Recent debates over at Socialist Unity have prompted the Friendly Lefty, in a feeble attempt at humour, to offer the following suggestion for a drinking game – so as to make the experience altogether more bearable. Feel free to suggest additions if you please. Enjoy!

Take a sip of your drink of choice every time someone …

- announces that millions of working-class people want a hard-left workers’ party to vote for …
- … or proposes the immediate formation of a new workers party
- calls the Labour Party ‘Zanu-Labour’
- says the Greens are ‘neoliberals identical to the establishment parties of big business’
- says Respect has abandoned working class politics and is now indistinguishable from Labour
- denounces Ken Livingstone for having been ‘Blair’s Mayor’
- proposes Bob Crow for Prime Minister
- says Salma Yaqoob hasn’t done anything to demonstrate that she is a ‘socialist in any meaningful sense’
- asks how anyone could ever vote Labour as they are a party of war and privatization
- says that Labour and the Tories are the same
- says that Compass are a left cover for Blairism
- argues that Diane Abbott is unsupportable because she sent her boy to an independent school (double sip if they then won’t accept that Black working class children have it worse off than white working class children)

Take a hearty glug whenever anyone …

- attacks Chavez for not abolishing the post of President of Venezuela and inaugurating a period of soviets and workers’ cooperatives (take a double glug if they then won’t accept that this would lead the revolution to be violently crushed within weeks)
- predicts that George Galloway will be back in the Labour Party by August
- argues that a electoral coalition composed of the Socialist Party and a couple of trade union general secretaries acting in a personal capacity could provide a viable left alternative at May’s general election
- calls Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness traitors to the cause of Irish freedom (double glug if they then offer no practical steps towards Irish freedom)
- refuses to accept that Black and Asian shop-owners can be oppressed by racism, because they are ‘petit-bourgeois’

Neck the bottle …

- Whenever Ian Donovan posts a comment
- If a middle-ground is amicably agreed

OK, so I know I said only one post today, but I couldn’t help but provide a link to Simon Fletcher’s article from a few days ago, on the recent revelation that Boris Johnson acknowledged the success of Ken Livingstone’s crime strategy whilst Mayor.

A lot of ultra-left crap often flies about which says that Ken, as a socialist mayor, should have shunned the police, refused to fund them or provide the money for more of them in London’s communities. They are agents of the monied class, you see. But actually, you will find that if they work positively to keep people safe and operate in a non-discriminatory way with everyone, working class people rather like it that there is a police force. That fact may at some point change. But at present it is the truth.

The Friendly Lefty is off to the Troops out of Afghanistan demonstration in an hour, but there’s time to point out Ken Livingstone’s article on Comment is Free, which sets out clearly enough the reasons why Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time will in reality have done nothing to set back the rise of British fascism and was instead a gift to them.

Ken writes:

If we want to defeat the fascists, we have to promote different politics – not concede on their terms. This is all the more important in a period when millions of people are out of work, or face economic uncertainty, as a result of a financial crisis they did not create.

As you would expect from an article by Ken, it has attracted a huge number of comments, including many who would claim to be on the left but are hostile not to the BNP but to him. 

The BBC has rolled the dice and played the great gamble.  They didn’t have to invite the BNP onto Question Time, in light of this week’s ruling that in light of the Race Relations Act, the party’s constitution illegally excludes ethnic minorities. And they didn’t have to do so now, of all times, when public trust in politicians is so low.  There is a case – made this morning by Ken Livingstone – that the BBC is morally responsible for any rise in race-related violence that may now occur.

But at some point, the argument would have been null and void.  The BNP has participated in recent elections as an authentic political party.  900,000 people voted for the BNP in June, and they won seats in the European Parliament.  To deny them membership of the political club would set a dangerous precedent and raise awkward questions – who decides?

No longer can senior political figures refuse to address the threat of right-wing extremism, and more to the point, nor will they.  Peter Hain, who argued against showcasing the BNP, made common cause with the hundreds of protestors at White City, but Jack Straw stepped in to ensure a heavyweight political response.  The party is now a mainstream issue.

But did it benefit them?

Well, some of the criticism levelled at Nick Griffin was counter-productive.  The fact that the show revolved so decisively around the BNP to some extent worked in his favour.  Griffin was not challenged on policies, except for those where the BNP has its strongest support, such as immigration. 

Did the rest of the panel look like it took immigration seriously?  Perhaps the Conservative claim to want to cap immigration will pay dividends.  Perhaps not.  Griffin’s talk of ‘indigenous people’ is incoherent, and abhorrent to many, but is emotive and rings true to some.

Griffin may prove to be his worst enemy.  He is a strange, skittish character, who tries hard but can’t be mainstream.  His last appearance on Andrew Marr’s show saw him call for migrants’ boats to be sunk in the middle of the Mediterranean.  Tonight he looked uncomfortable, refused to renounce his Holocaust denial on the basis that he could be extradited to a European country where that is a crime, despite that not being the case.

But he is also shamelessly populist.  Immigration is just one example.  Mr Griffin may claim Winston Churchill as an ideological antecedent, but he refuses to go to war in the Middle East.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps he will chime with public opinion, but his reasons for applying his live and let live philosophy to Iran strikes me as appeasement.  There was even some triangulation – positioning himself between the self-proclaimed mainstream and the really, really nasty right-wing (the violent KKK!), and disapproving equally of Jan Moir’s now infamous Gately-gate article, and homosexuality.

Churchill and I

The amount of time spent discussing Churchill’s place in British history and British present was something of a surprise.  The arguments put forward were patently emotive, and none very satisfactory, largely because they refused to admit the obvious – that cultural standards have changed (dare I say it – I think I do) progressed since Churchill’s day.

To the British Churchill symbolises resistance to encroachments on British sovereignty.  Many on the right today argue that the collaboration he championed after the Second World War is irrelevant to the European Union of today.  For the left to claim Churchill is very difficult.  He was progressive in his Liberal incarnation, and even contributed to the development of the welfare state.  But these facts are not part of the debate.

In many ways, the British reliance on tradition is part of the problem.  I refuse to accept the argument that Labour are responsible for the rise of the BNP by carrying forward privatisation, though there is evidence to suggest that areas where council houses have been sold off are susceptible to the BNP’s message.  There is little fascism in America, after all.

What the debate about the BNP refuses to acknowledge is that mainstream politics cannot succeed without appealing to aspiration.  This year optimism has sunk to new lows, and is not helped by the politics of the depression. 

That said, however, the British are quite capable of rallying around worthy causes, and in today’s Britain, the aspiration of all is the most potent of political weapons.  The elevation of the BNP may prove to be an awakening, but if not, we are sleepwalking into dangerous territory.

On another note, Andrew Neill’s description of Diane Abbot as a chocolate hobnob (and Michael Portillo as a custard cream) seemed wonderfully appropriate on so many levels.  Anyone else feel the same?

// Israel/Palestine: Palestine-Israel, The joint struggle of the direct actions of the AAtW and Palestinians escalate. Uri Gordon’s Anarchy Alive on video. (Plus ZMag review.) Another friend for the Palestinian cause: Hungary’s fascist Jobbik party. The first “anti-Zionist” anti-war movement.

// Boycott news (for @ndy): Ken Loach vs Israeli film. Will they boycott antibiotics? Vanessa Redgrave won’t stand for the anti-Israel boycott. It is hard to believe that someone as bright as Naomi Klein gets it wrong so many times. Whom does this boycott help?

// Germany: The DDR’s Nazi heritage. The “Jamaica coalition”: the Greens align with the Right in Saarland. Nazi garden gnome “art”. Porsche’s slave labourers. Momo and the grey men: structural antisemitism in children’s books?

// Baader-Meinhof: On Hitchens and Baader-Meinhof: Red or brown? Who cares. (More from Terry Glavin, linking to J Carter Wood, who links to Andrew Hammel, who links to Paul Hockenos).

// US: Alison Weir of CounterPunch continues to promote blood libel. Lyndon LaRouche zombies sing.

// UK: Remember Johanna Kaschka? The ex-Baader Meinhof fellow traveller, later connected to George Galloway and now a Tory and embroiled in a libel case against Labour bloggers? Oh, and also a theorist of bizarre conspiracies involving Masons and the New World Order? Read Dave Osler and Lucy Lips for an update. Also: The International Marxist Group and the morality of the Brighton bombing. Ken and Hamas.

