On Political Parties: I can be and it actually is a very emotional affair

Political Parties can be a very emotional affair. It is not just about ideas or sharing beliefs. When you get really and trully involved, it feels like family. You care and it affects even the way you feel about yourself. At one point you come to define yourself as part of a bigger reality. It is a bit like going on vacation or going to a party. At the beginning, you are full of expectations. Adrenalyne flows in huge amounts. When vacations come to an end, when parties come to an end, there is a sort of anti-climax. I guess the same happens in many other situations or settings. You see the wake of people who are there no more. The illusion is no more. All the expectations, all the excitement, is replaced with memories and melancholy.

Dominic Cummings: Whistleblower or Spiteful man seeking revenge no matter what?

 

For months on end, the Opposition targetted Dominic Cummings identifying him as the source of all evil in the British government. Mr. Cummings was pictured and depicted in the most negative manner, harassed by journalists and lots of ink was spread about him being the worst of the worst. They even laughed when he presumably was infected with Covid-19.

Months passed and one day Dominic Cummings was fired by the Conservative goverment. The Opposition celebrated. Finally, they had got their man and he was out of government. Such an evil influence he had been! Now, months later after he was fired, he has now been made the centre of attention because he is saying exactly what the Opposition wants him to say to attack the Conservative government.

But wait a minute! Mr. Cummings is saying that he knew that lives were being put at risk and chose to stay in government, keeping his mouth shut while thousands were dying? So here comes the fact. If what he says is true, then Mr Cummings is guilty as hell for being part of a lethal cover up and criminal charges should be raised against him for being an accomplice of serious crimes. He says that he knew that lives were being put in danger and chose to remain silent until when? Until he was fired. Only months after he was fired he calculated that it was then the time to talk and reveal all. This stinks as the cold blooded maneuvers of a political manipulator that knows which buttons to press to get things his way.

The Opposition has been a disgrace, failing to carry out proper opposition, focusing on scandals instead of promoting viable alternatives and now the Opposition - once again - is not offering the kind of choices that ordinary voters want to hear about. What is the reality of it all? Britain is coming out of Lockdown. The economy is starting to pick up speed and moving in the right direction. The country is once again open for business and business is what Britain is about. 

Do I trust the present Opposition? The previous Shadow Cabinet was a shambles with various examples of sheer incompetence and then came yet another reshuffle very much like a game of chairs. The grass roots of the Labour Party, elected representatives of the Labour Party, are publicly saying that they don't know what the Labour Party stands for, that they don't have a clue about what the Labour Party stands for. People were joking about the demotion of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party that was given so many attributions as compensation for her demotion that she might have become a risk for the Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer.

Things are so bad, the Labour MPs who are still loyal to the previous Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn even with that the Labour Party does badly in the Batley and Spen by-election due to take place in July as a way to get rid of Keir Starmer. Is using what Mr Cummings is saying - regardless of it being true or false - a way to divert attention from the miserable state the Opposition is in?

The disconnect between the Labour Party and its supporters is plainly obvious. In Batley and Spen, a community with a vast presence of people of Pakistani and Indian descent (16.9% Pakistani and 15.9% Indian) where Labour has had a majority since 1997, 60% per cent of voters voted for Brexit. The London centric Labour Party seems to be ignoring the will of its supporters all along. They ignored the will of voters in Hartlepool and were routed by the Conservative Party. Wil they seek to ignore the will of voters once again in Batley and Spen? 

I understand why the Opposition is trying to find some alternative narrative to motivate voters to come out and vote for them. If Kim Leadbeater really want to win the seat in Batley and Spen she might be well advised to put some distance between herself and the Parliamentary Labour Party, between herself and the leadership of the Labour Party, and to choose to fight the election on purely local issues. Keir Starmer position on geopolitical issues might not carry the favour of people who are predominantly Muslim. Some die-hard Remain stances might not be very favourable either. 

 

Politics beyond labels: a way to healthier politics

For too long, politics has been about labels. You identify as this or that and then people presume that you think this or that because of the party political allegiances. In real life, people who join a certain political party do so because of the said presumptions only to realize later on that their choices have been made out of misconceptions.

