Oppose anti-semitism and support free speech Brent councillors urged

Brent and Harrow PSC have written to Brent councillors about the motion on anti-Semitism to be discussed at the Council meeting on Monday 18^th September.

Dear Councillor 

RE: Full Council – 18 September 2017

Motion selected by the Conservative Group ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

Councillor Joel Davidson Brondesbury Park Ward 

We welcome the discussion on how to combat anti-Semitism in the ongoing battle against racism in all its forms.

The International Holocaust Remember Association’s definition is as follows:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

However, the guidance issued by the IHRA uses a number of controversial examples of forms of anti-Semitism, most of which (7/11) refer to Israel. We submit that the effect of adopting the guidance would be to prevent criticism of the actions of the Israeli State and of a legitimate critique of Zionism as a political ideology. For example, the guidance states that to call Israel a racist enterprise can be anti-Semitic. This has been used to describe anyone who refers to Israel as an apartheid state as ‘anti-Semitic’ and to withdraw meeting facilities from them.  Similarly, the example of not holding Israel to a standard has been used to say calling for boycott is anti -Semitic, which in the opinion of eminent QC Hugh Tomlinson is a threat to legally protected freedom of expression.

Mixing the issue of anti-Semitism with the policies and actions of the Israeli State, it is likely to make it harder to identify and oppose anti-Semitism, a goal to which we are all committed. DETAILS

If you wish to support the adoption of the (38 word) definition, we ask therefore, that this does not include the highly controversial guidance. In this way, opposition to anti-Semitism is made clear, without any limitation of legitimate criticism of the Israeli State or the ideology of Zionism. 

Balfour declaration: origin and relevance to today - public meeting May 16th

Early notice - Brent meeting on birth of Israel and the future of Palestine

London AMs asked to rethink positions on anti-semitism motion

Brent Central Labour Party is holding a discussion on The Labour Party and Anti-Semitism tonight (7.30pm Christchurh Nursery, St Albans Road, Harlesden, NW10 8UG).

Richard Kuper (Free Speech on Israel) and Jeremy Newmark (Chair, Jewish Labour Movement)  will lead the discussion.

By coincidence the issue of criticism of Israeli government action being conflated with anti-semitism has produced intensive discussion  in both the Labour Party and the Greens.

It has arisen after the London Asembly unanimously approved a resolution on the issue:

This Assembly expresses alarm at the rise in anti-Semitism in recent years across the UK including London. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using anti-Semitic tropes.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11^th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on anti-Semitism which define anti-Semitism thus:

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

The guidelines highlight manifestations of anti-Semitism as including:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This Assembly hereby adopts the above definition of anti-Semitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish ed organisation, committeed to open and transparent debate on Palestine-Israel issue the folowing ststaement:

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish-led organisation, condemns the decision of the London Assembly on Feb 8 to adopt a position on antisemitism that is a charter for censors. It threatens to make effective campaigning for justice for Palestinians impossible.

Antisemitism is an age-old visceral hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews. It must be vigorously fought against, along with all forms of bigotry. To confuse it with opposition to a state which calls itself Jewish, or to the founding ideology of that state, Zionism, is to obscure the real meaning of the term antisemitism and make combatting it more difficult. This is exactly what the motion passed by the Assembly does.


Setting the limits of debate about “the Jewish state” is a key goal of pro-Israel lobbyists only recently unmasked as working hand in glove with the Israeli Embassy to brand any criticism as antisemitic. Labour Friends of Israel, to which the motion’s proposer Andrew Dismore belongs, were shown to be key players in this witch hunt, which has resulted in a wave of suspensions and interrogations of pro-Palestinian Labour Party members. The victims include Jews who, contrary to the claims of the pro-Israel lobby, do not have Zionism woven into their DNA. Jewish organisations have been among those calling for a full inquiry into the extent of Israeli interference in UK politics.

