Manchester Bombing - Unite Against Terror, War and Racism

Socialist Party statement on the Manchester bombing - by Judy Beishon, Socialist Party executive committee

Young people out enjoying themselves were instead faced with one of the worst kinds of horror imaginable on 22 May when a bomb was exploded in the foyer of the 21,000-capacity Manchester Arena. Twenty two people were killed and at least 59 injured by this blast at the end of a concert by US singer Ariana Grande.

This atrocity, which the Socialist Party completely condemns, has echoes of the Bataclan concert attack in Paris in November 2015. In both, ordinary people from all walks of life were indiscriminately slaughtered, especially the young.

Early reports suggested the perpetrator was a suicide bomber who died at the scene. It is the worst terrorist attack in Britain since 52 people were killed in the July 2005 London bombings.

Manchester people reacted quickly to aid those fleeing the scene, tweeting offers of beds and lifts home, and taxi drivers gave free rides. Their response of solidarity and help - together with that of the emergency and hospital workers - has nothing in common with the hypocritical reaction of Tory government ministers who profess sympathy and sorrow while they stand four-square behind policies that lay down the breeding ground for such atrocities.

Terrorist attacks in European cities are becoming more frequent. In Britain, coming this time outside London, people throughout the country will now feel less safe. The reasons behind the attacks often appear to be multi-faceted and no two incidences are exactly the same. But a running feature has been links or ideological sympathy with the likes of Isis and anger at western imperialist interventions in the Middle East.

So as well as opposing reactionary organisations like Isis which support and perpetrate barbaric acts on ordinary people, it's essential to oppose imperialist wars and call for the immediate withdrawal of British military forces from the Middle East. We must also build unity of working people against scapegoating, racism and division, and argue for socialist ideas as the only alternative to this present system that can't and won't end poverty, war and terrorism.

Tories' inability to counter terrorism

Following the Manchester atrocity Theresa May will no doubt try to double and treble her 'strong and stable' posturing in order to appear as a firm 'anti-terrorist' law enforcer and boost her election prospects. However, there have been a number of rounds of so-called anti-terror legislation over the last two decades, and none of it is preventing new attacks such as March's killings in Westminster or this latest terrible event in Manchester - as the Socialist Party has repeatedly warned would be the case.

At the same time the Tories' unrelenting austerity drive is making people more vulnerable when attacks occur. After the Westminster attack we drew attention to the way in which cuts to the emergency services, hospitals and transport staff will inevitably reduce the speed of assistance for those needing urgent help.

It has been reported that eight hospitals in Greater Manchester have treated casualties of the bombing, while at the same time it's the case that some of these hospitals are facing cuts in which the loss of 24-hour emergency cover is being considered. The Manchester Arena attack, taking place in the late evening, exposes the potentially disastrous nature of such cuts, which the Tories want to push ahead with.

During the general election campaign so far the Tories' determination to continue with callous austerity measures has been clear and they met a major backlash to their plans to further penalise people who depend on social care. Now, following the Manchester attack, their self-portrayal as the defenders of ordinary working people needs to be further exposed and rejected in all its guises.

Popularity of anti-war policies

The 2004 Madrid train bombings in Spain, in which 191 people died, took place during a general election campaign and the ruling Popular Party tried to use the atrocities to boost their election prospects. Their strategy backfired; mass anger was directed at them after they tried to blame Basque nationalists for the attacks. Rather, it became clear that the perpetrators were acting in sympathy with Al-Qaida, and the mood of revulsion towards the government and its pro-Iraq war position led to the Spanish Socialist Party winning that election.

While it was a particular blunder by the Popular Party that helped to fuel that outcome, in Britain's present general election campaign Jeremy Corbyn's anti-war stance can gain even more resonance and have a strong impact. Corbyn has long been a consistent opponent of intervention by Britain and other western capitalist powers in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria wars. These have caused mass devastation and loss of life and have created the conditions for a horrific level of terrorist violence in those countries and beyond.

We in the Socialist Party have also strongly opposed those wars and have consistently warned that it would be ordinary working people in the Middle East and worldwide who will pay the price of them, both financially and as a result of the escalating instability they have caused. 

At the same time we condemn (as does Corbyn) the ideology and abhorrent methods of right-wing reactionary organisations like Isis and Al-Qaida that seek to build a highly repressive semi-feudal and capitalist caliphate, with no workers' democracy or basic rights.

It is the task of the working class in Iraq and Syria, through building trade unions, democratically-run non-sectarian defence bodies, etc, to lead a struggle against the likes of Isis, assisted by solidarity from workers internationally. The imperialist powers, on their part, are intervening for their own prestige and influence and in the interests of their top corporations.

This includes British imperialism, whether represented by the Tories or the Blairites before them. It was a fitting coincidence that the Guardian's 'morning briefing' following the Manchester Arena attack, after beginning on the bombing, immediately followed it with a second section on the "unprecedented support for the fossil fuel industry" in the Tory election manifesto. Oil industry bosses have promised over £390,000 to May's campaign as a result, it explained.

