themarxistblog makes it very clear that we support albeit critically the action of the Egyptian Army in its attempt to put down the Fascist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It is very noticeable that one of the main planks of the Muslim Brothers is that the Army carried out a coup d’état. If that was a coup d’état it must be the strangest one in history. Something like ten millions of Egyptians were on the streets demanding that the Army take over power from Morsi. In fact the Army leaders were only following the precedent set by Nasser when he executed the Muslim Fascist and refounder of the Muslim Brotherhood Sayeed Qutb. What a lot of bother that then saved the world from!


The most important issue in Egypt was to stop the Muslim Brotherhood from continuing in power. Remember that the faulty leaders of the Revolution more or less handed power to the Muslim Brotherhood on a platter. That leadership was so bad they hardly understood what they were doing or what was the real danger, which was always from the Muslim Brotherhood.


Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the hilt and so is the EU.


But hey, wait  a minute, is the EU and the US also not backing the Muslim Brotherhood (Fatah/Hamas and the Palestinian State farce) in Israel, in that the term now used everywhere in the world “Palestinians” is just another name for the Jihad against Jews in the Middle East.


What are the “Palestinians” anyway? Up until 1948 if you said you were a Palestinian you would definitely have been taken for a Jew.


The “Palestinians” is a new phenomenon and those who have really studied history (but most haven’t) know that the “Palestinians” is not based on a nation but on opposition to the Jews getting a foothold in the lands of Islam.


In fact as we speak the Egyptians are showing the way to the Jews. The great masses of Egyptians who keep on fighting in Tahrir Square turning out in millions after millions are taking the fight to the Muslim Brothers.


But in contrast to that apart from a few the Jews in Israel have STOPPED FIGHTING and have done so long ago.


That is why the Jews in Israel have allowed the Fascist Antisemitic newspaper Haaretz go on publishing its Nazi type filth against the Jews.


Why does Gideon Levy and Amira Hass still have a job in Israel?


The reason is because the Jews of Israel have stopped fighting. If the Jews of Israel were fighting like the Egyptian people then Hass and Levy WOULD BE LONG GONE.


The Jews of Israel are led by a ruling class and a middle class which have grown fat and complacent. Above all they want the capitalist system to continue. They want the system of profit, which threatens the world, to continue, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.


The brother of the PATRIOT who killed Rabin has learned to disavow Individual Terrorism, but these brothers now put their fingers on the problem in Israel.


These brothers have thrown down a challenge to the whole set-up in Israel. They maintain…


In Gaza there were too many of the settlers who were not prepared to fight. And they did not. They allowed the Rabbis to disarm them politically and it was the Rabbis and the leaders of the Settlers who persuaded the brave youth of Israel to give up, and allow the Police and IDF to expel the Jews from Gaza.


There is a link.


The Egyptians are fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. The Jews of Israel are fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood too.


The reactionary Jewish leaders think that their struggle is unique. But it is not unique at all.


It is the very same struggle of the Egyptians against the Muslim Brotherhood.


This needs to be made conscious by building a new leadership to express this. To this concept of new leadership expect only hostility from the capitalist Jewish ruling class and most of its middle class. Only the poor Jews and youth will fight. They must learn and be inspired by the Egyptians fight against Morsi.














In the following analysis by debka it is clear that Israel is very much on the defensive


themarxistblog does not accept this in any way. Israel has been put onto the defensive by a number of clearly identifiable factors. Much comes from Bush and Obama. Bush removed Saddam which greatly strengthened Iran. That was disastrous for Israel and was why Sharon DID NOT support the Bush war against Saddam, even though Israel had been much abused by Saddam. Seconly Obama was behind the Muslim Brotherhood defeating Mubarak and Gadhafi, both of whom were SECULAR leaders.


Now Iraq is a complete danger to Israel. Syria in every way is a complete danger to Israel.


It is a most dangerous situation for the Jews of Israel. Jews are being surrounded in a most dangerous way.


Israel has to defend itself with everything and themarxistblog alone on the left supports Israel in this with UNCONDITIONAL support.


But for Israel to go on the attack, to be proactive, demands something else, something extra, and that is leadership.


How can Israel go on the attack, that is the central question of the hour and is one in which there must be discussion…debka is useful indeed because debka does raise the issues and the problems in a truthful and objective way. But there is no solution from debka either….



“Syrian batteries are in a high state of operability, ready to fire at short notice,” said Israel Air Force Colonel Zvika Haimovich in special briefings to international media Friday. He disclosed that Israel tracks every missile fired in the Syrian civil war, since southward launches would give Israel mere seconds to determine it was not the true target. “All it would take is a few degrees’ change in the flight path to endanger us.”