// Austria: Praising Haider.

Big news today on London Transport fares. Boris Johnson is introducing an unprecendented rise to London Transport charges – THE LARGEST EVER in tube and bus fares!

Here’s what they’re all saying about it:

Bus fares are to go up by 12.7% and Tube fares will rise by 3.9%. Oyster card pay-as-you-go bus journeys are to rise from £1 to £1.20.
The Congestion Charge is rising to £10, while Mr Johnson said a £9 charge for those using a new account system would be operational next year.
The mayor said the price of a seven-day bus pass will also jump from £13.80 to £16.60 but London Travelcard prices will be frozen in the vast majority of cases.

Source: BBC

We’ve got a very, very clear choice. It is to pay a comparatively small price now, or [rather] in January, or pay a huge price later on, in five, ten, 15 or 20 years time. If we miss this opportunity to continue the upgrades and the improvement of London’s transport infrastructure, which will make this city not only much more liveable and better for everybody to move around in, but more competitive for generations to come.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson

I left Boris Johnson with very large Transport for London reserves and plans to raise more funds and protect the environment. He has cut investment, reduced protection of the environment and hammered ordinary Londoners with above inflation fare increases. In essence his policy is that the majority of Londoners should pay to subsidise the better off and worst polluters. That is no joke for London.

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone

The Mayor is pricing people off public transport, whilst favouring motorists by going ahead with plans to cancel the western extension of the congestion charge. Part of his fares increase will pay for the gap left by losing around £55m of congestion charge income. The Mayor has today highlighted the pollution caused by old buses, but he was the one who dropped the £25 congestion charge on gas guzzling cars, which would have generated around £30m in its first year. Everything the mayor does shows a bias in favour of the motorist and against public transport users. Even the long delayed increase in raising the congestion charge will be after bus and tube passengers have already started paying their extra fares.

Green Party London Assembley Member Jenny Jones

pdf Document with the breakdown of the changes from the BBC’s website: LINK

.. and from the Evening Standard: LINK

You can read plenty about Boris Johnson’s rather impressive hikes in TfL’s fares today elsewhere. With many of the increases coming in at more than 18 times the current rate of CPI, describing them as ‘inflation-busting’ would be like calling Richard Littlejohn ‘moderately right-wing’. And, worryingly for our jovial Mayor, for all his attempts to pass the blame for the increases off as being the fault of Ken Livingstone, the quite correct notion that Johnson inherited healthy TfL reserves and has bought this for the most part on himself is gaining traction. As Dave Cole notes, the extra revenue to be raised by the incredible 20% increase in Oyster Pay-as-You-Go fares on buses fits very neatly into the £50-£70m hole left by the removal of the Western Extension of the Congestion Charge.

Combine that with the decision not to proceed with the Gas-guzzler Charge, the end of the Venezuela oil deal, the scrapping of bendy buses and the advent of the neo-Routemaster – all at a time of falling fare-box income thanks to economic circumstances pertaining – and you begin to see where the hole comes from. And that’s why Boris is coming after you with his hat.

And when I say ‘you’, I mean ‘you’ (possibly), not ‘me’. One thing you won’t see much of in the coverage of the new fare regime is a complaint that you aren’t paying enough. Well, here’s one. The 2010 TfL fare settlement is too lenient on me – and on people like me. And it makes me sick. The graph at the top of this post may give you an idea why.

In his wisdom, Boris Johnson has decided that the one set of fares that need to be frozen at this time are (almost all) weekly, monthly and annual Travelcards. To briefly defend the Mayor, part of the cost of the Travelcards is set via DfT-controlled National Rail fares, which will fall by 0.4% this year. Thus it could be argued that TfL is in fact raising its Travelcard fares this year – but only be a infinitesimal amount.

I commute daily from zone 3 into zone 1, using the mainline train, with a bus-Underground combination in standby. Because I am lucky enough to be in a reasonably well paid job, I can afford to pay the £1,208 for an Annual Travelcard. Were I a little less well off, but still having a reasonable amount of cash in my pocket, I could instead buy monthly or weekly Travelcards. Overall, these would cost me more than the Annual card, but I’d save on paying for individual journeys.

Well, the Mayor has decided to reward people like me. Inflation is low, but it is not non-existant – CPI is currently running at 1.1% (and indeed, was at 1.6% when this fare package was being put together). For my fares to stand still in real terms, my ticket price should be going up to around £1221. Instead, it is standing still: so, in real terms a cut of a little over £13. If I purchased monthly or weekly travelcards, that cut would be in the region of £14 and £15 respectively over the course of the year. TfL, therefore, is almost certainly going to make less money from me in 2010 than it did in 2009: a rather strange decision from a supposedly cash-strapped organisation, you might think.

So, where is the cash coming from instead? Well, with a Tory at the helm of TfL, you probably don’t need to think too long to answer that. Yep, the low-paid. With the Underground and mainline rail being relatively costly forms of transport, those on a limited income are likely to take the bus – and if you’ve ever taken the 188 or the 53 out towards South East London you’ll know there are plenty of people who use these services for very long commutes. And it’s for them that this fare package is really going to hit home. If you use your Oyster Card on Pay-as-you-Go to make two journeys per working day (c.235 per annum), your yearly travel bill will rise in real terms by £88.83. If you are able to afford a weekly bus and tram pass, you’ll be paying a whopping £124.47 extra (again, in real terms). So that is where the money is coming from to pay for my reduced fares.

Sure, Johnson is keeping the raft of mainly Livingstone-era concessionary fares mainly in place. That is to his credit. But in this recession, it is often those falling just above income support level who are suffering most. If they use public transport, they are most likely to be bus users: and it is to them that Johnson – who claims to be trying to help Londoners through the recession – has just delivered a massive smack in the face.

I’m not trying to claim that every Travelcard holder is rolling in cash. Any significant rise would be painful for many. But I doubt that Johnson doesn’t have the data to hand to show where the socio-economic split falls in terms of travel modes. If pain is to be had, it needs to be shared a round a bit, not just aimed at those least able to take it. The Mayor needs to think again. Simply raising my Travelcard by the rate of inflation would help a bit. But if it is necessary for most passengers who can’t afford to pay months in advance to suffer an increase well above 10%, then raise it a bit more. Otherwise this just looks like a bribe taken from the poor and thrown in the direction of the more Boris-amenable suburbs. I’ve nothing against using transport policy as an agency of redistribution – Livingstone showed that in a limited way it can be done. I do object to it being used to redistribute wealth back to the wealthy.

Yesterday ought to have been one of the defining moments of Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. Three draft strategies published, covering housing, planning, economic development and transport (or, in other words, barring policing pretty much everything the Mayor has any meaningful influence over). Somehow, it didn’t quite feel that way, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, there is Johnson’s sudden ability to hide from public view when matters of substance and detail rear their ugly heads. The contrast with his normal persona is remarkable. After all, the Mayor is normally happy to engage in publicity  stunts for the TV cameras, write expensive rubbish for the Telegraph or inundate us with 13 oh-so-fascinating photos of himself at Conservative Party Conference via his Twitter account. But just as Blair didn’t do God, Johnson doesn’t do detail. So with three hefty documents being published in his name, Macavity wasn’t there. As Ken Livingstone’s former Chief of Staff Simon Fletcher writes on his blog:

Although these strategies are now up for public consultation, the mayor chose to launch them not with a press conference for the media who communicate with millions but with a meeting of City Hall staff.

All we, the great London unwashed,  got from the Mayor is a solitary tweet.

Sure, the Strategies got some media coverage – but not what the Mayor would have wanted. Instead of running big on Johnson’s vision for London, The Evening Standard instead picked up almost solely on the most controversial aspect of the strategies – and amongst the least likely to happen – a bit of gentle boat floating of road pricing in order to cut TfL’s deficit. To my own cynical mind, this is a classic case of straw-man building: introduce road pricing as a possibility into the public consciousness, then attempt to reap the benefit of a 2012 manifesto pledge not to introduce it during a second term. But if he’d been prepared to be the public face of his strategies, Johnson might have managed media coverage that was a bit wider both in terms of reach and subject matter.

