autopsy-report-idf-israel-13827027.html

7https://thecradle.co/articles/netanyahu-aide-arrested-over-intel-leak-used-to-sabotage-gaza-ceasefire

8 Often attacked by the IOF and once by Fatah, its campus was bombed and its buildings destroyed on the night of 10 October 2023.

9This is admitted even in the hostile Wikipedia page about Sinwar.

10Discussion Justin Podur and Jon Elmer on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj43mbQ3AiE

11This seems not unusual among political prisoners:Irish Republican prisoners also elected their OC in the British Occupation jails: Mairead Farrell had been O/C in Armagh Jail and, before he entered his fatal hunger strike, Bobby Sands had been O/Cof the H-Blocks.

12https://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation_Part_I.html

Britain secretly helped Chile’s military intelligence after Pinochet coup

John McEvoy 5 September2023

(Reading time: 6 mins.)

NB: Rebel Breeze shares this near the anniversary of the fascist military coup in Chile, the same date as the Twin Towers massacre years later.. The article is a year old but relevant as long as British imperialism exists.

As the Pinochet regime rounded up and murdered its political opponents after the 1973 coup, a UK Foreign Office propaganda unit passed material to Chile’s military intelligence and MI6 connived with a key orchestrator of the coup, newly declassified files show.

  • Foreign Office helped Pinochet regime to develop a counter-insurgency strategy based on British military campaigns in Southeast Asia
  • MI6 officer David Spedding was attached to British embassy in Santiago in 1972-4, and had relations with a key member of the military junta

The UK government assisted Chile’s military intelligence in the aftermath of the brutal 1973 coup against elected president Salvador Allende, newly declassified files show.

The assistance was authorised by the Information Research Department (IRD), a secret Foreign Office propaganda unit which worked closely with Britain’s secret intelligence service, MI6.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, Whitehall, London. Many a dark deed was planned here. (Photo accessed: Internet)

The IRD had long seen Allende as a political threat. As Declassified previously revealed, throughout the 1960s, the unit had sought to prevent Allende from ever becoming president through election interference and covert propaganda operations.

After Allende was elected in 1970, the IRD’s distribution of propaganda material became “strictly limited”, with the British embassy having fewer reliable contacts in the Chilean government. 

This all changed after the coup.

In January 1974, the IRD began to “extend the distribution” of its material, which was now passed “to the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government information organisations” and, crucially, the dictatorship’s “military intelligence” services.

At this time, Chile’s security forces – including the country’s intelligence apparatus – were responsible for massive human rights violations, including the widespread use of torture as a political weapon.

The UK government was under no illusions about this. As Foreign Office official Christopher Crabbie noted three months after the coup in December 1973, “I do not think that anyone seriously doubts that torture is going on in Chile”. 

Reliable figures indicate that, between 1973 and 1988, Chilean state agents were responsible for over 3,000 deaths or disappearances and tens of thousands of cases of torture and political arrests. This was in a country which, in 1973, had a population of only 10 million people.

Our major interest is copper’: Britain backed Pinochet’s bloody coup…

Chile Army 1973 coup soldiers watch detainees – many were shot, many more tortured then shot, many more still ‘disappeared’, probably tortured and shot. Many, many more were jailed where they were also tortured; young children were also abducted and given to fascist childless couples. (Photo accessed: Internet)

Hearts and minds’

The nature of the information passed to Chile’s military intelligence remains unclear, though the files suggest it may have included material for use in propaganda, research reports on left-wing activity, and even manuals on domestic security operations.

For instance, newly declassified files show how the UK government secretly helped the Chilean authorities to develop a counter-insurgency strategy, using techniques refined during Britain’s colonial interventions in Southeast Asia.

The idea for such assistance was first raised during the visit of British navy chief Sir Michael Pollock to Chile in late November 1973, two months after the coup. 

The timing of Pollock’s visit was “politically tricky”, noted the British ambassador in Santiago, Reginald Secondé, since there was “much critical attention” being given “to the Chilean Government’s treatment of their political opponents”.

However, there were “two frigates and two submarines for the Chilean Navy under construction in British yards” – an arms deal worth around £50m – and “this was not a moment to prejudice the historic tradition of Anglo-Chilean naval friendship”. 

“This was not a moment to prejudice the historic tradition of Anglo-Chilean naval friendship”

In Santiago, Pollock and Secondé met with a number of regime officials, including navy chief José Toribio Merino Castro, defence minister Patricio Carvajal Prado, and foreign minister Ismael Huerta.

With Huerta, the British officials spoke about the UK government’s “hearts and minds” campaign in Northern Ireland, a counter-insurgency strategy inspired by Britain’s war in Malaya (1948-60).

Huerta “seemed impressed with the concept”, and Secondé “later twice heard him muttering to himself ‘hearts and minds’”.

Subsequent meetings were held between Secondé, British information officer Tony Walters, and Captain Carlos Ashton, the director of overseas information in Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Like Huerta, Ashton was “very receptive to the idea that this kind of approach to Chilean security problems might be the right answer”, and requested “details of what practical measures a ‘hearts and minds’ exercise would involve”.

Exclusive: Secret cables reveal Britain interfered with elections in Chile

Counter-insurgency advice

Ashton’s request for assistance was forwarded to Rosemary Allott, the head of the IRD’s Latin American desk.

In a letter dated 15 February 1974 and marked ‘secret’, Allott agreed to provide the Chilean regime with counter-insurgency advice, but limited this to material on Britain’s past colonial interventions.

“In view of the delicate political considerations involved”, Allott wrote, “it would be best to confine, at this stage at least, the material we send you of insurgencies of the past, rather than those currently preoccupying HMG” such as Northern Ireland.

The Pinochet regime was soon issued with three books on British counter-insurgency strategy, alongside a “Manual of Counter Insurgency Studies”. 

“Britain agreed to share its colonial policing methods with the Chilean junta”

Allott also tracked down “various official reports on Malaya” including “The Fight Against Communist Terrorism in Malaya”, the “Review of the Emergency in Malaya (1948-57)”, and “two booklets on the Philippines insurrection”. 

Britain’s military campaign in Malaya involved the “resettlement” of over 500,000 civilians, aerial bombardment, and an intensive propaganda operation. 

Embassy officials suggested that they were teaching Chilean officers “tactics of tolerance and magnanimity”. However, brutal repression often lay behind the UK government’s rhetoric about “winning hearts and minds”, and the Chilean authorities were only sharpening their repressive techniques.

None of the material given to the Pinochet regime was “for attribution to HMG”. This meant that the Chilean authorities could use the information but not source it to the UK government. 

The extent to which Britain’s advice was acted upon remains unclear; the Pinochet regime was certainly not lacking in support from the CIA. 

Nonetheless, it is clear that Britain agreed to share its colonial policing methods with the Chilean junta, with the goal of stabilising Pinochet’s regime against domestic opposition.

MI6 in Chile

Evidence of British assistance to Chile’s intelligence services raises further questions about what Britain’s own secret intelligence service, MI6, was doing in Chile. 

In 1972, MI6 officer David Spedding was attached to the British embassy in Santiago – his only foreign posting outside of the Middle East throughout his career. 

This was not Spedding’s first visit to Chile. As a postgraduate student at Oxford University during the mid-1960s, Spedding had spent his gap year in Santiago and found work as an assistant in the British embassy’s press office. 