Speaking at the Palmachim air and missile base south of Tel Aviv, Col. Haimovich explained that long-range radars feed real-time data on the barrages to the base command where officers are braced to activate Arrow II. The more threatening launches set off sirens in Palmachim. Warplanes there are also on standby to scramble. “We are looking at all aspects, from the performance of weaponry to the way the Syrians use it,” said the Israeli air force officer. “They have used everything that I am aware exists in their missile and rocket arsenal [against Syrian rebel forces]. They are improving all the time, and so are we… but we need to study and be prepared.”

Another Israeli expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, described a combination of split-second analysis of the strength of the launch with up-to-date intelligence on Bashar Assad’s intentions. He said Israel had beefed up its deployment to more than four nationwide batteries, to allow for repeated interception of any incoming missile. The intention is “to ensure that we have at least two opportunities to intercept. We have not yet been called into action on the northern front, but I believe that we will be,” said this officer.

In Washington, Pentagon sources reported that the United States was sending Patriot missile defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to Jordan for the annual joint Eager Lion exercise between the two armies. The sources did not say whether the Patriots and fighter jets would withdraw after the two-month exercise. The US officials pointed out that the Patriots would not shield Jordan from Syrian Scuds, but were a demonstration of US support for the Hashemite kingdom. At the same time, debkafile’s military sources report a high degree of operational coordination between the US Patriot deployments in Jordan and Turkey and the Israeli Arrow 2 preparedness for a potential missile attack which could come from Iran, Syria, Lebanon or the Gaza Strip.

Another component of this missile shield is the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aboard US warships in the Mediterranean. Moscow, for its part, continues to sow confusion about the delivery of its S-300 anti-air missile batteries to Syria, but has shown its hand on another issue, by blocking a UN Security Council motion that would have condemned Hizballah. Tabled under the heading of “a declaration of alarm over Qusayr” the Council was asked to express “grave concern” over the dire events in that town since Hizballah forces fighting with the Syrian army captured most of its urban area. Our military sources report heavy fighting is raging in the northern sector of al Qusayr since the rebels brought in reinforcements for their last stand late last week.

A Hizballah siege force has cut off food and water supplies for the 10,000 civilians and 2,500 opposition fighters trapped in that corner of the town. At least 1.200 wounded people are without access to medical attention.

Moscow claimed it blocked a Security Council motion on al Qusayr because there was no UN condemnation when the Syrian rebels captured the town in 2012. For Israel, the Russian UN action is of great concern because it amounts to the extension of Moscow’s patronage not just to the Assad regime but also to Hizballah which spearheaded the al Qusayr offensive.  This is consistent with the pledges of support Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov gave Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah during their secret conversation in Beirut on April 27. When questioned on this score, Russian diplomats were evasive – in the same way as they are ambiguous about the S-300 missiles. However Moscow’s Security Council action leaves no room for doubt that Hizballah’s military intervention in the Syrian war has won a powerful champion in Moscow.


PJ Media has this fine analysis ( of the situation in Britain since the Woolwich beheading of the British soldier. It is by Mike McNally…

Even more so than with previous acts of Islamist terror, the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in London last week was intended to shock and outrage the British people, to provoke a backlash against Muslims the attackers hoped would start the inter-communal violence Islamists have fomented across the Middle East and elsewhere. As one of the killers told Cub Scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett when she bravely confronted them: “We want to start a war in London tonight.”

So far, however, the backlash has been little more than a spasm. In the most serious incident, two former soldiers were charged with trying to firebomb a mosque. There have been several other acts of vandalism against mosques, reports of Muslims being harassed in the streets, and marches by the racist soccer hooligans of the English Defence League. Meanwhile, two war memorials in London were defaced with Islamist graffiti.

Listening to the politicians, community leaders, and certain media outlets, you’d think the threat posed by the Woolwich attack to “community cohesion” — an abstraction that Britain’s political elites spend much of their time fretting about these days — was of more concern to them than the attack itself.


Beyond the condemnation of Drummer Rigby’s murder, two themes have dominated the official response. The first: an insistence that the attack had little, if anything, to do with “real” or “true” Islam. Prime Minister David Cameron called the killing “a betrayal of Islam,” and added: “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

The second theme: the ideology of the killers is shared by only a handful of extremists. To this end, politicians have been showering praise on moderate Muslim leaders for condemning the killings without reservation.

Both of these claims are dishonest and dangerous. That expressions of condemnation from British Muslims for the beheading of a British soldier have been greeted with a mixture of relief and gratitude tells much about the poverty of the debate over Islamic extremism here.

The greatest threat to “community cohesion” is the denial of the obvious: while most British Muslims were appalled by last week’s killing, the killing did in fact have a great deal to do with a particular ideology, one shared to some degree by many thousands of British Muslims and tens of millions of Muslims around the world.

Listening to Cameron and others, it was remarkable to see how many white, Christian, or atheist politicians fancy themselves scholars of Islam — they feel qualified to divine the “true” version of the religion from “perverted” forms.