Perhaps the main reason for the lack of a ‘big occassion’ feel to yesterday was, on first skim reading at least, the lack of anything of any real interest in the document themselves. Most of the contents are either long pre-trailed Johnson policies, non-commitments (lots of use of the words ‘work with’, ‘consult on’, ’study’ and ‘consider’), and restating of the Mayor’s predecessor’s policies. These are huge documents (300+ pages), so I may have missed stuff of vital importance and many better qualified people will no doubt be poring through them as I type; London Reconnections will no doubt have worthwhile stuff on the Transport document.

The Transport Strategy in particular appears to exemplify the half-baked, non-evidence based and generally contradictory approach to policy making that Johnson has adopted. Given it is the bastard son of the awful Way to Go! document, that should be no surprise. On major public transport schemes, we know that the Mayor abandoned projects such as the Cross-River Tram and Greenwich Waterfront Transit on the basis that:

What we cannot do is spend tens of millions keeping projects alive, for political reasons, when there is simply no government funding to deliver them.

Short-sighted, I argued at the time, but a policy position none-the-less. But those were his predecessor’s unfunded schemes. In the Transport Strategy we instead get some new unfunded schemes: a major extension of the Bakerloo line, and some new DLR extensions. Welcome, if they ever happened, but far more expensive than most of the schemes already scrapped and similarly lacking in either government or TfL funding. And what’s this we see? Our old friend, the Dagenham extension of the DLR – so cruelly cut down twelve months ago – has been reinstated in the strategy, but having lost a year’s worth of project development and funding lobbying opportunities.

Then we have the contradictions. Read paragraphs 711-13 on the Western Extension of the Congestion Charge (p.249) and you’ll be convinced that road user charging is a sure-fire way to kill off small businesses and enterprises. Move on three pages and road charging suddenly becomes an acceptable way to fill the (Johnson-inflicted) black hole in TfL’s finances.

Given that TfL fares are going to be a big issue this week, I thought it might be worth briefly focussing on what the Transport Strategy has to say on this issue, and to compare it with the previous Transport Strategy, published by Ken Livingstone in 2001. Boris’ strategy is on p.244 here, Ken’s here. 

Firstly, we can note that the 2001 fare section is 7 pages long; the 2009 version 2 pages, lacking in the evidence base provided in 2001. It is also evident that the earlier strategy set out specific proposals on fares, e.g.

The approach to public transport fares over the next three years will include a bus fare freeze and capping of Underground fares in real terms.

That’s a quantifiable, ambitious pledge on which an elected representative can be judged. Similar specifics included the introduction of a 70p flat bus fare before the introduction of the Congestion Charge and the simplification of Tramlink fares. Turning to 2009, there is no such specific pledges. Instead, we get generalised phraseology about ’striking balances’ and ‘maintaining affordability’. Nothing to be held to, no specific target to aim at.

And if you want to be really worried about what Thursday’s fare announcement could bring, all you need to do is compare the headline policies on fares proposed by both documents.

Fares policy will aim to make public transport more attractive and affordable, with more consistency between modes, greater simplicity and convenience for passengers, shorter queues and quicker journeys. [Policy 4B.2, 2001]

The Mayor will ensure that fares provide an appropriate and necessary level of financial contribution towards the cost of providing public transport services to ensure that public transport continues to play a central role in London’s transport system and overall economic development. [Proposal 119, 2009]

Lost in those intervening eight years is a commitment to affordability, gone is any real recognition as to what can be achieved socially through a low fares policy. Now, the key thing is to find ‘an appropriate and necessary level of financial contribution’, a phrase which could cover a multitude of sins. Even more worrying is Proposal 120:

The Mayor will keep the range of concessions for which he is responsible under review to ensure that they are focused on where they will be most effective at helping those in most need of them.

I think the writers of Yes, Minister blew the gaffe on what ‘under review’ means in politician speech some while ago. For something that hasn’t yet happened, it means it won’t happen, for something that already exists, it’s doomed. We know already that the half price fares for the unemployed are having a very low take-up rate thanks to minimal publicity; we also know that the travel concession for those on income support is costing TfL a lot more now its funded from their own pockets, rather than by cheap Venezuelan oil. Something tells me both may be early victims of the ‘review’.

I have little doubt that a comparison of any section of these two documents would turn up similar differences. From a quick read, the Transport Strategy is an odd mixture of meaningless platitudes, half-way completed schemes dating back to the Livingstone era, pie-in-the-sky thinking, missed deadlines (PAYG Oyster on National Rail now pushed back to December 2010) and phraseology that will allow for the worst sorts of slash-and-burn policy. An even quicker read of the other two documents suggests something similar. They may have been launched with minimal fanfare, but yesterday was still an important day. Eighteen months in, we have confirmation that Boris has truly made his mark on City Hall: it is churning out policy documents that like him are lazy, inconsistent, muddle-headed and of limited use to London.

In 1980 Thatcher’s Conservatives kindly embarked on a programme to deregulate and privatise the bus service, deregulating all bus services throughout Great Britain, except in London and Northern Ireland, with the Transport Act 1985. Turning what should be a public service into a competition for profits. Companies can pick and chose the most lucrative routes, leaving some areas with little or no service.



I’m sure most people who have to regularly use bus services can tell you horror stories about their journeys, I have several, and that’s without the constant unannounced fare increases, increases that don’t appear to lead towards any sort of improvement in standards. Perhaps because it is predominantly the poorest sections of society that regularly use the bus services the companies don’t care about the standards they are providing, but the government and local councils should.

Since privatisation of the service in the 1980’s the number of people using bus services has continued to decline, apart from in London where numbers rose from the year 2000 when Ken Livingstone was handed powers over city bus routes and prices when the capitol regained a city-wide governing authority. The Liberal Democrats have often pledged to reverse deregulation; Labour should be doing the same.



These poorly run, profit driven, privatised services not only cause problems such as disrupting peoples daily lives and costing businesses time and money due to employees left at the mercy of an unreliable service but they force more and more people into their cars. Either people are unwilling to pay the high fares for an unreliable and often dirty and unpleasant journey or their area is simply not well serviced. With the disaster of climate change looming over us we should be doing anything we can to reduce emissions, surely getting people out of their cars and onto a green method of public transport is a sensible option but I can only see it happening if the services are re-regulated and taken out of the hands of profit driven businesses. There is no real incentive for the majority to give up their car travel at present and brave the buses. The evidence in London shows that further regulation does increase use.



As well as acting to reverse deregulation and privatisation we should embark on a program similar to the Clean Fuel Bus Program, an initiative by local government, in New York City which is envisaged to give New York City the worlds cleanest bus fleet. The New York City Bus service has implemented several measures to achieve a more environmentally friendly, more accessible service across the city (further details can be found here). The program has involved retiring older, polluting, buses and replacing them with clean diesel technologies and electric hybrid models. We should be making better use of these technologies in Britain.



There is the potential to transform the current service into a regulated, reliable, environmentally friendly, beneficial service that people will actually want to use. The Labour government should take the initiative and start working towards this transformation, not only correcting one of the many Thatcherite mistakes but aiding the efforts to reduce emissions in Britain and fight climate change. The Tories aren’t going to do it, it is up to us.

This evening the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson makes a cameo appearance in BBC One’s EastEnders. However, his appearance has been met with criticism by his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, who has branded the BBC’s decision to allow Boris to sup on a pint in the Queen Vic as ‘biased’. Is this just a case of sour-grapes from Mr Livingstone, at the sight of seeing Boris enjoy a positive public profile – one that he could have only dreamed of – does it indeed show the corporation’s political bias, or is it simply another example of the celebritisation of British politicians?

Tonight, viewers will see Boris Johnson involved in a short scene with Walford veteran Peggy Mitchell, played by Barbara Winsor, who has recently been involved in a storyline where she became involved in local politics.

Bo-Jo, as he is affectionately known by the tabloids, has stated that his appearance is to “promote” the art, culture and media sectors in the city, which generate about £9bn. But it seems that Livingstone sees things slightly differently.

Back in the mid 1980s when the BBC soap had only just begun, Livingstone approached the programme with the view of making a cameo. But the BBC turned down his proposal, stating that they did not think it was “right to have a politician on a soap”.

The former Mayor, who held office between 2000 and 2008, make a second approach to the soap in 2006, when he asked them to highlight a Labour recycling campaign by displaying posters on the set. His request was again turned down by show bosses who viewed that it was not “appropriate, as it was political”.