Spedding’s first role in the diplomatic service was thus in the same British embassy that had been directing covert propaganda operations against Allende throughout the 1960s. The job gave him “an entrée into SIS [MI6]”, historian Nigel West noted.

Spedding remained in Chile until September 1974. He was subsequently made responsible for MI6 operations across the Middle East, and would go on to become MI6 chief between 1994 and 1999.

Our relationship with Admiral Merino’

Spedding’s name rarely appears in declassified Foreign Office files on Chile.

Yet in one file, dated 4 December 1973, Spedding informed the Foreign Office that 2,800 civilians and 700 armed forces personnel had been killed during and after the coup. 

“In order to protect our relationship with Admiral Merino”, Spedding noted, “we would not like these figures to be quoted, at least for the time being”. 

Admiral Merino was one of the key orchestrators of the 1973 coup. He was head of the Chilean navy in September 1973, and remained in post until the fall of the dictatorship in 1990. Merino claimed responsibility for convincing Pinochet to join the coup.

Some of the culprits saluting (Photo accessed: Internet)

One of Spedding’s roles, then, was to ensure close collaboration with the Chilean junta by covering up its responsibility for massive political repression and human rights violations. 

The MI6 station in Santiago was only closed down in 1974 amid the UK Labour Party’s return to government.

It would not be surprising if MI6 played a supporting role to the CIA’s covert operations against Allende during the early 1970s. It was recently revealed that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) had “opened a base in Santiago to assist in the US Central Intelligence Agency’s destabilisation of the Chilean government” in 1971.

Britain’s secret assistance to the Pinochet regime was consistent with the UK government’s position on the coup. 

The Conservative government under Edward Heath had welcomed the coup and rushed to give diplomatic recognition and arms to the Chilean junta, with the Foreign Office noting that it had “infinitely more to offer British interests than the one which preceded it”.

The coup against Allende inaugurated a 17-year dictatorship under General Augusto Pinochet, who only left office in 1990.

end.

John McEvoy is co-directing a forthcoming documentary investigating Britain’s hidden role in the death of Chile’s democracy and rise of the Pinochet dictatorship. You can support the film’s production here.

Leaked files: Britain’s secret propaganda ops in Yemen

April 2023: Leaked files reveal that British intel used local Yemeni NGOs and social media in a covert campaign to undermine the Sanaa government and influence the war-torn country’s peace process.

Kit Klarenberg

(Reading time: mins.)

The Cradle Editor’s note: All Yemeni NGO employees, journalists, and other private individuals named in this article appear in the ARK documents seen by The Cradle. These Yemenis may be unaware of the UK’s role and/or intent in funding their activities.

Yemen’s civil war, considered the world’s gravest humanitarian crisis, appears to be nearing its end due to a China-brokered detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia, who support opposing sides in the bitter conflict.

Early signs suggest that the rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh may not only end hostilities in Yemen, but across the wider region.

The US, Israel, and Britain have the most to lose from a sudden onset of peace in West Asia. In the Yemeni context, London may be the biggest loser of all.

For years, it provided the Saudi-led coalition with weaponry used to target civilians and civilian infrastructure, with receipts running into billions of pounds sterling.

During the entirety of the war, Yemen was struck by British-made bombs, dropped by British-made planes, flown by British-trained pilots, which then flew back to Riyadh to be repaired and serviced by British contractors.

In 2019, a nameless BAE Systems executive estimated that if London pulled its backing for the proxy war, “in seven to 14 days, there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”

A Typhoon at RAF Akrotiri, near Limassol in Cyprus, after striking Houthi targets in Yemen (Photo cred: Sgt. Lee Goddard/ AFP)

In addition to supplying weapons, the war also presented a golden opportunity for Britain to establish a military base in Yemen, fulfilling long-held fantasies of recovering the Empire’s long-lost glory days “East of Suez.”

Al-Ghaydah airport in al-Mahrah, Yemen’s far eastern governorate, has for some time quietly housed “a fully-fledged force” of British soldiers, providing “military training and logistical support” to coalition forces and Saudi-backed militias.

There are even indications that this involvement could extend to torture methods, which is a troubling reflection of one of London’s leading exports.

The Cradle has obtained exclusive information about a previously undisclosed aspect of London’s role in the proxy war against Yemen’s Ansarallah-led resistance.

It has been revealed that a multi-channel propaganda campaign, led by the intelligence cut-out ARK and its founder Alistair Harris, a veteran MI6 operative, has been operating in complete secrecy throughout the nine-year-long conflict – one that specifically targeted Yemen’s civilian population.

Anti-Ansarallah ops

Leaked Foreign Office documents have revealed that ARK’s “multimedia” information warfare campaign was designed to undermine public sympathy for the Ansarallah movement and ensure that the conflict would only end on terms that aligned with London’s financial, ideological, and geopolitical interests.

For instance, public acceptance of the UN’s widely unpopular peace proposal required propaganda support from local NGOs and media organizations that “support UK objectives” to “communicate effectively with Yemeni citizens” and change their minds.

It was also necessary to counter “new actors” in the information space that were critical of the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal bombing campaigns and the illegitimate, US-backed puppet government that the aerial assaults sought to protect.

Considering the high rate of illiteracy in the local population, ARK conceived the creation of a suite of “visually rich” products extolling the virtues of a Riyadh-dominated peace plan.

These products would be disseminated on and offline and would “deliberately include different demographics, sects, and locations to ensure inclusivity,” informed by focus groups and polling of Yemenis.

ARK’s campaign even extended to convening “gender-segregated poetry competitions using peace as a theme” and “plays and town hall meetings.”

Publicly, many of these propaganda products appeared to be the work of Tadafur – Arabic for “work collectively and unite” – an astroturf network of NGOs and journalists constructed by ARK.

Its overt mission was to “resolve local level conflicts” and “unite local communities in their conflict resolution efforts.”

The campaign began initially at a “hyper-local level” across six Yemeni governorates, “before being amplified at the national level.” Activities “[in] all areas and at both levels” had unified messaging across “common macro themes,” such as the slogan “Our Yemen, Our Future.”

In each governorate, a “credible” local NGO was identified as a messenger, along with “well-known” and “respected and influential” journalists who served as “dedicated field officers” across the sextet, managed by ARK.

In Hajjah – “a site of strong Houthi influence” – the Al-Mustaqbal Institute for Development was ARK’s NGO of choice; in Ansarallah-governed Sanaa, it was the Faces Institution for Rights and Media; in Marib, the Marib Social Generations Club.

In Lahij, ARK’s choice was the Rouwad Institution for Development and Human Rights; in Hadhramaut, Ahed Institute for Rights and Freedom; in Taiz, Generations Without Qat.

These local NGOs were instrumental in promoting ARK’s agenda and advancing the narrative that aligned with Britain’s objectives in Yemen.

The company’s roster of “field officers” comprised of individuals with various backgrounds, such as:

“Human rights abuse” specialist Mansour Hassan Mohammad Abu Ali, TV producer Thy Yazen Hussain, Public Organisation to Protect Human Rights press official and “experienced journalist” Waleed Abdul Mutlab Mohammed al-Rajihi,

Also producer from Alhadramiah Documentary Institute Abdullah Amr Ramdan Mas’id, editorial secretary of Family and Development magazine and the Yemen Times’ Taiz news manager Rania Abdullah Saif al-Shara’bi, as well as journalist and activist Waheeb Qa’id Saleh Thiban.

