Friday 29th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

diplomacy of new extremes....

Rishi Sunak has given Britain’s full approval to the flattening of Gaza.

Late on Oct. 7, the prime minister tweeted “we stand unequivocally with Israel.” Sunak had expressed “full solidarity” to Benjamin Netanyahu, the tweet added.

As Netanyahu had promised “mighty vengeance” following the Hamas-led offensive that morning, there was no room for doubt about the signal which Sunak was sending.

 

By David Cronin
Declassified UK

 

In a few words, Sunak took Britain’s foreign policy to a new extreme.

Israel’s “mighty vengeance” is shaping up to be its most destructive bombardment ever of Gaza and its 2.3 million inhabitants.

A “mighty vengeance” endorsed by 10 Downing Street.

There is a long history of the U.K. supporting Israel’s wars. 

‘A Real Act of War’

Through the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain sponsored the Zionist colonisation project. Ruling Palestine from the 1920s to the 1940s, Britain took a series of concrete steps towards realising the project’s objectives. In so doing, Britain paved the way for the Nakba, the mass expulsion of Palestinians.

[Related: AS`AD AbuKHALIL: The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine]

Yet since Israel was formally established in 1948, Britain’s relationship with that state has involved a number of twists. 

[Ed.: An “anti-Zionist” British Foreign Office opposed the creation of the State of Israel, according to the book The 1945-1952 British Government’s Opposition to Zionism and the Emergent State of Israel.] 

In 1956, Britain and France used Israel to do their dirty work.

At a secret meeting in Sevres – a Parisian suburb – during October that year, a plan was hatched to attack Egypt over its nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company (an Anglo-French firm and a key player in international shipping).

Moshe Dayan, the Israeli military chief who took part in those discussions, subsequently revealed that the plan put on the table there was presented as a British initiative. Selwyn Lloyd, then Britain’s foreign secretary, advocated that Israel commit “a real act of war,” Dayan wrote in his memoirs.

The Israeli attack on Egypt – and the skullduggery by Britain and France – drew an irate response from the U.S. As the dominant world power, it could not countenance the notion of Britain acting without its authorisation.

Under U.S. pressure, a ceasefire was called later in 1956 – though not before such horrors as a few massacres in Gaza.

The Suez fiasco put Britain in its place. It was of pivotal importance in making Britain behave as a junior partner to the American superpower.

[Related: AS`AD AbuKHALIL: Saudi-Iran Deal a Possible US ‘Suez Moment’]

Labour’s Friends of Israel

Despite being told off for its underhand dealings, Britain kept on providing valuable assistance to Israel. Harold Wilson was a keen admirer of Zionism. That can be seen in his book The Chariot of Israel.

The government which Wilson led in the 1960s proved accommodating to Israeli requests for arms. Hundreds of Centurions – British-made battle tanks – were delivered to Israel between 1965 and 1967.

During June 1967, Israel used those tanks in its invasion of Arab territories.

Israeli military commanders were “handsome” in praising the tank, it has been documented. The tank “apparently did far more than was ever expected of it,” a memo drawn up by the British embassy in Tel Aviv stated.

The June 1967 war was the beginning of a military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza and the Golan Heights which persists to this day.

The numerous British statements that have subsequently been issued against the occupation – and, in particular, the construction of settlements – must be viewed sceptically. The truth is that the occupation was enabled by British weapons and that the British political elite was pleased with that fact.

A key, though little-known, British document on Israel dates from May 1968. Penned by Michael Stewart, then foreign secretary, it stated that “the survival of Israel as a separate state is a fundamental aspect of our Middle East policy.”

The document nonetheless indicated that Britain also wished to cultivate strong relations with Arab countries. For that reason, it recommended Britain should maintain an “approximate balance of military strength” between Israel and its neighbours.

1973 & 1982

Such thinking explains how Britain responded to the October 1973 war between Israel and a number of Arab states, headed by Egypt.

On that occasion, Britain halted weapons supplies both to Israel and several of its Arab enemies.

U.S. planes taking arms to Israel were even prevented from landing in British military bases. The measure was necessary, Washington was told, as Britain did not wish to antagonise Arab oil providers on which it had become dependent.

