Friday, 17 August 2012

MEK - The Only Hope For Iranian Regime Change

In June, the US Appeals Court in Washington gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton four months to decide whether or not to remove the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) – Iran’s largest and best organised democratic opposition group – from the government’s list of foreign terrorist organisations. The State Department has said that it intends to comply with the deadline, which falls on October 1.

The MEK, whose annual rally in Paris this year attracted nearly 100,000 supporters, is an anomaly on the State Department’s blacklist. Added in 1997 by the Clinton administration as a goodwill gesture toward the theocratic Iranian regime, the MEK to this day remains on the US terror list despite its explicit renunciation of violence in 2001 and total voluntary disarmament in 2003.

Read the rest here.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

EU 'buries head in sand' over Hezbollah

"Listening to all of you this morning reminds me of the great British comedy classic Carry On Up The Khyber, where the colonial English go on having dinner, ignoring the fact that disaster, impending disaster, is all around them." So began one of United Kingdom Independence Party leader Nigel Farage's famously irreverent speeches to the European Parliament in March, in which he pilloried the European Union for what seems to be its official policy of sticking its fingers in its ears and screaming the words to Beethoven's Ode to Joy at the top of its lungs whenever something unexpectedly bad happens.

On that occasion, Farage was using the Carry On analogy to ridicule the EU's delusional attitude towards the eurozone debt crisis. But he could just as easily have applied it to Brussels' similar reaction to the July 18 terrorist attack in Bulgaria that left five Israeli tourists and a Muslim bus-driver dead.

Read the rest here.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Why is EU refusing to label Hezbollah as terrorists?

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s diplomatic push last week in Brussels to convince the EU to designate the Lebanese-based Hezbollah group as a terror entity was met with robust resistance.

Liberman sought to inject new life into the drive to outlaw Hezbollah because of the murders of five Israelis and a Bulgarian bus driver on July 18. Israeli and US intelligence agencies believe Hezbollah carried out the suicide bombing  at Bulgaria's Burgas airport.

Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, whose country heads the 26-member EU presidency, said there is “no consensus among the EU member states for putting Hezbollah on the terrorist list of the organization,” and claimed there is “no tangible evidence of Hezbollah engaging in acts of terrorism.”

Counter-terrorism blogs and experts on both sides of the Atlantic were immediately awash with reactions that quickly mounted overwhelming evidence to refute Kozakou-Marcoullis’s contentions.

Jacob Campbell, a research fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy in the United Kingdom, and author of a report in late June on the EU “Helping Hezbollah,” told The Jerusalem Post on Friday, “Within just days of the Burgas bombing – almost undoubtedly perpetrated by Hezbollah – the Presidency of the EU Council explicitly ruled out the possibility of listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, insisting that there is no ‘tangible evidence’ to link Hezbollah to terrorism. This ludicrous statement was made despite an earlier resolution adopted by the European Parliament, which cites ‘clear evidence’ of terrorist acts committed by Hezbollah. On this issue, as in so many others, Brussels appears to have its head buried firmly in the sand.”

Read the rest here.

Monday, 16 July 2012

UKIP ally slams EU funding for neo-Nazis

Morten Messerschmidt – a Danish MEP and one of the 34 members of the UKIP-led Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament – has demanded answers from the European Commission following the revelation that the EU is funding a Lithuanian neo-Nazi youth group, to which Friends of Israel in UKIP drew attention in May. Below is Mr Messerschmidt’s written question, submitted on 6 July:

Recently the neo-Nazi Lithuanian youth group the Union of Lithuanian Nationalist Youth (UNLY), which was behind a neo-Nazi march on 11 March 2012 in Vilnius, was admitted without demur into the umbrella organisation the Lithuanian Council of Youth Organisations (LCYO) which receives support both from the Lithuanian Government and from the EU. The LCYO is the largest youth organisation in Lithuania and comprises 64 groups with over 200 000 members.