A Trojan Horse

Once ARK’s field officers and NGOs “successfully designed and implemented hyper-local campaigns,” coverage of “information around the related activities will then be amplified at the national level.”

A key platform for this amplification was a Facebook page called “Bab,” launched in 2016 with tens of thousands of followers who were unaware that the page was created by ARK as a British intelligence asset.

Under the guise of a popular grassroots online community, ARK used the Bab page to broadcast slick propaganda “promoting the peace process,” including videos and images of “local peacebuilding initiatives” organized by its NGO and field officer nexus.

Campaign content will highlight tangible, real-life examples of compelling peacebuilding efforts that all Yemenis, regardless of their political affiliation, can relate to,” ARK stated.

These will offer inspirational examples for others to emulate, demonstrating practical ways to engage with the peace process at a local level. Taken together, these individual stories form the broader campaign with a national message: Yemenis share a collective desire for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.”

When “high engagement levels” with this content were secured, Bab users were invited to submit their own, which demonstrated “support for the peace process.” They were explicitly asked “to mirror content ARK has produced, such as voxpops, short videos, or infographics.”

This was then “shared by the project and field teams through influential WhatsApp messaging groups, a key way of reaching Yemeni youth.”

ARK’s “well-connected communications team” would then “strategically share packaged stories with broadcast media or key social influencers, or offer selected journalists exclusive access to stories.”

Creating a constant flow of content was a deliberate ploy to “collectively be as ‘loud’ as partisan national political and military actors.” In other words, to create a parallel communications structure to Ansarallah’s own, which would drown out the resistance movement’s pronouncements.

ARK’s role in Yemen’s peace process

While one might argue that the non-consensual recruitment of private citizens as information warriors by British intelligence was justified by the moral urgency of ending the Yemen war quickly, the exploitation of these individuals was cynical in the extreme.

It amounted to a Trojan Horse operation aimed at compelling Yemenis to embrace a peace deal that was wildly inequitable and contrary to their own interests.

Multiple passages in the leaked files refer to the paramount need to ensure no linkage between these propaganda initiatives and the UN’s peace efforts. One passage refers to how campaign “themes and activities” would at no point “directly promote the UN or the formal peace process.”

Another passage says concealing the operation’s agenda behind ostensibly independent civil society voices “minimizes the risk” that “outputs are perceived as institutional communications stemming from or directly promoting the UN.”

Yet, once ARK’s campaigns began “performing successfully at the national level,” the company’s field officers planned to “build a bridge” between its local foot soldiers and national “stakeholders” – and, resultantly, the UN.

In other words, the entire ruse served to entrench ARK’s central role in peace negotiations via the backdoor.

Diminished western influence

At that time, the ceasefire deal proposed by the UN required Ansarallah and its allied forces to virtually surrender before Riyadh’s military assaults and economic blockade of the country could be partially lifted, along with other stringent requirements that the Saudis refused to compromise on.

Newly recruited Houthi fighters gathered for training outside Sana, the capital of Yemen – they became the Ansarrallah Army. (Photo credit: Yahya Arhab/EPA, via Shutterstock)

The US aggressively encouraged such intransigence, viewing any Ansarallah influence in Yemen as strengthening Iran’s regional position.

However, these perspectives are no longer relevant to Yemen’s peace process. 

China has now encouraged Riyadh to offer significant concessions, and as a result, the end of the war is within sight, with critical supplies finally allowed to enter Yemen, prisoners returned, Sanaa’s airport reopened, and other positive developments.

Evidently, Washington’s offers of arms deals and security assurances are no longer sufficient to influence events overseas and convince its allies to carry out its agenda.

The failure of ARK’s anti-Ansarallah propaganda campaigns to coerce Yemenis to accept peace on the west’s terms also highlights Britain’s significantly reduced power in the modern era.

Whereas wars could once be won on the coat-tails of well-laid propaganda campaigns, the experiences of Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan show that the tide has turned. Subversive information campaigns can confuse and misdirect populations but, at best, can only prolong conflict – not win it.

End.

Republished with kind permission of the author Kit Klarenberg from https://thecradle.co/articles-id/685.

ZIONIST MONOLITH DISINTEGRATING

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 4 mins.)

On Monday 2nd September the largest ‘Israeli’ trade union, along with a number of other organisations have called a strike in support of the ‘Hostages’ relatives’ organisation1 in order to force Netanyahu to stop blocking a ceasefire agreement.

Two months ago, the Palestinian Resistance leadership accepted the 3-stage terms for an end to the current war in Palestine proposed by then US President Joe Biden, which he claimed to have been agreed by the Zionist Government.2 However Netanyahu sabotaged the negotiations.

The Resistance is clear that a) no IOF can remain within the Gaza strip, b) there must be no impediment to the return of displaced people, d) the gates have to be opened to allow food, medication etc. to enter and those requiring special medical treatment to leave.

In addition, the Palestinian prisoners nominated for release in exchange of the ‘Israeli’ prisoners held in Gaza cannot be vetoed by Netanyahu, nor can the war resume once the ‘Israeli’ captives have been returned, two essentials with which the Zionist Prime Minister disagrees.

Netanyahu has also stipulated that it’s essential for State security that the IOF must remain in the ‘Netzarim Corridor’ in Gaza, which crosses a red line for the Resistance and which the IOF intelligence sector deny is necessary for security.

At the same time, Zionist government Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has called on military chiefs to resign and some high-rankers of the Intelligence sector of the military have indeed already done3 while another is reportedly about to do so.

Some ‘Israeli’ media commentators have reflected the dissension and openly criticised their government, not only because of the failure to prevent the October 7th Palestinian breakout but also to defeat the armed resistance and rescue the ‘hostages’.

The latter has been one of the major drivers of huge protest demonstrations, including some against Netanyahu himself and some against his more fascist cabinet supporters, such as Benny Gantz.

Also adding to the dissatisfaction are the many ‘Israeli’ settlers who are in hotels or camps at Government expense, having left the northwestern occupied region due to Hezbollah bombing (mostly) the military there in support of the Palestinians facing genocidal IOF attacks.4

Northwestern occupied Palestine was also the producer of significant amounts of food for the general ‘Israeli’ population which it must now do without.

Seen from Lebanon, Hezbollah rockets hit IOF installation 15 December 2023 but could be a scene from almost any day since October 8th. (Photo cred: AFP)

Then there’s the problem of replacing the numbers of dead and injured IOF, the true extent of which has been concealed by the Zionist state. This has led to the June removal of the exemption from military service of Haredi Jews , resulting in their protest demonstrations.5

One of the state’s main ports, ‘Eilat’ has declared bankruptcy6 due to radical reduction in shipping as a result of Yemeni targeting and Haifa is also suffering. In addition Zionist-friendly companies abroad are being boycotted and some have abandoned the Zionists as a result.7

This cannot be seen as any kind of opposition to Zionism within ‘Israeli’ society but rather as a reflection of deep divisions within Zionism itself; the state and the occupation project remains one of European settler colonialism, fundamentally expansionist and genocidal at its core.

Running alongside these elements is that of declining military confidence, both among the general population and in the IOF itself. This is a state that once felt itself invincible in the Middle East with its air force, intelligence services and ground forces – and of course huge US backing.