Margaret Thatcher was Britain’s prime minister – and waging her own war to retain the Falkland Islands – when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982.

Her thoughts on the invasion can be found in a letter to Ronald Reagan, then the U.S. president. She contended that there was “an urgent need for a balanced policy” and that “unlimited support for Israel can only lead to growing polarisation and despair in the Arab world.”

If not unlimited, Britain had given Israel significant support ahead of the invasion. More than 100 Israeli soldiers received training in Britain between 1981 and 1982.

A July 1982 memo from Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Israelis “have been sharing with us their latest battle experience.”

Such eagerness to learn from Israeli tactics were at odds with public statements. Thatcher denounced the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila – Beirut-area camps for Palestinian refugees – as an “act of sheer barbarism.”

The massacres were carried out by Israel’s Lebanese allies the Phalange and with Israeli assistance. Thatcher’s reaction – whether sincere or not – is, therefore, probably the strongest denunciation of Israel or an Israeli proxy by a British prime minister.

Mandatory Support

Tony Blair – whom Thatcher regarded with great affection – never dared to direct a similar message towards Israel.

Instead, the prime minister enthusiastically backed Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon. Reflecting on that war in his memoirs, Blair claimed Israel’s soldiers were engaged in an epic struggle between “modernity and atavism.”

It should be recalled that Blair encountered pushback from his party colleagues over his support for Israeli aggression. Blair even complained that he “suffered” (his word) for his stance, which “probably did me more damage than anything since Iraq.”

Rishi Sunak is unlikely to suffer for his embrace of Israel. Applauding Israel is considered mandatory in 2023 for the leaders of Britain’s two main parties.

There is little hope that the British political elite will do a U-turn and start taking Palestinian rights seriously. Change can only come through mass mobilisation by ordinary people in Britain or anywhere else.

David Cronin is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada, a website focused on Palestine. His latest book is Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support of Zionism and Israel.

This article is from Declassified UK.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/10/19/sunak-takes-uk-support-for-israel-to-new-extreme/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

ginko.....

THIS ARTICLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAELI NASTY STUPIDITY BUT WITH GENERAL STUPIDITY... GINKO TREES ARE UNIQUE IN THEIR GENUS. MANY EUCALYPTUS SPECIES, ONLY ONE GINKO SPECIES... ONE CAN SEE SOME AMERICAN INFLUENCE IN "MODERNISING JAPAN" TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARDS" OF STUPIDITY.... PROTEST:

 

A plan to redevelop the Jingu Gaien complex is causing an uproar. If it goes ahead, it will damage Meiji Jingu Gaien Avenue, a street some 300 meters long lined on either side with a double row of century-old ginkgo trees, and will result in the felling of a thousand trees in the Meiji Shrine's outer gardens. The idea is to transform the area around the national stadium that was built for the 2020 Olympics, replacing several sports venues such as the Chichibunomiya Rugby Stadium with more modern structures topped by shopping centers...

 

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/22/tokyo-s-busy-obliterating-its-charm-with-urban-renewal_6194279_4.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO:

the china/Japan conundrum where american alliances have nastily shifted....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

a bomb from the god people....

It's true that Israel didn't "bomb the al-Ahli hospital" in Gaza on the night of Oct. 17th 2023. The evidence suggests it did something much worse. 

As is the case with all other hospitals in Gaza, al-Ahli hospital had become a refuge for the thousands of people internally displaced in Gaza due to Israel's massive bombing campaign that began on Oct. 7th. On the night of Oct. 17th, hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children had congregated in the courtyard of the hospital (the hospital itself being already full) because they believed it to be a relatively safe haven from Israeli bombs. 

Canon Richard Sewell, the dean of St George's College in Jerusalem, told the BBC that about 1,000 displaced people were sheltering in the courtyard when it was hit, and about 600 patients and staff were inside the building. 

Not only had the IDF already warned this hospital in the three consecutive days before the explosion that it would be attacked, they actually attacked it on Oct. 14th, hitting the cancer ward. Since Oct. 7th, the WHO has reported 59 attacks on healthcare establishments in Gaza City and 137 across the entire territory of the Gaza Strip. 