In every political organisation there are different trends and schools of thought whether you are dealing with so called mainstream political parties, minor political parties or fringe political parties.Individuals cannot agree on everything and from time to time they will be leaning in opposite directions on certain issues.

Dissent does't arise out of nowhere. Differences of opinion always exist in all political organisations and when people start to focus on existing differences of opinion instead of focusing on what they agree on we talk about political crisis. Keeping everybody together is a balancing act. If there is a strong leader perceived as being in a winning position, people tend to put aside their differences because it pays to be on the winning side, but as soon as the leader is perceived as weak such a time is seen as an opportunity to get somebody interests that were put aside for the sake of unity.

You can look at a group of people as a whole or you can look at a group of people as individuals. If you look at a group of people as whole you tend to overgeneralize. If you look at a group of people as individuals you discover what really makes them tick. Even when people publicly express that they are in agreement there are personal preferences - likes and dislikes - you need to deal with and personal preferences do matter at the time of assigning roles within any organisation. Two people, members of the same organisation, presumably because they share what they perceive to be the views and aims of the organisation not necessarily have a good personal rapport.   

Kim Leadbeater: In a first past the post election, we should think more about the qualities of the candidate than about the qualities of the leader of a political party

 

Whether Kim Leadbeater is or isn't the sister of Jo Cox that used to represent Batley and Spen - there will be a by-election next July - is for some people a relevant issue and some think that she was selected to stand because she is the sister of Jo Cox.

For me, personally, it is about the qualities of the candidate and it should not matter who is the Leader of the Labour Party. It is a first-past-the-post election. We should focus on the candidate and not on who is the Leader of the party.

By the same token, people in Manchester voted for Andy Burnham because Andy Burnham was the man standing, I am sure that many of those voting for Andy Burnham do not agree with the way Keir Starmer is leading the Labour Party, but they still voted for Andy Burnham because they like the way he runs Manchester as Mayor of Manchester. The same should apply to Batley and Spen.

Some Labour MPs have publicly said that if the Labour Party loses the by-election in a seat that they have held since 1997 (the year when Tony Blair came to power as Prime Minister), it will be curtains for Keir Starmer's leadership. For some, this is about the Labour Party. I think this is about the person that the people of Batley and Spen want to represent them in Westminster.

Trying to equate Hartlepool with Batley and Spen is wrong for various reasons. Firstly, the by-election in Hartlepool was called because the local Labour MP resigned because of an ongoing investigation into sexual abuses. The situation is Batley and Spen is radically different. The by-election in Batley and Spen was called because Tracy Brabin - the local Labour MP - was elected Mayor of West Yorkshire. 

There is a significant factor. In the EU Membership Referendum, 60 per cent of those who voted voted for Brexit. Therefore, some in the Labour Party should tone down their anti-Brexit rhetoric and at least try to respect the will of the voters of Batley and Spen.

Kim Leadbeater has spoken with wisdom. She has reminded the official Labour Party that far too many Labour MPs have no experience of the real world and that this contributes to their detachment from ordinary voters. 

Tommy Robinson: Manipulation is the art of having somebody do what you want without getting publicly involved

Message sent to a Zionist organisation in London and referred to Members of Parliament including members of the British government, the Opposition, the Muslim Council of Britain and mass media including Lizzie Dearden, writer for The Independent thas has been involved in reporting about Tommy Robinson, and also sent to the Metropolitan Police in London that been repeatedly involved in actions involving public rallies and demonstrations and the courts. 

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Tommy Robinson standing on an IDF tank is Israel and then they tell you that he is not one of them. Ah, look! He is holding a gun. How many non-Jews would be allowed to hold a war gun standing on an IDF tank in Israel? What you tell us in London goes against factual information. At every rally, there have been Zionists supporting Tommy Robinson and his anti-Muslim messages.  During his courts trials, Zionists have been very visible supporting Tommy Robinson and Israeli flags have accompanied every single rally in support of Tommy Robinson. Those organising and supporting Tommy Robinson’s rallies at the highest level are Jewish: Israeli Jews and non-Israeli Jews.