As much as they might want to believe otherwise, there’s no objectively “true” interpretation of Islam, in Britain or anywhere else. As Douglas Murray writes in the Spectator: since Islam’s founding, a battle has raged “between those who read their religion literally and those who read it metaphorically.” The violent extremists make a plausible case that peace-loving co-religionists are perverting Islam.

In their eagerness to absolve Islam of any responsibility for the Woolwich atrocity, British Muslims, sympathetic media commentators, and nervous politicians have been quoting verse 5:32 of the Koran until they’re blue in the face.

The extract they like to cite:

Whosoever killeth a human being … it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

Note the ellipsis after “ human being.” It’s there because the writer or speaker invariably removes this section of the verse — a rather important one.

The unabridged passage:

Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind.

At his site Jihad Watch, PJ Media contributor Robert Spencer caught Mehdi Hasan, a left-wing journalist and a Muslim, trying this same ruse.

For a more detailed analysis of verse 5:32, see this post. The author notes that, far from being an injunction against murder, the verse “grants Muslims license to kill non-Muslims under a surprisingly broad range of circumstances.”

You don’t have to look far to find other Koranic exhortations to murder: the Verse of the Sword, depending on the translation, commands believers to “slay the infidels wherever you find them.”

Of course, most Muslims are not driven to kill by verse 5:32, any more than Christians feel the urge to pluck their eye out because it has caused them to sin. But you only have to look to the Middle East and to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where every month hundreds of Muslims are murdered by other Muslims for religious reasons. Or to Africa, where thousands of Christians have been killed by Muslims recent years. Or consult the latest Pew poll on Muslim attitudes which found large majorities in several Islamic countries favoring the death penalty for apostasy. And consider the thousands of ”honor” killings carried out by Muslims every year. Killing in the name of Islam is perfectly acceptable to a considerable minority of Muslims, at the very least. It’s hard to plausibly argue that the brutal killing in Woolwich runs counter to Islamic teachings.

And what, for that matter, of the millions more Muslims worldwide who might be sincerely opposed to violence, but who see nothing wrong with women being treated as second-class citizens? Or who practice or condone female genital mutilation or forced marriage? Have they too strayed from the “true” path of Islam?

As for that claim that terrorist attacks are supported by only a tiny minority of British Muslims: according to the intelligence service MI5, 312 people were convicted of offenses related to Islamist terrorism between September 11, 2001, and September 30, 2012; to that number you can add 24 Muslims who have been convicted this year in connection with four separate plots, among the dozens foiled in recent years. The security services say “thousands” of suspects are being monitored, and hundreds of British Muslims have gone to train in terrorist camps overseas, or to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Also, opinion polls have shown that more than a tiny minority of British Muslims are sympathetic to terror attacks in the UK.

Some commentators have pointed out that Islamist terrorism remains a rarity in the UK; Drummer Rigby’s killing was indeed the first jihadist murder in London since the 7/7 subway and bus bombings in 2005. However, if on other occasions the security services had dropped the ball as they did with the Woolwich killers (both men were known to MI5; one was arrested in Kenya in 2010 on suspicion of attempting to join Islamist fighters in Somalia), we could have been talking about several dozen more Britons killed in attacks in the past few years.

After the 7/7 attacks, the then-Labour government launched a series of initiatives to counter Islamic extremism and the radicalization of young Muslims in mosques, universities, and prisons. But little if any progress has been made. A mishmash of often contradictory programs has failed to distinguish between genuinely moderate Muslim organizations and those that are interested only in grievance-mongering, or are merely fronts for more radical groups.

Meanwhile, every proposal to introduce new anti-terrorism measures is met with resistance from left-wing and libertarian politicians, civil liberties groups, and human rights lawyers. Attempts to deport foreign-born hate preachers such as the notorious Abu Qatada and other terror suspects have been thwarted by judges sitting not in Britain, but in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. (The UK did manage to deport another extremist cleric, Abu Hamza, after a lengthy legal battle, and he’s now America’s problem.)

While attacks such as last week’s are the most visible and extreme manifestation of Islamism in Britain, focusing only on terrorism steers the debate away from more widespread and insidious problems with sections of the Muslim community.

Last year I wrote about the horrific case of young girls being raped and abused by gangs of Pakistani Muslim men. Several men have since been jailed over similar “grooming” cases, and more cases are being investigated. Earlier this year I wrote about Muslim gangs patrolling the streets of London to threaten homosexuals, to harass people for drinking alcohol, and to harass women for being “inappropriately” dressed. Several opinion polls have found large numbers of Muslims in favor of sharia law being introduced in Britain, and underground sharia courts are operating in several British cities.

So: we have a tiny minority of jihadists, another tiny minority of honor killers, another of thugs enforcing Islamic diktats on the streets, and so on. When you add all these tiny minorities together, you end up with a rather large minority. For every Islamist who wants to kill people, there are thousands more who display open contempt for British society and its values of equality and tolerance. If these everyday acts of extremism aren’t tackled, Muslims of all persuasions will become increasingly disconnected from the rest of society, allowing the most dangerous forms of radicalism to flourish.