Despite all this, it has been unable to prevent the October 7th breakout or subsequently in 10 months of genocidal bombardment and military invasions to defeat the Palestinian resistance nor to curtail Hezbollah’s attacks on the northwestern region from Lebanon.

The settler population is aware its much-vaunted air defence systems were unable to prevent Iran’s retaliation8 on 13th April from hitting three military bases,9 or Hezbollah from hitting a number of military targets in its recent retaliation for the assassination of its senior officer Fouad.

Large numbers of ‘Israeli’ citizens, many of which hold dual citizenships are also leaving the Zionist state and reportedly the highest proportion of these are of Ashkenazi background, i.e eastern European rather than middle Eastern, African etc.

The monolith of Zionism in the Middle East is disintegrating but it will yet require some further pushing and blows to collapse it completely. This is the time for escalation of all kinds of activities to push the process to its logical and desired conclusion.

CAUSES OF THE EFFECT

What has brought about this state of affairs? Certainly a number of things but first and foremost we must applaud the Palestinian Resistance, comprising both its armed factions and the determination and resilience of a population in the midst of ten months of genocidal attacks.

The resilience of the population across the age and gender profiles, the resistance of the prisoners in the face of daily torture and slow starvation and the work of social and medical services have formed a solid background to fighters and development of effective weapons matching their targets.

To that has been added innovation in planning ambushes and in methods of attack, along with daring and sacrifice in carrying them out.

Secondly, the active support of the rest of the Axis of Resistance, first Hezbollah in Lebanon and the armed forces in Yemen, followed by the state of Iran and resistance groups in Iraq.

Next we must also acknowledge the solidarity front in particular in western states demonstrating, boycotting and sabotaging Zionist businesses and businesses and states colluding with Zionism.

In particular in the latter front stand the radical and revolutionary youth who have continued and even escalated their resistance in the face of state and Zionist violence, arrests and trials, fines and imprisonment, restrictions on and expulsions from their studies and loss of accommodation.

End.

FOOTNOTES

1The recent recovery by the IOF of the bodies of six of the Israeli prisoners taken by the Resistance on October 7th seems to have been the impulse to convert months of protest demonstrations into a general strike. The bodies were found in a tunnel and original reports said they had died from suffocation, assumed to be from IOF bombing. Later a Resistance statement said they had been shot by the IOF in a rescue attempt while the IOF said the prisoners had been executed by the Resistance. It seems now that the Resistance’s statement was a metaphor as they say that since the Nusserat Massacre when in order to rescue four ‘Israeli’ prisoners the IOF bombed and shot nearly 300 Palestinians, mostly civilians, the Resistance guards now have different instructions in the event of an IOF attempt to rescue the prisoners.

2On 2nd July.

3https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ5zjY6S-iQ and https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240702-israel-sees-800-senior-army-officers-resign-this-year/

4https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-months-on-70-of-evacuees-from-the-south-are-home-but-thousands-remain-in-hotels

5https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p24expzd5o

6https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ports/attacks-red-sea-shipping-bankrupt-israeli-port

7For example French Axa Insurance https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-41460304.htm

8For Israel’s air strike on the Iranian Consulate in Beirut, Lebanon. Another Iranian retaliation is expected daily, for the August 4th assassination of Hamas leader (and peace talks negotiator) Ismail Haniyeh on diplomatic visit to Iran.

9Including one close to ‘Tel Aviv’.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

General Strike: https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/israeli-union-demands-general-strike-after-hostages-deaths-1667504.html

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/mass-protests-erupt-in-tel-aviv-over-death-of-6-captives-in

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/02/israel-gaza-war-national-strike-hostages-ceasefire-netanyahu

IOF resignations: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240702-israel-sees-800-senior-army-officers-resign-this-year/

Haredi Jews now eligible for conscription: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p24expzd5o

Axa Insurance divests from ‘Israeli’ banks: https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-41460304.html

Bankruptcy major ‘Israeli’ port: https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ports/attacks-red-sea-shipping-bankrupt-israeli-port

Hundreds of thousands of ‘Israelis’ in hotels and camps: https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-months-on-70-of-evacuees-from-the-south-are-home-but-thousands-remain-in-hotels

‘Israeli’ court orders strike to end while large USA union supports the strike: https://www.thejournal.ie/israel-strike-6477007-Sep2024/

PICKETING THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY IN DUBLIN

Clive Sulish

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

The Palestinian Authority had a small protest against it in Dublin on the afternoon of Friday 23rd August 2024. This seems to be the first protest that has taken place outside the Palestinian Embassy at 66 Lower Leeson Street.

It would perhaps have been the first protest against the PA in Ireland, were it not for the Palestinian solidarity activists who attempted to convey the Palestinian reality in contrast to the Ambassador’s speech at a public meeting in Belfast in February, before being evicted by Sinn Féin supporters.

Palestinian solidarity activists protesting the Palestinian Authority and Embassy?

At first sight that seems bizarre but as some solidarity activists and most people of Middle Eastern origin know, the PA is not only widely considered unrepresentative and corrupt – and in fact has not held elections since 2006 – but also represses protests in the West Bank against ‘Israel’.

However, the Ireland Anti-Internment Campaign says that its main purpose in calling the protest was to raise awareness of the harm the PA is doing to the Palestinian Resistance, in arresting Resistance fighters and disrupting resistance defence against ‘Israeli’ army incursions.

Photo of placard being displayed outside the Palestine Embassy today. (Photo: R.Breeze)

The IAIC’s leaflet handed out at the event points out that the PA’s security force shot and wounded and even killed Resistance fighters, also attempting to enter hospital in force to arrest fighters on two occasions recently, their attempts being frustrated by large mobilisations.

Could a picket on the Palestinian Authority and its Embassy be considered divisive? “Not with justification,” replied an IAIC spokesperson. “It’s the actions of the PA that are divisive. We are supporting the broad resistance there, not one faction or another.”

He points out – as did their leaflet – that 14 Resistance factions including Fatah met in Beijing recently and agreed that the Palestinians have a right to resist, including with weapons and called for unity of all the resistance organisations. “The PA is acting against that unity”, he said.

But why is it that the IAIC called this protest and not one of the Palestinian solidarity organisations? “You’d need to ask them that,” says the spokesperson. “We regularly fly a Palestinian flag on our anti-internment in Ireland pickets; the PA was overdue to be done but nobody else was doing it.”

(Photo: R.Breeze)

The IAIC was founded a decade ago to raise awareness about ongoing internment of Irish Republican activists by revoking ex-prisoners’ licence and through refusal of bail by special no-jury courts. In those cases it can take two years for a case to come to trial.

However the IAIC has organised or participated in other events also, such as those around framed prisoners like the Craigavon Two in the Six Counties and the Munir family in England. It has also called two of its pickets since October 2024 to specifically highlight Palestinian prisoners.

Will the group be regularly picketing the Palestinian Authority now? “Probably not. It’s not what we were set up for but we felt the ice needed breaking on this. Others need to step forward now,” replied their spokesperson, though signalling that they would support others in doing it.

Photo of copy of the leaflet being distributed outside the Palestine Embassy today. (Photo: R.Breeze)

It is probable that a representative of the PA will be welcomed soon by the Irish Government as part of its recognition of the ‘Palestinian State’. One wonders how this reception of a corrupt and Occupation-collusive organisation will be mediated in the Palestinian solidarity sector in Ireland.