The general election on 8 June provides a much-needed opportunity to kick the Tories out and take forward the struggle in the labour movement against the Blairites by bringing Jeremy Corbyn in as prime minister. This would be a very important step on the road towards ending the austerity, poverty and war inherent in capitalism, that underlies division, racism and terrorism.

Counter terrorist threat with workers-led mass unity

Socialist Party website editorial

The shocking, cold blooded slaughter of journalists and others in the Paris office of satirical journal Charlie Hebdo, and more killings in subsequent days, has been met with mass outrage. Early condemnation was voiced on the day of the massacre in a leaflet produced by the French section of the CWI, Gauche Revolutionnaire, which called it "a cowardly and barbaric" attack. TheSocialist Party in England and Wales adds its condemnation, as we did when previous terrorist attacks have occurred, including the US 9/11 and London 7/7 attacks.

As 9/11, 7/7 and the massacre at Charlie Hebdo have shown, al Qaida directed or inspired attacks in the west have been directed at ordinary working people.

People across France reacted to what has been the worst terror attack in their country for over half a century by turning out on the streets in over 30 cities; and globally there have been many solidarity rallies. A large demonstration will also be taking place in Paris on Sunday 11 January.

Mass demonstrations of opposition are crucial, as terrorattacks like this one can serve to ratchet up division and polarisation and play into the hands of those who attack the interests of working class people. But quickly, government ministers in France - whose policies in power have laid the basis for terrorist atrocities to occur - have moved to head the demonstrations, with president Francois Hollande even inviting David Cameron to attend Sunday's event.

The far-right Front National will try to make gains out of the situation - by further whipping up anti-immigrant, racist sentiment.

Others across Europe will also try to jump on the bandwagon, for example right-wing populist Nigel Farage in Britain, said following the massacre: "We in Britain, and I've seen some evidence of this in other countries too, have a really rather gross policy of multiculturalism ... we do have a fifth column within our countries".

Blind alley of terrorism

While the terrorists struck a terrible, tragic blow against the staff of Charlie Hebdo, their desire to silence it has failed. Its cartoons, previously seen by tens of thousands of people are now being seen by millions because of the attack, and the journal has declared it will carry on.

Moreover, far from aiding the situation for Muslims in France, the terrorists have worsened it, as state repression in their communities will be stepped up and physical attacks by far-right groups and individuals are likely to increase - as is already being seen. However, it should be added that organisations like al Qaida and Isis that are encouraging terror attacks in the west are certainly not intending to build a struggle against oppression. They are highly authoritarian and reactionary, seeking to build regimes based oncapitalist and feudal exploitation, censorship and bans.

Now it is urgent in France, as the moving displays of shock and horror subside, to develop the building of workers' unity - across all religions and none - to quickly organise against any attacks on democratic rights in the name of fighting terror, and against scapegoating of minorities.

In Britain, the head of MI5 has already used the Paris killings to call for new powers for the security services, with chancellor George Osborne responding that they will be given 'all the resources they need'.

The police already have powers to investigate, arrest and charge terrorist suspects without new laws being introduced that can in the future be used against trade union activists and anti-austerity campaigners.

Rising threat

Head of UK counter-terrorism policing Mark Rowley, said: "At this stage, there is no UK connection" but ominously added "the threat levels remain unchanged, at severe for the UK". MI5 director-general Andrew Parker assesses that around 600 people have gone from Britain to Syria to fight with Isis or the al-Qaida linked Nusra Front. Around half of them have returned, many disillusioned with Jihad, but not all. However, past attacks like 7/7 in 2005 and Woolwich in 2013 (both in London), and now the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, show that the danger of terrorist acts exists in any case from alienated individuals who have never fought abroad.

The media makes much of the fact that the massacre in Paris was not committed by disorganised 'loners' but the attackers appeared to be well-trained in using guns and had planned the atrocity. They appear to have had the backing of al Qaida, as they shouted out allegiance to it during the attack. But they are said to be two young French men of north African descent, brought up and educated in France who have not fought abroad.
Imperialist interventions

After the start of the US-led wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, socialists were among those who warned that the threat of terrorist attacks in the west would become higher. Outrage swept the globe - not least in Muslimcommunities - at those imperialist interventions and the death and destruction they caused.

There has also been outrage at the Israeli regime's onslaughts on Gaza and the refusal of the US government to condemn them.

The terrorist threat is being worsened further now by US-led air attacks on Isis in Iraq and Syria - including by French imperialism - which are in some ways boosting the strength of Isis as well as increasing the overall death toll of people on the ground.

In France there is also the legacy of interventions in north Africa, including the Algeria independence war which ended in 1962, in which hundreds of thousands died. In October 1961 up to 250 Algerians peacefully protesting in the centre of Paris were massacred by the French police.