If politicians, moderate Muslims, and other influential figures don’t loudly and repeatedly condemn every kind of extremism, the problems will only get worse. Britain’s Muslim population is approaching three million — or five percent of the kingdom. On current trends it’s expected to double within 20 years, with Islam expected to overtake Christianity as the UK’s dominant religion within ten. Around one in ten Britons under the age of 25 is Muslim, and extremist views are more prevalent among young Muslims than among Muslims as a whole.

But there’s no sign that things are about to change. For all the stirring words in the past week, you get the impression that as long as Islamist terror attacks remain a rarity, Britain’s political elites and the broader liberal-left establishment are happy to put up with a little extremism in order not to jeopardize the greater multicultural project.

After all, the sons of politicians don’t have to take their lives in their hands traveling on public transport through immigrant ghettos, and the daughters of well-off civil liberties campaigners and human rights lawyers are in no danger of being “groomed” by gangs of Muslim men.

Eventually, the killers will get through again. And, just as they did last week, the British public will lay flowers, and politicians will vow that the extremists will never win — and then we’ll go back to avoiding the issues. What the politicians don’t seem to understand is that the Islamists’ definition of winning is different than ours — in the absence of an outright victory over their enemies, they’ll settle for a few more decades of bloodshed and strife. It’s true that they won’t win, but there’s no sign of them losing.



The left as it is called today is in support of Islam. This is amazing and absurd. Marx made it very clear that Islam was anti-humanitarian.


All of the left of today are working to promote the Islam Jihad. This is used by the capitalist system to cast a slur and a doubt upon socialism and Marxism, also on Trotskyism and on Leninism.


There are thus two sides. There is the betrayal of the left of today in backing clerical fascism, such as backing the clerical fascists in Iran, and their backers in Hizbullah, Hamas and Fatah.


And secondly there is the use that is being made of this backing by the left of clerical Fascism by the capitalist class and the capitalist state. It is a very old tactic by capitalism and Imperialism.



The question is how far these left backers of clerical fascism, in other words backers of Islam, are actually agents and in the pay of a capitalist class and system which is in ever deeper crisis. Some are, the majority are  not, just they are gripped by the reactionary ideology which Richard Landes refers to as “lying narratives” centred on the “Palestinians”.


There is only one way to find out, and that is to build the alternative in themarxistblog and be totally on guard against these most likely paid provocateurs of the capitalist system. That is agents provocateur of the capitalist system inside the workers movement. BUILD THE ALTERNATIVE







Sean Matgamna

Sean Matgamna examines the prospects of the Arab Revolution, and compares it to certain events in recent history.


BEGINS HERE…The Arab revolution, the inspiring mass popular movement for freedom and democracy, sweeping across the Middle East might be compared to the “Springtime of the Peoples”, in 1848, when mass popular revolution spread from France to Germany, then to other countries, such as Hungary and Italy.


Most of them were quickly defeated.


Today the nearest modern equivalent — so far — is the collapse of East European and Russian Stalinism, in 1989-91. A tremendous mass movement demanding and embodying “democracy” and demanding “western standards” swept from country to country and finally to Russia, Stalinism’s heartland.


European Stalinism which had seemed solid, congealed, immovable faded to next to nothing in a very short time. As many of the Arab regimes seem to be doing.


There is something else that, in its early stage, also had much in common with the Arab revolution now: the Iranian revolution of 1978-9. There too a tremendous mass movement brought down the autocratic regime of the crowned king, the Shah.


The great and for now unanswerable question hanging over the Middle East is whether the Arab revolution of 2011 will culminate in the East European model, the established if flawed bourgeois democratic regimes, or the Iranian.


In Iran — which, though Muslim, is not Arab — the great mass movement in which workers struck, and set up factory councils; and in which women played an important part, quickly led to mass-based Islamist totalitarianism — a clerical-fascist regime that has been in power now for a third of a century.


In terms of the treatment of women and levels of repression, that regime has been worse than the Shah’s. It was not something imposed on the people, a contending political movement that overthrew and suppressed those who made the 1978-9 revolution. It was there in the revolutionary movement all along.


Its proponents had led the revolution. They had talked of “democracy”, denounced the Shah’s “repressions” and led many in Iran, as well as outside it, to think they were against repression per se. They talked of “democracy” which was understood in the west in terms of bourgeois-democracy, but by which they meant their own theocratic rule, backed by mass popular support.


In power, they quickly repressed all those who objected to the imposition of a Sharia-based regime in place of the modernising dictatorship of the Shah.


Right now, conditions and forces, and therefore likely results, despite the common cry for democracy and dignity and an end to corruption, vary greatly from country to country.


