war on Want under attack .. read this story
Row over War on Want Israel campaign
Human rights and poverty relief charity War on Want has accused "politically motivated lobbyists" of abusing Charity Commission complaints procedures to prevent the organisation from defending Palestinians' human rights.
Lee Scott, Conservative MP for Ilford North, complained to the regulator about the charity’s online Palestine guide, which describes itself as a “guide for boycott, divestment and sanctions” against Israel. Scott denied that the motivation for his letter was political. “War on Want is a registered charity,” he told Third Sector. “As such, it shouldn’t involve itself in political matters, and this is a political matter. This is not something that a charity that wants to help people should be doing.”
However, John Hilary, campaigns and policy director at War and Want, dismissed Scott’s concerns as “misguided” and said the MP’s complaint was part of an ongoing strategy by a highly organised pro-Israel lobby to disrupt the charity’s Palestie campaigns by complaining about them to the regulator.“
..He also said War on Want had not heard from the commission following complaints made in June of last year about two leaflets the charity produced as part of its Palestine campaign. A spokeswoman of the commission confirmed that those complaints had also surrounded the “inappropriate nature” of political campaigning.
Showing posts with label israelis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israelis. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine
Robert Fisk: How can Lord Blair possibly be given this peace
[Published: Monday 25, June 2007 - 10:27]
I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut when a phone call told me Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine". I checked the date - no, it was not April 1 - but I remain overwhelmed that this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is contemplating being "our" Middle East envoy.
Can this be true?
I had always assumed Balfour, Sykes and Picot were the epitome of Middle Eastern hubris. But Blair? That this (soon-to-be) ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe he has a role in the region - he whose own preposterous envoy, Lord Levy, made so many secret trips there, to no avail - is going to sully his hands (and, I fear, our lives) in the world's last colonial war is simply overwhelming.Of course, he'll be in touch with Mahmoud Abbas, will try to marginalise Hamas, will talk endlessly about " moderates". We'll have to listen to him pontificating about morality, how he's completely confident that he's doing the right thing (this is the same man who postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in order to share George Bush's ridiculous hope of an Israeli victory over Hezbollah) in bringing peace to the Middle East.Not once - ever - has he apologised. Not once has he said he was sorry for what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes - in what must be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake evidence of Iraq's " weapons of mass destruction" - that he can do good in the Middle East.Here is a man totally discredited in the region now believing he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch up "Palestine".In the hunt for quislings to do our bidding I suppose Blair has his uses. His blend of ruthlessness and dishonesty will no doubt go down quite well with our local Arab dictators.And I have a suspicion - always assuming this extraordinary story is true - that Blair will be able to tour around Damascus, even Tehran, in his hunt for "peace", thus paving the way for an American exit strategy in Iraq. But "Palestine"?The Palestinians held elections - the democratic variety - and Hamas won. But Blair will presumably not be able to talk to Hamas. He'll need to talk only to Abbas's flunkies, to negotiate with an administration described so accurately this week by my old colleague Rami Khoury as a "government of the imagination".The Americans are talking, and here I quote State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, about an envoy who can work "with the Palestinians in the Palestinian system" to develop institutions for a "well- governed state". I can see the appeal for Lord Blair, though I'm a bit puzzled about what the "Palestinian system" is meant to be.It was James Wolfensohn who was originally "our" Middle East envoy, a former World Bank president who left in frustration because he could neither reconstruct Gaza nor work with a "peace process" that was being eroded with every new Jewish settlement and every Qassam rocket fired into Israel. Does Blair think he can do better? What honeyed words will we hear?There will be appeals for restraint "on all sides", endless calls for " moderation", none for justice (which is all the people of the Middle East have been pleading for for 100 years).And Israel likes Lord Blair. Indeed, Blair's slippery use of language is likely to appeal to Ehud Olmert, whose government continues to take Arab land for Jews and Jews only as he waits to discover a Palestinian with whom he can "negotiate" , Mahmoud Abbas now having the prestige of a rabbit after his forces were crushed in Gaza.Which of "Palestine's" two prime ministers will Blair talk to? Why, the one with a collar and tie, of course, who works for Mr Abbas, who will demand more "security", tougher laws, less democracy.I have never been able to figure out why the Middle East draws the Balfours and the Sykeses and the Blairs into its maw. Once, our favourite trouble-shooter was James Baker, who worked for George W's father until the Israelis got tired of him. Before that we had a whole list of UN Secretary Generals who visited the region, frowned and warned of serious consequences if peace did not soon come.I recall another man with Blair's pomposity, Kurt Waldheim who - no longer the UN's boss - actually believed he could be an "envoy" for peace in the Middle East, despite his war- time career as an intelligence officer for the Wehrmacht's Army Group "E".Waldheim's ability to draw a curtain over his wartime past does have one thing in common with Blair. For he steadfastly refused to acknowledge that he had ever done anything wrong. Who does that remind you of?
