Category: Militarism

  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) has called for a ban on defense contractor stock trading within Congress, saying it’s wrong that lawmakers are able to personally profit from approving hundreds of billions of dollars to fund militarism in the U.S. and across the world year after year. In an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press, Tlaib said it is “incredibly disturbing” that Congress has passed yet…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On 28 January, Labour Party defence secretary John Healey spoke at the annual ADS dinner. The dinner, held at the JW Marriott Grosvenor House hotel on Park Lane, is a major lobbying and networking event for the arms industry. Healey used his speech to criticise student campus protests over arms trade involvement in their universities. He stated that “We don’t stop wars by boycotting our defence…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • RAF Akrotiri is a UK airbase on Cyprus. And while the British government and its mainstream media lapdogs have tried to limit public knowledge about the base’s support for Israel during its genocide in Gaza, people who oppose the settler-colonial state’s war crimes are keeping up the pressure. Artwork on the London Underground from Matt Bonner, for example, highlights RAF Akrotiri’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Protesters vow that arms dealers and politicians will not dine in peace at their £265-£540-a-head annual dinner – as they prepare another year of disruption to the event. The Aerospace, Defence & Security (ADS) Group is an arms-industry trade body that represents most of the world’s biggest arms firms. And according to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), every year it holds a dinner to “bring…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On January 23rd, activists targeted Kelvinside Electronics in Glasgow, spraying the interior with red paint and leaving signs that read: “Drop Leonardo Contract” and “Don’t Profit from Genocide”: Kelvinside Electronics has supplied services for both Leonardo and Thales. Leonardo, one of the worlds largest arms manufacturers, has close ties to the Israeli state and to the Israeli based…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Protestors led by Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and Drone Wars will gather outside the main gates of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1pm on Saturday 25 January to oppose plans to fly US Global Hawk drones from the base. The protest comes as the newly inaugurated US president Donald Trump once again repeated his plan to ‘Make America Great’ articulating a ‘peace through strength’ foreign policy.

    US drones in the UK: WTF?

    The US plan to operate the huge RQ-4 Global Hawk drones from RAF Fairford as part of NATO’s ‘Agile Combat Employment’ (ACE) concept which argues that key military aircraft should be able to operate from different bases in order to make it harder for adversaries to conduct pre-emptive strikes.

    As the Telegraph reported, “introducing the long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones to the Gloucestershire base means severing a vital flight path used by airlines serving the West Midlands airport several times a week”:

    Now airport managers have written to the CAA warning that flights could be extended by hundreds of extra miles and delayed by up to 20 minutes while the Global Hawks are flying to and from Fairford.

    According to documents submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the “working assumption” is that when the drones are at the base they will fly 2-3 times per week. However, a trial flight of the giant drone into the base in August 2024 seriously disrupted UK passenger flights arriving into Birmingham airport.

    No, no, no

    CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    The Global Hawk is part of the US spying apparatus and has been for decades, from the devastating invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Whether it’s US nuclear weapons stationed at RAF Lakenheath or drone flights from RAF Fairford, these British bases are critical hubs for the US war-fighting machine. With Donald Trump back in power this is even more alarming. Instead of hiding behind bogus arguments of national security, the British government should be held accountable for the war crimes being perpetrated from these bases.

    Director of Drone Wars Chris Cole said:

    While in theory the UK has to give approval for any military operations carried out from its territory, given that the UK government is so determined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Washington, there must be serious questions as to whether the Government would ever refuse permission for flights, no matter what the purpose of the operation. Allowing US drones to fly from Fairford is effectively handing Washington a blank cheque for its drone operations and must be challenged.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Twinning the terms “ceasefire” and “Gaza” seems not only incongruous but an obscene joke.  This is largely because the ceasefire announced on January 15 between Israel and Hamas could have been reached so much earlier by all the concerned parties.  But will was lacking in Washington to force Israel’s hand, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was repeatedly of the belief that Hamas had to be unconditionally defeated, if not extirpated altogether, for any such arrangements to be reached.

    A general outline of the ceasefire terms was released by Qatar, a vital broker in the talks between Hamas and Israel.  According to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs release, there are to be three phases in the agreement.  The first phase will involve the release of 33 Israeli detainees in exchange for a number of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.  The second and third phase “will be finalized during the implementation of the first phase.”

    The first stage will last for six weeks and see, should things pan out, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all populated areas of Gaza and the return of Palestinians to their neighbourhoods. (To say homes, in this regard, would be monstrously distasteful, seeing that many would have been flattened.)  Humanitarian aid deliveries will also be increased and distributed “on a large scale” through the Strip, while hospitals, health centres, and bakeries will be rehabilitated. Supplies of fuel for civilian use and shelter for displaced persons deprived of their homes will also be facilitated.

    The second stage envisages a conclusion to the war, a full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the Strip and the return of all remaining living hostages in return for another allotment of Palestinian prisoners.  The third entails reconstructing Gaza and the return of any remaining bodies of the hostages.

    Despite his habitual impotence in the face of Netanyahu, US President Joe Biden saw the agreement as a masterstroke.  Oddly enough, he insisted that the plan resembled almost to the letter a plan he had advanced in May 2024.  “I laid out the precise contours of this plan on May 31, 2024, after which it was endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council.”

    He omitted to mention the US vetoing of no fewer than five ceasefire resolutions proposed at that same body, not to mention those foggy “red lines” he insisted Netanyahu never cross when waging war against Hamas and the Palestinian populace.  Such gestures as delaying the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs for fear that they might be used by the IDF in such areas as Rafah were purely symbolic in nature.

    As Netanyahu had no interest in being bound by any such lines of engagement, Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, could only crankily remark to reporters that it was all a media obsession.  “The whole issue of the red line, as you define it, is something that you guys like; it’s almost become a bit of a national parlour game.”

    While Biden clawed and scraped for credit, it was incoming US President Donald Trump claiming the lion’s share.  And why not?  With his inauguration on January 20, the timing of the ceasefire, with Israel finally relenting, was no coincidence.  “This EPIC ceasefire agreement,” Trump stated in a roaring post on his Truth Social platform, “could only have happened as result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signalled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.”

    While Biden and his officials fumed at this claim, it was clear that Trump had a sharp point.  His incoming Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has had a busy January interposing in the negotiation process, spending time in Doha as part of the discussions on the Israeli hostages, then meeting Netanyahu in a January 11 encounter that was reported to be “tense”.

    According to the Times of Israel, Witkoff was most insistent that the Israeli PM accept essential compromises.  Two nights after their meeting, the negotiating teams of both Israel and Hamas notified the mediators that they had accepted the deal on hostages in principle.  In the view of two Arab officials cited in the paper, Trump’s envoy had done “more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year”.