Does the Commission agree that ULNY is a neo-Nazi organisation, and that as such it is incompatible with the EU’s founding principles?
Can the Commission state how much the LCYO – including UNLY – receives in aid from the EU?
Does the Commission propose to criticise the admission of UNLY as a member of the LCYO, and state clearly that organisations such as UNLY are incompatible with the EU’s founding principles?
In the light of the above, does the Commission propose to withdraw EU support from the LCYO until UNLY is expelled from the organisation?

Friday, 6 July 2012

Why the creation of a 'European' identity necessitates anti-semitism in Brussels

Day by day, minute by minute, speech by speech and word by word, the United Kingdom Independence Party looks and sounds increasingly like the Conservative Party in exile.


And now, just as we have our long-held suspicions confirmed that the Foreign Office is essentially Arabist and ever so subtly anti-Israel, with government officials outrageously asserting that Benjamin Netanyahu uses ‘the incitement issue as a delaying tactic in peace talks’, we hear that Nigel Farage is confronting the ‘strong bias’ against Israel that exists within the European Union.

When have you ever heard a Conservative MEP do that?

Read the rest here.

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Helping Hezbollah

Hezbollah is at the nadir of its popularity. Tainted by its support for the murderous Syrian regime, the Iranian proxy finds itself on the wrong side of the so-called Arab Spring. Although the looming presence of its fearsome black-shirted militia has so far enabled it to dominate the Lebanese government, Hezbollah knows that brute force alone will not sustain its hegemony in the long term – a lesson currently being learned by its Ba’athist friends in Damascus. If Hezbollah is to consolidate its rule over Lebanon, it must command the loyalty of the country’s youth. And, having inherited the previous government’s five-year Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP), Hezbollah is in the ideal position to achieve this by embedding its own ideology into Lebanon’s education system.

Read the rest here.

'On Fences and Hypocrisy' by Jephtah D. Lorch

 When it comes to double standards, Israel's European critics are not to be outdone.

For example, Javier Solana - formerly Spanish Foreign Minister and later EU foreign policy chief - was a vocal critic of Israel's anti-terror fence, built following the Second Intifada that claimed the lives of over 1,100 Israelis.

At the same time, however, Solana approached the European Union asking for (and receiving) tens of millions of Euros to build (and later strengthen) the Spanish fences that currently demarcate the borders of Ceuta and Melilla - two Spanish enclaves on the northern coast of Morocco.

Both territories - relics of the bygone era of European colonialism - have a total landmass of less than 12 square miles, yet they continue to consume European taxpayers' money for the construction and maintenance of their anti-immigrant fences.

Ask yourself: who poses the greater threat - Palestinian suicide bombers or North African jobseekers?

If the EU sees Israel's security fence as unacceptable, then surely it must see the expenditure of millions of Euros on Spain's own Apartheid Wall as even more unacceptable... Right?

Monday, 14 May 2012


In a fascinating article on the Public Service Europe Website, Jason Edlestein, Communications Director at NGO Monitor exposes how the EU is abusing Israeli democracy for its own ends. He writes that:

"Through non-governmental organisations, the EU immorally manipulates the public debate and policy considerations regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict - claims research group"

Click here to read the full article

Friday, 11 May 2012

UKIP ally condemns death sentence for Palestinian who sold property to Jews

From the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group website,

On April 25, Fiorello Provera from the European Parliament's EFD group and Vice Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee condemned the sentencing to death of former Palestinian intelligence official Muhammad Abu Shahala on the grounds of selling a house in the West Bank town of Hebron to Jewish residents.

Mr. Provera said: "The sentence of Mr. Abu Shahala should be overturned, and the European Union should add its full weight to securing his release, since its own Charter of Fundamental Rights includes an absolute ban on the death penalty. The Palestinian Authority is demonstrating a total disregard for basic human rights principles, even though it is one of the largest recipients of EU aid".

I expect the President of the European Parliament Martin Schultz to vigorously condemn this ruling with the same indignation expressed on behalf of the House in the case of Uladzislau Kavalyou, and I urge the Palestinian authority to introduce a moratorium on executions".