We defer to Avi Shlaim, professor emeritus of history at Oxford and an Israeli Jew, who writes: “Israeli propagandists deliberately, yes deliberately, conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to discredit, bully, and muzzle critics of Israel.”

It is not necessary to agree with Palestinians and their supporters when they question the founding principles of the State of Israel, compare it to Apartheid South Africa or call it to account for its well-documented racism, in order to recognise their right to say such things. The London Assembly has taken a position which endangers that right.

At a time when minority ethnic communities, particularly Muslims, are under constant attack in our society, the London Assembly, on the pretext of defending Jews against racism, has placed itself in the invidious position of defending Israeli propagandists against Palestinians and their supporters. This can only have the unintended consequence of stoking new hostility to Jews who will be seen as attempting to determine what non-Jews may or may not say about a foreign state.

We urge members of the Assembly to reconsider this politically ill-advised move.

Butt attacks BDS as he apologises for sharing 'Israel slur'

The Veolia protest outside Brent Civic Centre

On July 14^th the Times of Israel published an article by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt headed ‘I’m sorry for sharing Israel slur – boycotts are wrong.’ LINK

The article came a considerable time after the minor storm that blew up over Butt’s sharing of a Facebook post of a  video that showed an Israeli soldier  mistreating a young Palestinian girl.  It was not so much the video that led to Butt being accused of anti-Semitism but a comment beneath the video that likened Israel to Isis.

Sharing the video was taken as Butt’s approval of that sentiment.  Anyone who engages in social media will know that in sharing a Facebook post decisions made in seconds and few would check all the comments that are made beneath the post.

At the time, when it appeared that the  allegation may have been used against Butt ahead of the Brent Labour leadership election contest, I tweeted that there were many better reasons to oppose him.  It was at a time when the mass media were in active pursuit of Jeremy Corbyn accusing him of anti-Semitism through his support for justice for the Palestinian people and Butt appeared to have been caught in the backwash.

At the time other Labour figures, including councillors, had been suspended while accusation of anti-Semitism were investigated and the Chakrabarti  inquiry was set up.  In the light of the publicity some were surprised that Butt had not been suspended.

There are several reasons why Butt’s article is curious. 

• It is written in a style utterly difference from any of Butt’s previous utterances and articles – almost as if it had been written by someone else entirely.
• It comes long after the initial controversy, at a time when the Chakrabarti report appears to have calmed things down regarding anti-Semitism and the media have found new grounds for discrediting Corbyn.   Was the article aimed at rehabilitating Butt after he resigned from London Councils as it lead on Equalities following the Facebook controversy?
• Butt’s linking of his apology to opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, a non-violent campaign aimed at changing Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, including the Gaza blockade and the building of illegal settlements.

In his article Butt states:

As far as I can see, it [BDS]  does nothing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It only provides more ammunition to those who wish to divide and polarise. What it does do is make our own Jewish community feel isolated and disturbed as to why the world’s only Jewish state appears to be the focus of the most vociferous boycott movement. So when boycotters wanted Brent to cancel its contracts with vendors who do business in Israel, the decision to say no was one of the quickest and easiest I have had to make.

The rather vague reference to ‘vendors who do business in Israel’  can only be a reference to the Bin Veolia campaign, of which I was a part.  The campaign was supported by many groups in Brent including Jews for Justice for Palestinians and was backed by Brent Central Labour Party GC, Butt’s local party. LINK

Our case was that Brent Council should not be handing over cash from Brent’s residents to a company that at the time (it has since withdrawn from these activities, arguably because of the national and international campaign against its involvement) provided infrastructural support to Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

Although ambivalent about boycotts of all Israeli goods, Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, is clear that the settlements are a ‘gross injustice’. LINK

Grahame Morris MP, Chair of LFPME said:

We should not have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. I am appalled that the government are more focused on preventing boycotts and disinvestment from the illegal settlements rather than attempting to end settlement trade.

This undermines their commitment to international law, human rights and resolving the conflict.