Compared to the outcome in the fall of Stalinism, the differences between now and then are instructive. Most of the people of Eastern Europe and Russia were very hostile to Stalinism. Even the ruling class had lost all belief in their own system. In Romania, some miners at first rallied to the old regime, but mostly the working class was very hostile to the old system too.


They had as their ideal the freedom and plenty they thought they saw in Western Europe and America. The nationalism of different identities played a large part, but there were no aspirant Stalinist or fascist, or clerical-fascist movements preparing an alternative to the ruling Stalinists — or to bourgeois democracy. Western Europe and US democracy and liberty was their model and goal against the old regimes. Intellectuals influenced by the West were politically and intellectually dominant. The churches offered no other system or goal.


In the Arab world now vast numbers of young people see on the internet and on the satellite TV stations the ideal they want. But what “democracy” means in these countries is undefined and has different dormant meanings. Islamist movements are powerful — movements which politically as well as religiously demand the remodelling of society according to Sharia law. The age-old mix of custom and religion demands the subordination and suppression of women. With them, religion is also a political programme.


Despite the near-uncritical accord in the Western media that these are “democratic” movement, it is impossible that political Islam is in these societies as insignificant as it seems now, where the cry for “freedom” and “democracy” seems to unite the people. Within that cry there are many different definitions of democracy. The Islamists are for “freedom” now, but they mean freedom for their religion. And to deny freedom to sin against Allah. By “democracy”, they mean freedom for their “majority” to impose their ideas on society.


When the most powerful mass movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, says that it no longer aspires to control Egypt, only political fools will take their word for it.


The outcome of the Arab spring will be shaped by the interaction and conflict of political-social movements. Central is the fact that the old states, and the old army regimes — in Egypt, for example — remain in being. In that conflict Islamist politics have a tremendous advantages. The Shia have clerical hierarchies that can — as in Iran — function as a powerful political party, (as the Catholic churches sometimes did in Europe).


They can harness the rural population, including the rural poor. They can gain strength, as they already do, from those disoriented by the “Western values” and the dislocation and by horrors of that capitalist system which accompany bourgeois “democracy” and “liberty”.


Their medievalist criticism of modern bourgeois society can win support for an Islamist political programme.


It is here a variant of what Marx and Engels called “reactionary socialism” — the desire to go back from an existing bourgeois system to an idealised Middle Ages and beyond. It can and does amalgamate Islamist criticism of Western society and its sinful systems with “anti-imperialism” — an anti-imperialism as reactionary as its “alternative to capitalism”.


By contrast, the labour movements in Egypt and elsewhere, are weak, and qualitatively more so than the forces of Islamist reaction now being unleashed.


Socialism is what it is everywhere — weak and still trying to get its political bearings. The idea that in the Middle East the “masses” can quickly become socialist, unleash a “process of permanent revolution”, and offer a socialist alternative can not but function in socialist observers to dissolve political standards, critical faculties and sober political judgment — and replace them with open-mouthed credulity and naivety towards political Islam.


During the Iranian Revolution, 1978-9, the left took that attitude — in different degrees, but all of us to some degree.


We must critically assess what is happening, and do everything we properly can to encourage and help the labour movements and, though they are far from identical, the socialists in the Arab countries. We have a right to allow ourselves to be inspired. We do not have a right to switch our political minds off. END QUOTE


COMMENT BY themarxistblog


There are many key paragraphs in the above but I will chose one for special attention, but choosing one does not mean that others are not representative of the atrocious politics of Matgamma, especially where he clearly departs from the views of Trotsky and does not defend the Russian Revolution, and gains of the Russian Revolution, despite the betrayals to those gains by Stalin and Stalinism.


The paragraph I chose for special attention is where Matgamma says that Khomeini was “worse” than the Shah, as if it was a popularity stakes. No the forces of Fascist Clericalism were the exact opposite of the secularism of the Shah (I can only conjecture as to why the capitalist west was backing Khomeini. Perhaps they want the billions of poor to be shackled by Islam and especially the 50 per cent, the women, to be shackled by Islam.


For a socialist there was a choice, and between Khomeini and the Shah the Shah had to be defended because the Shah represented secularism. Does that mean uncritical support of the Shah. No! It meant keeping the Islamist Fascists out of power and a defence of the Shah meat a defence in those conditions of defence against Sharia. That is all. That is what Matgamma did not get:


In terms of the treatment of women and levels of repression, that regime has been worse than the Shah’s. It was not something imposed on the people, a contending political movement that overthrew and suppressed those who made the 1978-9 revolution. It was there in the revolutionary movement all along.


Is this splitting of hairs? No, because in 2011 Matgamma did not defend Mubarak either, nor Gadhafi, nor Ben Ali, nor Gaghbo who is now in the Hague, and so on.