It is reported that Mr. Abu Shahala confessed following torture sessions at the hands of his captors. Under the framework of the Palestinian Authority's legal system, selling land to Jews is considered a capital offense. The death sentence will only be carried out once Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signs the death warrant. In response to Mr. Abu Shahala's sentencing, a number of Hebron residents have written a letter urging high-ranking officials such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to take action.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

More on How the EU fuels Neo-Nazism

In our last blog we talked about how the EU is directly funding a neo-Nazi youth movement.

And his latest blog post, UKIP's Michael Heaver (former Chairman of the youth wing) identifies another way in  which the EU has been helping the far right cause. This is of obvious concern to the Jewish community and other ethnic minority groups.

Michael argues that Greece is a prime example of where failing EU policies have led the electorate to turn to extremist political parties in order- ironically-  to salvage their democracy.

Click here for the blog post.

Monday, 7 May 2012

EU Funding Neo-Nazis

In recent months, the EU has not only been found to be funding extremist Islamic organisations but also worrying groups of quite a different kind.

The Union of Lithuanian Nationalist Youth (ULNY), a Lithuanian neo-Nazi youth group has been adopted onto a council which receives European Union funding.

Not only will the group benefit from EU funding by being part of the Lithuanian Council of Youth Organisations but it will also benefit from respect and credibility of being part of a grouping which is officially recognised and sponsered by the EU.

Click here to read more in the Jewish Chronicle.

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Good Luck to UKIP Candidates Today

Friends of Israel in UKIP wishes the very best of luck to all candidates standing in today's local elections.

We anticipate an excellent result for UKIP building on previous progress and continuing the current trend of increasing support for the Party.

Monday, 30 April 2012

Why is the EU training Iranian scientists?

In 1975, Abdul Qadeer Khan – an engineering graduate from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium – stole plans for a uranium enrichment centrifuge from his workplace in the Netherlands. By 1976, he was heading up Pakistan’s nuclear weapons research team.

When Saddam Hussein launched his own effort to develop weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s, it was Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi – an alumnus of the University of East Anglia – who took the helm.

With precedents such as these, it is little wonder that when the international community became convinced that the Islamic Republic of Iran was seeking to build the bomb, UN Security Council Resolution 1737 was passed, prohibiting, inter alia, UN member states from allowing Iranian citizens to acquire information or technology which might assist Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme.

Read the rest here.

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

UKIP ally grills EU Commission over Ashton’s Toulouse remarks

Morten Messerschmidt – a Danish MEP and one of the 34 members of the UKIP-led Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament – has taken the European Commission to task over the offensive remarks made by EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton on the day that an Islamist gunman killed 4 Jews outside a school in Toulouse. Below is Mr Messerschmidt’s written question, submitted on 22 March:

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, has been quoted in a number of media sources as making the following remarks at a meeting with young Palestinians: ‘When we think about what happened today in Toulouse, we remember what happened in Norway last year, we know what is happening in Syria, and we see what is happening in Gaza and other places’.

– Does the Commission consider it appropriate that its Vice-President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, is comparing the tragic killings of the Jewish children in Toulouse with children unfortunately killed in Gaza and the mass murders committed on Ut√łya in Norway last year? Does the whole Commission support these remarks?

– Does the Commission agree that there is a difference, both legally and morally, between the unintentional killing of children in Gaza and a perpetrator’s deliberate killing of children and young people in France and Norway, or a cynical government’s atrocities against its own population in Syria?

– Does the Commission hold the view, as must logically follow from the High Representative’s remarks, that Israel kills children in Gaza deliberately?

– Has the Commission, in light of this, changed policy so that it no longer recognises Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, in connection with which children may be unintentional victims?

– Does the Commission consider it dignified and acceptable that its top diplomat is using a tragic event that has shocked the whole of France to please Palestinian young people who happened to be meeting the High Representative on the same day?