It may seem then that the BBC have done a u-turn on their policy, and it’s fair to say that Mr Livingstone is less than happy about it, questioning the BBC’s political integrity.

“They’ve obviously changed their tune, but then they have always been quite keen on Boris. They were relentlessly hostile to me in the 18 months before the election.”

Ken Livingston has also been backed by fellow party member Murad Qureshi, a Labour member of the London Assembly, who has brought into question the issues of image management and the celebritisation of politics; where the media are used by politicians in order to be seen as a celebrity and therefore influence the public’s perception.

“It’s a coup for Boris, being portrayed as pretty straight guy on such a popular show.

“But I would question whether it’s in the BBC’s remit to influence the public’s perception in this way.”

Obviously as a public service broadcaster, the BBC does have a duty to remain politically impartial, but where Qureshi states that the BBC “should always be even-handed and consistent when dealing with political figures, not turning down some and promoting others”, he does obviously not understand the different contexts in which the BBC’s decisions to accept or turn down requests for appearance were made. When Livingston asked to appear in the 1980s, he was not Mayor of London, and was therefore of no relevance to the soap. Boris cameo this evening is not to promote any sort of campaign, unlike where as Ken wanted to use EastEnders as a way to spread the message about recycling.

A spokesman for the BBC has said that Johnson’s appearance “is compatible both with BBC Editorial Guidelines and the principle of due impartiality” and also stated that it fits in with the current storyline involving Peggy Mitchell’s involvement in local politics. I really can’t see that the BBC has broken any impartiality guidelines. If there was an upcoming election, and coverage was granted to one party over another, then yes, the BBC should have been facing some tough questions. As this is not the case, all I find the BBC guilty of is trying to represent today’s London, and as Mayor, Boris is a figure that represents that well. And yes, Boris may well have tried to get on the show to manage his public image, but it is no worse than the endless spin we have been subjected to from the Labour government over the past 12 years.

New Statesman/Contre-Info.info

Loin de vouloir la « destruction d’Israël », les dirigeants du Hamas réaffirment régulièrement qu’ils recherchent un accord de paix et de reconnaissance mutuelle avec Israël sur la base des frontières de 1967. Tout comme Ismail Haniyeh, qui a défendu cette position dans une lettre adressée mardi au secrétaire général de l’ONU, Khaled Mechaal, le dirigeant du Hamas exilé à Damas, considère qu’un « règlement pacifique réaliste du conflit devrait commencer par un accord de cessez-le feu entre les deux parties, basé sur un retrait complet d’Israël de tous les territoires occupés en 1967. » Ce sont, dit-il, « l’intransigeance israélienne et l’absence de volonté d’agir de la part de la communauté internationale qui entravent ce règlement. » Dans un entretien accordé à Ken Livingstone, il s’exprime sur les perspectives de paix, le blocus de Gaza, la désunion palestinienne.

Khaled Mechaal s’entretient avec Ken Livingstone, pour le New Statesman, 22 septembre 2009

Ken Livingstone : Pourriez-vous parler un peu de votre enfance et des expériences qui ont façonné le développement de l’homme que vous êtes aujourd’hui ?

Khaled Mechaal : Je suis né dans le village cisjordanien de Silwad, près de Ramallah, en 1956. Dans ma jeunesse, mon père m’a raconté comment il avait participé à la révolution palestinienne contre le mandat britannique en Palestine dans les années trente et comment il avait combattu aux côtés d’autres Palestiniens, avec des armes rustiques, contre les organisations sionistes, bien équipées et entrainées, qui attaquaient les villages palestiniens en 1948.

J’ai vécu à Silwad pendant 11 ans avant la guerre de 1967, lorsque j’ai été obligé avec ma famille de quitter la maison et de m’installer en Jordanie, comme des centaines de milliers de Palestiniens. Ce fut une expérience traumatisante que je n’oublierai jamais.

KL : Que vous est-il arrivé après la guerre ?

KM : Peu de temps après, j’ai quitté la Jordanie pour le Koweït, où mon père avait déjà vécu et travaillé avant 1967. Après avoir terminé mes études primaires en 1970, j’ai rejoint le prestigieux lycée Abdullah al-Salim. Dans les années soixante-dix, il était au centre d’une intense activité politique et idéologique.

Au cours de ma deuxième année au lycée Al-Salim, j’ai rejoint les Frères Musulmans. Après avoir terminé ma quatrième année j’ai obtenu avec succès l’admission à l’Université du Koweït, où j’ai suivi un cursus en physique.

A l’université du Koweït, il y avait une section active de l’Union Générale des Etudiants Palestiniens (UGEP), qui était sous le contrôle absolu du mouvement Fatah. Mes camarades islamistes et moi avons décidé en 1977 de rejoindre l’UGEP, dont nous étions auparavant restés à l’écart, et nous nous sommes présentés aux élections. Toutefois, travailler à l’intérieur du GUP s’est avéré impossible, nous nous sentions constamment entravés, et avons compris que nous autres islamistes n’y avion aucune chance. En 1980, deux ans après mon diplôme, mes jeunes collègues ont décidé de quitter l’UGEP et de former leur propre association palestinienne sur le campus.

De nombreux étudiants avaient été déçus par les dirigeants palestiniens, qui semblaient vouloir se contenter de beaucoup moins que ce dont ils avaient rêvé en grandissant, à savoir la libération totale de la Palestine et le retour de tous les réfugiés dans leurs foyers.

KL : Quelle est la situation à Gaza aujourd’hui ?

KM : Gaza est aujourd’hui en état de siège. Les passages sont fermés la plupart du temps, et depuis des mois les victimes de la guerre israélienne contre Gaza se sont vues refuser l’accès aux matériaux de construction pour rebâtir leurs maisons détruites. Les écoles, les hôpitaux et les maisons dans de nombreuses parties de la bande de Gaza doivent être reconstruites. Des dizaines de milliers de personnes restent sans abri. A l’approche de l’hiver, les conditions de ces victimes ne feront que s’aggraver avec le froid et la pluie. Un million et demi de personnes sont prises en otage dans l’une des prisons les plus grande de l’histoire de l’humanité. Ils sont incapables de se déplacer librement hors de la bande, que ce soit pour un traitement médical, l’éducation ou tout autre besoin. Ce à quoi nous assistons à Gaza c’est à un désastre et un crime contre l’humanité perpétrés par les Israéliens. La communauté mondiale, par son silence et son indifférence, agit en complice de ce crime.

KL : A votre avis, pourquoi Israël impose-t-il toujours le siège de Gaza ?

KM : Les Israéliens prétendent que le siège est justifié par des raisons de sécurité. L’objectif réel est de faire pression sur le Hamas en punissant toute la population. Les sanctions ont été mises en place peu après la victoire du Hamas aux élections palestiniennes en janvier 2006. Bien que la sécurité soit l’une de leurs préoccupations, ce n’est pas la principale motivation. L’objectif principal est de provoquer un coup d’Etat contre le résultat des élections démocratiques qui ont porté le Hamas au pouvoir. Les Israéliens et leurs alliés cherchent à provoquer l’échec du Hamas en persécutant le peuple. C’est là une entreprise affreuse et immorale. Aujourd’hui, le siège continue malgré le fait que nous ayons observé un cessez le feu durant les six derniers mois. L’an dernier, une trêve avait été observée de juin à décembre 2008. Pourtant, le siège n’a jamais été levé, et les sanctions sont restées en place. L’objectif principal du siège est d’affaiblir le Hamas. Les Israéliens espèrent retourner la population contre le Hamas en augmentant les souffrances de tous les habitants de la bande de Gaza.

KL : Combien de partisans du Hamas et de représentants élus du Hamas sont détenus en Israël ? Ont-ils tous été accusés et reconnus coupables de crimes ?