    Whoever claims credit for these latest developments hardly lessens the bitterness of the harvest.  The prevarications, delays and obstructions have permitted massive destruction and loss of life to take place.  Cowardice and bad faith have been the hallmarks of the process.  It remains unclear how all the relevant parties will behave.  Netanyahu will remain bitter that his goals of eliminating Hamas have not been achieved. It’s a point that his cabinet colleagues on the far right, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, are all too readily reminding him of.

    The question of who controls Gaza after the phases conclude remains a thick encumbrance.  Then comes that big issue after Trump’s inauguration.  How far will his involvement be constructive in achieving a lasting peace, or merely default to the exclusive security goals and interests of Israel?  If history is a reliable guide on this point, the omens are not good.

    The post Bitter Harvests: The Gaza Ceasefire first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Local campaigners have uncovered a previously-missed company that is actually now one of the biggest UK arms exporters to Israel – therefore, complicit in its genocide. Meet G&H Artemis.

    G&H Artemis: supplying arms to genocidal Israel

    On Monday 13 January, campaigners across the south west stopped business at Gooch and Housego’s (G&H) Artemis site in Plymouth:

    The action marks the start of a new campaign – Shut Down G&H – committed to shutting down a company that’s deeply complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza:

    G&H Artemis

    According to research by Campaign Against Arms Trade, G&H, with the acquisition of Phoenix Optical Technologies last year, is now the largest recipient of single issue arms export licenses to Israel between October 2021 and May 2023.

    G&H Artemis export a range of military equipment to Israel, including components for head up/down displays for military aircraft. G&H Artemis provide optical and laser technology for head up displays.

    On the ground, activists reported that many of the workers couldn’t gain entry to the factory due to the disruption.

    A spokesperson for Shut Down G&H said “this act of resistance was inspired by the growing awareness that G&H is directly implicated in the murder of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This is unconscionable. As the local community, we are taking action to reject our city’s complicity in Israel’s genocide and display our unequivocal solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian life, freedom, and self-determination”:

    Today’s action is only the start. G&H have offices across the South West. We can and we must shut them down!

    Slipping under the radar

    The Canary asked G&H Artemis for comment – but the company declined to provide us with one.

    Campaign Against Arms Trade’s media coordinator, Emily Apple, said:

    It’s great to see this campaign being launched today. For too long G&H has got away with slipping under the radar. It should be a household name. Everyone should know this company is complicit in and profiting from Israel’s genocide.

    In only imposing a partial arms suspension, this government has made it clear that it will continue to prioritise arms dealers’ profits over Palestinian lives and international law. It’s therefore down to ordinary people across the country to take action and say no to the genocide profiteers on their doorsteps.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The ongoing controversy over RAF Akrotiri‘s participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza is not the only scandal relating to British armed forces. Because the Afghanistan Inquiry into possible UK Special Forces (UKSF) war crimes has just revealed that SAS officers had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder” from 2010 to 2013.

    This is according to a former senior Special Boat Service (SBS) officer who, along with others, had raised concerns in 2011 about SAS executions and cover-ups.

    Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick faced criticism in 2024 for “casually revealing a UK extra-judicial assassination program designed to evade ECHR jurisdiction”. And there were many official denials. But the revelations from the Afghanistan Inquiry suggest that this type of behaviour may indeed be commonplace.

    The inquiry’s closed hearings do not allow attendance by members of the public, the media, or the legal teams of bereaved families.

    SAS: kill counts, child murder, impunity, and fear of WikiLeaks

    As the BBC reports:

    Senior SBS officers told the inquiry of deep concerns that the SAS, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts – the number of dead they could achieve in each operation.

    A junior officer of the SBS, meanwhile, reported how an SAS member had spoken “about a pillow being put over the head of someone before they were killed with a pistol”. They added that “some of those killed by the SAS had been children” likely younger than 16.

    In an email, another SBS officer showed concern about what might happen if they didn’t speak out:

    When the next WikiLeaks occurs then we will be dragged down with them

    One said that “basically, there appears to be a culture there of ‘shut up, don’t question’”.

    The low level of accountability for the SAS was apparently “astonishing”.

    British support for and participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been utterly damning. But the UK seems not to reserve impunity only for its allies’ crimes. Instead, it seems to be how things work with our own forces too.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 mikeprysner left split2

    We look at what we know about two deadly incidents that unfolded in the United States on New Year’s Day: a truck attack in New Orleans in which a driver killed at least 14 people before being shot dead by police, and the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside a Trump hotel in Las Vegas, part of an apparent suicide. The FBI has identified the New Orleans suspect as 42-year-old U.S. Army veteran Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who had posted videos to social media before the attack pledging allegiance to the Islamic State militant group. In the Las Vegas case, the driver was 37-year-old Matthew Livelsberger of Colorado, an active-duty Army Green Beret, who is believed to have shot himself before the blast. Investigators say they have not found a link between the two incidents despite both men being connected to the military, but Army veteran and antiwar organizer Mike Prysner says “military service is now the number one predictor of becoming what is called a mass casualty offender, surpassing even mental health issues.” Prysner says the U.S. military depends on social problems like alienation and inequality in order to gain new recruits, then “spits them back out” in often worse shape, with people exposed to violence sometimes turning to extremism. “We have these deep-rooted problems in our society that give rise to these incidents of mass violence. Service members and veterans … can actually be a part of changing society and getting to the root of those issues and moving society forward,” he says, citing uniformed resistance to the Vietnam and Iraq wars as examples.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Since the state of Israel’s founding, its leaders and supporters have sought acceptance among other states as a peer, and legitimacy in the eyes of the global public. It has achieved mixed success on the former — and failed repeatedly on the latter. The examples are numerous. The 2022 World Cup, for one, saw a flood of social media videos involving Israeli reporters pursuing interviews with…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • China reiterated its concerns about the Philippines’ plan to acquire the US Typhon missile defense system. In the foreign ministry press briefing on Thursday, December 26, the spokesperson of the ministry, Mao Ning, claimed it is a “strategic and offensive” weapon which may fuel arms race in the region. China also restated its long-standing demand for the withdrawal of the system already deployed near its borders.

    Ning reminded the leadership in the Philippines of their promise of never taking sides among the major powers.