Cllr Butt’s statement claims that it was his decision to say no to a Council boycott.  At the time he said that the decision on whether to boycott Veolia did not rest with him but with officers, particularly Fiona Ledden, head of  Brent legal and prcorement at the time. He was concerned that Veolia, a large French-owned multi-national would take legal action against the Council.

The decision was to be based on external legal advice (source never revealed despite requests) and although campaigners were denounced as having a political agenda the Council decision would not be made on political grounds.

Now, retrospectively, Butt is claiming in an effort to bolster his credentials, that it was a political decision not to boycott Veolia, and one made by him personally.

The Liberal Democrat opposition at the time was  refused permission to put a motion  on the issue on the advice of Brent Council officer. LINK

The Brent Bin Veolia campaign had a two-pronged approach, mobilizing popular support for the cause and taking on the Council’s legal arguments via legal advice of our own.

The position regarding local councils is summed up by a recent update from the BDS Movement LINK

In a typically straightforward statement Archbishop Tutu made the case for BDS back in 2014 having visited Israel and Palestine to see things for himself:

We could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through... non-violent means, such as boycotts and disinvestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.

In his article Butt refers to the importance of Israel in the life of Brent’s Jewish residents ignoring the fact that many of those supporting the Veolia campaign were themselves Jewish people who support the Palestinan cause.

He does not mention his responsibility towards Brent residents of Palestinian origin.

Follow this link for the Free Speech on Israel submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry LINK

This is the full text of Muhammed Butt's article:


I’m sorry for sharing Israel slur – boycotts are wrong MUHAMMED BUTT

JULY 14, 2016, 11:42 AM 


The Labour Party – my party – is currently going through challenging times. Frankly, the behaviour of some of my fellow members has not been good enough, particularly towards the Jewish community.

 I too fell short of what standards should be expected in a thoughtless act. Earlier this year, I shared a post on Facebook without properly checking the comments below it.

The post contained a video of a violent incident between an Israeli soldier and young Palestinian girl. As a father of a daughter, I felt an instinctive empathy for the young girl and shared the video.

This was a mistake, not least because I had not read the comments below the video.  One made a claim that was both wrong and offensive: that Israel was in some way comparable to the so­ called Islamic State. I don’t believe this and have never believed it. You can sincerely believe that Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people is a tragedy for both parties, while refusing to indulge in that malicious and lazy smear.

As a local authority leader, I work hard to stop young people and children being groomed into the kind of extremism that ISIS represents. I do not need to be told how evil they are: They have deliberately killed thousands of civilians, used rape as a weapon of war and deployed mass executions as propaganda tools.

 ISIS represents nothing but fear. Israel, however, always offers hope. Right from its Declaration of Independence, it pledged itself to democracy, the rule of law and the equal treatment of minorities – an inspirational determination that was born at a time when much of the world lived under dictatorship.

However, whether on purpose or by accident, I shared the comment that made a wholly inappropriate and offensive comparison. I have to accept responsibility for that and say again how sorry I am.

I am the proud leader of Brent, the most diverse borough in the UK. I take my commitment to all our communities very seriously. We must all stand together and that means respect, understanding the realities of each other’s lives.

 I understand how critical Israel is to Jewish life in the UK: It could only be, when a plurality of the world Jewish community – more than 40 percent – live in Israel.

My Jewish residents will have parents, siblings and children in Israel.

That’s why I have no time for boycotts. As far as I can see, it does nothing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It only provides more ammunition to those who wish to divide and polarise.

What it does do is make our own Jewish community feel isolated and disturbed as to why the world’s only Jewish state appears to be the focus of the most vociferous boycott movement.

 So when boycotters wanted Brent to cancel its contracts with vendors who do business in Israel, the decision to say no was one of the quickest and easiest I have had to make.

I have always felt a huge amount of solidarity with the Jewish community. My family was forced out of Kashmir. I know what it is to be from a victimised community, looking to find a safe place and a welcoming community in which to live. When they came to Wembley, Jewish neighbours were among the most welcoming – not to be taken lightly during the often difficult 1970s and 1980s.