KM : Sur un total de 12 000 prisonniers palestiniens détenus en Israël, environ 4000 sont membres du Hamas. Il s’agit notamment des dizaines de ministres et parlementaires (les membres du Conseil Législatif Palestinien). Une dizaine ont été récemment libérés, mais environ 40 membres du CLP restent en détention. Certains ont été condamnés à des peines, mais beaucoup sont détenus au titre de ce que les Israéliens appellent la détention administrative. Le seul crime dont ces gens sont accusés, c’est leur appartenance au groupe parlementaire du Hamas. L’exercice du droit démocratique est considéré comme un crime par Israël. Tous ces Palestiniens sont traduits en justice devant un système israélien qui n’a rien à voir avec la justice. Le système judiciaire israélien est un instrument de l’occupation. En Israël, il existe deux systèmes judiciaires : l’un s’applique aux Israéliens et l’autre s’applique aux Palestiniens. Il s’agit d’un régime d’apartheid.

KL : Dans le blocus de Gaza, quel rôle jouent le cas échéant les autres États et institutions, tels que les États-Unis, l’Union européenne, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Egypte ou l’Autorité palestinienne ?

KM : Le blocus de Gaza n’aurait jamais réussi sans la collusion des pouvoirs régionaux et internationaux.

KL : A votre avis, comment le blocus pourrait-il être levé ?

KM : Pour que le blocus soit levé, la primauté du droit international doit être respectée. Les droits humains fondamentaux des Palestiniens et leur droit à vivre dans la dignité et exempts de persécutions doivent être reconnus. Il faut une volonté internationale de servir la justice et faire respecter les principes fondamentaux du droit international des droits de l’homme. La communauté internationale devrait se défaire de l’entrave des pressions exercées par Israël, dire la vérité et agir en conséquence.

KL : Israël affirme que le bombardement et l’invasion de Gaza l’an dernier faisaient suite à la rupture répétée du cessez le feu par le Hamas et des tirs de roquettes sur le sud d’Israël. Est-ce le cas ?

KM : Les Israéliens ne disent pas la vérité. Nous avons eu un accord de trêve avec Israël à partir du 19 juin jusqu’au 19 décembre 2008. Pourtant, le blocus n’a pas été levé. L’accord prévoyait un cessez-le feu bilatéral, la levée du blocus et l’ouverture des points de passage. Nous avons pleinement respecté le cessez le feu tandis qu’Israël ne l’a observé que partiellement, et vers la fin de la période, il a repris les hostilités. Pendant toute cette période, Israël a maintenu le siège et a seulement ouvert par intermittence quelques points de passage, n’autorisant le transit que de 10% seulement des livraisons nécessaires pour les besoins fondamentaux de la population de Gaza.

Israël a tué la possibilité d’un renouvellement de la trêve car elle a été violée délibérément et à plusieurs reprises.

J’ai toujours informé mes visiteurs occidentaux, y compris l’ancien président américain Jimmy Carter, que lorsque l’on proposerait au Hamas une trêve incluant la levée du blocus et l’ouverture des points de passage, le Hamas adopterait une attitude positive. Jusqu’à présent, personne ne nous a fait une telle offre. En ce qui nous concerne, ce blocus équivaut à une déclaration de guerre qui justifie l’auto-défense.

KL : Quels sont les objectifs et l’idéologie du Hamas ?

KM : Notre peuple a été victime d’un projet colonial nommé Israël. Pendant des années, nous avons subi diverses formes de répression. La moitié de notre peuple a été dépossédée [ de sa terre ] et se voit refuser le droit de retourner dans ses foyers, et l’autre moitié vit sous un régime d’occupation qui viole ses droits humains fondamentaux. Le Hamas lutte pour la fin de l’occupation et pour la restauration des droits de notre peuple, y compris le droit à retourner chez soi.

KL : Quelle est votre opinion sur les raisons du conflit entre l’Etat d’Israël et les Palestiniens ?

KM : Ce conflit est le résultat de l’agression et l’occupation. Notre lutte contre les Israéliens n’est pas menée parce qu’ils sont juifs, mais parce qu’ils ont envahi notre patrie et nous ont dépossédés. Nous n’acceptons pas que les juifs aient le droit de prendre nos terres et de nous expulser parce qu’ils ont auparavant été persécutés en Europe. Les injustices subies par les Juifs en Europe ont été horribles et criminelles, mais elles n’ont pas été perpétrées par les Palestiniens ou les Arabes ou les musulmans. Alors, pourquoi devrions-nous être punis pour les péchés d’autrui, ou devrions nous payer pour leurs crimes ?

KL : Pensez-vous qu’Israël ait l’intention de continuer à étendre ses frontières ?

KM : Israël n’a pas officiellement défini ses frontières. Lorsque Israël a été créé dans notre pays, il y a 62 ans, ses fondateurs rêvaient d’un « Grand Israël » qui s’étendrait du Nil à l’Euphrate. L’expansionnisme s’est manifesté à plusieurs reprises : en 1956, en 1967 et plus tard par l’occupation de certaines parties du Liban dans les années quatre-vingts. La faiblesse arabe, la supériorité militaire israélienne, le soutien apporté à Israël par les puissances occidentales, et les massacres qu’il était prêt à commettre contre les civils non armés en Palestine, en Égypte et au Liban, lui ont permis de s’agrandir avec le temps. Bien que cet expansionnisme soit encore présent dans l’esprit de nombreux Israéliens, il semblerait que ce ne soit plus une option praticable. Les résistances libanaise et palestinienne ont forcé Israël à se retirer unilatéralement de terres qu’il avait précédemment occupé par la guerre et l’agression. Alors que dans le passé, Israël a réussi à vaincre plusieurs armées arabes, il se heurte aujourd’hui à une résistance formidable qui non seulement contrecarre son expansionnisme, mais aussi, avec le temps, l’obligera à renoncer à d’autres terres qu’il occupe illégalement.

KL : Quels sont vos objectifs principaux ? Le Hamas est-il avant tout une organisation politique ou religieuse ?

KM : Le Hamas est un mouvement de libération nationale. Nous ne voyons pas de contradiction entre notre identité islamique et notre mission politique. Lorsque nous nous engageons contre les occupants par la résistance et luttons pour les droits de notre peuple, nous sommes fiers de notre identité religieuse qui vient de l’Islam. Contrairement à l’expérience des Européens avec le christianisme, l’islam ne prévoit pas et ne demande pas de reconnaître une autorité ecclésiastique. Il prévoit simplement un ensemble de grandes orientations dont les interprétations détaillées sont soumises aux fins de l’homme (ijtihad) et en émanent.

KL : Voulez-vous la destruction d’Israël ?

KM : Ce qui se déroule en réalité, c’est la destruction du peuple palestinien par Israël. C’est lui qui occupe notre terre et nous exile, qui nous tue, nous emprisonne et persécute notre peuple. Nous sommes les victimes, Israël est l’oppresseur, et non vice versa.

KL : Pourquoi le Hamas recourt-il à l’usage de la force dans ce conflit ?

KM : Notre peuple a recours à la lutte armée parce que rien d’autre ne fonctionne. La conduite d’Israël et la complicité de la communauté internationale, que ce soit par le silence ou l’indifférence ou la confusion actuelle, justifie la résistance armée. Nous aimerions voir ce conflit résolu pacifiquement. Si l’occupation prenait fin et que notre peuple puisse exercer son droit à l’auto-détermination dans sa patrie, il n’y aurait alors aucun besoin de recourir à la force. La réalité, c’est que près de 20 années de négociations pacifiques entre les Palestiniens et les Israéliens n’ont restauré aucun de nos droits. Au contraire, nous avons subi plus de souffrances et plus de pertes en raison des concessions unilatérales faites par la partie palestinienne dans la négociation.

Depuis que l’OLP a conclu l’accord de paix d’Oslo avec Israël en 1993, davantage de terres palestiniennes en Cisjordanie ont été expropriés par les Israéliens pour construire plus de colonies juives illégales, étendre celles qui existent déjà ou construire des routes à usage exclusif des Israéliens vivant dans ces colonies. Le mur de l’apartheid que les Israéliens ont érigé le long de la Cisjordanie a occupé de vastes zones de la terre qui était censée être rendue aux Palestiniens selon les termes de l’accord de paix.

Le mur de l’apartheid et les centaines de postes de contrôle ont transformé la Cisjordanie en enclaves isolées, comme des cellules dans une grande prison, ce qui rend la vie insupportable.