Adding to the anger at the foreign policy of western capitalist governments is the austerity they are imposing at home, which is escalating inequality. The rich are becoming ever more wealthy while the overwhelming majority suffer cuts in living standards, with a layer becoming more and more 'excluded' from access to decent jobs and pay.

This is no less true in both France and Britain with different manifestations of it; in France poverty-stricken immigrant populations are particularly concentrated in sprawling high-unemployment suburbs of the cities, and face vicious discrimination.

France has the largest Muslim population in Europe, estimated at 9% of the population, which includes around 4 million immigrants and their descendants from the Maghreb.

The riots that broke out across France in 2005 indicated the level of frustration and anger against poverty, police harassment and racism felt in the suburbs, conditions that remain today. In addition, many Muslim youth across Europe feel the effects of stigmatisation of Muslims and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy by right-wing and far-right media and politicians, in different forms and degrees.

Freedom of expression

Charlie Hebdo, regarded as a left-leaning journal, has based itself on ferocious irreverence to religious leaders, prominent politicians and authority in general. It desires to shock and outrage with its blunt satire - targeting anyone and everyone, and has been deliberately provocative, including by publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

Socialists support the right of individuals to be part of any religion of their choosing, or none, free from discrimination and oppression. At the same time we strongly defend freedom of speech and publication, including the right to criticise and use satire and humour. This isn't just for cultural reasons but also because infringements on what can be said and published can and will be used against trade union activists and socialists by state institutions, hampering our ability to expose class exploitation and interests.

But this doesn't mean we advocate there being no boundaries at all. Few people would support turning a blind eye to material that deliberately and consciously promotes rabid racism or sexism, for example.

However, who decides what is acceptable and what is not? We can't trust 'censorship' bodies appointed by government institutions and politicians when those governments are at present almost entirely composed of pro-capitalist, pro-austerity politicians. The boundaries of what is acceptable should be democratically decided, which in a socialist society would be by regularly elected representatives of ordinary people, subject to recall at any time.

Working class led response essential

Countering terrorism by the followers of Isis or al Qaida is not largely the task of 'moderate' Muslims as some right wing commentators have argued. The very small minority in society who consider turning to terror acts can come from any religious background or none, as attacks by the far fight, for instance, bear witness - Norway in 2011 saw far-right terrorist Anders Breivik kill 77 people in a shooting spree.

Nor is the way forward the 'unity' against terror led by the likes of Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron. As Gauche Revolutionnaire put it in their leaflet: "This attack will serve the ruling classes and the capitalists. Hollande, Sarkozy or Le Pen can try to claim that they are the defenders of our freedom, when they are the ones who suppress struggles, stigmatise migrants, and attack our rights".

Instead, essential is a unity led from below, by working class people. Mass movements of the working class, acting together in an organised way for improvements in living standards, and challenging capitalist governments with the strength of unity, can and will turn the tide against the growing threat of terrorism.

Gauche Revolutionnaire stated at the end of their leaflet:

"Trade unions, and other labour movement organisations and associations should put out a call to rally and pay tribute to the victims of Charlie Hebdo on their own platform: for the unity of workers, youth and the great majority of the population regardless of their origin or beliefs, for freedom of expression, against all reactionary and fundamentalist terrorists, against the racist and imperialist policies of French governments that increase sectarian divisions, intolerance and obscurantism.

"A mass, unified, movement against racism, and against the policies that force millions into insecurity, must be built. It is on that basis that we must show support for the journalists and employees of Charlie Hebdo".

Terrorism is not a danger that will be eliminated by the capitalist ruling classes and governments; they have created the conditions for terrorism in the first place and are now incapable of removing them. No amount of increased state repression will end the threat.

The ongoing crisis of the world economy leads governments to be even more hell-bent on launching attacks on the majority, and is serving to increase imperialist division and armed conflict. In France, Britain and across the globe, new mass workers' parties need to be built, putting forward socialist ideas that can show the only way out of this nightmare scenario.

Public ownership of the key industries, socialist economic planning and democratic decision making at all levels of society would lay the basis for ending war, oppression, exploitation and poverty on a permanent basis; and terrorism.

Stopping IS: Obama's Strategy in Tatters

Obama and his western allies such as Cameron argue that a policy of air strikes alone could defeat the advances made by 'Islamic state' (IS) forces in Iraq and Syria. Now with the possible defeat of
Kurdish forces fighting IS for control of the city of Kobane, this policy lies in tatters.

IS forces have advanced in the city and could be on the verge of another victory. Amidst reports of horrific scenes of brutal slaughter in the city by the crazed forces of reactionary IS, US air strikes on IS forces failed to halt their advance. Those trapped in Kobane are waging a courageous fight to defeat IS or face certain slaughter.

Obama and Cameron's air strikes policy is also at risk in Iraq with major IS gains in the western province of Anbar (nearly 25% of Iraq). All Anbar's major towns except Haditha and one military base have fallen to IS.