I share the frustration of the Jewish community at how long it is taking Labour to grapple with the problem of anti­Semitism in our ranks. It makes me very sad to think that I could have been a part of making matters worse. You can be sure that I will be much more careful about what I share in future.

For me the Chakrabarti report has not gone far enough. I would have liked it spelled out that not only should Zionist not be used as a term of abuse, but that Zionism is an entirely legitimate belief. As it happens, British Zionist groups such as Yachad are doing far more for peace than the official boycott movement ever has.

I can pledge that, for Brent Labour, it will only be the start of our thinking on the issue of antiSemitism, not the end. We can, we must and we will go further to make sure that Jews feel valued and safe in our party and in our borough, working with our local synagogues, the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, and the local police.

I personally look forward to travelling to Israel in the near future to see the facts for myself. Whatever our disagreements about the Middle East, making outlandish claims such as Israel being in any way comparable to ISIS do not help the cause of peace. They only cause hurt and unhelpful divisions. We can, we must, do better.

Natalie Bennett calls for arms ban and end to the siege of Gaza

LATEST UPDATE Palestinian school student winner of 'Speak Out' competition silenced

From Middle East Monitor.  I uploaded this video over the weekend but it suddenly disappeared  from the originating website.  This article explains what had happened:

 Leanne Mohamad, a 15-year-old student at Wanstead High School in London, won a regional final of the Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge with her speech ‘Birds not Bombs’, in which she describes the historical and contemporary reality for Palestinians under Israeli settler colonialism.

The Jack Petchey-sponsored competition is run by Speakers Trust, and bills itself as the world’s biggest youth speaking event.

Responding to complaints by anti-Palestinian blogger Edgar Davidson, Speakers Trust CEO Julie Holness said that they took his “concerns very seriously”, and confirmed that Mohamad would not be sent through to the next stage of the contest, and “will not be speaking at the Grand Final.”

The decision to expel Mohamad, made by a Speakers Trust and Jack Petchey Foundation judging panel, was based on her breaching two rules: that “the speech must have a positive and uplifting message”, and that “a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others.”

Holness offered to forward Davidson’s email to Mohamad’s school, and said the blogger was “welcome to use [my home office number] at any time.”

Responding to the news, Mohamad tweeted: “Why is it called a “Speak Out Challenge” when I am then silenced?” While Speakers Trust has removed the speech from their website and YouTube Channel, it has been re-uploaded here.

Davidson last year praised English Defence League-founder Tommy Robinson as “simply a British patriot.” His blog’s ‘Key Readings’ includes an article that states “Palestinians are a fake creation.”

UPDATE JUNE 1ST FROM PETITION SITE LINK

 1 Jun 2016 — After accusing 15 year old Leanne of spreading propaganda and giving grist to the racist mill attacking her, the Foundation changed their story in a statement that blames the VICTIM of the abuse for that abuse, instead of tackling the perpetrators; and stated in an effort “to protect her“ that they removed her. Therefore, instead of standing up to the bullying and abuse from the same Zionists whose manipulations and complaints led to her expulsion from the competition; they censored the victim of the abuse instead of simply turning off the racist notifications on the site they censored the victim of those notifications.

By expelling her from the competition they sided with the racist bullies and abusers.. They also over-ruled their own judges and mentors, the teachers and trainers, all of whom encouraged, edited, rehearsed and supported this young girl as she honed her speech WITHOUT ONE complaint or question mark over content.

How is this meant to empower and embolden bright thoughtful young people? What message does this give? Will this encourage others to Speak Up or Speak Out?

This statement has raised more questions than it has answered.This brave young woman has suffered abuse and name calling from the powerful far right Zionist lobby accusing her, a young Palestinian Semite of Anti Semitism and trying to silence her voice.

It is wonderful to see the support of so many humanitarians rallying to her cause to be heard, we are grateful for the supportive words from many, including the prominent Jewish human rights activist Norman Finkelstein….