    The post China Demands Withdrawal Of US Missile System From The Philippines appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On December 11, activists opposing the ongoing Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip picketed the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York City for the fifth time since September. The activists, collectively known as Demilitarize Brooklyn Navy Yard (DBNY), seek to pressure the manufacturing complex’s board of directors to evict two tenants connected to the Israeli military: Crye Precision…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When Japan, already considered an enemy of the United States, sent its air force to U.S. territory and bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, the same date on the calendar that former opposition forces of the Iraq government entered Damascus, the U.S. government and media emphasized the more serious situation ─ the U.S. was at war with Japan. Press coverage and U.S. government response to the “fall” of the Assad government distracted from the serious situation ─ Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), successor to former Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Nusra Front, which the U.S. labelled a terrorist organization and enemy of the United States and previously fought to prevent gaining control of Syria, sent its forces to seize control of Syria.

    The conventional U.S. media treated the ominous events as a tale of the daily lives of two individuals — Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and Bashar al-Assad — Jesse James vs the evil banks. Amidst their entertaining stories are misinterpretations, lack of depth in analysis, and inattention to details. More valid discussion of a momentous event and where the United States is centered in the crisis are helpful.

    Bashar Assad had already fallen.
    With half the population displaced or out of the country, with sanctions depriving the people of energy, and with foreign forces wandering at will throughout the countryside, Syria navigated on fumes. Its government hardly breathed. Assad had already fallen. Considering the coming winter chill, he decided to change residences.

    The U.S. had no fingers in the cookie jar.
    What a whopper.

    • Is it a coincidence that the U.S. supported Syrian Democratic Forces launched an attack on villages in the northern countryside of Deir Al Zor province on Tuesday, December 3?
    • Is it a coincidence that, on Nov 12, U.S. Central Command in Eastern Syria said, “it had carried out attacks against ‘Iranian backed groups’ in Syria, hitting nine targets at two separate locations in the country over the previous 24-hour period.”
    • Didn’t the U.S. air force bomb, strafe, and repulse militias from the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces, who tried to enter Iraq and assist the Syrian military?
    • Why did the “US A-10s, B-52s, target dozens of ISIS sites in Syria? Air Force planes dropped roughly 140 munitions on a ‘very broad’ gathering of ISIS fighters early Sunday morning (December 8).” Why weren’t the attacks done before the walkover? Obvious answer ─ previously the U.S. encouraged ISIS’ needling the Syrians. Now, Uncle Sam did not favor ISIS needling the new favorites in the neocon world.

    Another U.S. counterproductive and foreign policy failure.
    U.S. foreign policy initiatives have one common thread ─ counterproductive and homicidal.

    • Calculated to prevent North Vietnam from obtaining control of all of Vietnam, 10 years of war resulted in 1-2 million Vietnamese casualties and North Vietnam obtaining control of Vietnam.
    • Fifty years of a Cold War struggle, in which the United States inflicted casualties on millions around the world, designed to prevent the Soviet Union from extending its hammer and sickle and challenge U.S. hegemony, resulted in a Russia that extends its territory and vigorously challenges U.S. hegemony.
    • U.S. troops, sent on a mission to feed and stabilize Somalia, shot up the place, paved the road for al-Shabaab, a Salafi terrorist organization, and scurried out of an anarchic Somalia.
    • The U.S. fought twenty years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with…..the Taliban.
    • The U.S. invasion of a moribund Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, alleged as an opportunity to remove an international threat, triggered the emergence of a parade of international threats, which terrorized the Fertile Crescent, and solidified the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces that challenge the U.S. in Iraq. These forces ally with Iran, which the U.S. State Department considers an international threat. The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901 – 210,296 violent civilian deaths during the Iraq war. In 2007, due to sectarian violence that emerged from the U.S. invasion, Iraq had about 4 million displaced persons. Between January 2014 and August 2015, 2.9 million persons fled their homes in three new mass waves of displacement following offensives by ISIL.
    • Together with NATO, the U.S. replaced Muammar Gaddafi, who suppressed al-Qaeda terrorists, with the same terrorists, and engineered the creation and arming of several terrorists groups in North Africa.
    • After sending its military into Syria’s civil war, a war that estimated deaths at about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, with defined purpose of preventing ISSIS from seizing control of Syria, the U.S. enabled Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the successor to al-Qaeda’s previous partner, Al-Nusra Front, to seize control of Syria.

    The release of dissidents from prisons was an incomplete story.
    Media attention to Saydnaya prison, “which had become synonymous with arbitrary detention, torture and murder,” would have been genuine if the same attention had been given to similar prisons in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The horrific incarcerations of dissidents in the three mentioned countries cannot be adequately described in less than a 1000 page book. Here are some details.

    Israel has, by magnitudes, exceeded Syria in the number of detainees of Palestinian dissidents.

    On 11 December 2012, the office of then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stated that since 1967, 800,000 Palestinians, or roughly 20% of the total population and 40% of the male population, had been imprisoned by Israel at one point in time. According to Palestinian estimates, 70% of Palestinian families have had one or more family members sentenced to jail terms in Israeli prisons as a result of activities against the occupation.

    From the New Yorker magazine, March 21, 2024, “The Brutal Conditions Facing Palestinian Prisoners”:

    Israel has also detained thousands of Palestinians from Gaza; prisoners who have described extensive physical abuse from Israeli forces, and, already, at least twenty-seven detainees from Gaza have died in military custody. At the same time, Israeli forces have arrested thousands more Palestinians, mostly from the West Bank, at least ten of whom have reportedly died in Israel prisons.

    The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (P.C.A.T.I.), a non-governmental organization, established in 1990, represents Palestinians and Israelis who claim to have been tortured by Israeli authorities. In the New Yorker article, they claim,

    We’re currently looking at almost ten thousand Palestinian detainees from the West Bank and Gaza…We know that the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) has been banned from visiting all Israeli prisons since October 7th. We also know—through evidence that P.C.A.T.I. and other N.G.O.s have collected—of what we view as systemic abuse and violence by prison guards toward Palestinian detainees since October 7th. We’ve documented nineteen different incidents of torture and abuse in seven different Israel Prison Service (I.P.S.) facilities by different I.P.S. units, all of which have led us to believe that we’re looking at a policy rather than just isolated incidents.

    Although the number of arbitrary executions in Saydnaya prison is not known, much mention is made of the executions. Passing mention is made of the hundreds of arbitrary executions of Palestinians in the West Bank, shot while escaping Israeli military, and the tens of thousands murdered in Gaza.

    Where are investigations into the number of dissidents held in Saudi and Egypt jails. We read of constant executions in Saudi Arabia and pay no attention to the reports. No execution has matched the grisly slicing and dicing of Saudi journalist, Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, “who was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018 by agents of the Saudi government.”