Again the Iraqi army offered little effective resistance. In yet another humanitarian catastrophe, an estimated 750,000 people have already fled Anbar province - up to 180,000 fleeing as IS forces overran the military base near Hit.

IS may now launch a further offensive to try to take the Sunni western part of Baghdad. Anbar province was the centre of the 2003 Sunni uprising against the US occupation.
A crucial element in the IS victories lies in the amount of heavy weaponry and arms they captured from disintegrating Iraqi armed forces. The rapid advances they made over vast areas of Iraq and Syria also show that the IS uprising has become a generalised Sunni uprising.

The brutal response of Shia militias near Baghdad, which have not distinguished between IS fighters and ordinary Sunni people, have driven the Sunni population under the IS umbrella as there is no other force to defend them. Shia militias in Baghdad speak openly of driving the Sunnis out from mixed areas of the city. IS has been able to gain support because of the oppression of the Sunni population under the western installed government of Maliki in Iraq following the US-led occupation.

The Turkish regime of Erdogan consciously held back from intervening against IS forces advancing on Kobane. They fear the consequences that a Kurdish victory would have on the 15 million Kurdish population inside Turkey.

Most fighting in Kobane is led by the PYD - the Syrian branch of the Kurdish PKK in Turkey. The Erdogan regime would be more comfortable with an IS victory over the PYD rather than vice-versa as indicated by the agreement reached for the release of Turkish hostages held by IS. Now Turkish warplanes have cynically bombed PKK bases in Turkish Hakkari province near the Iraqi border.

There can be no trust in any of the regional leaders or western imperialism to resolve this crisis in the interests of all the region's peoples. Western imperialist intervention is only worsening the catastrophe.

The origins of the current slaughter can largely be found in the legacy of western imperialist interventions into the entire region.

No trust can be placed in the Sunni or Shia elite and rulers of the region's countries which aim to use the conflict to gain for themselves. Turkey is looking to strengthen its expansion into Syria and seeking to establish a new mini form of the Ottoman empire.

Obama speaks of assembling a coalition of such Sunni powers as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE to oppose IS. However, while these countries' ruling dynasties may not fully support IS's actions, sections of them have been backing IS and all have their own regional interests and their own agendas.

Defeating IS is not their main priority. They can use the fact that IS in the short term can cause more problems for the Shia regimes in order to bolster their own interests.

To combat the horrors of IS and other reactionary sectarian forces in the region, a united movement of Sunni and Shia masses together with the Kurdish, Turkish and all other peoples must be built. To combat the reactionary threat of an IS slaughter in Kobane, such democratic committees need building to form mass militias.

In Turkey, committees of Turkish and Kurdish workers need to be formed and come together in a united way. There must be a struggle to lift Turkey's arms embargo to allow for the arming of such militias. The way forward is to build non-sectarian committees of the Arab Sunni and Shia masses together with the Kurdish people in Iraq in opposition to sectarian forces on both sides.

Such committees could form the basis of a government of workers, peasants and all those exploited by capitalism and imperialism that would guarantee the democratic, national and ethnic rights of all peoples of the entire area based on a democratic socialist federation of states.

by Tony Saunois, Committee for a Workers' International
www.socialistworld.net

Iraq: Oil war's bloody legacy

From: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/18775/17-06-2014/iraq-oil-wars-bloody-legacy

By Judy Beishon

At the time of Bush and Blair's catastrophic and criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Socialist Party and Committee for a Workers' International warned it could lead to the break-up of Iraq and terrible sectarian war that is now being played out in front of the eyes of the world.

US and British imperialism laid the basis for being faced with not one, but a number of Saddams and the rise of al-Qa'ida type terror organisations like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) that is sweeping across north Iraq today. The turn of events threatens to trigger a shake-up of the entire region, with profound and possibly tragic consequences for the populations.

To justify the 2003 war and subsequent occupation - in which over half a million Iraqis died, plus thousands of intervening troops - Bush and Blair claimed to be ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and laying the basis for democracy. The WMDs didn't exist and their interest was never democracy - it was the vast oil wealth in Iraq and their influence in the Middle East. In pursuing their goals, they created the conditions for a prolonged period of bloody ethno-sectarian conflict.

The overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein and the 'debaathification' carried out, saw Sunni Muslims removed from the state apparatus and jobs. Faced with mass resistance to its occupation and to defeat Sunni insurgents, US imperialism resorted to sectarian 'divide and rule' and imposed a Shia-dominated, corrupt government which greatly worsened the division.

Isis taking control of Fallujah in January and now Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - is seen as disastrous by the US government as it effectively reverses the driving out of Sunni militias from those cities by US marines in what were sustained, brutal assaults during the US-led war.

Now US imperialism is seriously weakened in the Middle East following its catalogue of foreign policy disasters, and mass opposition in the region and at home to its interventions. Obama was elected to the US presidency pledging to end the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he withdrew the US troops from Iraq in 2011, and subsequently claimed that the US killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan had destroyed al-Qa'ida's core. Then last year Obama again came under mass pressure that stopped him from bombing Bashir Assad's forces in theSyrian civil war. Cameron in Britain was also prevented from going down that road.