Facilitators of the Jihad…





How not to build against EDL

Submitted on 22 May, 2013 – 18:36

Ed Whitby, Newcastle AWL

The racist English Defence League are marching in Newcastle on 25 May against plans to open an Islamic faith school.

Workers’ Liberty Newcastle is taking part in the counterprotests, to help our city’s Muslim community defend themselves against racist harassment by the EDL. (We oppose all religious schools – Christian, Muslim or whatever – but that is hardly the issue here.)

The Socialist Workers Party has initiated a counter-protest, working with local community leaders from the West End, including Labour councillor Dipu Ahad, as well as local trade unions including the CPB-led Trades Council – under the banner “NE Unites Against the EDL”.

Below is a report from Newcastle supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Group/Fight Racism Fight Imperialism, about their exclusion from this campaign.

Workers’ Liberty has many criticisms of the SWP’s approach to fighting fascism (eg see here), and of FRFI’s attitude to working with right-wing/bureaucratic labour movement representatives (see here). But in the face of the threat from the far right, we would want to work with both to defend our communities from attack.

In February activists from Workers’ Liberty, FRFI, the SWP, the Socialist Party and the Labour Party, as well as many non-aligned activists, worked together to build a 2,000-strong anti-cuts demonstration in Newcastle. We did not hide our differences, but worked together in the class struggle while disagreeing and criticising each other.

This time, in initiating “NE Unites Against the EDL”, the SWP have organised closed meetings which exclude many other left-wing activists. Workers’ Liberty members and supporters received no invites, despite playing an important role in local trade union, student and anti-cuts organisations which could build the anti-EDL mobilisation. And, following that, we were told we were banned from planning meetings, with no explanation, and removed from Facebook events simply for asking questions.

And FRFI comrades were treated worse still. As explained in their statement, RCG members were threatened and bullied by an SWP organiser and another Trades Council representative, made worse by the use of sexist language.

These things, which should be totally unknown in our movement, are clearly intended to help enforce the SWP’s desire to exclude other socialists from the campaign. Clearly planning for anti-fascist activism requires a certain degree of caution and security, but it seems clear this is nothing to do with that. A serious working-class fightback against racism and fascism cannot be built on that basis: the SWP’s antics have undermined the fight against the EDL.

Sexism is something that the left should be leading the fight on. In the past macho posturing and patronising women has been only too common in the fight against racism and fascism. This behaviour should be condemned by any socialist or labour movement body. It leads to many women and others feeling the left and labour movement are not a place for them. We should fight this. It is especially shocking that this appears acceptable to the SWP after the debates in the party in recent months.

We say this as people who, as explained above, disagree with the RCG’s absolutist attitude to working with bureaucratic Labour Party and trade union leaders. Preventing Labour councillors etc from speaking in all circumstances can alienate trade unionists, Labour Party members and other working-class people who we have to win over.

None of that justifies the shameful behaviour of the SWP and its allies. We demand they stop wrecking the anti-fascist movement. We demand they hold to account members accused of sexism and aggressive behaviour.

Open criticism and honest debate is part of the socialist tradition which the SWP claims to stand in. It is also an essential part of fighting the far right. We will be mobilising on 25 June in that spirit – the demand for real debate in our movement, combined with unity in action against the common enemy.

Statement from Revolutionary Communist Group / FRFI

FRFI in Newcastle has a record of fighting fascism in unity with other forces, including standing with Newcastle Occupy when it was attacked by drunken EDL thugs in 2011. Yet on 7 May, Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) District Organiser Yunus Bakhsh launched a vicious, sexist attack on Newcastle FRFI supporters when they attempted to join a planning meeting of Newcastle Unites against the EDL. Focusing his vitriol on a female comrade, Dionne, Bakhsh did what the SWP does more and more often today: defend Labour Party officials no matter how appalling their anti-working class record.

Newcastle Unites against the EDL is a coalition of Labour councillors, the SWP/Unite against Fascism and local trade union leaders, set up to counter a national EDL demonstration in Newcastle on 25 May against the proposed conversion of a building into an Islamic faith school. However, while posing as democrats, Newcastle Unites has met in secret, making it clear that it does not want to include those with a real record of fighting fascism. The SWP has been policing this, ensuring that there is no challenge to the Labour councillors involved who only two months ago voted unanimously for £100m cuts to local services.

Having found out that Newcastle Unites was meeting on 7 May in the TUC Centre against Unemployment, three FRFI supporters including Dionne tried to gain entry. Bakhsh immediately confronted them saying there had been a vote at a previous meeting to exclude FRFI because, along with others, its supporters had heckled Labour MP Grahame Morris for his support for Britain’s wars when he spoke at the 2012 May Day rally. When Dionne challenged Bakhsh, he went ballistic, screaming ‘I am not going to listen to politics from someone who doesn’t know shit’, and stood in front of her gesticulating wildly. When Dionne demanded he back off, he got in her face and threatened her: ‘What are you going to do about it, love?’