”I find this episode appalling. What's going on across the pond? Have the Brits lost all their marbles? If a Jewish girl memorialized her family who perished in the Nazi holocaust, would she be disqualified on the ground that her presentation wasn't uplifting or might have offended a Teutonic nationalist? My goodness, not even a diminutive Winston Churchill would have passed muster with these judges. I once appeared on UK's Hard Talk to debate the Israel-Palestine topic. The presenter wouldn't let me speak. One viewer called the program "Hard to Talk." Maybe this competition should be rechristened, Speak Out--At Your Peril!“

Is the voice of a fifteen year old girl that dangerous?

Victory for BDS campaigners as G4S sells Israeli subsidiary

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.

For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.

Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.

Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel. 

Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.

This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.

G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.

G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.
For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.
Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.
Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel.
Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.
“This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.
“G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.”
G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month
- See more at: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/13160-2/#sthash.W7oXzE7e.dpuf

Dawn Butler tables parliamentary questions on Gaza siege and settler violence

In response to constituents' concerns Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central, has tabled the following two parliamentary questions:

"What measures is the UK government currently taking to lift the blockade of Gaza, particularly with respect to ensuring the vital entry of humanitarian aid after the devastating attacks seen in 2014?"

"In the light of the UN reported recording of 221 incidents of settler violence with virtually no prosecutions, what discussions has the minister held with Israeli ministers over the failure to prosecute settlers for acts of violence against Palestinians?"

The questions are tabled for Tuesday July 14th and if not picked to be answered orally should receive written answers,

Dawn Butler has become Vice Chair of the Labour Friends of Palestine.

Brent candidates' views on the Israel-Palestine conflict

Following last week's hustings on War, Peace and the Middle East readers may be interested in their Brent candidates views on the Israel-Palestine situation.

This is the up to date information received so far from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign's questionnaire to candidates. It is long so I have split the page.

BRENT CENTRAL

Shahrar Ali of the Green Party has responded.

They agree the UK Government should uphold the principles of equality, human rights and international law in all its relations and dealings with Israel.

They agree that the construction of Israeli settlements construction of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal and unjustifiable.

They agree that one of the first acts of the next UK Government should be the recognition of Palestine.

They agree that the blockade of Gaza should be lifted immediately.

They agree that we should stop trade with Israel’s settlements on Palestinian land and stop settlement goods being sold in Britain.

They agree that the EU Israel Association should be suspended until Israel meets its human rights obligations.

They agree that the UK Government should stop supplying arms to Israel until it complies with international law.

 

The Green Party believes that the Arab-Israeli conflict persists owingto the failure to find a fair and humane solution to the problems of thePalestinian people; and at the same time offer appropriate guarantees ofsecurity for Israel.

We condemned Israel's ground invasion and bombardment of Gaza in 2014,and continue to call on the UN, the EU and the US to ensure that Israel complies with international law.

We also call on Israel to evacuate illegal settlements within the occupied territories of Palestine. In addition, we call on the government of Israel to dismantle the 'West Bank Barrier' which divides
Palestinian territories, depriving Palestinians of land, water, and employment.

The Green Party supports active participation in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign which aims to put pressure on the government of Israel to end the Occupation and to give equal rights to Palestinians.

We believe that in the present situation neither the UK government nor UK companies should be selling arms to Israel.

The Green Party is committed to principles of equality, human rights and international law. There can be no lasting peace without justice.'

Brent Central Tories select Mendoza and declare 'no confidence' in Muhammed Butt

Former Brent Conservative Councillor Alan Mendoza has been selected by the Tories to  fight Brent Central in the General Election. Mendoza topped the poll in a by-election in Preston ward in June 2005.

He was regarded as a 'Young Turk' who presented a challenge to the leadership of Bob Blackman, now MP for Harrow East.

Mendoza  is Executive Director of the neo-con Henry Jackson Society and a supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He has affiliations with many other organisations and when a councillor declared that he was a Freemason.