    We now have good terrorists.
    Questioned, in a CNN interview, as to why the U.S. accepts HTS, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and with a $10m bounty on its leader, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan replied, “The group at the vanguard of this rebel advance, HTS, is actually a terrorist organization designated by the United States. So we have real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization. At the same time, of course, we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure. So it’s a complicated situation.”

    Placed in words often described to the hypocritical U.S. government, “Yes, they are bad guys and they are a terrorist organization, but they are our bad guys and they are our terrorist organization.”

    We know where Assad is; where is the United States?
    Uncle Sam’s voices to the world give their usual empty and meaningless words to a packed and meaningful event — closely monitoring, historic opportunity, a moment of risk and uncertainty, work together with allies and partners to urge de-escalation and protect U.S. personnel and military positions, and strongly support a peaceful transition of power.

    The U.S. should be forced to answer why it did not use its power to prevent a Civil War that caused an estimated deaths of about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, and why it has not used its power to insist that the more democratically inclined opposition in Syria be immediately given leading roles in the new Syrian government. Isn’t it dangerous to have Mohammed al-Bashir, a deputy in Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s National Salvation Front, serve as “acting” prime minister for Syria’s transitional government. Will Mohammed al-Bashir “act” for one month, one year, or one decade?

    Israel has spoken forcefully; its terrorist country smells and recognizes another terrorist country. The U.S. has spoken by not speaking; it now has the clout of Albania in Middle East affairs.

    It’s becoming shameful to be a U.S. citizen.

    The post Incomplete Coverage of an Ominous Syrian Situation first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Jeremy Corbyn is taking part in two promotional events in Manchester and Rochdale on Saturday 14 December in support of the Peace and Justice Project’s new book, Monstrous Anger of the Guns: How The Global Arms Trade Is Ruining The World & What We Can Do About It.

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns: a new release and a tour

    We are seeing injustices caused by war and occupation unfold in real-time via social media, and we are speaking out in our millions against these horrors. Yet, from Gaza to Ukraine, the bombs continue to fall. We must understand why this is happening if we are to end it.

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns lays bare the dark and deceitful world of the global arms trade, which, often funded in our name, is a business that counts its profits in billions and its losses in human lives.

    Leading activists and campaigners connect the dots, showing how notions of citizenship, democracy and trust in governments are misguided, and how we can fight back by building mass movements, using direct action and legal justice to end the flow of weapons and the environmental and human devastation they bring.

    Economist Yanis Varoufakis said the book “equips readers with the information they need to resist the lies that feed humanity’s urge to commit suicide”. He urged people to “read it”.

    Journalist Peter Oborne said it contains “devastating testimony. Faultless research. It’s impossible to exaggerate the timeliness of this powerfully written book”.

    So, to coincide with the release of Monstrous Anger of the Guns, Corbyn will be making two appearances on 14 December.

    The first of these events takes place at the Mechanics Institute in Manchester at 1pm, where Jeremy will be joined by Dr Paul Rogers for an in discussion event on the global arms trade.

    The second event will take place at the Rochdale Royale at 6pm and also features Dr Yvonne Ridley, Rabbi Elhanan Beck, and Al Jazeera journalist Youmna El Sayed, as well as many others campaigning for an end to the genocide in Gaza and lasting peace:

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns

    Featured image supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In mid-November, the Biden administration (given his diminished mental capacity, whoever is now in charge) authorized the Kyiv regime to launch Lockheed Martin produced Army Tactical Missile Systems or ATACMS to hit targets 190 miles inside Russia. In response, an ICBM was fired in wartime for the first time when the Oreshnik (“Hazelnut Tree), an intermdiate range, nuclear capable missile, took only 5 minutes to hit Dinipro, Ukraine. The Kremlin gave Washington a 30 minute warning before the launch. Putin called the U.S./NATO bluff and he promised that future retaliation could target “decision making centers” in Kyiv.

    This new Russian weapon can reach Warsaw in 1 minute 1 second; Berlin, 2 minutes 55 seconds; and London 6 minutes 56 seconds. Europe has no defence system that can intercept it. Putin said recently that when several Oreshniks are used simutaneously, “the resulting impact is comparable in power to that of a nuclear weapon.” Despite Russian warnings about escalating the conflict, the U.S. continues to blow past all red lines and on November 23 and 25, the Kiev regime fired a dozen more ATACMS into Russian territory.

    Here it’s imperative to briefly recall how the US imperialist strategy toward Russia got us into this dire situation. Contrary to the official narrative, the war in Ukraine did not begin with an “unprovoked” Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 27, 2022. Rather, as Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University wrote, “In fact the war was provoked by the United States in ways that leading U.S. diplomats had anticipated for decades leading up to the war, which means that the war could have been avoided and should be stopped through negotiations.” (Common Dreams, 5/23/23). VIrtually all policy experts and Russian leaders warned that NATO expansion was, in the words of CIA Director William Burns, the “brightest of all red lines for the Russian elites (not just Putin) of whom would see it as a direct challenge to Russian interests.” George Kennan, architect of U.S. containment policy, called it “a tragic mistake.”

    In spite of these warnings, at the June 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO leaders pronounced that “Ukraine will become a NATO member” and at the Brussels meeting on June 14, 2021, NATO reiterated that “Ukraine will be a member of NATO.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov countered, “The key to everything is that NATO will not expand eastward.” In truth, given all the U.S./NATO arms and military training flowing to the Kyiv regime it’s apparent that Ukraine was already a de facto NATO member.

    Anyone with a scintllla of working brain matter understood that no government in Moscow would tolerate the decision to bring Ukraine into NATO. Russia viewed NATO expansion on its border as an existential threat and legitimately feared that the US, under the giuise of NATO, would place missiles 317 miles or 5 minutes flying time from decapitating the Kremlin. What would Washington’s response be if Russia or China struck a “defensive” alliance with Canada or Mexico and began placing missiles on the U.S. border? Or, think of the Monroe Doctrine.

    In short, the war hawk neocons who prevail in Washington were fully aware of the above but wanted to provoke a proxy war to be fought to the last Ukrainian. They expected the conflict would depower Russia — and perhaps even precipitate a regime change — so the US could move along to the Strait of Taiwan and a likely confrontation with China, the primary peer challenger to US global domination.

    Since 2002, the U.S. has squandered $174 billion of aid and military assistance on Ukraine, money that’s desperately needed for addressing the cost of living, health care, housing, education and health care for the working class here at home. Further, there have been more than half a million Ukrainian and Russians killed on the battlefield in a war that that could have been avoided had the U.S. given up the idea of Ukraine joining NATO.