As a result of this history, neither Cameron nor Obamaare contemplating putting large numbers of ground troops back into Iraq. But it's a measure of the alarm with which the imperialist strategists view the Sunni militia gains that Obama is rapidly boosting supplies of arms and heavy military equipment to the Iraqi army and is considering an aerial bombardment of the Isis-held areas. Air strikes however, if carried out, will be counterproductive, inflicting massive bloodshed on civilians who would inevitably be hit, as the bombardments in Afghanistan bear witness.
Sunni uprising

Sections of the nearly one million-strong Iraqi army - US and British trained and equipped to the tune of $30 billion - disintegrated in the path of the offensive driven by an Isis force of less than a few thousand. In taking Mosul, a city of two million people, and a number of towns, including Tikrit, Isis was supplemented and aided by uprisings from within the minority Sunni population which has suffered heavy discrimination and victimisation under the initially US imposed Shia-led government of Nouri al Maliki.

Former Baathist security personnel from Saddam Hussein's ousted regime were among those who joined the offensive. Meanwhile the Kurdish Peshmerga forces used the crisis to rapidly take the city of Kirkuk into their own hands, seeing it as a capital for a Kurdish state.

The Iraqi government was left paralysed, with virtually no control across the entire north of Iraq, unable to even get a quorum in parliament in order to introduce emergency measures. Over half a million refugees poured out of Mosul and other captured areas, fearing government bombing raids, Isis, or both.

One of the great ironies of the present situation is that it is in the interests of both the US administration and its sworn enemy, the theocratic Iranian regime, to bolster the hapless Maliki government. So disturbed was the Iranian elite at the plight of its Shia protégés in Baghdad that it quickly sent its General Suleimani to Baghdad to help pull together volunteer Shia militias and government army forces that could defend the city and others nearby.

This is another humiliation for the US leaders - to need the cooperation of a detested regime which it has been harshly punishing with sanctions and at whose hands they had many troop losses during their occupation of Iraq. However, to justify talking to Iran, US Republican senator Lindsey Graham commented: "Why did we deal with Stalin? Because he's not as bad as Hitler. We should have discussions with Iran to make sure they don't use this as an opportunity to seize control of parts of Iraq."

Another recipient of venom from the US administration, Bashir Assad's forces in Syria, have too come to the aid of Maliki by launching some strikes against Isis bases in Syria. Assad had previously turned a blind eye to much of Isis's aggression in Syria because it was mainly directed at seizing ground from other Islamic militias that were at the forefront of fighting Assad's regime.
Baghdad

Isis and other Sunni militias have declared that invading Baghdad and holy, mainly Shia and mixed cities south of it are among their aims, but it appears unlikely that they could quickly succeed in this given the balance of forces that are accumulating. Shia militias are reactivating, with new influxes into them, including the Mehdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr which was involved in fighting the US-led occupation. Iranian forces are reported to be backing them up.

In Mosul and other Sunni dominated areas that Isis swept through, the Iraqi Shia-dominated army was widely viewed as a repressive tool being wielded by a government pursuing a sectarian agenda against the non-Shia sections of society. There have been credible reports that some Iraqi army leaders in those areas led a disbandment of their forces in collusion with Isis, but in any case the army's unpopularity in the Sunni dominated areas contributed to soldiers' low morale and desertion in the face of the jihadist onslaught. Isis had built up a reputation for gruesome savagery against Shias - it is an al-Qa'ida offshoot that even al-Qa'ida disowned - which added to the fear of the fleeing troops.

Reports have emerged of Isis executing hundreds of Shias and unarmed Iraqi army soldiers in the captured areas and the group has previously brutally killed many people in Syria. This bloodshed comes on top of a great many other atrocities committed in Iraq by Sunni militias against Shias and vice versa by Shias against Sunnis in recent years.

However, while an invasion of Baghdad may not be attempted in the short term, it is unlikely that the remaining Iraqi government forces will be able to regain control of all the areas now in the hands of Sunni-led militias or the Kurdish Peshmerga. Some towns are changing hands - Maliki's army recaptured two north of Baghdad - but the government has failed to retake Fallujah through shelling it since Isis seized it in January this year.

As for Kirkuk, the leaders of the Kurdish semi-autonomous zone have been locked in a long running battle with Maliki's ministers over who will profit from theoil production in their zone, a fight that they would welcome being free of by keeping control of Kirkuk as part of further steps towards de facto independence.
Isis

Isis, with many foreign jihadist fighters in its ranks and a growing number drawn from local populations, has imposed repressive Islamist rule in the Raqqah area of Syria and wants to extend this to form an Islamist caliphate linking up with its captured areas of Iraq and maybe eventually with parts of Lebanon and Jordan. Its leaders proclaimed the end of the border between Iraq and Syria - states drawn up in the 1916 deal between British and French imperialism that divided the spoils of the Ottoman empire between those two powers.