– Is the President of the Commission thinking of intervening, either by deploring his Vice-President’s remarks or by asking for the remarks to be retracted with an apology?

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Why I'm Not Surprised by Baroness Ashton's Sick Comparison of the Toulouse Murders to "What is Happening in Gaza"

Baroness Ashton’s sick comparison of the racially motivated murders at a Jewish school in Toulouse to “what is happening in Gaza" should not be met with too much surprise. Sadly, her comments are a reflection of the deep-rooted, institutional hatred of Israel that subsists in the EU.

Just yesterday, Press Officer for Friends of Israel in UKIP, Jacob Campbell wrote for The Commentator to expose a new EU Report which belittles the fate of victims of Palestinian atrocities last year, including the Fogel Family.

Perhaps blinded by the need to appeal to the growing Muslim population of Europe, or the chance to get more favourable oil contracts from other Middle Eastern countries, the EU is incapable of playing a fair and neutral role in the Middle East. 

Any political party aiming to seriously represent British values would recognise that Britain does not want to be represented in these matters by the likes of Baroness Ashton. A British PM of real integrity would at the very least stand with Israel and call on Baroness Ashton to resign.
But David Cameron long ago abandoned any real support for the State of Israel and her security interests.  He refers to Gaza as a prison camp and critises Israel for the actions taken by the Israeli Defence Forces during the Flotilla Raid.

By contrast, in light of Baroness Ashton’s remarks, Nigel Farage MEP appears prophetic in having told the Jewish chronicle back in 2009, “There is within the European institutions a very strong anti-Israel bias…I would almost say — and I am bit nervous of saying this — there’s almost a new trendy form of antisemitism creeping in…”

Friends of Israel in UKIP will continue to fight to expose the severe threat to the State of Israel, and consequently Western interests, posed by the European Union.

Monday, 19 March 2012

EU Report: Dead Jews, No News

It is not often that a report’s conclusions are so obviously bogus that anyone with a critical eye could make mincemeat of them using only a highlighter, and without even needing to consult alternative sources of information.

Yet a recently leaked EU report on “settler violence” is so cooked that it defies even its own internal logic.

The report, which was compiled by EU diplomats in Ramallah and seen by EUobserver, accuses the Israeli government of not doing enough to prevent a supposed upsurge in attacks on Palestinians by Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria (“settlers”, of course, because the EU rejects even their right to live there in the first place).

Naturally, no such criticism is meted out to the Palestinian government.

Read the rest here.

Monday, 12 March 2012

The Real Bigots Are Those Who Label UKIP “Far Right”

As a young Jewish man, and a passionate believer in the virtues of a liberal, democratic and pluralistic society, I am abhorred by the claims made by Mathew Goodwin in the course of his defence of his decision to include UKIP members as a control group in his study on attitudes to violence and the far right. 

First, Goodwin defends his inclusion of UKIP by explaining that the authors of the report wanted a control group to the right of Cameron’s conservatives. Ed West, writing for the Telegraph, has already made the suggestion that surely a better control group would have been just an ordinary cross-section of British society. Nevertheless, it is my own submission that if Goodwin had wanted a control group “right of Cameron’s Conservatives”, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have just interviewed ordinary members of the Conservative party most of whom are much more right wing than Cameron who is frequently criticized by Tories as being a moderate, centrist, “heir to Blair” figure. 

Nevertheless, Goodwin makes the fair point that he never claimed UKIP is a party associated with violence and he points out that the assertion of UKIP’s leadership that it is opposed to extremism and violence is “backed up by our own data”. 

So how does Goodwin justify his suggestion that UKIP shares more with the far right than it admits? Given by his own admission UKIP members do not lust after violence, he does so by claiming that the party has “considerable policy overlaps with the extreme right”. Here is where Goodwin’s argument becomes disingenuous, warped and extremely offensive to members of UKIP such as myself who are members of minority communities.

The BNP are self-evidently right wing nutters: the leadership meets the KKK, have denied the holocaust and, until stopped by the courts, left membership of the party only to indigenous white Brits. Many of the BNP’s supporters are neo-Nazi skinheads and this is all a million miles away from UKIP. 