Jérusalem est constamment chamboulée afin de modifier son paysage et son identité, et des centaines de maisons palestiniennes ont été détruites dans la ville et alentour, faisant de milliers de Palestiniens des sans abri dans leur propre patrie. Au lieu de libérer les prisonniers palestiniens, les Israéliens ont arrêté 5 000 palestiniens de plus depuis la conférence de paix d’Annapolis en 2007. Ces actes témoignent qu’ils ne sont tout simplement pas intéressés par la paix.

KL : Le Hamas a-t-il des activités militaires en dehors de la Palestine ?

KM : Non, depuis sa création il y a 22 ans, le Hamas a limité son champ d’opération militaire à la Palestine occupée.

KL : Souhaitez-vous établir un Etat islamique en Palestine, dans lequel toutes les autres religions auraient une position subalterne ?

KM : Notre priorité en tant que mouvement de libération nationale est de mettre fin à l’occupation israélienne de notre patrie. Une fois que notre peuple sera libre sur sa terre et jouira du droit à l’auto-détermination, lui seul aura dernier mot sur le système de gouvernance sous lequel il souhaite vivre. Notre ferme conviction, c’est que l’islam ne peut être imposé au peuple. Nous ferons campagne, dans un processus pleinement démocratique, pour un programme islamique. Si c’est l’option retenue par le peuple, ce sera alors son choix. Nous croyons que l’islam est le meilleur guide et le meilleur garant des droits des musulmans et des non-musulmans.

KL : le Hamas impose-t-il le vêtement islamique à Gaza ? Par exemple, est-il obligatoire pour les femmes de porter le hijab, le niqab ou la burqa à Gaza ?

KM : Non. Le Hamas tire ses concepts de la culture et de la religion du peuple. L’Islam est notre religion et est le constituant de base de notre culture. Nous ne nions pas que d’autres Palestiniens aient le droit d’avoir des visions différentes. Nous n’imposons au peuple aucune règle concernant la religion ou le comportement social. Les pratiques religieuses dans la société à Gaza sont authentiques et spontanées, elles n’ont pas été imposées par une autorité autre que la foi et la conviction des pratiquants.

KL : On dit que la division du peuple palestinien entre la Cisjordanie et Gaza et entre le Fatah et le Hamas, qui affaiblit de toute évidence leur position, provient du fait que le Hamas a pris le pouvoir par la force à Gaza. Est-ce le cas et comment expliquez-vous cette division ?

KM : Sans aucun doute, la division affaiblit les Palestiniens et nuit à leur cause. Toutefois, cette division n’est pas causée par le Hamas, mais par la volonté de certains acteurs régionaux et internationaux d’inverser les résultats issus de la démocratie palestinienne. Ils ont été consternés que le Hamas ait été élu par le peuple palestinien.

La division est aggravée par l’existence d’un parti palestinien qui cherche à se renforcer grâce à ces mêmes acteurs régionaux et internationaux, y compris les États-Unis et Israël, qui souhaitent voir le Hamas mis hors jeu. Peu de temps après sa victoire aux élections de janvier 2006, tous les efforts ont été déployés pour saper la capacité du Hamas à gouverner.

Lorsque ces efforts ont échoué, le général américain Keith Dayton, qui occupe actuellement la fonction de coordonnateur sur les questions de sécurité pour Israël et l’Autorité palestinienne, a été dépêché à Gaza pour préparer un coup d’Etat contre le gouvernement d’unité nationale du Hamas qui était sorti de l’accord de La Mecque de 2007. Ce complot a poussé le Hamas à agir à Gaza en état de légitime défense durant les événements de juin 2007. L’affirmation selon laquelle le Hamas aurait effectué un coup d’Etat est sans fondement parce que le Hamas était le premier gouvernement démocratiquement élu. Tout ce qu’il a fait, c’est d’agir contre ceux qui ont fomenté un coup d’Etat contre lui sous les ordres et les directives du général Dayton.

KL : Les autres formations politiques ou religieuses, comme par exemple le Fatah, jouissent-elles des libertés démocratiques à Gaza ? Quelle est la situation des membres du Hamas dans les territoires de Cisjordanie contrôlés par le Fatah ?

KM : Certaines factions palestiniennes ont été inspirées par le nationalisme arabe, d’autres par le marxisme ou le léninisme, et d’autres par le libéralisme. Même si nous croyons fermement que ces idées sont étrangères à notre peuple et n’ont pas réussi à répondre à leurs aspirations, nous insistons pour que le peuple soit l’arbitre final pour déterminer par qui il désire être conduit et quel est le système de gouvernement qu’il désire. La démocratie est donc notre meilleure option pour régler nos différents internes entre Palestiniens. Quoi que le peuple choisisse, cela devra être respecté.

Nous nous efforçons au mieux de notre capacité de protéger les droits de l’homme et les libertés civiles des membres du Fatah et de toutes les autres organisations de la bande de Gaza. En revanche, les Palestiniens de Cisjordanie vivant sous occupation israélienne et [sous la responsabilité de] l’Autorité palestinienne à Ramallah, continuent d’être privés de leurs droits fondamentaux. Le général Dayton supervise la répression dure et brutale contre le Hamas et d’autres groupes palestiniens en Cisjordanie. Plus de 1 000 prisonniers politiques, y compris des étudiants, des universitaires et des professionnels de différents secteurs, sont pourchassés, arrêtés et torturés, parfois à mort, par les des forces de sécurité de l’Autorité palestinienne, qui sont entraînées et financées par les Etats-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Union européenne.

KL : Pensez-vous qu’il soit possible de rassembler le peuple palestinien ? Si oui, comment pensez-vous que cela puisse être accompli, et selon quel calendrier ?

KM : Il est possible de rassembler les Palestiniens. Pour ce faire, deux choses sont nécessaires. Premièrement, les interventions et les demandes émanant de l’étranger doivent cesser. Le peuple palestinien doit être laissé gérer ses différences, sans pression extérieure. Deuxièmement, toutes les parties palestiniennes doivent respecter les règles du jeu démocratique et se soumettre aux résultats de ce processus.

KL : le refus du Hamas de reconnaître Israël est fréquemment cité comme étant un obstacle insurmontable pour les négociations et un règlement de paix.

KM : Cette question est uniquement utilisée comme un prétexte. Israël ne reconnaît pas les droits du peuple palestinien, mais cela n’est pas considéré comme un obstacle à la reconnaissance internationale d’Israël ou à sa participation aux négociations. La réalité, c’est qu’Israël est celui qui occupe la terre et détient le pouvoir. Plutôt que de demander aux Palestiniens, qui sont les victimes, c’est Israël, qui est l’oppresseur, qui devrait être invité à reconnaître les droits des Palestiniens.

Dans le passé, Yasser Arafat a reconnu Israël, mais n’a pas obtenu grand chose. Aujourd’hui, Mahmoud Abbas reconnaît Israël, mais nous attendons toujours les dividendes promis par le processus de paix.

Israël ne fait des concessions que sous la pression. En l’absence de toute pression tangible sur Israël par les Arabes ou par la communauté internationale, aucun règlement ne pourra réussir.

KL : Avez-vous une « feuille de route » définissant les étapes intermédiaires qui pourraient vraisemblablement mener à un règlement pacifique du conflit ? Pensez-vous que les juifs, les musulmans et les chrétiens puissent un jour vivre ensemble en paix en Terre Sainte ?

KM : Nous, au Hamas, pensons qu’un règlement pacifique réaliste du conflit devrait commencer par un accord de cessez-le feu entre les deux parties, basé sur un retrait complet d’Israël de tous les territoires occupés en 1967. Ce sont l’intransigeance israélienne et l’absence de volonté d’agir de la part de la communauté internationale qui entravent ce règlement. Nous pensons que c’est seulement lorsque notre peuple sera libre et de retour sur sa terre qu’il sera en mesure de déterminer la résolution du conflit.

Il convient de rappeler ici que nous ne résistons pas aux Israéliens parce qu’ils sont juifs. Au plan des principes, nous n’avons pas de problèmes avec les juifs ou les chrétiens, mais nous avons un problème avec ceux qui nous attaquent et nous oppriment. Durant de nombreux siècles, chrétiens, juifs et musulmans coexistaient pacifiquement dans cette partie du monde. Notre société n’a jamais connu le genre de racisme et de génocide contre « l’autre » que l’Europe a connu jusqu’à récemment. Ces choses ont commencé en Europe. Le colonialisme a été imposé à cette région par l’Europe. Et Israël est le produit de l’oppression des Juifs en Europe, pas de l’existence de quoique ce soit de semblable en terre musulmane.