Journalist Robert Fisk, among others, has reported that Isis has financial backing from wealthy Gulf Arabs, including members of the neighbouring Saudi elite, who are US allies but would like to end Shia control in Baghdad. In Syria Isis increased its wealth through imposing taxes, kidnapping and other extortion and it has now seized huge sums of money from captured banks in Mosul and large quantities of abandoned Iraqi army weaponry - mostly US provided.

Some Isis commanders have tried not to antagonise people in the areas they have seized, while others immediately issued Sharia edicts telling thieves they would have their hands cut off, women to cover up their bodies and avoid leaving their homes, banning political parties, and other reactionary laws. These announcements instilled fear into much of the population, including many Sunnis who initially hoped that Isis would at least deliver them from discrimination and the arrests and torture that have been meted out on Sunnis by Maliki's government.
Repercussions

Overall, the recent turn of events spells further terrible suffering for ordinary Iraqi people regardless of the community they are in. The prospect of escalating sectarian division also threatens to further draw in the surrounding countries, including Turkey which has already faced kidnappings and detentions of a number of Turkish people at the hands of Isis, and moreover does not want to see an independent Kurdistan.

Furthermore, once again, there are jitters regarding oil supply and the world economy, as fears grow of possible disruption to the large oil fields in the south of Iraq.

Another significant danger worldwide will lie in the eventual return home of hundreds of war hardened and traumatised jihadists who have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq - from countries far and wide including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Britain. Not yet seeing an alternative to the rotting capitalist system other than to try to turn the clock back to the days of feudal persecution, subjugation of women, dire poverty and summary justice, an increased danger of terrorist attacks will arrive with them.

Working class Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and the other nationalities and ethnic and religious groups in Iraq have nothing to gain from any of the propagators of sectarian conflict, from whichever quarter. Iraqi Sunnis have previously rejected the forerunners of Isis and driven them out of their communities and many are now appalled at the actions of Isis. There is widespread anger among Shias at Maliki's corruption and sectarianism. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike are suffering from the constant insecurity, lack of basic services and poor living standards.

There have been many times historically when people in Iraq have shown their desire for unity against division, such as in April 2004 when 200,000 Shia and Sunni demonstrated in Baghdad against the US-led occupation. Grassroots building of democratic, non-sectarian working class led organisations is essential, to organise defence of all communities and to put forward an anti-capitalist programme, as the only way of showing a way out of ongoing bloodshed, repression and poverty.

That programme would need to challenge and expose the self-interest and greed of all the pro-capitalist political and military leaders that are fighting for hegemony across Iraq today. It should explain the necessity of removing them from power and replacing them with democratically elected workers' representatives who will call for a socialist solution, in the interests of all workers and the poor.

The Socialist Party and CWI support the right of self-determination for all oppressed nationalities and groups, but point out that the resulting states and state-lets would not be economically viable unless linked up in a voluntary socialist confederation, in this case of the peoples of Iraq and the region. Only on that basis could cooperation be achieved that could lift everyone's living standards, making the best use of all the natural resources for the benefit of all.

No to imperialist intervention in Syria

Editorial of the Socialist - http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17295/28-08-2013/no-to-imperialist-intervention-in-syria
Via social media, smart phones and traditional news channels a flood of bloody images, footage and reports of the unbearable suffering inflicted on the Syrian masses has been broadcast around the world.

Initially in 2011, following the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, there was a popular uprising against Assad's police state. But, as has been explained in the Socialist, interventions and enormous financial and military backing came from the semi-feudal monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and imperialist forces in the hope of derailing that movement.

The uprising against Assad's dictatorship has been skewed now into a sectarian conflict and has, moreover, unleashed a dangerous battle between the Sunnis and the Shias on a regional scale. The death toll of Syria's now years-long conflict is estimated to be over 100,000. Two million people have fled the country and around five million are internally displaced. This is horror piled upon horror.

For the overwhelming majority of people the news that chemical weapons have been used in Ghouta, a district of Damascus, appears to represent the opening of a new circle of hell for the suffering masses. The reports that the dead are numbered in their hundreds and the injured in their thousands are as heart-breaking as they are horrifying.

Given what has taken place, combined with the threat of regional instability looming, a desire for a solution to this horror is a human response. But to hope that the US and UK governments and their allies in France, Germany and Turkey could bring any solution, given history, both recent and long-term, is horribly mistaken.
Air strikes

Over the last months US President Obama has warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a 'red line' to trigger an international response no fewer than five times. Already there are three US warships in the Mediterranean with another on its way. Pilots in Cyprus have reported seeing warplanes on British airfields there.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has been preparing the ground here in Britain, indicating that the absence of a UN mandate will be no obstacle: "it's possible to take action based on great humanitarian distress." He's suggested that action, most likely intense aerial bombardment, could take place within weeks, if not days. The UN security committee is split with Russia and China opposing intervention in the interests of their own capitalist classes.