© Belfast Telegraph
[Published: Monday 25, June 2007 - 10:27]
I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut when a phone call told me Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine". I checked the date - no, it was not April 1 - but I remain overwhelmed that this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is contemplating being "our" Middle East envoy.
Can this be true?
I had always assumed Balfour, Sykes and Picot were the epitome of Middle Eastern hubris. But Blair? That this (soon-to-be) ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe he has a role in the region - he whose own preposterous envoy, Lord Levy, made so many secret trips there, to no avail - is going to sully his hands (and, I fear, our lives) in the world's last colonial war is simply overwhelming.Of course, he'll be in touch with Mahmoud Abbas, will try to marginalise Hamas, will talk endlessly about " moderates". We'll have to listen to him pontificating about morality, how he's completely confident that he's doing the right thing (this is the same man who postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in order to share George Bush's ridiculous hope of an Israeli victory over Hezbollah) in bringing peace to the Middle East.Not once - ever - has he apologised. Not once has he said he was sorry for what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes - in what must be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake evidence of Iraq's " weapons of mass destruction" - that he can do good in the Middle East.Here is a man totally discredited in the region now believing he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch up "Palestine".In the hunt for quislings to do our bidding I suppose Blair has his uses. His blend of ruthlessness and dishonesty will no doubt go down quite well with our local Arab dictators.And I have a suspicion - always assuming this extraordinary story is true - that Blair will be able to tour around Damascus, even Tehran, in his hunt for "peace", thus paving the way for an American exit strategy in Iraq. But "Palestine"?The Palestinians held elections - the democratic variety - and Hamas won. But Blair will presumably not be able to talk to Hamas. He'll need to talk only to Abbas's flunkies, to negotiate with an administration described so accurately this week by my old colleague Rami Khoury as a "government of the imagination".The Americans are talking, and here I quote State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, about an envoy who can work "with the Palestinians in the Palestinian system" to develop institutions for a "well- governed state". I can see the appeal for Lord Blair, though I'm a bit puzzled about what the "Palestinian system" is meant to be.It was James Wolfensohn who was originally "our" Middle East envoy, a former World Bank president who left in frustration because he could neither reconstruct Gaza nor work with a "peace process" that was being eroded with every new Jewish settlement and every Qassam rocket fired into Israel. Does Blair think he can do better? What honeyed words will we hear?There will be appeals for restraint "on all sides", endless calls for " moderation", none for justice (which is all the people of the Middle East have been pleading for for 100 years).And Israel likes Lord Blair. Indeed, Blair's slippery use of language is likely to appeal to Ehud Olmert, whose government continues to take Arab land for Jews and Jews only as he waits to discover a Palestinian with whom he can "negotiate" , Mahmoud Abbas now having the prestige of a rabbit after his forces were crushed in Gaza.Which of "Palestine's" two prime ministers will Blair talk to? Why, the one with a collar and tie, of course, who works for Mr Abbas, who will demand more "security", tougher laws, less democracy.I have never been able to figure out why the Middle East draws the Balfours and the Sykeses and the Blairs into its maw. Once, our favourite trouble-shooter was James Baker, who worked for George W's father until the Israelis got tired of him. Before that we had a whole list of UN Secretary Generals who visited the region, frowned and warned of serious consequences if peace did not soon come.I recall another man with Blair's pomposity, Kurt Waldheim who - no longer the UN's boss - actually believed he could be an "envoy" for peace in the Middle East, despite his war- time career as an intelligence officer for the Wehrmacht's Army Group "E".Waldheim's ability to draw a curtain over his wartime past does have one thing in common with Blair. For he steadfastly refused to acknowledge that he had ever done anything wrong. Who does that remind you of?
© Belfast Telegraph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