Yet Goodwin argues that UKIP’s sensible policy on immigration which is designed to promote liberal values overlaps with the BNP’s white supremacist policies. 

Goodwin quotes the UKIP policy of ending uncontrolled immigration as being overlapping with the extreme right. But surely wanting controlled immigration is not an unusual view at all after the unprecedentedhigh levels of immigration seen under New Labour? I myself, for example, believe immigration should be controlled with regards to the brain drain which many academics claim has led to the NHS stealing doctors and nurses from poor African countries where they were trained. Furthermore, Goodwin also claims that there is overlap in terms of the policy of wanting the “expulsion of illegal immigrants”. I cannot possibly see how this view is extreme.   

Yet there is one policy which Goodwin claims does not just overlap with the far right but is in fact a “radical right pitch to voters” and that is: ending multiculturalism. Here we spot the fundamental flaw in Goodwin’s paper and that is that “far right” is never properly defined. Being far right is innately a bad thing as far as Goodwin is concerned. This is evident in his description as UKIP as being “alongside the more toxic extreme right” implying that there is a less toxic, but albeit toxic category UKIP falls into. 

While I too would of course agree that far right politics is detestable, my own definition of “fair right” must be different, and in my view, more sensible, and I can demonstrate this in my support for UKIP’s allegedly extreme right policy on multiculturalism. Incidentally, I would argue that the Prime Minister agrees with UKIP on this given that he has said state multiculturalism has failed. 

UKIP is a libertarian party and British classical liberalism emphasises not trying to promote diversity but rather favours a policy of merely tolerating minority groups. That we don’t believe in throwing money at quangos or encouraging positive discrimination in order to achieve the successful integration of minority groups into British society is all that this policy is about. UKIP has long ago scrapped a silly French-style ban the burqa policy.

Indeed, UKIP is a liberal nationalist party in the British libertarian tradition. It is about preserving a nation-state which is tolerant towards minority groups and will not allow society to fragment. After all, a lack of social cohesion hurts minority groups the most. The narrative Goodwin paints is a clear smear against UKIP and it does not stand up to scrutiny. The real victims of this affair will be my Asian, black, and other friends in UKIP who are from minority backgrounds, and who will be looked down upon because others have deeply misunderstood their political beliefs. 

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Name Change

Owing to a decision by the UKIP National Executive Committee, UKIP Friends of Israel will henceforth be known as "Friends of Israel in UKIP".

Monday, 6 February 2012

Ayatollah: "Kill all Jews and Annihilate Israel"

In the upcoming meeting between Obama and Cameron, there will only be one real talking point: Iran.

The Ayatollah's strategy specialist Alireza Forghani has outlined the "religious" and "jurisprudential" case for destroying major Israeli settlements in a dossier currently published on a number of state websites.

The dossier states that Iran is capable of destroying Israel in just 9 minutes using existing missile technology. 

Iran remains a dominant force in the axis of evil. With their religious views very much comparable to Al Queda suicide bombers, some fear Iranian leaders would embrace even a nuclear retaliation by the West.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Consolidating the Cedar Revolution

The Cedar Revolution was a chain of demonstrations in Lebanon which began after the assassination of popular former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on 14 February 2005. The principal demands of the protesters were the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanese territory and an end to interference in Lebanese affairs by the Ba’athist regime in Damascus. Syria had occupied Lebanon since 1976, and was forced to end its military presence on 26 April 2005 as a consequence of the 1.5 million-man uprising.

Since then, however, Syria has continued to exert a high degree of control over Lebanese politics through its ally, Hezbollah – an Iranian-sponsored militia closely aligned with the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah, which is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the United States, is obligated to disarm under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, but has consistently refused to do so. Although Hezbollah currently holds only 12 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament, its status as the strongest and most cohesive military force in the country allows it to exert a level of influence unwarranted by its political representation.

Read the rest here.