Hague is also reported to have been liaising with the dictatorial and repressive Qatari and Saudi regimes who would welcome a defeat of Assad as a blow against Iran and Hezbollah. Iran has warned that western military intervention will destabilise the region.

Patrick Cockburn, Middle East commentator, has pointed out the difficulties of ascertaining who bears responsibility for the recent chemical attack. The UN inspectors were granted access and a ceasefire agreed but the inspectors came under fire and were ordered out within hours. However, that in itself does not yet prove who was responsible and the inspectors are only due to decide if there was a chemical attack.

Before UN inspectors have publicly reported, US Secretary of State, John Kerry said that the US would respond to the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons in Syria and that President Bashar al-Assad's forces had committed a "moral obscenity" against his own people.

'Moral obscenity' might also be a good word to describe the destruction of Iraq, including the alleged use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium tipped missiles, the open air prison that denies the Palestinians their democratic and national rights, silence in the face of genocidal slaughter in Sri Lanka, not to mention imperialist powers' record of employing chemical and nuclear weapons.

There is major domestic public opposition to US and UK involvement despite the desire for an end to the slaughter. Memories of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and the 'dodgy dossier' claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction are evoked by the current rush to attack. That is compounded by the failure of the British government to publish the results of the Chilcot inquiry.

Obama's election programme included pledges to bring an end to US involvement in Iraq and the years of Bush's warmongering. Instead he has been a war president with the murderous drones multiplying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, albeit largely replacing troops on the ground, and the maintenance of Guantanamo Bay. 60% of the US population oppose US military involvement in Syria.

But both the US and UK governments have an interest in appearing as heroes to the Syrian masses and as defenders of democracy, mired as they are in a profound crisis of capitalism, with no solution, and with anger against them mounting.
Iraq war

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the Lib Dems polished their thin anti-war credentials by opposing action without a UN mandate. The Socialist Party pointed out that the UN could not be relied on as an arbitrator in the interests of the Iraqi people, comprised and dominated as it is by representatives of the major imperialist and warmongering governments of the world. However, former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown now argues that, in the case of Syria, unilateral action is preferable to inaction.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander has demanded parliament be recalled. Cameron looks likely to do this, as he faces opposition from a small number of his own backbenchers, such are the complications and risks for the future of the entire region.

Labour has not indicated how it would vote. A genuine working people's party would massively oppose any form of military action in Syria. But Labour has a lustrous record as vicious warmongers in government, sending troops to Iraq for a war for oil in the interest of big business and for strategic aims.

In opposition Labour boasts an almost spotless record of kowtowing to the rotten Con-Dem austerity policies. Yet again the need to build a new political force to represent the anti-war, anti-austerity majority is glaring.

There can be no hope that any action on the part of this government or its international counterparts can bring relief to the populations of Syria or the Middle East. In fact it is guaranteed that increased bombing will bring increased suffering to the masses. And this is why it must be opposed.

'Regime change' is not a cited aim, because Assad's is a relatively strong regime, because of the fierce opposition of Russia, and because the question of who would replace it is so problematic. Given the significant funding and growth of Al-Qa'ida in Syria there are also serious dangers of a 'blowback' of increased terrorism, in the region and inside Britain and its allies in this adventure.

There is no real capitalist solution to this conflict, threatening as it does in the unstable arena of the region, to unravel into wider ethnic conflict which could last for years. What is clear from Iraq, from Libya, and from all imperialist military interventions, is that the interests of the working class and poor in the region are not a driving force.

There is no shortcut to the building of, and encouraging the establishment of, independent working class forces that can unite the poor and oppressed and suffering in their common interests against both the forces of imperialism and their semi-feudal and capitalist allies in the region.
We say:
No to imperialist intervention! The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria and the region
Against all oppression, the people must democratically decide their own fate
For the building of united, non-sectarian defence committees to defend workers, the poor and others against sectarian attacks from all sides
Prepare a movement to fight for a government of representatives of workers and the poor
For a revolutionary constituent assembly in Syria
The implementation of the national and democratic rights of the masses, with the recognition of the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination including, if they so wish, the right to their own state
Independent trade unions and the building of mass workers' parties with a programme of land to the masses and the factories to the workers, implemented through a programme for a socialist democratic planned economy
A democratic socialist confederation of the Middle East and North Africa

Stop unmanned drone attacks!

By Matt Gordon, Bristol East Socialist Party
"To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance," said US president Obama in a major speech recently where he promised to scale back the use of unmanned drones to attack targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

But pious hand-wringing will not bring back the lives of the civilians indiscriminately bombed in their homes by Obama's killer robots.

Nor does one speech change the tactics of the US Military and the CIA on the ground. On 29 May a drone strike in the North Waziristan, on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, killed at least four people, including Wali Ur-Rehman, second-in-command of the Pakstani Taliban.