The Governments of the EU, including Ireland’s, formally recognise the PA but not only that – so does Sinn Féin in Ireland, EH Bildu in the Basque Country and Esquerra Republicana in Catalonia. This corresponds across the board also to support for ‘the Two-State Solution’ (sic).

What that entails is allocating the Palestinians less than 20% of their homeland weaving around illegal zionist settlements, with least water and some of the worst land, under the permanent watchtowers and guns of their genocidal neighbour.

Organisations and individuals within the broad Palestinian solidarity movement will need to decide exactly what their solidarity with Palestine actually means, especially for the Palestinians themselves.

End.

Reference

Ireland Anti-Internment Campaign: https://www.facebook.com/p/Ireland-Anti-Internment-Campaign-100063166633467/

Great Leaders Fall

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 5 mins.)

A number of great leaders of Arab resistance to imperialism and zionism have fallen in the last few days. “Those who live by the sword …”, the wise will comment. But they did not die by the sword but rather by long-range missile assassination.

Still, we can take the comment as a metaphor, that those who live by violence die by violence. But do they? Has Genocide Joe Biden died by violence? Sunak? Von der Leyen? Scholz and Merkel? Macron? Netanyahu, Gallant, Smotrich? No, it is clearly not a general rule.

But revolutionary fighters, commanders and leaders – they are killed, again and again. Fighters who become commanders are particularly targeted and, in the Middle East for sure, so are their spouses, their children, their parents … This is the way of Mossad and the IOF but also of the US and UK.

The SAS and MRF units of the British Army did that in the 30 Years’ War in the occupied Six Counties too. Assassinations of leaders are intended to disrupt the revolutionary organisation and demoralise the Resistance.

Sometimes, the intention is to have a revolutionary leader replaced by a traitor or someone who is ideologically pliable but often too the fallen are replaced by others as dedicated and competent, if not more so.

The IOF are accomplished assassins of individuals, also killers of civilians, just not very good at combating armed resistance, particularly in the absence of air cover..

But why shouldn’t revolutionary leaders be felled – don’t they send others out to kill or be killed? Certainly they do and all Arab resistance movement commanders know that they risk assassination, many of the commanders and fighters writing their wills while in active service.

However, visit imperialist war memorials listing the names and ranks of the fallen in war and see how many names of their armies’ generals can be found there. Not many, that’s for sure.

Haniyeh was the chief Resistance representative in the Gaza ceasefire/ peace talks. Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani of Qatar, which is mediating the talks, tweeted: “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on other side?”1

Two revolutionary leaders who fell to assassination so recently were Sayyed Fouad Shukr of Hezbollah in a suburb of Beirut and Ismail Haniye of Hamas in the Iranian capital, Tehran. Each organisation has issued statements that they will not be stopped and that they will claim revenge.

In another assassination strike on Tuesday in Iraq, admitted by the USA, Khateb Hezbollah suffered the loss of martyred leader Abu Hassan Al-Maliki and martyred fighters Ali Al-Moussawi, Hassan Al-Saadi and Hussein Karim Al-Daraji,2 bringing huge crowds out in protest there.

The Iraqi Islamic resistance had begun shelling US Army bases there recently, partly in frustration at the lack of any move to leave the country despite having indicated they would but partly also no doubt in frustration at not contributing to the united effort in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Iran declared furthermore that since the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh took place on their national territory that the obligation of response falls upon them. One imagines that another strike on somewhere in Israel will be considered necessary though the precise target is unknown.

Declarations of condolence, defiance and continuity were also issued by resistance factions in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as by the leaderships of Yemen and Tunisia. A general strike was called in the West Bank and marches of defiance and solidarity held in a number of countries.

Confrontations with settlers and with the Occupation army have been taking place in towns across the West Bank and the war in Gaza continues, more or less as normal: daily massacres by the IOF, actions by the Resistance.

Collateral damage’

The strikes on the leaders also claimed other lives: six people including three women and two children, along with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps member Milad Bedi were killed in the Beirut assassination of Fuad Shukr and 78 injured in the collapsed building.3

Along with Haniyeh in Iran died his bodyguard and veteran Palestinian resistance fighter, Wassim Shabu, with no details of other ‘collateral damage’ from there or from Iraq so far.

According to the rules of war agreed among the imperialists, assassination of commanders, even civilian ones in times of war, is justified. ‘Collateral damage’ to a certain degree is also permitted by those rules but how can the bombing of journalists and killing two in Gaza be justified?

They were at the rubble site of Haniyeh’s former home, perhaps reporting on some kind of event marking the assassination, since they cannot attend the equivalent of a wake or a laying out of the body, the funeral to be held in Iran. How was their killing justifiable by any stretch of rules?

Ismail Al-Ghoul and Ramy Al-Reef were the two press men martyred there. Those two deaths bring the number of journalists killed in Palestine (always by the IOF), to 165, the highest number of journalists killed in any conflict since data began to be collected by the CPJ in 1992.4

Life of revolutionary leaders

The life stories of the martyred leaders are instructive in themselves. Ismail Haniyeh grew up in a refugee camp in Al-Shati in Gaza, son of a community driven out of their home in Jura in Askelan5 in 1948. He graduated with a degree in Arabic Literature from the Gaza University in 1981.

It was in university Haniyeh became politically active, joining the student section of Islamic Bloc (forerunner of Hamas), becoming arrested and detained three times, the final one for three years, after which he was deported to southern Lebanon with other leaders.

Ismail Haniye survived at least four assassination attempts, including in 2003 and in 2006.

Haniyeh led Hamas to victory in the 2006 elections for the legislature of the Palestinian Authority. The Fatah leadership refusing to hand over the administration in Gaza, Hamas removed them in a short struggle,6 then Abbas7 refused to recognise the election results there or in the West Bank.

The Zionist State followed, as did the Western powers and the siege of Gaza began.

Haniyeh’s granddaughter was killed last November in a bombing on a school. Three of his sons and three grandsons were assassinated in an IOF strike on their car in April and last month, 10 of his family, including his sister, were killed in an IOF bombing.

Sayeed Fuad Shukr 62, also known as Al-Hajj Mohsen, was born in the city of Nabatieh in Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, according to the US government’s Rewards for Justice website, which offered up to $5 million for information on Shukr.

He came to political struggle in the resistance to the IOF invasion and occupation of Lebanon which was the spur to the creation of Hezbollah. Fuad Shukr as a fighter rose through the political and military ranks to the Jihad Council fighting the IOF and its Lebanese proxy.

Sayeed also would have been party to the decision to send Hezbollah fighters to assist the Syrian state resist attacks by NATO forces and their proxies and probably also Turkish.

He was married with children; his daughter wrote pieces in particular about martyrs under a pseudonym but just published a piece about her father under her own name on Resistance News Network (on Telegram).

Dying Gaul statue, 1st Century CE, probably Roman sculpture. By his neck ornament, the Gaul appears to be a warrior of high rank. The Gauls were a Celtic culture inhabiting most of modern-day France, Switzerland and parts of Italy; after many wars they were crushed by the Roman Empire. (Source image: Internet)

Great leaders

I commented that they were great leaders. By all accounts they were. They were Muslim revolutionaries and I am an atheist but more to the point their religious belief was an important part of their politico-social ideology, to which my own secular revolutionary ideology is opposed.