Note also that, in the past week, Israeli political and military elite have publicly stated that they view all Palestinian resistance groups as "literal Nazis" and by implication the Palestinian people as "Nazi sympathizers", and therefore "subhuman" and not entitled to the same rights as "normal" human beings. 

Initially, and based on claims by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and hospital staff, the media reported that Israel had bombed the hospital, "killing hundreds of people." Within a day however, the IDF claimed that the explosion was in fact a result of a PIJ rocket that "misfired" and hit the area, and provided evidence to "prove" it. 

Since then, both the UK's Channel 4 and Al Jazeera (video below) have convincingly debunked this IDF claim, showing that the PIJ rocket in question was fully destroyed by the Iron Dome missile defense system about 7 seconds before the explosion at the hospital, and therefore could not have been responsible for the damage to the courtyard and the deaths of 471 people. 

There is also video evidence of the sound of a jet in the air about 2 seconds before the explosion at the hospital. 

The Photo Evidence 

Below is an image of the crater in the courtyard left by the missile/bomb

Note the small size of the crater and also the likely direction of the missile/bomb (from the East/North East) based on the scarring pattern to the right of the crater (Westwards). The official Israeli narrative on this event is further discredited by their claim that the "failed PIJ rocket" came from almost the opposite direction, the South West. See here for a forensic analysissuggesting the missile/bomb came from the North East. 

The IDF and others had also claimed that it could not have been an Israeli missile/bomb because they leave much bigger craters. Such a 'hot take' however, ignores the fact that there are many different types of bombs in the Israeli arsenal. And some of them have specific purposes that mean they do NOT leave a large crater (more on that in moment). 

Next look at these images of the cars that were parked within 5-10 meters of the crater. Note that several of the roofs of the cars are caved in by significant downward pressure. Notice also the damage to the tile roof in the background that appears to have been "ablated" from above rather than from below. 

 

The next image shows tile roofs of buildings situated to the right (West) of the impact crater and the burned cars. The height of the roof of the large building is approximately 8-10 meters. The damage appears to be consistent with the impact of objects moving in a horizontal/downward direction rather than up and outward blast debris from a ground impact that would have caused more damage to the building facade than the roof. In addition, given the small size of the crater, it is unlikely that there was enough 'ejecta' to cause this widespread damage while also killing hundreds of people.


The image below [see image] shows significant shrapnel (or projectile) damage to the East of the crater site also, suggesting a 300-degree dispersal. 

 

The various Palestinian resistance groups have rockets at their disposal that carry warheads ranging in size from 5kg to 20kg.

Here's an example of 20kgs of explosive 5 meters from the detonation site. 

[see movie]

 

While a standard Palestinian rocket hitting the ground could plausibly have caused the crater and at least some of the shrapnel damage to cars and buildings seen at the site, it is unlikely that it could also have killed 471 people, regardless of how tightly packed together they were, simply because it lacks the explosive power and shrapnel volume to do so. 

The Most Likely Explanation 

Given the extent of Israel's ongoing surveillance of Gaza, the fact that up to 1,000 people had congregated at that location was very likely known to the IDF command. Certainly, such a large group of people would have been clearly visible to the pilot of a jet that dropped the bomb/missile via his FLIR imaging sensor. 

Bombs with airburst setting detonate at a pre-set height above the ground, dispersing either shrapnel or cluster munitions over a wide area. They are designed to be used against "soft targets," i.e. people, rather than buildings. Most of the explosive energy of the bomb does not impact the ground but disperses in the air with the shrapnel. 

The video below shows the effects of a US-made mark 83 airbust bomb, and subsequently GMLRS missiles with a M30A1 warhead with airburst fuze, detonating at 10 meters above the ground. Notice how a small part of the explosive energy and probably the tail fin of the missile assembly continues through to the ground, while the large majority of the explosive energy (along with the rest of the missile body and any added cluster munition) is dispersed over a downward circular pattern. The impact on the ground directly in line with the angle of the bomb/missile would be minimal, mirroring the small crater at the hospital courtyard. 