Perhaps you could come up with a coherent, consistent and plausible explanation. I copy this message to the Muslim Council of Britain. I reckon they also deserve an explanation.

Perhaps you can also offer an explanation to the Metropolitan Police and to other Police forces in the UK that have spent a huge amount of resources policing rallies that you supported while promoting animosity against Muslims in the United Kingdom.

You throw a rock, you hide your hands behind your back and claim to be innocent.

Best regards

Karl Hohenstauffen"

Undoubtedly, members of the public have been taken for a ride for a very long time and offered images that don't fit in with the narrative of certain organisations that use public perception for their own ends, ends that have little to do with their declared aims.

It is no coincidence that at a time when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that fully supports the Israeli Far Right is involved in pushing forward the agenda of a Greater Israel using ethnic cleansing to throw out Palestinians from the occupied territories, Zionist organisations are publicly attempting to distance themselves from individuals that have been useful to their cause. 

This happens also a time when more and more Jews are turning against Benjamin Netanyahu that has been visibly unable to win an outright majority in Israel and remain in power as a caretaker Prime Minister.

There is also the fact that as Prime Minister he has protection against the charges made against him by the Israeli Judiciary for serious cases of fraud in which his own wife is also signalled as being involved. Therefore the importance of fuelling the ongoing conflict producing killings and destruction is twofold: conflict and murder keep Benjamin Netanyahu in power and by the same token allows him to carry on with his agenda of ethnic cleansing.

Rachel Shabi, Jewish writer writing on The Independent, London, England, United Kingdom:  

As we count the toll and name the dead, the bloody, grinding narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has switched from “simmering tensions” to “escalating violence”. Everyday violence is now part of Jerusalem life. You sense it when Palestinian residents of this holy city, treated with animosity and suspicion, are deafened by the maddening hum of Israeli surveillance helicopters, when they face routine stop-and-searches and arrests by border police and often violent harassment from Jewish settlers. It’s there in the increasing presence of those settlers, not just in the expanding group of settlements that ring Jerusalem, but also in Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem and the Old City. It’s there in the hate mobs and the chants of “death to Arabs” that spill on to the city’s streets.

In the absence of a political framework, it’s inevitable that these “simmering tensions” will spasmodically escalate. For where else can the anger and unresolved disputes go if there are no political channels through which to mediate?

Political vacuums are opportunistically filled by extremists. In Jerusalem, hardline Jewish national-religious settler groups have taken their fight from the West Bank to the city’s holy sites. Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif – the beautiful walled compound in the Old City that is sacred to Jews and Muslims – has long functioned according to status quo agreements. Under these, Jews can visit but not pray at the sacred site, while the Western Wall, just underneath, is reserved for Jewish prayer. But in recent years, movements calling for Jewish prayer rights have repeatedly flouted the codes, causing tensions and disturbances at the compound.

To be clear, this is not a religious coexistence campaign; Jewish religious leaders have for centuries ruled against Jewish prayer at Temple Mount. Indeed, the aims of the settler-led movement for additional worshipping rights become more transparent when you hear how they want to destroy the Dome of the Rock and replace it with a third Jewish Temple.

This would be bad enough in itself, but such extremist national-religious groups, once fringe and marginal, are now powerful and mainstream, partly because they are supported and funded by the current, settler-endorsing Israeli coalition.

Rachel Shabi perfectly describes what is going on. Power in Israel has been taken over by Jewish Far Right Extremists, Far Right Extremists supported by Zionist branches across the world, the kind of people that support Tommy Robinson because what Tommy Robinson is doing in the United Kingdom is no different from what Zionists are doing in Israel and in the occupied territories. It is plainly obvious that they want to publicly distance themselves from Tommy Robinson for the sake of keeping appearances since Tommy Robinson has been defined as British Far Right and has a political past as former member of the British National Party and founder of other parapolitical movements. 

Organisations like For Britain led by Anne Marie Waters also have a pro-Zionist narrative and include  as members former members of the British National Party and this goes to show that when they are useful to promote messages supporting aggression in the occupied territories they are conveniently used. When they don't need to use them they call the said individuals Nazi, Fascist, Terrorist and the like.  