Bakhsh was not alone. James Simpkin, Secretary of Newcastle TUC, was also involved, telling the FRFI comrade ‘I’ve got the keys to the building, I run the building, and I am telling you to get out’. A female comrade from the Socialist Party arrived at this point and argued that it was wrong to exclude FRFI. Bakhsh turned on her saying that if she didn’t like it she could get out, and if the Socialist Party kept criticising Labour they too would be kicked out. An Asian supporter of FRFI, who pointed out that he was a target of the EDL and yet was being excluded from the meeting, was simply ignored.

As Dionne turned to leave, Simpkin grabbed her by the upper arm and attempted to shove her out of the building – a common assault. Once she was outside Simpkin shouted at her to move away from the door. When she refused he said ‘Go away little girl, or I’ll call the police’ before slamming the door. Several minutes later, as Dionne was talking to an independent anti-fascist, Simpkin walked up behind her and blasted an air-horn directly into her left ear, before laughing and returning inside. The confrontation was observed by Labour councillor Dipu Ahad, the public face of Newcastle Unites. He did nothing: he needs the support of the likes of Bakhsh, the SWP and Simpkin to protect him against criticism for voting for the council cuts.

The stance of Newcastle Unites in excluding those with a record of fighting fascism because they are against the rotten politics of the Labour Party is gross sectarianism. The sexist, bullying behaviour of Bakhsh and Simpkin in defending this is contemptible. FRFI demands a full apology from both.



A small workers statist minority left to join the International Socialist Group in 1992, arguing that the AWL was wrong to support the ban on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the coup attempt of 1991.[3] Subsequently, the AWL adopted a number of other positions associated with Third Camp socialism.’_Liberty





themarxistblog is challenging the Irish Antisemites

There is important news today from the pen of Pamela Geller of a tie up between Obama, the President of the US, and the killer Jihadists who were on board of the Mavi Marmora. Many of these Antisemites came from Ireland, and this flotilla against Israel, essentially a propaganda exercise, was originated in Ireland which was working closely in partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood. It also emerged later that the CIA was training Jihadists in Ireland so we now know that the CIA had a hand in the Mavi Marmora and the propaganda against Israel which the flotillas represented. There has now emerged a new figure on the scene called Father Dave, his real name is Smith, and he is using the Catholic Church as propaganda, essentially against Jews. Now Pamela has this breakthrough in our understanding. There is a link between the Mavi Marmora and Obama.

There is now a serious link between Obama and the killers on the Mavi Marmora (through his partnership with the Antisemitic Fascist Erdogan)

We wrote much on the Mavi Marmora because this action against Israel ties in the Israel haters in Ireland, people such as Mairead Maguire, the ex-Legion of Mary person from Belfast, who emerged at first as an apologist for “Peace”, but it was a one sided peace which was backed by British Intelligence.


It also ties in the Nazi Fascist Antisemitic Indymedia Ireland outfit which hosts people on its site who refer every second line to “Zio-Nazis”.

it also ties in a new figure called “Father Dave” who is emerging on the scene. About this person I placed this on the Facebook page of Irish4Israel:

Felix Quigley The Indymedia website in Ireland is a cess pool of antisemitism. One person there refers every second line (literally) to “Zio-Nazis”…how can these people get away with this? The Irish are a fair people. It is just that these Antisemites have won control of the narrative, simple as that.
  • Felix Quigley His name is David B. Smith and his links are widespreadd ( How can this liar get away with this? The Christians are being driven out of all áreas of the Middle East by Islam, and the numbers of Christians living in Israel are increasing, because Israel offers a haven for Christians
  • Felix Quigley who is this liar?It would appear that the Israeli government is trying to make life in the ‘Holy Land’ as uncomfortable as possible for Christians. This makes sense in terms of the goal of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. The problem is that such actions potentially do enormous damage to the country’s traditional religious support base – American Evangelical Christians!

Pamela Geller provides this important information about the way Obama is tied in with the Mavi Marmora through, of course, his Alliance with the main strategist against Israel, Erdogan

(from Atlas Shrugs)

Saturday, May 18, 2013

White House Jihad: Islamic Supremacist PM Erdogan brings Mavi Marmara Flotilla Jihadist to Meet Obama

Flotilla activist

Jihadist on board the Gaza flotilla holding  a knife after Israel Navy commandos boarded their ship on May 31, 2010.

The armed jihad warship flotilla’s mission was to break the arms blockade to jihadists in Gaza. It was an act of war. It was designed to be a huge  huge public relations diaster for Israel. And it was. The  Jihad Flotillas: Melding Propaganda with Violence, Pamela Geller, Breitbart: “it joined propaganda together with violence,  usually conducted separately, to wage war.”