He has a particular interest in the Middle East and in security issues and was commenting on TV over Charlie Hebdo on Friday LINK


Mendoza contributes to the Guardian's Comment is Free website.

Foreign policy could be come an issue in the General Election, as it was in 2010 over the Iraq war. The views of HJS are likely to be in conflict with those of the other candidates so far selected:

Henry Jackson Society:

1. Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.
2. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means — to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.
3. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing.
4. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO.
5. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others.
6. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.
7. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.
8. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack

No stranger to controversy, Mendoza was lambasted for his activities in the Henry Jackson Society,and accused of mounting a putsch by Marko Attila Hoare LINK

I grew up with groups like the Socialist Workers Party, in which total power is held by one or two leaders, but the totalitarianism is disguised by window-dressing consisting of branch meetings, annual conferences, meetings of the Politburo and the like. Well, the HJS is like that, but without the window-dressing: there isn’t even the pretence of democracy or consultation. Instead, the organisation operates on the basis of cronyism and intrigue. Sole power is held by one individual – Executive Director Alan Mendoza. He was not elected to the post and is not subject even to formal or technical restraints, nor to performance review and renewal of contract.

Mendoza's views can be seen in this clip when he was up against Stop the War's John Rees:


Meanwhile the Brondesbury Park Conservatives have put forward a motion for the next Full Council meeting that should also attract controversy:

-->

Motion under Standing Order45 in the names of Cllrs.Warren,Shaw and Davidson.

"NO CONFIDENCE VOTE IN CLLR.BUTT..........BUT HOW DO WE DO IT???? "*
This Council recognises that Cllr.Butt is unfit to lead Brent Council,and notes his actions since taking this post......
1. On becoming Council leader falling out with the previous Chief Executive and costing Brent £200,702 in compensation for loss of office.
2. In May 2014 installing  himself for four years as "Brent's Prime Minister," instead of the usual annual election for leader.
3. Introducing a Kremlin - style Constitution  in May 2014,including a reduction in Council scrutiny from 8 to 1 committees.
4. Presiding over a humiliating Industrial Tribunal case,where Brent was found guilty of race discrimination and yet still continuing with futile appeals....costing thousands .
5.  Damaging dramatically Brent staff relations as a result of the aforementioned I.T.case.
6.  Surrounding himself with a " Mafia - style " group of members and officers at the expense of most Labour members.
7. Losing Cllr.Perrin from his Cabinet within days of the new Council and barring Cllr.Van Kalwala from the Civic Centre.
8. Appalling lack of judgement in the Tricycle furore that happened in the summer of 2014.
9. Wasting more Brent Council taxpayer monies in the so called "independent " Mansfield inquiry into Brent NHS issues.
10. Totally undermining the Mayor of Brent by hogging every conceivable photo- opportunity at Mayoral events.
11. Showing a total lack of leadership in the ongoing budget process with endless consultations,forums,working groups,focus groups instead of showing real leadership.
12. Including the amazing Standing Order 13 in the Council constitution,which eliminates the traditional method of moving a motion of no- confidence.
This Council notes how difficult it is to move a no- confidence vote in Cllr. Butt Standing Order 13 requires 40% of Council members to put forward such a motion to Council some 10 working days before the meeting.In the interests of democracy this Council calls upon Cllr. Butt to remove Standing Order at the Council AGM on 20 May 2015.

A bit odd as Cllr Butt doesn't have the power to remove Standings Orders on his own, surely removal  of SO13 itself should have been a motion that the Brondesbury Conservative 'Provisionals' put to the AGM?

I expect the Kenton Conservative 'Officials' to treat the motion with disdain as they seem comfortable in their role on the Council after being officially recognised by Labour as the official opposition.

Brent North Conservatives have selected Luke Parker who works for IBM. According to the Kilburn Times LINK he wants 'better' schools, will champion small businesses and supports the living wage.

It really does look like there are two distinct Conservative Parties in Brent.

* The printing of this motion does not indicate my support for any or all of the points or  belief in their accuracy.