Keir Starmer: Captain, what are your orders?

Keir Starmer: Does the Captain of the ship know what he wants to do?

After the May elections, it was not all defeat for the Labour Party. Andy Burham won again as Mayor of Manchester and there were other successes at Mayoral Level. In Wales, once again, Labour came up victorious. 

What has become self-evident is that the Labour Party won certain elections in spite of Keir Starmer's term as Labour Party Leader and not because of Keir Starmer Leadership.

Both friends and foes keep asking: what that the Labour Party actually stand for? Now, Keir Starmer has come up with one word: Modernisation. He says that the Labour Party needs to be modernised to win elections.

 What does 'modernisation' mean in this particular case? Can he be more specific?

The most important issue is to define what exactly the Labour Party stands for under his leadership. He is the captain of the ship. The shadow cabinet is his team of officers onboard and the grassroots are his sailors. Do the officers know what the captain wants them to do? Do the sailors know what the captain expects them to do? Where is the ship heading to?

Right after the election, the main complaint was that the party doesn't know what it stands for, that the grassroots don't know what the party stands for and that voters don't have a clue about what the party stands for. Many Labour supporters couldn't bring themselves to vote for anybody else and stayed home in despair. The role of the captain is to lead and this is exactly what Keir Starmer is not doing.

How many hours did the Shadow Cabinet spend criticizing the government? How many hours did the Shadow Cabinet actually spend talking about specific and detailed policies? He came up presumably to get rid of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Is that all he has to offer?

Being an experienced lawman, an experienced barrister, does not make you a political leader. Keir Starmer has a one in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The obvious question would be: Does Keir Starmer know what he wants to do with the Labour Party?

In 1972, Robert Redford starred in the movie The Candidate. The son of a former Senator got himself elected Senator. On the day when his victory is confirmed, his agent finds him in his bedroom in a state of anxiety and fear. Instead of rejoicing because of his electoral victory, he is absolutely desperate and asks his agent 'What do I do next?' and begs for help because he doesn't know what to do.

Keir Starmer is a good and honest man. He is an experienced lawman. He expresses his opinions openly, but this does not necessarily make him a good political leader. Jeremy Corbyn is a conviction politician, somebody that trully believes what he is saying, but not necessarily a good political leader either.

The rules of the Labour Party dictate that to be a Labour Party Leader you must be a Member of Parliament. This would not allow Andy Burnham to stand for Labour Party Leader. Because of his role as Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham was very comfortably re-elected a few days ago. Every leadership change can be traumatic and there are still open wounds caused by the manner of the departure of the previous leader. The Labour Party is now more factional than ever before. The next General Election is due to take place in 2024. There was a reshuffle when Jeremy Corbyn was deposed and there has been yet another reshuffle after the May 2021 Elections. People are going to keep asking: what does the Labour Party stand for? Captain Starmer, what are your orders? 

 

Benjamin Netanyahu: The fate of millions of people lies in the hands of one man

 

Like it happens with all controversial politicians, there are two sides of Benjamin Netanyahu: one is the ideologically driven individual that wants the Bigger Israel no matter what and the other is the mortal individual that got into many dubious dealings that led the Israeli Judiciary to chase him.

The present Benjamin Netanyahu cannot get a Knesset majority and lives in borrowed time. He knows that the moment he steps down as Prime Minister of Israel the Judiciary will catch up with him and his reputation and his personal life will be dealt a deadly blow. Therefore, he will do whatever it takes to stick to power, even if this means all out war with Israel's neighbours. For Benjamin Netanyahu the ends justify the means and the lists of casualties and material losses will be his legacy. Long gone are the days of Yitzhak Rabin when lasting peace between Jews and Palestinian was mesmerizingly close.

Menachem Begin and  Anwar Sadat had achieved peace between Israel and Egypt leading to the restoration of territories that had been taken from Egypt in war. Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat held the keys to Paradise, but Paradise was not meant to be. A Far Right Jew killed Yitzhak Rabin and killed the peace process.