KL : Quel rôle ont à l’heure actuelle, selon vous, les autres pays et organisations, en particulier les États-Unis, l’Union européenne et la Grande-Bretagne, dans le conflit israélo-palestinien et les divisions entre les Palestiniens ?

KM : Leur rôle à eux tous a été négatif jusqu’à présent. L’attitude envers les crimes israéliens contre notre peuple a été soit le silence soit la collusion. Les politiques et les positions adoptées par ces acteurs ont contribué à la division palestinienne ou l’ont accrue. D’un côté, les conditions exigées ont pour effet de torpiller les pourparlers pour l’unité et la réconciliation. De l’autre, certains de ces acteurs internationaux sont directement impliqués dans la répression de notre peuple en Cisjordanie. Les États-Unis et l’Union européenne fournissent financement, formation et conseils pour construire un appareil de sécurité palestinien spécialisé dans la persécution de ceux qui sont critiques de l’Autorité palestinienne à Ramallah.

Nous avons été particulièrement préoccupés par des informations faisant état d’une implication directe et indirecte du gouvernement britannique, par le biais d’entreprises de sécurité et d’anciens membres de la police, de l’armée et du renseignement, dans le programme dirigé par le général Dayton contre le Hamas en Cisjordanie.

KL : Que doivent faire les pays comme les USA et la Grande Bretagne pour aider à un règlement pacifique ?

KM : Il faut simplement respecter le droit international – l’occupation est illégale, l’annexion de Jérusalem-Est est illégale, les colonies sont illégales, le mur de l’apartheid est illégal, et le siège de Gaza est illégal. Pourtant, rien n’est fait.

KL : Quelles relations le Hamas souhaite-t-il avoir avec le reste du monde, et, par exemple, avec la Grande-Bretagne ?

KM : Le Hamas défend une cause juste. À cette fin, il souhaite s’ouvrir au monde. Le mouvement cherche à établir de bonnes relations et à mener un dialogue constructif avec tous ceux qui s’intéressent à la Palestine.

There are many reasons to love Sydney, like its constant blue sky. On the other hand today’s orange start gave an early preview of a post apocalyptic Sydney. I am waiting for the dust storm to come back later on in the afternoon, hoping to catch a glimpse of a very red sun set across the Quay. I guess this answers that old question “if the world is ending today, what will you do?” Looks like I will be out and about with a camera hoping that an alien race will be able to find my footage somewhere down the line.

Talking about the future, I managed to catch the last of the City Talks last week.

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone will give a free public talk about sustainable cities and integrated transport on Wednesday 16 September.

…
He will be joined by Lord Mayor Clover Moore MP. Ms Moore said; “We have much in common in our vision for our respective cities. Sustainable Sydney 2030 calls for better public transport, less cars, more walking and cycling.”

“A green, global and connected Sydney needs an integrated public transport system. Major public transport is at capacity and it is difficult to move efficiently around the city. Congestion inhibits economic development and private vehicle use is a major source of green house emissions,” Ms Moore said.

Also speaking at the City Talk will be The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Leader of the House, Federal Member for Grayndler.

The speakers will participate in a panel discussion chaired by ABC broadcaster Simon Marnie. They will be joined by Garry Glazebrook, Senior Lecturer, School of the Built Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, and Robert Whitehead, Director, Marketing & Newspaper Sales, The Sydney Morning Herald.

Aside from the fact that the talk was free, I was curious to hear what the panel would say about Sydney’s transport infrastructure. If there is one cause that all Sydney siders are united under, it’s our useless public transportation. Trains, buses, light rails and ferries are run separately with their own separate ticketing systems. Unless you live within the inner city suburbs, you will need a car. Riding a bike is just not an option for long distances unless you enjoy near death experiences on a daily basis.

It was actually quite depressing to hear Ken Livingstone speak. In less than a decade London managed to transform its transportation system into an efficient system that does exactly what a growing, vibrant city require. Listening to our Lord Mayor it became clear that any real changes to Sydney’s transportation system will only happen in the long term, and only after years of negotiations between the various bodies governing the entire transportation systems. I didn’t realise that as Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone was given almost total power to do as he saw fit to change the transportation system, hence cutting the years of red tape to almost nothing.

When the suggestion of congestion charge was mentioned, it was rather laughable as  this article rightly pointeded out in order to even think of congestion charge, this city will need a working transportation system to begin with.

I walked out feeling inspired, jaded and hopeful at the same time. Thankful that at least attempts were being made to start working on a single plan, but not trusting the fact that everything will happen within my lifetime. Food for thought, and on that note I am off to enjoy what Sydney has plenty to offer, food and plenty of it at one of Merivale’s Winter Feast.

Stay tune for more food news, in the meantime you might want to check Billy’s review on Teppanyaki’s Winter Feast.

This is a guest post by AKUS

The Guardian has taken quite a beating in its latest attempt to support the Hamas terrorists with its article Hamas is not al-Qaida, published on its ‘Comment is Free’ site.

In the language of American political-speak, they managed to demonstrate how completely they have lost their “base” – those who used to regard the Guardian, as I once did on my visits to the UK, as the paper to read for anyone who believed that there was something noble in the idea of caring for the weak and defenseless in society, and something wrong with fascist, xenophobic, misogynistic religious extremists.

A howl of disapproving comments descended on this article. Even CiF’s usual attempts to deny disapproval of Islamic extremism by ruthless deletion of comments not hewing to the Guardian line could not stand up to the dozens of negative responses, and the hundreds if not thousands of disapproving “recommends” for comments critical of Hamas itself, the article, its author, and the Guardian. The negative comments ran the gamut of those opposing Islamic fundamentalism to those who might not even usually support Israel, but are able to see evil and recognize hypocrisy and spin when it stares at them off the website so blatantly:

whatthethundersaid’s comment 21 Sep 09, 2:52pm

climatecommunion’s comment 21 Sep 09, 2:52pm

Of course, there are always the usual few who will accept any article provided it meets the criteria of the looney left – an anti-Israeli, anti-Western bias, praise for extremism, terrorism dressed up as “resistance”, a misogynistic and xenophobic religious group to be accepted as equivalent to Western liberalism under the guise of “multiculturalism”. Note the pandering use of Altikriti’s first name:

berchmans’s comment 21 Sep 09, 2:56pm (about 14 hours ago)

This time, the Guardian could not even follow its usual policy of deleting references to the Hamas Charter and its references to portions of the Koran calling for the killing of Jews as it would have had to delete even more comments than it actually did, leaving little at all on the thread.

As for the Altikriti’s article, it is one of the most blatant examples of the “big lie” to be published I can ever recall reading in a paper which passes itself off as a major daily. As the string of fiercely negative comments by readers indicate (at least those comments that remain – a rough estimate would put deleted comments at between 30% and 50%), there is hardly a word of truth in it.

Ken Livingstone, well-known for his fierce antagonism to the State of Israel, interviewed Khaled Mishaal, an arch-terrorist, perhaps second only to Osama bin laden, on “the New Statesmen”.

The interview, bad enough in itself for the lies it includes, seems to have passed almost unremarked, and was presumably therefore taken up by the Guardian via this puff piece by Anas Altikriti. Altikriti, according to the bio obligingly provided by the Guardian, has been a “spokesman and then President of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)” who “[i]n 2004.. joined George Galloway’s Respect party” – well known for its fierce opposition to Israel.

Despite his established bias and agenda, Altikriti does not hesitate to accuse others of the same, or, in his view, and presumably that of the Guardian, since they published the piece, worse:

Meshal’s interview was denounced by Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis on grounds that would equally exclude the government from talking to Israel were it not for the double standards applied to Palestine and the Middle East. Indeed, the very fact that Ivan Lewis should be made a minister with responsibility for the Middle East, given his clear bias as a former deputy leader of the Labour Friends of Israel, is a sad indication of how little interest it displays in convincing people of any kind of fairness in its approach to this part of the world.

Altikriti’s article attempts to put “space” between the Iranian-funded Hamas and the Iranian funded Taliban, both groups recognized by every civilized country as banned terrorist organizations.