    According to the AP (11/29/2024), as many 200,000 soldiers may have deserted from the Ukrainian army. In response, Blinken is pressuring Ukraine to lower the conscription age to 18 which could add 350,000 in meat for the grinder. My sense is that Blinken & Co. are attempting to prolong the war as long as possible so that when the inevitable defeat does occur, we will hear the refrain, “Trump lost Ukraine.”

    In spite of all the official disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the war, a majority of Ukrainians no longer support it (Gallup,19 November 2024) and Americans now oppose more military aid for Ukraine. In our recent presidential election voters registered a strong mandate to end the “endless wars.” Here in Pennsylvania, a majority believe the US is “too involved” in foreign affairs. (CATO/YouGov/9/9/24).Over the past three years, Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine and during his debate with Kamala Harris, he said “I want this war to stop.” In his November 5 victory speech, Trump declared “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to end them.” We’ll soon see if the unpredictable and erratic Trump adheres to his promise. Given Deep State opposition and some of Trump’s appointees, I’m not optimistic.

    In the meantime, no sane person can wish the current situation to unfold into a global thermonuclear exchange and the annihilation of the earth’s people. I’m old enough to recall how the U.S. responded when Russia attempted to put missiles in Cuba and I suspect we are now closer to World War III than we were during those 13 fateful days in October 1962.

    The post U.S. Imperialism and Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Israel’s war on Gaza — marked by extensive war crimes, and widely seen as an ongoing genocide — has been backed by the U.S. government, which has provided Israel with billions of dollars in weapons to be used against Palestinians. On the ground and from the air, the genocidal siege has been carried out by Israel’s military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), whose soldiers regularly post videos and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • For years, President-elect Donald Trump has portrayed himself as the central victim of the “deep state” — a phrase that now conjures up right-wing paranoia and anti-government fearmongering. But well before Trump held power, the term was used by leftists — and its meaning has played a critical role in its analysis of power. In Who Owns Democracy?: The Real Deep State and the Struggle Over…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The UK has recently signed the largest single arms licence on record to Egypt, as a British-Egyptian political prisoner remains arbitrarily detained. The news comes amid growing concern over Egypt’s human rights abuses.

    The UK: selling arms to human rights-abusing Egypt

    Campaign Against Arms Trade calls on the UK government to halt the issuing of arms licences to Egypt until British national, pro-democracy activist and writer Alaa Abd el-Fattah is released by the Egyptian authorities. He was due to be released in September, but has not been freed, and should never have been imprisoned. He was convicted of ‘spreading false news’ for sharing a Facebook post about torture in Egypt.

    In December 2023, while Alaa remained detained, the largest single arms licence on record from the UK to Egypt was issued for military radars worth £79,347,022. Military radars can be used for purposes including surveillance, targeting and weapon guidance.

    According to the Cairo Institute for Human Rights many human rights defenders and critics of the government spend years on end in pretrial detention, ordered and renewed by terrorism courts and military courts through a process of dropping and then renewing legal cases against them, usually on the basis of national security or terrorism charges. In Alaa’s case the Egyptian authorities are refusing to acknowledge the years he has spent in pretrial detention.

    The UK is the largest single foreign investor in Egypt, and the annual trade between the two countries is around £4.5 billion. However Egypt remains one of the UK’s 32 human rights priority countries according to the UK’s most recent report on global human rights.

    As well as trade the UK has a strong military relationship with Egypt. In 2018 Egypt and the UK signed an agreement to conduct joint military training exercises which took place in 2019, along with bilateral ministerial meetings to “discuss enhancing UK-Egypt defence cooperation”.

    Huge licences

    Since September 2019 when Alaa was most recently detained by the Egyptian authorities, the UK has licensed at least £237 million worth of arms to Egypt.

    These arms licenses include:

    • £196 million worth of ML5 licences (target acquisition, weapon control and countermeasure systems);
    • £13 million worth of ML10 licences (components for aircraft, helicopters, drones);
    • £7.6 million worth of ML9 licences (components for warships);
    • £6.5 million worth of ML4 licences (grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures).

    This is a conservative total that does not include arms sold using the secretive and opaque Open Licence system. This allows weapons to be transferred without a total value being published. However, CAAT’s data browsers show that 34 unlimited-value “open” licences were issued during this period.

    Continuing to arm Egypt

    Katie Fallon, Advocacy Manager at Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

    Every day that passes is precious time stolen from Alaa and his loved ones by the Egyptian authorities. Successive British governments have signalled that there will be no meaningful consequences to the arbitrary detention of a dual British-Egyptian national, and instead the largest single arms licence to Egypt on record was signed last year.

    Our government continues to arm Egypt despite the regime’s widespread use of torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention. We call on the UK to immediately halt the issuing of arms licences to Egypt until Alaa is released and leverage any partnership with Egypt for systemic reform of human rights in the country.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • RT ran a headline: “Putin must be ‘adult in the room’ on Ukraine conflict.” This is according to left-leaning comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore.

    “Joe Biden and the neo-cons in his administration have been constantly escalating war… What they’re trying to do is start a war that Donald Trump can’t stop,” warns Dore about a potential WWIII.

    The only hope we have is that Putin shows restraint, that he is the only adult in the room and that he can hold off somehow until Donald Trump becomes president, Dore opined in an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

    Is that the only hope? One can certainly come up with many other hopes. For example, a mass mobilization by US citizenry in Washington, DC. A general strike carried out by Americans, Canadians, and Europeans repulsed by their neocon-affiliated politicians. Or that Pentagon generals speak out vociferously and publicly against such dangerous provocations against Russia. Or that people charged with inputting the coordinates for missiles targeting Russia refuse to do so.

    Far-fetched? Maybe so, but isn’t that what a hope is — something far outside of the realm of a certainty?

    Or is Trump the only feasible hope? And can Trump be trusted? How many promises did he fail to come through on during his first term as president?

    Dore asserts that “Trump is not a warmonger” and that he “got elected on ending our foreign regime-change interventionist wars.”

    Trump may very well have been elected on the basis of ending foreign interventions by the US. However, that does not excuse him from being a warmonger.

    Early in the first Trump presidency, he sent in US fighters who killed dozens of Yemeni civilians, including children. Trump was now a war criminal.

    Did Trump end the US war on Afghanistan? No, he sent more American troops to Afghanistan.

    Did Trump end the US war on Syria? No. In fact, Trump said the troops would remain because “We’re keeping the [Syrian] oil.”

    Did Trump seek peaceful relations with Iran? No. In fact, Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA which was designed to halt Iran’s potential for becoming a nuclear-armed state. Trump’s strategy has set the stage for further nuclear proliferation. And if that was not enough, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

    However woeful the Biden presidency has been, one ought not to forget the first Trump presidency. Trump has a track record. It seems prudent to remove the rose-colored glasses and take into consideration that track record.