Weapons-Found-on-Marmara Some of the weapons found on the Mavi Maramara

On May 31st, 2010, a flotilla of ships organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the  Turkish IHH group attempted to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Five of the ships were commandeered peacefully by the Israeli  Navy and re-routed to Ashdod. The supplies they carried were delivered  overland to Gaza after a security inspection. (source: IP)

Mavi Marmara Weapons
The Mavi  Marmara described itself as peaceful despite the guns, knives and other  weapons it was carrying to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

As Israeli naval commandos abseiled onto the deck of the fourth and  largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, they were attacked by IHH activists  armed with knives, clubs and at least two pistols. Three of the  commandos were badly wounded and dragged below deck. Others were injured as they were thrown from the upper deck into the sea. The Israeli  commandos had been ordered to take the ship without using lethal force  and were issued primarily with stun guns. In response to the violence  that greeted them and fearing for their lives, the commandos were  ordered to open fire. In the ensuing melee, nine IHH activists were  killed.The  Turkel Committee, an independent public inquiry with international  observers established by the Israeli government to examine events aboard the Mavi Marmara in May 2010, found that the Israeli Navy acted in  accordance with international law and had little choice but to react as  they did when faced with the violent resistance of the IHH activists on  board.

“Each Israeli soldier was attacked as they entered the ship,” Turkel said.  Three of the soldiers were dragged into the ship’s hold and were  prevented from receiving “humanitarian” medical attention.

Who can forget the rabid ululating chanting of the Islamic anthem of Jewish genocidal aspirations, Khaibar, Khaibar, invoking  the killing of Jews? The name Khaibar, mentioned in the   battle cry, was  the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army in  628. The battle  marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are  Muslims who see  that as a precursor for future wars against Jews. At  gatherings and  rallies of extremists, this chant is often heard as a   annihilationist  threat to Jews, telling them to expect to be defeated   and killed again  by Muslims.


Jihad vs jew Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Weaponry_Found_Aboard_the_Mavi_Marmara_(4)IDF soldiers who boarded the Mavi Marmara ship in order to enforce  the maritime closure on Gaza, were met with a violent mob armed with  clubs, slingshots, saws, knives, and used live fire against the IDF  soldiers. Pictured here: Slingshots found on the Mavi Marmara ship with Islamic terrorist group “Hizbullah” written on it.

Obama has these blood thirsty savages to the White House.  You have to wonder if America will ever recover from his presidency.

“Wait Until You Hear Who the Turkish Prime Minister Reportedly  Invited to Join His Entourage During U.S. Visit,” by Sharona Schwartz  for The Blaze, May 17 (thanks to Maxwell):

According to Turkish media, the father of one of the radical Islamist activists killed in Israel’s  raid on the Mavi Marmara in 2010 (the Gaza flotilla) was included as an  invited guest in the prime minister’s delegation in the hopes he might  be able to meet President Barack Obama.Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old with both  Turkish and U.S. citizenship, joined the Gaza flotilla where he  expressed his desire for “martyrdom.” His father now wants the U.S.  government to sue Israel over the raid in which the IDF says its forces  were defending themselves from what appeared to them to be an organized  attack launched by passengers armed with knives and metal bars as the  commandos boarded the ship.


The most serious and amazing developments happening right now in the Med area, which endanger Israel, and is partly the fault of Israeli leaders, who do not defend secular leaders against the Jihad and Sharia

debkafiles military sources: The new permanent deployment is the next Russian step for safeguarding Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus and deterring military attacks on his Hizballah allies and Iranian interests in their three-way bloc.

Moscow is also announcing loud and clear that Russia is finally restoring its military presence to the Middle East in 2013 after the last Soviet squadron exited the Mediterranean in 1992.

Debka´s information is often correct.

themarxistblog was right on the ball in that we highlighted the article by Aaron Kline in which he suggested that there really was coordination with the worst Antisemites in the world when Israel attacked the arms in Syria destined for Hamas. He showed that even before the planes took off that the Syrian Rebels Fascists were attacking Assad positions, in other words somebody had tipped them off. My bet is on Qatar and Turkey, both Hitler type states in their hatred for Jews and Israel. THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT NETANYAHU ASSOCIATES WITH THESE FASCISTS.


The problem is that Israel is not independent and can not take independent positions.


Israel should have followed our policy which was to defend Assad against the Jihad of Obama and Turkey, but reserve the right to defend itself.


It did not do so and Russia sees only Israel supporting the Jihad against Assad.


Remember that Israel took no position in defence of Assad or in defence of Gadhafi among others. It is this lack of Independence which is so damaging to Jews and Israel. Netanyahu snuggles up to NATO and the West.


Thus Russia takes over the area and either Israel takes on Russia in a nuclear war situation or it is finished anyway, because it cannot afford to do nothing against weapons of mass destruction reaching Hizbullah or Hamas.


These kinds of leaders in Israel are a big danger to the lives of millions of Jews.


please read the full article on


The url for the valuable Aaron Kline article was on yesterday