But they were revolutionaries non the less, courageously leading their people in struggle against their oppressors, who are very powerful enemies. They had emotion, which they let out in speech. In planning and in response to events however, they thought things through before acting.

Ismail Haniye probably underestimated the extent – in length of time and numbers of dead, in starvation and destruction of all infrastructure — of the ‘Israeli’ genocidal war after October 7th.8 That does not mean however that the breakout and attack was not necessary.

But the resistance was led, day after day, using the tunnels that had been dug through the years of preparation and the weapons researched, developed and produced over that time. In the truce/ ceasefire negotiations, the leadership stuck to the necessary minimum, which must’ve been hard.

Great fighters of the rank and file fall and are constantly being replaced and multiplied. Thousands of civilians have been killed, disabled and traumatised, yet the Palestinian population will recover and rebuild. Great leaders have fallen – let us hope their replacements will be great too.

End.

Footnotes

1https://www.axios.com/2024/07/31/hamas-ismail-haniyeh-killed-iran Just one more proof, in addition to going back on agreements, adding new requirements etc showing that Netanyahu never had any intention of negotiating a genuine ceasefire, exchange of prisoners and withdrawal from Gaza and the Rafah Gate to allow humanitarian aid to enter. Indeed he often said that his chief aim was wiping out Hamas and would not permit self-governance in Gaza – it was only a few of his officials and the US administration which kept pretending otherwise.

2 https://t.me/PalestineResist/50870

3https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-chief-ismail-haniyeh-killed-iran-hamas-says-statement-2024-07-31

4Committee to Protect Journalists https://cpj.org/

5Now Zionist settler district ‘Ashkelon’.

6This is the reality usually disguised in the western mass media by phrases like “Hamas seized power in Gaza” or “Hamas took control in Gaza”.

7Mahmoud, Fatah’s boss of the PA, widely known for personal corruption and nepotism and also for collusion with the Zionist Occupation.

8Even the most pessimistic could hardly have expected the extent of the genocide or the extent of the collusion or forbearance of the West and most of the Arab states.

Sources

Sayyed Fouad Shukr (but including rubbish about the explosion killing children in the Golan): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/31/who-isfuad-shukr

Iraq assassinations: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240731-us-air-strike-in-iraq-as-regional-tensions-worsen/

PALESTINE AUTHORITY PREVENTED FROM ARRESTING RESISTANCE FIGHTER IN HOSPITAL

Clive Sulish

(Reading time: 3 mins.)

Conflict with security forces of the Palestinian Authority broke out in Tulkarm city in the West Bank today as they tried to seize Palestinian Resistance commander Abu Sujaa (Mohamed Jaber), who was receiving treatment in Thabet Thabet Hospital.

According to reports the PA fired tear gas and used pepper spray inside the Hospital grounds, also striking with batons at protesters including women. Shots were fired at the PA’s HQ and protesters are calling the PA “traitors” and “collaborators”.

After a tense stand-off the PA forces eventually had to leave empty-handed.

Abu Sujaa is a commander of the Tulkarm Brigade, Soraya Al-Quds (Islamic Jihad), one of the main organisations of the Resistance. It is reported that he was injured while handling explosives and taken to hospital; when the PA learned of his presence there they sent forces to capture him.

The arrest attempt by the PA and treatment of protesters has been condemned Soraya Al-Quds and by a number of other Palestinian Resistance organisations including the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade coalition, Mujahadeen Movement, PFLP, Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees.

A statement also condemning the PA’s action by students at Birzeit University was signed off by the student movements of Hamas, PFLP, DFLP, PPSF, and PPP.

The point was also made that Abdul Nasser, one of the own PA’s employees, a security officer in uniform, was filmed executed by the IOF recently in cold blood in front of their headquarters in Tubas “without any action, condemnation, or denunciation” by the PA’s leaders.

Abu Sujaa is far from being the first Palestinian Resistance fighter targeted by the PA which holds many prisoners but has also killed fighters, including Ahmed Abu Al-Ful in early May1 and Motasim Al-Arif a month later, on that occasion also while trying to capture Abu Shujaa.2

Two Palestinian civil society activists recently went on hunger strike in protest at their detention by the PA, Fakri Jaradat being released after a week of hunger strike (but 16 days detention) but Ghassan Al-Saadi was transferred to Al-Razi Hospital in Jenin in deteriorated health condition.

This evening, according to local sources quoted on Resistance News Network, PA Security Forces stormed the city of Tubas, apparently in order to assassinate the resistance fighter Omar Meselmani who is wanted by the Occupation, since they shot at him directly.

Palestinian unity?

The Palestinian representative bodies recognised internationally are the PA and the PLO,3 both dominated by the Fatah leadership. The latter were represented at the Beijing Palestinian Unity conference last weekend at which all 14 factions agreed on the need for a unity government.

The PLO excludes Islamist organisations from membership, though both the PFLP and the DFLP delegates stated at the conference that they wished to admit those resistance organisations to the PLO, no such decision was recorded (presumably blocked by Fatah) in the conference decisions.

One might have thought that in the circumstances of the Beijing Agreement, the PA would be keeping a low profile or at least certainly steering clear of conflict with Resistance organisations. On the contrary however, the PA seems to be intent on exacerbating divisions.

Islamic Jihad, possibly divining the PA’s intentions, has declared it will not be drawn into a civil war with the organisation, despite its actions and collusion with the Occupation. But can that posture be maintained if the PA continues persecuting and even shooting its fighters?

Perhaps the PA is doing its best, in order to avoid its being sidelined and as an aid to the beleaguered Israeli occupation, to ensure that civil war breaks out among the Palestinians.

End.

FOOTNOTES

SOURCES & FURTHER INFORMATION

PA arrests of Resistance fighters and other opponents of the Occupation:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/political-detainees-in-the-palestinian-authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority

1https://x.com/PALMENA_IC/status/1786005323565633947

2(https://t.me/PalestineResist/34391)

3Palestine Liberation Organisation

AN APPROPRIATE WELCOME FOR HIM OR HER

Diarmuid Breatnach

(Reading time: 4 mins.)

It is reported that at some point in the near future a representative of the Palestine Authority will be officially received in Leinster House as part of the recognition of the Palestinian State by the Irish Government (and presumably by the Irish State).

This will be an important occasion and all who support the Palestinian people should get ready to give this representative of the Palestine Authority an appropriate welcome.

The PA is an unelected, unrepresentative, corrupt, repressive and occasionally murderous organisation colluding with the ‘Israeli’ occupation, feeding its Occupation master (and their master’s masters) with information on the activities and persons of the Palestinian Resistance.

In the course of the current genocidal offensive of the Occupation, operatives of the PA have seized weapons of the Resistance, dismantled explosives1 and for years have arrested and jailed activists. They also arrest Resistance activists to hand over to the Occupation.

In carrying out this dirty ‘duty’ for their masters, the PA encounter natural resistance and in overcoming that resistance the PA has executed and killed under interrogation dissidents and members of the Resistance, including since October last year.2

Palestinians objecting to repression face the security force of the Palestinian Authority. (Image sourced: Internet)

Elected once, then widely rejected

Since it was created in 1994 arising out of the Palestine Pacification (wrongly named ‘Peace’) Process,3 elections were held by the PA just twice. The Fatah political (and military) party under Yasser Arafat won the first ones in 1996 but Hamas overwhelmingly won the next, in 2006.