In the comparison below between two bombs (one a mark 83 JDAM configuration bomb from Afghanistan, the other from the attack on the al-Ahli hospital), while the sound is the same, the first ejects a large plume of debris into the air because it exploded on impact with the ground. In the 2nd clip from the hospital attack, there is no such plume visible (and no large crater) because it was most likely an airburst bomb, the explosive force and shrapnel from which was absorbed, partly by the cars and buildings in the courtyard, but primarily by the bodies of the hundreds of people who had congregated there. 

 

The most likely explanation then is that an Israeli Air force jet deliberately fired a US-made Mark 83 bomb with JDAM guidance kit and airburst fuze setting on the courtyard of the hospital where up to 1,000 Palestinians were seeking refuge - ironically, from Israeli bombs. The intent was not to target the hospital itself because in that case an airburst bomb would not have been used and the hospital itself would have been hit. In the case of 'bad aim', the crater in the courtyard would be much larger. 

The likely intent, instead, was to target the 1,000 people in the courtyard with a bomb that was specifically designed to kill as many 'soft' targets as possible. 

The only unusual aspect of this event was the efforts made by the Israeli government and military to deny responsibility. After all, Israel has, to date, had no problem in destroying entire buildings in Gaza with many people inside. Why would they make an exception for the al-Ahli massacre? Was it the unusually large number of civilian deaths, and that they were deliberately targeted? Or was it the fact that the 'optics' of such a bloody massacre using an American plane and an American bomb were particularly bad given that Biden was arriving the very next day? And was it the Biden administration that pushed the Israelis to mount a media offensive, not to apologize, but to deny that they (and therefore the Americans) had anything to do with it? 

I suppose we'll never know the finer details. But given the available facts and the overall context in which the massacre occurred, there is little doubt that the massacre at the al-Ahli hospital courtyard has Zionist fingerprints all over it.

 

https://www.sott.net/article/485298-Evidence-That-an-Israeli-Jet-Dropped-an-Air-Burst-Bomb-on-the-al-Ahli-Hospital-Courtyard

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

british laundry....

The British Royal Navy has reportedly abandoned a century-old custom of employing Chinese laundrymen on its warships because of fears that they could be coerced by Beijing into stealing military secrets.

UK officials are so concerned about the Navy’s traditional ‘servants’, who hail mostly from Hong Kong, that Nepalese Gurkhas are being hired to replace them, The Sun newspaper reported on Monday. “Spy catchers fear Beijing could threaten laundrymen’s loved ones in China to make them pass on Navy secrets,” the newspaper said.

Hundreds of Chinese laundrymen have worked on British warships – cleaning and pressing sailors’ uniforms and officers’ tablecloths – since the early 1900s, when Hong Kong was a UK colony. The tradition began as a local custom and developed to involve a steady supply of laborers from contractors in Hong Kong.

Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West said it was disappointing to see the tradition end. “If it is a question of security, the Navy has no choice, but it’s sad, as Chinese laundrymen have fought wars with us,” he told The Sun. “Some have died for us.”

Three Chinese nationals were recently barred from working on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the British Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, during its latest voyage to the South China Sea. The Sun said another Chinese laundryman was sacked this month, despite having 39 years of loyal service, because his family lives in Hong Kong.

The new policy comes amid deteriorating Sino-British relations. In recent years, the UK reclassified China as a “threat,” rather than a “strategic competitor,” and banned Chinese companies from participating in the development of the country’s 5G telecommunications network. A parliamentary researcher was arrested last month on allegations of spying for the Chinese government.

MI5 chief Ken McCallum claimed earlier this month that China has been trying to steal secrets on British nuclear submarines. He also accused Beijing of trying to recruit spies in the UK to steal technology, saying that more than 20,000 people had been approached covertly online by Chinese intelligence agents.

READ MORE: UK accuses China of widespread industrial espionage

At least four Chinese laundrymen have been able to pass security vetting and retain their jobs because their families moved to the UK, making them less vulnerable to possible coercion, The Sun said. “We ensure all civilian contractors have the appropriate security clearances,” a British Navy spokesperson said.

https://www.rt.com/news/585633-uk-navy-ditches-chinese-laundrymen/

 

MEANWHILE THE BRITS NEVER EVER NEVER SPY ON CHINA....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....