The first paragraph says it all, perhaps not in the way Altikriti intended:

The New Statesman’s interview with Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader, was one of the most significant interviews with the leading figure in a movement that has been demonised and excommunicated by most of the western world and its media.

Its significance is the fact that the New Statesman chose to allow an arch-terrorist to vent his views in a major Western paper, even though this fount of suicide bombings, kidnappings, knee-cappings, murder by throwing opponents of buildings, fiercely determined to install a Taliban-like Islamic theocracy on the helpless backs of those it rules at the point of a gun is rightly “demonised and excommunicated” by decent people around the world.

Perhaps the most fundamental lie in Altikriti’s article is the following:

Arguably, the most important assertion made in the interview, conducted by Ken Livingstone, is that in which Meshal clearly stated that the Palestinian struggle was anything but a conflict between Muslims and the Jewish people.

As has been shown repeatedly, the Hamas Covenant 1988, which has never been repudiated and, on the contrary, is repeatedly referenced in speeches by it leaders, specifically refers to the need to kill Jews wherever they may be found. Hamas, like its sister organization Hezbollah, has issued threats to the effect that it will try to kill Jews everywhere, not just in Israel. The Charter even invokes a second Holocaust in its first paragraph

“…..And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. …. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found…Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”

It continues with references to the Jews, not the Israelis, not the land, or any of the other spin-terms that Meshaal and Altikriti pretend are at issue:

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts” [empahsis added]

Altikriti follows Livingstone’s line in trying to show that Hamas is about a struggle for land, not religion:

He [Meshaal] insisted that the Palestinians were fighting against the occupier who had dispossessed them of their homes and lands, regardless of religion, creed or race. He also went on to confirm that the concept of coexistence was largely present in the Palestinian psyche, and that genocide, as suffered by Jews in Europe (and which he described as “horrible and criminal”) was alien not only to the Palestinians but to the inhabitants of the region as a whole.

Unfortunately, these pleasant themes, dressed up for gullible Western ears, do not jibe with Hamas’ Charter, which makes it clear, as if its actions against Christians in Gaza and attacks against Jews have demonstrated, that it is anything but  accepting of others “regardless of religion, creed or race”:

Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement’s programme is Islam.

Article Two demonstrates Hamas’ allegiance to its elder sibling, the murderous Moslem Brotherhood (responsible for, among others, the assassination of Sadat because he made peace with Israel) and its intention, demonstrated daily in Gaza, to enforce the strictest interpretations of Islamic theology and law on any society it controls:

Article Two:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

Altikriti’s claims that Meshaal said “the concept of coexistence was largely present in the Palestinian psyche.” In fact, Altikriti puts words into Meshaal’s mouth – if you read the Livingstone article, you will not find the word “coexistence” anywhere in the article. Lest there be any doubt about who is “in” and who is “out”, Article Three makes it clear that only Moslems may apply, giving the lie to Altikriti’s claim

Article Three:

The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah whom they truly worship

One can go on indefinitely, but Livingstone, Meshaal, and Altikriti overlook the most flagrant article of the Charter that clearly is based on, and intended to promulgate, hatred of Jews, using a text from the Koran.

According to Altikriti:

“Meshal was sending a clear message of assurance that the Palestinian struggle was political rather than religious and about real political grievances and not against the Jewish people per se.”

Unfortunately, this message, so pleasant to Western ears, is totally contradicted by the real message contained in the Charter:

Article Seven:

….The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Finally, as a demonstration of how far out of step with sensible opinion this article is, Altikriti includes the following paragraph:

The British government led the way in proscribing Hamas when the Islamic movement won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament in January 2006. More recently it is reported that the British government has been heavily involved in training and supporting the security forces of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which have been accused of imprisoning, torturing and physically abusing members of Hamas and other political factions. While finding time to condemn an interview in a weekly magazine, neither Ivan Lewis nor the British government as a whole has accepted the finding of the authoritative UN report on Gaza authored by a committee led by a South African judge well known for his support for Israel, which condemned Israel for war crimes and possibly even crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Of course the British government proscribes this vile organization – it is the least it can do, and it is aligned with every Western country. We also see the now recurring complaint on the Guardian’s website against the empowerment of the Palestinian Authority as it struggles to prevent Hamas turning the West bank into another Gaza. Finally, Britain’s lack of support for the Goldstone report is completely in line with the lack of support among other Western countries, as they realize that it is nothing more than a pre-ordained, one-sided swipe at Israel, despite a mention of Hamas’ rockets which precipitated Cast Lead, and that supporting Goldstone would lead to a total inability to conduct military action against groups like Hamas, which are using asymmetrical warfare to cause civilian casualties among their own people for blatantly propaganda purposes.

The Guard is out of step with the world. There may be times when marching to the beat of a different drum is a worthy stance, but when the drummers have formed a band that promotes – worships, in fact- suicide bombings, cruelty to women, wholesale murder of Jews and Christians, has actually passed laws supporting crucifixion, and on and on, it is more than time to find a new conductor.

Perhaps the response to Altikriti’s article and the realization of how far they have wandered from their traditional left–wing base may finally “jog” the conscience of those in charge at Manchester Square to find a new beat and return to a realistic, not fantastic, view of the world.

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 21. September 2009

Es kam schon einigermaßen überraschend, dass ein britischer Minister den New Statesman wegen der Veröffentlichung von Ken Livingstones einschmeichelndem „Exklusiv“-Q&A mit Hamas-Führer Khaled Mashaal hart kritisierte.

Ivan Lewis* sagt, dass New Statesman in Wirklichkeit Mashaal einen “Propagandacoup für den Führer einer Terrororganisation“ verschaffte.

Schwedische Regierungsbeamte könnten von ihren britischen Kollegen viel lernen. Als Aftonbladet ein noch schäbigeres Stück Journalismus veröffentlichte und Israel des Diebstahls von palästinensischen Organen beschuldigte, forderte Israel die schwedische Regierung auf, den Bericht zu verurteilen.

Die Schweden zogen es jedoch vor, mit dem Argument der Meinungsfreiheit auf Durchzug zu schalten. Dabei zogen sie ihre Botschafterin Elisabeth Borsiin Bonnier, die Donald Bostroms Bericht relativ milde kritisiert hatte, aus Israel ab und löschten ihre Kommentare von der Webseite des schwedischen Außenministeriums.

Wenn man sich mit beiden Blättern näher befasst, geht es im Kern nicht um Meinungsfreiheit. Wären Bostroms und Livingstones Artikel auf privaten Blogs eingestellt worden, hätte keiner von ihnen irgendwelche besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Es gibt genügend billige Verschwörungtheorien und Hamas-Apologeten, die miteinander um Online-Traffic konkurrieren.

Aber seriöse Nachrichtenmedien tragen Verantwortung dafür, dass Nachrichten veröffentlicht werden, und nicht Propaganda – das auch nicht nur aus ethischen Gründen, obwohl dazu auch eine Menge zu sagen wäre. Aftonbladet und jetzt der New Statesman bewegen sich auf gefährlichem Terrain, wenn sie mit Müll hausieren gehen, was ihren Ruf als glaubwürdige Quellen für Nachrichten und Kommentare schwer beschädigt.

Wenigstens in Großbritannien nennen Regierungsvertreter die Dinge beim Namen.

————
*Die Jerusalem Post verpasst Lewis den Titel “Außenminister”. Da muss wohl ein Tippfehler vorliegen. Er ist Gesundheitsminister, so weit ich weiß (bd).

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 17. September 2009

Londons Ex-Bürgermeister Ken Livingstone interviewt Hamas-Führer Khaled Mashaal. Und der New Statesman glaubt allen Ernstes, dass es sich hier um Journalismus handelt.

Es ist auch nichts anderes als eine weitere Plattform für Terror.

Jonathan Freedland had an article on CIF on Tuesday about Obama’s peacemaking.

We loved Freedland’s book ‘Jacob’s Gift’.  We hated his cheerleading for Ken Livingstone during the London Mayoral election campaign last year.

Livingstone is on record as saying that Israel should not have been created.  That’s antisemitic.  We’re surprised that Freedland seemed able to turn a blind eye to this.

As a senior Guardian journalist of long standing, we would also be interested to hear what Freedland has done about the Judaeocentricism of CIF.

Or maybe things would be even worse without him there?

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone to Marry at Zoo
(The Guardian, 24 August 2009)