    But Trump was pressured by those around him. Trump had mistakenly saddled himself with warmongering neocons in his previous administration like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, etc. But is he different now?

    Trump’s new for Director of national security policy in the White House, Sebastian Gorka, exhibited his diplomatic decorum by referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin as a “murderous former KGB colonel, that thug.” According to Gorka, Trump is going to threaten Putin by telling him: “You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.” Which serious-minded observers believe that Putin is now shaking in his pants?

    Does this inspire hope in Trump?

    Finally, does anyone have an iota of hope that Trump will do right in the Middle East when it comes to Israel?

    The post Is Trump “the only hope we have”? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • There is something enormously satisfying about seeing those in the war racket worry that their assumptions on conflict have been upended.  There they were, happily funding, planning and preparing to battle against threats imagined or otherwise, and there comes Donald Trump, malice and petulance combined, to pull the rug from under them again.

    What is fascinating about the return of Trump to the White House is that critics think his next round of potentially rowdy occupancy is going to encourage, rather than discourage war.  Conflict may be the inadvertent consequence of any number of unilateral policies Trump might pursue, but they do not tally with his anti-war platform.  Whatever can be said about his adolescent demagogic tendencies, a love of war is curiously absent from the complement.  A tendency to predictable unpredictability, however, is.

    The whole assessment also utterly misunderstands the premise that the foolishly menacing trilateral alliance of AUKUS is, by its nature, a pact for the making of war.  This agreement between Australia, the UK and the US can hardly be dignified as some peaceful, unprovocative enterprise fashioned to preserve security.  To that end, President Joe Biden should shoulder a considerable amount of the blame for destabilising the region.  But instead, we are getting some rather streaky commentary from the security wonks in Australia.  Trump spells, in the pessimistic words of Nick Bisley from La Trobe University, “uncertainty about just what direction the US will go”.  His policies might, for instance, “badly destabilise Asia” and imperil the AUKUS, specifically on the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy.  On the last point, we can only hope.

    The Australians, being willing and unquestioning satellites of US power, have tried to pretend that a change of the guard in the White House will not doom the pact.  Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed a “great deal of confidence” that things would not change under the new administration, seeing as AUKUS enjoyed bipartisan support.

    Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is also of the view that AUKUS will survive into the Trump administration as it “strengthens all three countries’ ability to deter threats, and it grows the defence industrial base and creates jobs in all three countries”.

    Another former ambassador to Washington, Arthur Sinodinos, who also occupies the role of AUKUS forum co-chair, has pitched the viability of the trilateral pact in such a way as to make it more appealing to Trump.  Without any trace of humour, he suggests that tech oligarch Elon Musk oversee matters if needed.  “If Musk can deliver AUKUS, we should put Musk in charge of AUKUS, and I’m not joking, if new thinking is needed to get this done,” advises the deluded Sinodinos.

    The reasoning offered on this is, to put it mildly, peculiar.  As co-head of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, it is hoped, will apply “business principles” and “new thinking”.  If the Pentagon can “reform supply chains, logistics, procurement rules, in a way that means there’s speed to market, we get minimum viable capability sooner, rather than later”.

    These doltish assessments from Sinodinos are blatantly ignorant of the fact the defence industry is never efficient.  Nor do they detract from the key premise of the arrangements.  Certainly, if an anti-China focus is what you are focusing on – and AUKUS, centrally and evidently, is an anti-China agreement pure and simple – there would be little reason for Trump to tinker with its central tenets.  For one, he is hankering for an even deeper trade war with Beijing. Why not also harry the Chinese with a provocative instrument, daft as it is, that entails militarising Australia and garrisoning it for any future conflict that might arise?

    Whatever the case, AUKUS has always been contingent on the interests of one power.  Congress has long signalled that US defence interests come first, including whether Australia should receive any Virginian class submarines to begin with. Trump would hardly disagree here. “Trump’s decisions at each phase of AUKUS cooperation will be shaped by zero-sum balance sheets of US interest,” suggests Alice Nason of the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre rather tritely.

    If Trump be so transactional, he has an excellent example of a country utterly willing to give everything to US security, thereby improving the deal from the side of Washington’s military-industrial complex.  If there was one lingering, pathological complaint he had about Washington’s NATO allies, it was always that they were not doing enough to ease the burdens of US defence.  They stalled on defence budgets; they quibbled on various targets on recruitment.

    This can hardly be said of Canberra.  Australia’s government has abandoned all pretence of resistance, measure or judgment, outrageously willing to underwrite the US imperium in any of its needs in countering China, raiding the treasury of taxpayer funds to the tune of a figure that will, eventually, exceed A$368 billion.  Rudd openly acknowledges that Australian money is directly “investing into the US submarine industrial base to expand the capacity of their shipyards.”  It would be silly to prevent this continuing windfall. It may well be that aspect that ends up convincing Trump that AUKUS is worth keeping.  Why get rid of willing servitors of such dim tendency when they are so willing to please you with cash and compliments?

    The post Trump, AUKUS, and Australia’s Dim Servitors first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The UK’s nuclear warhead manufacturer AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment) has rebranded in an attempt to attract more workers. However, it has refused to disclose to the Canary how much public money it spent on the accompanying public relations (PR) exercise.

    AWE faces increased demand for its services following the Conservative Party government’s decision, under the Integrated Review 2021, to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads from 225 to 260.

    That decision came during the context of increasing hostility from Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the poisoning of the Skripals in 2018, but before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In addition, the US and Russia had withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) in 2019.

    AWE: rebranded to ‘attract more workers’

    Two high profile parts of AWE rebrand were changes to its logo and tagline, which were shared in materials including posters in public places like trains.

    The logo used to be teal or black letters saying AWE and a teal or black electron field detail, all on a white background. This has been replaced with black AWE letters with softened edges and the phrase ‘nuclear security technologies’ in all caps.

    AWE has two main sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield, both in Berkshire. An anti-nuclear weapons campaigner, familiar with the Aldermaston site, told the Canary they had seen “big adverts on the side of busses in Oxford and Reading” for AWE.

    In addition, the campaigner said they saw adverts on the handsets of petrol pumps at three different Sainsbury’s petrol stations in the local area encouraging people to apply for jobs at AWE Aldermaston.

    Failing to mention what it really does

    One poster spotted on a train says “There’s more to working at AWE than you think… like meaningful work protecting the nation and an impressive range of benefits” with a person dressed in personal protective equipment holding a tablet computer:

    AWE nuclear weapons

    The poster also says employees have access to benefits “including enhanced maternity/paternity pay, support for professional development & a 9-day working fortnight”.