The largely secular-voting Palestinian society rejected Fatah in favour of an Islamist party largely because of Fatah’s corruption and nepotism in the PA and also due to its collusion with the Israeli state, formally and informally in fact.4

The Hamas electoral victory of 2006 was not accepted by the Western powers, nor by Fatah, who refused to vacate their administrative control. Eventually, after a short, sharp struggle in June 2007 Hamas evicted them from the positions in Gaza to which the electorate had voted Hamas.

However, Hamas refrained from doing the same in the West Bank, presumably to avoid all-out civil war and so Fatah remains in control of that section of Palestinian governance, which is the one universally known as “the Palestinian Authority” (and, since 2013, as “The State of Palestine”).

Since 2006, the PA has held no elections though it was supposed to do so every four years.5 The reason is clear: Hamas would win again and the Fatah leadership want to hold on to their corruption opportunities and are decidedly opposed to having their funding streams6 cut.

Currently Hamas runs the government of Gaza and is the leading element in the Palestine armed Resistance, a coalition of Islamist and secular organisations that are united in fighting the Israeli occupation and in the negotiation position of the Resistance.

Fatah had been invited to participate in talks in Beijing in April to present a united Palestinian front but at the last minute declined to attend. Nevertheless, in recent days they have been invited again; it is not known at present whether their representatives will attend or not.7

Hamas and others have called for a unified position on Palestinian self-determination and for participation in a broad united Palestinian government.

Netanyahu, with the support of his internal allies and with the US and Western powers externally, refuses to accept the verdict of the Palestinian electoral process and wants a pro-Israeli administration there which, for the Western powers, means a “revitalised”8 Palestine Authority.

US Middle East would-be ‘fixer’ Blinken, already mooted that9 and Mahmoud Abbas, sitting grossly at the head of the PA in the West Bank, indicated his willingness for the job.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reads a statement as he meets French President Emmanuel Macron, in Ramallah, West Bank, October 24, 2023. Christophe Ena/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo. Note: The key on his jacket lapel is a symbol of the right of return of Palestinian refugees for which the PA has done nothing at all and which Fatah agreed to exclude from the Oslo Accords under which the PA was founded.

The USA also proposed a coalition of their Arab regime clients for that job but the Resistance has made it quite clear that managing Palestinian society and resources is for Palestinians elected democratically only and anyone else will be a usurper for the Occupation and treated accordingly.

The real purpose of Palestinian State ‘recognition’ by the Three

Sadly, it is in this context that we should see the Irish, Spanish and Norwegian recognition of the Palestinian State. It does not represent a break from the EU’s imperialist position of support for Israel in principle but rather only in tactical approach.

These states are giving the imperialists “good advice”. What they are saying in effect is this: “You have to make the Palestinians thing that they are gaining something and use Palestinians to control Palestinians. Otherwise they’ll continue resisting and you could lose the whole thing.”

Coat of arms of the Palestinian Authority (Image sourced: Internet)

They know of what they speak. This was what the British colonialists imposed on Ireland in 1922 and what the Spanish ruling class imposed on the southern Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia after the Franco Dictatorship, granting them limited autonomy under Spanish control.

And cultivating “independent” locals to run these for them.

The program these states desire for the Palestinian people is one in which they will have their local autonomy in a Palestinian state on approximately 20% of their nation, with worst land and least water and under the guns and watchtowers of their expansionist and dominating neighbours.

The reality of Israeli genocidal colonisation and the “two-state solution” beloved of imperialists and liberals. (Image sourced: Internet)

The decision on what the Palestinian people accept or reject is ultimately theirs, of course. Equally, how we decide to receive representatives of this undemocratic, corrupt, treasonous and violent PA is ours.

Let us not fail to make it a hot welcome, both in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in apology for the neo-colonial proposals of this Gombeen state.

Let those Irish political parties that support the PA answer for their position. Ours should be clear, from which too our actions should flow.

End.

FOOTNOTES

142 times in the West Bank since October 7th and most recently this week as I was writing this piece, blowing some up at 3am on the morning of the 17thJuly.

2https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-799496

3Arising out of the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords.

4e.g. in concluding a deal that excluded the Palestinians still in “Israel” and any right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees around the world.

5https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/27/palestinian-elections-democracy-for-no-one

6Mainly from the EU and USA but also from Arab and Russian sources.

7An anti-Hamas reference https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/07/guarded-optimism-palestinian-reconciliation-ahead-fatah-hamas-meeting-china Hamas has indicated they want them to attend and at least some of the other Resistance groups are likely to do so.

8i.e, cleaned up a bit.

9https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/01/blinken-envisions-revitalized-palestinian-authority-charge-post-war-gaza/

SOURCES & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority

I do not endorse some of the opinions in this: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/06/10-things-to-know-about-the-palestinian-authority/

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2024/07/14/the-palestinian-authoritys-shrinking-influence-in-the-west-bank/

Repression of dissent by the Palestinian Authority: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/palestinian-security-forces-escalate-brutal-campaign-of-repression-2/

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/1/25/analysis-palestinian-authority-cracking-down-on-opposition

Colombia: The meaning of “Never Again”

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh 3 June 2024

(Reading time: 8 mins.)

Gustavo Petro and Truth Commission President Francisco de Roux.

I recently read an article written by the former Colombian truth commissioner and academic at the Los Andes University, Alejandro Castillejo titled Teaching After Gaza?: Indifference Perpetuates Barbarism.(1) 

As its title indicates, it deals with Gaza, but also covers other conflicts, such as Ukraine and also the Colombian conflict itself.

In the text he puts forward a question “When we say ‘Never Again’, exactly what should never happen again?” 

It is a good question and one that is not often asked; he talks of the continuities, as Gaza is ongoing and will continue after the genocide, it won’t end in some precise reference point. 

I would like to deal with another aspect of that question. 

Once upon a time the social organisations in Colombia, the NGOs, the left groups, both legal and illegal ones, reformists (some illegal) and revolutionaries (some of which are legal), were very clear about what they meant when they gave voice to the slogan Never Again

It is a common phrase.  There are some reports from Colombian organisations that include it in their names.  I had the honour of contributing, through my field work to the first two reports on the 14th Zone.(2)

Outside of Colombia, there is more than one truth commission report that has that as its name, such as the REMHI Report of Guatemala,(3) or the report on the disappeared in Argentina.(4)  We were all clear, we did not want a repetition of the terrible night. 

We spoke of the bloodbath and many were equally clear that they did not want a repeat of the circumstances that made it all possible, necessary and justifiable in the eyes of the state and bourgeoisie (a term disgracefully fallen into disuse in current times.)

Nowadays, it would seem that nobody is clear about it.  The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) understands Never Again to be never again the FARC and some “rotten apple” in the state’s military forces. 

The Truth Commission hadn’t a clue as to what it understood Never Again to be, other than some generic, non-specific abhorrence of violence in and of itself, but not of the system and circumstances that gave rise to the bloodbath.

Less still to the rivers of blood that flow through the fields and furrows of the country.  The Commission absolved the state for the so-called False Positives for which the state acknowledges and accepts the figure of 6,402 victims. 