As far as Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned, peace is his greatest enemy. His support for Jewish thugs who call themselves Nationalists led to the incidents in a Mosque in Jerusalem during Ramadan and the Palestinian response followed. At the moment, a case is going through the legal process in Israel that is directly linked to the rights of Palestinians to live in Jerusalem. Jewish Far Right activists claim that Palestinian homes in Jerusalem belong to them. This is the core of what is happening right now. Jerusalem, like the rest of the occupied territories, has been subjected to ethnic cleansing with Israeli Arabs stating that in Israel itself they are being treated as second class citizens.

Benjamin Netanyahu does not represent Israel and does not represent what Israel stands for, but his actions are affecting the wellbeing of Jews inside and outside Israel. In this particular situation, Jews and Palestinian are being held hostage by Benjamin Netanyahu for reasons that have nothing to do with Israeli security, but more to do with an extremist agenda and his unwillingness to face the courts and be accountable. This is why Israelis and Palestinian are dying.

 

Israel: Those who live by the sword die by the sword

 

The idea of a Promised Land turned into a nightmare

Even before 1948, the year when what we know as the State of Israel came to be, Palestine was in flames. Palestine was the possession of many empires including the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The Crusaders went to Palestine presumably to liberate it from the ones they called the Infidels - translation of those who professed another faith that wasn't their faith. Murder, rape, and destruction have for a very long time been common currency in Palestine and given what we know such lamentable state of affairs is not going to come to an end any time soon. Tonight, once again, violence has spread across Palestine. Peace in Palestine is never an ever lasting reality and, as always, those who live by the sword die by the sword. For centuries, Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together without any formal state. Oh, yes, they were not always at war. The coexisted. Under British rule Palestine was a Protectorate and there was rule of law, but a precarious peace was not meant to last as events in Europe triggered a process that to put an end to the Protectorate and led to the partition of Palestine. 

Until the start of World War Two - officially started on September 3, 1939 - two days after Germany invaded Poland - National Socialist Germany was initially in favour of the idea of sending Jewish populations to Palestine and the so called Zionist Movement was very much in favour of it as they wanted Jews to go to what they called the Promised Land. But the start of World War Two frustrated many plans. 

By the end of World War Two, once again, the Zionist Movement renewed its efforts and finally in 1948 the partition of Palestine took place and the State of Israel was born, but not all Jews chose to go to Palestine. Many of those who were leaving Europe chose to go to other countries i.e. the USA. After what they had been through before the war and after the war, quite a few were not willing to face any more so much hardship. The State of Israel of 1948 was nothing compared to today's Israel as conflict after conflict the State of Israel took more and more land from its neighbours and expansion has never really stopped. Such expansion at the expense of local populations could only lead to confrontation and this is exactly what we are witnessing today.  Instead of an ever lasting peace, it has created an ever lasting war that has been affecting other parts of the world for a very long time.

Nazanin: British outside Iran, but Iranian in her country of birth

The time to understand the way International Law works is long overdue. To hear a British minister talking about Iran using British citizens as hostages when in fact they are Iranian and hold British citizenship because of double nationality is appalling. 

Such kind of statements completely misrepresent what is actually going on. Iran is duly entitled to deal with its own citizens. While in Iran, British citizens born in Iran are de facto Iranian and not British. 

With regards to obligations Britain has regarding Iran, it is well known that Britain owes monies to Iran, monies that Britain is mandated to pay. This has been going on for ages and it is an issue that has poisoned British/Iranian relationships. Is it due to geopolitics? Is Britain failing to comply with international obligations contracted with Iran because of geopolitical considerations? 

It is thought that if Britain paid its debts Iranian attitudes would change, but what has happened for decades hasn't helped. Iran has been under siege and British history of interventions in Middle East and Asia Minor has made matters a lot worse. Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, USA and Britain have been involved in actions against Iran. They used Irak under Saddam Hussein to wage a chemical war against Iran because Iran dared to claim ownership of its oil resources. They never forgave Iran for daring to stand as an independent country.