    It goes on to list a QR code and a link to its website where readers can “find out more about a career with AWE.” At no point does the poster mention weapons, warheads, Trident, or the Continuous-at-sea-Deterrent (CASD), which is the UK government’s official wording for the submarine-based nuclear weapon system.

    The Aldermaston campaigner said they thought the rebrand had taken place because of the nationalisation of AWE.

    AWE was run by a Lockheed Martin, Serco, and Jacobs Engineering consortium from 2008 until 2021 when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) took over ownership.

    The campaigner said they “definitely” thought the rebrand was about improving recruitment at AWE, and said they thought AWE employees “seem much happier” following nationalisation of the company.

    Transparency request rejected by nuclear weapons maker

    Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, AWE was asked:

    Please will you share with me information you have about the recent (2023/2024) rebrand of AWE? Information including any presentations, brand books, brand guides, and house styles.

    In addition, please will you share how much was spent on the rebrand including any breakdowns of costs where available, and the name of the organisation(s) which provided the rebrand.

    In response to the FOI request, AWE said:

    We can confirm that AWE holds all of the information you have requested, however, we are withholding the information under section 43(2) of the FOI Act.

    FOI responses where a request is refused often include a breakdown of the arguments the organisation used in favour of, and against, disclosing the information. AWE laid out its case.

    Explaining its argument in favour of disclosure, AWE said:

    The factors in favour of disclosure of the information would be to provide openness and transparency in public spending and the procurement process, the Act makes a presumption towards disclosure of information wherever possible and to insight public confidence in the integrity and fairness of AWE.

    It went on to explain, at length, arguments against disclosure. AWE said:

    Factors against disclosure of the information would be that freedom of information requests can be used as powerful tools for our adversaries to gain a better understanding of our external risk exposure.

    Disclosure could also harm the commercial interest of the suppliers by revealing sensitive information that competitors could exploit. Suppliers may also be less willing to engage with AWE in future contracts if they believe their identities and potentially sensitive information could be disclosed.

    This could have a major impact on the procurement process and disrupt operations and facilities which would in turn prevent the maintenance of Continuous at Sea Deterrent (CASD) and undermine the defence of the nation.

    AWE: transparency over public spending ‘could incite malicious activities’

    It continued:

    From a security perspective, releasing this information could also incite malicious activities beyond the control of the UK. Adversaries might use the information to impersonate AWE or its staff, leading to fraudulent or harmful actions.

    While there is a public interest in promoting openness and transparency, these must be weighed against commercial interests. The outcome of the Public Interest Test (PIT) was that the information should be withheld to prevent prejudice to commercial interest.

    AWE’s refusal to share information about its procurement of public relations services contrasts with other areas of defence procurement, such as the names of suppliers of the Trident missiles used to carry nuclear warheads – Lockheed Martin  – and the Vanguard-class submarines used to carry the missiles – BAE Systems Marine.

    In addition, Capita proudly shared information about how it provided public relations support to the British Army with its recruitment campaign ‘This is Belonging’ in 2020. It’s unclear how AWE can justify withholding information about its PR activities, while other parts of the military disclose their PR providers.

    AWE confirms rebrand designed to attract more employees

    The Canary put the points raised by the anti-nuclear weapons campaigner and Worthy to AWE.

    An AWE spokesman said:

    AWE’s brand refresh reflects the company’s growth and evolution over the past 25 years and our vision to deliver a safe and secure future for all.

    A strong, clear identity helps us to communicate the company’s direction and values to external partners at home and abroad, and to attract the UK’s diverse talent, innovation and skills.

    The decision to conduct a brand refresh rather than a wholesale change in brand allowed us to minimise costs and provide value for money.

    Was the FOI refusal a possible deterrent for future requests?

    Birkbeck College, University of London senior lecturer in politics Ben Worthy has research interests in government transparency, particularly freedom of information, political leadership and British politics.

    Worthy said the commercial confidentiality argument “makes sense partially, as you can see how logically publishing the details could disadvantage/advantage different groups in the future”:

    However, I can’t follow how this then endangers national security and the wider weapons systems. I can’t quite follow the trail there.

    It could be that this is just a cut and paste response, with this sentence left in as a logical follow to all refused requests, as a kind of heavy deterrent to future requests.

    Featured image via the Canary, additional image supplied

    By Tom Pashby

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The 2024 UN climate change conference, COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, is now nearing its end and reports are that talks are deadlocked. The two biggest elephants in the room are militarism and climate financing. Wars generate more carbon emissions than many countries, while the U.S. military is the single largest institutional source of greenhouse gas emissions…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Just as the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israel defence minister Yoav Gallant, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has launched a new map documenting the arms dealers exporting military equipment to Israel from the UK. It once again raises questions over the UK government’s role in Israel’s genocide – and implicates Keir Starmer and his government, too.

    Arms dealers in the UK: mapped

    The map, based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and CAAT’s arms companies browser, gives campaigners all the information they need to find and take action against the arms dealers on their doorsteps:

    arms dealers ICC Israel Starmer

    The map expands on CAAT’s previous map that focused on the manufacturers of F35-combat aircraft components. Included in the map are companies that have previously slipped under the radar. One such company is Gooch and Housego who, with the acquisition of Phoenix Optical Technologies, are the largest recipient of arms export licenses to Israel.

    While the Labour Party government temporarily suspended a small proportion of arms exports to Israel in September, it made an exemption for the F-35 programme despite evidence that Israel is using F-35s to commit war crimes.

    The UK makes 15% of every F-35 with contracts just for the F-35 programme worth at least £360m since 2016. This makes the F-35 almost certainly the single largest and most important part of the UK arms trade with Israel. CAAT has produced a detailed briefing on the F-35 exemption and other loopholes and problems with the partial suspension.

    The ICC should be looking at the UK government’s complicity with Israel’s genocide

    The launch of the map coincides with new revelations about the UK’s role in arming Israel. These include:

    • An admission in the GLAN/Al-Haq court case against the UK government that the foreign secretary assessed that Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law
    • The case also confirmed that Keir Starmer’s government accepts it is possible that Israel is using F-35s to commit war crimes, and that the exemption was made because including them would disrupt the F-35 supply chain which would “have a profound impact on international peace and security” and “would undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO at a critical juncture in our collective history and set back relations”.
    • FOI data showing that there was a large increase in the number of spare parts Israel imported for F-35s in 2023. The licence was used almost three times more than any other year on record. Between 2016-2023, the F-35 Open General Export License (OGEL) was used 34 times. In 2023, it was used 14 times. Previously, the highest figure in a year was 5.
    • FOI data that shows the value of UK arms exports to Israel is much higher than government figures suggest as they do not include incorporation licences to the US. Under these licences, equipment is exported to a country for assembly, and then re-exported to a third country. Between 2022-2023, £165m of incorporation licences were issued for export to the US where Israel was listed as one of several end users. £52m of these licences listed Israel as the only end user.