It was a state crime, acts of state terrorism, crimes as appalling as they were evident. 

As far as the Commission was concerned it was not a state policy to take youths to the countryside, dress them up as guerrillas and murder them to present them in dispatches as part of a media campaign that sought to show the state was winning the war. 

So, if it was not a state policy, when we say Never Again, are we saying that the state shouldnot commit such a crime in the future?

Or are we asking thousands of crazy soldiers not to think of putting boots on the wrong way round on the feet of young civilians that they just murdered and dressed up as a guerrillas?

In the first case, it would be something we could demand of the state, in the second case if they were really the demented actions of the soldiers, well even the state would be a victim in that case.

Even the paramilitaries sometimes say No More, rather than Never Again.  In zones where they displaced the entire population, they don’t have to continue killing anyone.  They can say No More.

With groups such as the Unión Patriótica that they decimated, or groups such as A Luchar that they finished off, they can say No More

There is no need to continue murdering as the dirty work has been done, or at least it got to a point in which it had achieved its aim.  If there is a need to repeat it, they will, which is why they say No More rather than Never Again

This juxtaposition of No More and Never Again shows the banality of the slogan now.  Is it really Never Again or do they speak of “until the next time there is a need to”?

We can see just how empty the refrain of Never Again is by looking at some examples of violence in Colombia. 

In the 90s, the levels of violence in the port of Buenaventura began, for various reasons, to dramatically rise.  The violence cannot be explained by reference to one single fact or motive. 

However, there are contributing factors and whilst I don’t wish to reduce the explanation to something simple, we can point to the privatization of the port as a key factor in the rise in violence.

In 1991, following recommendations from the World Bank, Colombia — in the context of the growing forward march of neoliberalism — privatized the ports of the country. 

In the case of Buenaventura this resulted in the loss of jobs in the port area, a reduction in salaries, both of which impacted the economies of the neighbourhoods where the workers spent their wages, generally increasing poverty in the city. 

The port workers used to be able to apply for grants for their children to study, but with the privatisation that was gone, thus reducing not only the labour market but also the possibility of escaping poverty through studying. 

Then came the plans to expand the port and the massacres such as Punta del Este, amongst others, to clear out those who lived where they were going to construct the new port zones.(5) 

So when we say Never Again, it is clear that they don’t want the youths of the city to be killed, if they see another alternative, but does Never Again include the plans to privatise and expand the port?

Or we could look at the violence in the mining areas of the country, such as Southern Bolívar (gold) or Cesar and La Guajira (coal). 

Once again, we see the hand of the grey men, the banal ones from the World Bank, the IMF or state bodies who like Eichmann never directly killed anyone but rather moved pieces of paper around knowing what the consequences were of those bureaucratic procedures in which they took part and knowing that the new realities they sought to impose required a high dosage of violence.

In the 1980s, the WB had been promoting the expansion of mining in Latin America, the abolition of restrictions on foreign investment, the exporting of capital etc. 

In the case of Colombia, it didn’t need to do that much, the national bourgeoisie did the dirty work, without even a nod and a wink from the grey men at the WB.  A key figure in all of this was Ernesto Samper, the head honcho in the country between 1994 and 1998. 

It is worth bearing in mind that this satrap likes to present himself as a human rights defender, when it was his government that legalised the paramilitaries and is now one of the fiercest defenders of the current government of Gustavo Petro. 

Not only was he the president of the country from 1994 to 1998, he was the owner of various mining companies. 

He tried to introduce a new mining code but it was overturned by the Constitutional Court.  In 1998, another satrap and mining businessman, Andrés Pastrana, took over as president and implemented a new mining code, which is currently in force.(6)

During this whole process, the massacres in Southern Bolivar and other mining regions of the country intensified, whilst the paramilitaries tried to take these zones for the multinationals.  In the case of Southern Bolivar they were very explicit about it. 

After the murder of the leader Juan Camacho Herrera they played football with this head, placing it on a stake facing the mines, declaring that they had come to hand over the mineral resources to other people, who would, according to them, make a more rational use of them. 

So, when we say Never Again, does it mean Never Again to the national and international plans to take control of mineral resources? Or do they just mean that they are not going to play football with the heads of those who oppose these plans?

Nowadays the discussion in Colombia centres round the question of violence as something alien to the economic projects and they talk about the individuals. 

The slogan is to stop the war, but only a few say stop the plans of the WB, the IMF, the imperialist powers such as the USA and Europe.  When the president of the Truth Commission spoke to the UN he stated:

We have come to understand that the solution to the armed conflict is through respecting each person as an equal and we should respect each indigenous and afrocolombian child with the same commitment that we show to presidents, the wealthy, the powerful, and personalities, military generals. 

That all personality cults end and we love and respect each other as people entitled to the same dignity.  And that in Colombia and the world over all of us contribute to promoting a new sense of ethics based on human dignity and that all the spiritual traditions lend their support to this.(7)

Pass the joint round, take out the guitar, sing Kumbaya and kiss each other. In his speeches and the Commission’s report, the economic model is not questioned, in fact through the terms of reference they restricted the researchers and even banned them from dealing with certain issues.

Issues such as the role of the banks, the institutions and even the role of the USA in the conflict, which was reduced to isolated comments lacking in depth.  So Never Again means never again showing disrespect to someone and that we not seek recourse in violence to solve differences.

But that violence is not fortuitous and the bullets, the machetes, the chainsaws [common weapons in massacres] are used when the first victim of the economic plans refuses to submit.  So, Never Again has become: accept the established order and its plans! 

A Never Again to violence that says little about structural violence is an exhortation to surrender and is a Never Again until such time as it is necessary to resort to violence to impose the will the of the capitalist class.  Never Again for the moment, just like in Gaza.

End.

Notes

(1)  Castillejo, A. (2024) Enseñar después de Gaza?: La indiferencia perpetua la barbarie. Revisa Raya Mayo 16, 2024. https://revistaraya.com/ensenar-despues-de-gaza-la-indiferencia-perpetua-la-barbarie

(2)  Although the Never Again project changed since its foundation in 1995 in terms of participants and leadership, some of the reports are available on the site https://nuncamas.movimientodevictimas.org

(3)  See Guatemala Nunca Más https://www.odhag.org.gt/publicaciones/remhi-guatemala-nunca-mas/

(4)  See Informe “Nunca Más” http://www.derechoshumanos.net/lesahumanidad/informes/argentina/informe-de-la-CONADEP-Nunca-mas.htm

(5)  See chapter Los Puertos: Importando el Terror, Ó Loingsigh, G. (2013) La Reconquista del Pacífico: Invasión, Inversión, Impunidad. PCN. Bogotá. https://www.academia.edu/23970346/La_reconquista_del_Pacífico

(6)  Ó Loingsigh, G. (2003) La Estrategia Integral del Paramilitarismo en el Magdalena Medio. Organizaciones Sociales. España. https://www.academia.edu/96631813/LA_ESTRATEGIA_INTEGRAL_DEL_PARAMILITARISMO_EN_EL_MAGDALENA_MEDIO_DE_COLOMBIA

(7)  Speech by Francisco de Roux to the UN
https://www.comisiondelaverdad.co/palabras-de-francisco-de-roux-ante-el-consejo-de-seguridad-de-la-onu