When USA and Britain decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they created a vacuum that is now being filled up by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran with other countries being affected in the whole process. A mass exodus created by Britain and the USA led to neighbouring countries being flooded with refugees and this completely destabilized the entire region. The conflict in Syria very much started with the so called Arab Spring that both Britain and the USA promoted. The conflict in Yemen is perhaps and without perhaps the biggest tragedy that Britain and the USA actively contributed to create. What happened in Libya, what happened in Egypt, what is happening in Syria, what is happening in Yemen, what is happening in Lebanon and what is about to happen in Jordan could have been avoided. 

A knee-jerk reaction led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and this was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and what happened then is history leading to the mess we are in nowadays.

When we look for an explanation of why Iran could ever want to have nuclear weapons, the explanation is self-evident. Iran would look for nuclear weapons to deter any aggressor. Isn't this the explanation or justification for Britain to have its Nuclear Deterrent. Well, Iran is also entitled to have its Nuclear Deterrent to protect itself for external aggression.

In order to lower tensions, Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Iran. Paying debts could be a first step in the right direction. Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Saudi Arabia to reassure other players in the Middle East and Asia Minor that Britain will not support aggression against Iran and Britain will not be involved in wars by proxy like the ongoing conflict in Yemen. All regime-changing attempts must come to an end. All military interventions on foreign soil must come to an end. All demonizing campaigns by the political establishment and the mass media must come to an end. All economic warfare must come to an end. Normalization of relationships is the best way to prevent cases like the case of Nazanin from ever happening again.

 

China: Wars are about money

 

It is no secret that while USA has been waging wars on credit and getting increasingly into debt, China has beed working hard, spreading its influence across the world and investingly heavely in the UK, in the USA and in many other countries.

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of how the USA has been operating, getting into debt, fuelling or creating conflicts around the world and using the consequences of conflicts it has created to invest more and more in the weapons industries - investing monies that the USA does not really have.

When the obvious consequence of such folly becomes self-evident, the recipe to ignore where the root of the problem really lies is to blame China and Russia as if demonising China and Russia the problems of the USA could be magically solved.

The conflict in Ukraine, for example, is a Ukrainian issue, but it is constantly used by the USA to justify massive military deployments. The conflict in Hong Kong and in Taiwan is a Chinese issue, but once again it is used by the USA to justify accusations about 'Chinese aggression and lack of democracy'. China has been a Comunist country since the days of Mao Tse-Tung, but the West including the USA were very happy to ignore whatever was going on in China because they wanted to invest in China to make money by using cheap labour and then sell manufactured products back in the West.

China took the transfers of resources and increasing indebtness of the West - including the USA - to develop its own economy and perfect technology to compete with the West and buy in the West whatever it could buy. China buys soy from Argentina and invests in Brazil in the creation of gateways to link the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean across Brazil. China invests in Africa because Africa is rich in mineral resources that China really and trully needs to develop its industries. China invests in New Zealand and Australia that now see their economic future that depends on their relationship with China.

While America speculates with dubious financial investments that ruin its economy and condemn millions of Americans to abject poverty, China - despite its ideological stance - is creating more wealth that the USA and heading towards pole position when it comes to world powers. 

Covid-19: Barclays Bank forecasts the bigges economic boom in the UK since 1948

 

While may of us worry about the economic prospects during the pandemic and after the pandemic, Barclays Bank forecasts the biggest economic boom in the United Kingdom since 1948.

The news is extremly encouraging and helped by good weather and the will of the British people to finally come out of the Lockdown period to start spending and enjoying their newly found freedoms might well be the key for more spending, faster turnout of monies spent and an explosion of optimism to get us out of the doom and gloom period to start runnning towards higher rates of exployment and of consumer satisfaction.

This happens when our neibouring EU countries are still in a muddle in what concerns Lockdowns, vaccinations and the number of infections and life losses and adding to this the climate of instability that leads to street protests and confrontation as countries like Germany and France are heading towards General Elections. One can only wonder what will be the outcome of those elections and the political repercussions across the European Union.

Covid-19 and the pandemic are health issues that have quickly turned out to be highly charged political issues in terms of competence of authorities to deal with health crisis and the willingness of elected representatives to pass ever more restrictive and in some case more repressive legislation.

We await the new dates for greater opening of Britain and we await also the outcome of experiments of social mass gatherings to detect the effects concerning the spread of infection.