    Starmer and arms dealers should be in the ICC dock

    CAAT’s media coordinator Emily Apple said:

    Both the government and the arms industry are deeply complicit in Israel’s genocide. Arms dealers are making vast amounts of money from Israel’s horrific war crimes, with successive governments bending over backwards, and using every loophole available to prioritise shareholder profits over Palestinian lives.

    GLAN and Al-Haq’s court case is essential in holding successive governments to account for their complicity in the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza. But it isn’t enough. Despite supposedly being fast-tracked, the court case has already run for a year, and it is still unknown when the full case will be heard.

    In the meantime, the situation for Palestinians is beyond horrific, Israel continues to kill civilians with impunity, and still refuses to allow vital humanitarian aid into Gaza. This genocide is happening now.

    Our government is not acting, and Palestinian people cannot wait for the conclusion of the court case. This is why we have released our updated interactive map to enable campaigners to take action against the genocide profiteers on their doorsteps.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg5 peoplesplenarybanner 2

    At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, civil society members held a People’s Plenary called “Pay Up, Stand Up: Finance Climate Action, Not Genocide” outside negotiation rooms in which U.N. member states attempted to hammer out a global climate finance deal. In the face of the conference’s restrictions on protest, civil society members unfurled the names of Palestinians who have been killed, reading out the names of those killed by Israel’s military aggression and calling for an end to ecocidal violence worldwide. We hear from three people who participated in the action, including Palestinian activist Jana Rashed and Sudanese activist Leena Eisa — both of whom call on nations to stop providing fuel for genocides being perpetrated against Palestinian, Lebanese and Sudanese people — and the plenary’s co-chair Lidy Nacpil, who calls the gathering a “celebration” of marginalized voices at the climate summit.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Jorge Semprún’s work captures a twentieth century of failed revolutions, lost utopias, and historical trauma of a scale that defies repression.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • White poppies are becoming an established part of a growing number of official remembrance events across the UK – and this year has seen an uptick in their representation, and that of peace over militarism and war.

    White poppies: representation growing

    In recent years, peace campaigners in several towns and cities have worked successfully with local councils, the Royal British Legion, and others to ensure that white poppies are included.

    At the weekend just passed, numerous ceremonies, vigils, and other remembrance events featuring them took place around the country to mark Remembrance Sunday. Many of these events, such as those in Edinburgh, Ipswich, and Wokingham took place separately from official commemorations and focused on the white poppy’s message of peace, opposing militarism, and remembrance for all victims of war.

    The National Alternative Remembrance Ceremony in London was attended by around two hundred people:

    It featured powerful speeches on peacebuilding and the global arms trade, as well as moving stories by two Palestinian speakers on the impacts of war in Israel and Palestine, both today and since 1948:

    Longstanding customs

    In several places around the UK there is now a longstanding custom of including white poppies in official events. In Leicester, the official city ceremony at the Arch of Remembrance has featured white poppy wreaths for several years running, laid by local representatives of the Quakers, CND, and the Community of Christ.

    In Aberystwyth, white poppies have been part of the official town ceremony for nearly a decade, with a white poppy wreath laid by the Town Council’s deputy mayor as well as by several other groups including Aberystwyth Peace and Justice Network, Women in Black, Cor Gobaith, and AberAid – a group supporting refugees.

    In Stowmarket, this was the fifteenth year that a white poppy wreath has been placed alongside red poppy wreaths at a ceremony immediately following official commemorations and attended by the Mayor and town councillors.

    White poppy wreaths have also featured alongside red poppies in events and installations in Bristol, Sale in South Manchester, Bodmin Moor, and Nuneaton

    https:/twitter.com/PPUtoday/status/1856350536817123339

    Reflecting this trend, the official ceremony for Remembrance Sunday in Haringey included white poppies for the first time this year in coordination with the local Council, the Mayor’s Office and the Deputy Lieutenant of Haringey, Peter Barker.

    PPU council member Colin Kerr, who led this new initiative, said:

    We are delighted to have the support of Haringey councillors for the inclusion of the laying of a white poppy wreath in this year’s Remembrance Sunday ceremony. Ever since the First World War civilians far outnumber soldiers and military as the victims of war. White poppies are in remembrance of all victims of war, both civilian and military.

    He added:

    Today we witness appalling industrialised destruction of people’s bodies and homes, with armaments undreamed of in previous wars. The lesson of remembrance was ‘never again’. Have we forgotten rather than remembered? Those who wear the white poppy remember and respect all those affected by war, and promote, in so far as they can, the removal of the causes of war.

    Broad commemoration

    Further white poppy ceremonies took place in Bridgwater, Bury St Edmunds, Clevedon, Holton cum Beckering, Leigh-on-Sea, Nailsworth, and Southend-on-Sea:

    https:/twitter.com/BSEQuakers/status/1856405258236207362

    At the National Alternative Remembrance Ceremony, the activist and comedian Kate Smurthwaite, who hosted the event, spoke about the wars in the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine in her opening remarks.

    She said the purpose of the ceremony was to commemorate “all those who have died in war,” adding:

    That includes those in the military on all sides, many of whom will have been conscripts, many of whom will have not wanted to fight… It also commemorates civilians, journalists, aid workers, people caught up in the cross fire, people caught up in friendly fire, people caught up in the militarisation and arms industry in all sorts of different ways. The best thing that we can do for all these people is to end war.

    Other speakers at the National Ceremony included Jon Nott from Campaign Against Arms Trade and Roger McKenzie, CND Vice-President and international editor of the Morning Star. Palestinian researcher and curator Nadine Aranki spoke about the impact the war in Gaza is having on civilians, including her own family.

    Another speaker, British Palestinian scholar and activist Marwan Darweish, told those assembled about his work alongside Israelis who have refused to fight in the armed forces:

    Hope is a community action, is a responsibility, is people working together… With them I want to share the vision of hope and equal rights for all in Palestine.

    White poppies: planning for next year

    The PPU is encouraging white poppy wearers to think ahead to next year and to seek out opportunities to include white poppies in remembrance events near them, whether in coordination with local councils or independently. They are asking their supporters and members to get in touch if they want advice on how to hold an event or approach councils about including them.

    Featured image via the PPU

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.