However these attacks are rarely as accurate as that. One source estimates that only 2% of drone attacks kill targets as high profile as Wali Ur-Rehman.

It is also common practice for the Taliban to name a commander as killed only for them to later resurface elsewhere alive and well.

Obama and the US government have consistently downplayed the use of drones and the havoc they cause, but in truth their use has grown exponentially during his presidency. It is yet to be seen if Obama's most recent speech is any more genuine.

Afghanistan is undoubtedly the epicentre of unmanned drone attacks, with 506 incidents in 2012 and no way to verify the number of civilian casualties accurately.

In Pakistan there have been 369 since 2004, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that between 2,541 and 3,540 people have been killed, and that between 411 and 884 of those have been civilians.

On receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace, Obama declared that America, "must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war".

But unmanned drones are not used because they are more 'surgical' or less deadly than traditional weapons, they are used because they save the lives of American troops in the short term and so are more politically and financially expedient back home.

For those on the receiving end, a hellfire missile is just as deadly and indiscriminate whether it is fired by a drone or by a piloted aircraft.

The reality is that the war in Afghanistan is an expensive and bloody failure. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, making it the mightiest and most technologically advanced military occupation in the world, but still failed to make any real gains against the Taliban insurgency, which is likely to become apparent when combat troops leave at the end of 2014. Replacing human troops with robots will not change this.

Drones terrorise entire populations. This will leave thousands if not millions of people psychologically traumatised and deeply opposed to the United States, and will also continue to fuel anger.

The billions spent on war could instead be used for schools, hospitals and creating jobs - both in America and in Afghanistan. The war and use of drones must be ended now.

EDL blocked in Sheffield

By Alistair Tice, Sheffield Socialist Party - http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/768/16821/04-06-2013/edl-blocked-by-counter-demo

Around 500 anti-fascists occupied Barkers Pool in Sheffieldlast Saturday to stop the racist English Defence League (EDL) from politically exploiting the death of Lee Rigby.

The EDL, who numbered less than 100, cynically said they wanted to pay respects by laying a wreath at the Cenotaph in the square.

They marched from a nearby pub with England flags and Union Jacks but were halted by the police before the square.

A stand-off ensued whilst the police tried to persuade protesters to let the EDL through. "No pasaran" was the reply.

So the police tried to force their way through with a wedge charge but the crowd held firm and they were repulsed.

Then the police prepared the horses, which drew chants of "We remember Orgreave". Significantly, the banner of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign was on the demo.

The horses were blocked and pushed back too, to cheers of "Two nil! two nil!" Then after a further stand-off, the police proposed that an officer lay one of the wreaths.

After checking that the inscription did not refer to the EDL, this was agreed by the crowd on the frontline of the counter demo.

This 'compromise' represented a defeat for the EDL who had not got through, so then started 'kicking-off', including throwing their flowers at anti-fascists - not very respectful! A celebratory mood ensued on our side as the EDL were eventually forced to disperse.

However, the EDL have announced a national demonstration in Sheffield this Saturday, 8th June, which will require an even bigger and more organised mobilisation by the anti-fascists to stop them again.

Initial Statement on Boston Marathon Tragedy from Socialist Alternative (CWI USA)

From: http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=2096
The bombings today at the Boston Marathon are an absolute tragedy and a horror that shouldn't happen in Boston or anywhere else in the world. We are all checking in with loved ones in the Boston area. Socialist Alternative would like to express our grief, sympathy and solidarity with all the victims of this attack. 

It is too soon, as we publish this, to say who committed these acts. If this bombing was politically-motivated, then it is an absolute disgrace to be condemned no matter what the ideas of the attackers. These sorts of methods that target ordinary working people have absolutely nothing in common with the work of socialists striving to build a mass movement that can challenge the rule of the 1%, end the chaos of capitalism and change society.

Times of fear and uncertainty can unfortunately lead to scapegoating and attacks on our civil rights. We are against all attacks on immigrants, particularly Arab and Muslim people, as a result of this tragedy. Whatever the religious or ethnic background of the perpetrators of this attack, an entire religious or ethnic group should not be made guilty by association. We are also against any further attacks on our civil liberties which have already been limited by the Patriot Act and other policies. We must not let the government exploit this tragedy by restricting the freedoms and democratic rights that ordinary Americans fought and died for in the past.

10th anniversary of 15 February 2003: A million on the streets to stop the war

By Ken Smith, Socialist Party representative on the Stop the War steering committee 2003-2007

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16127/13-02-2013/15-february-2003-a-million-on-the-streets-to-stop-the-war

It was the day that shook the world. From cold, grey, sub-zero London to sunny Sydney, a vast tide of humanity marched in every continent in the most momentous display of mass solidarity ever seen, hoping to stop the impending US-led invasion of Iraq.

The New York Times talked of the day showing two superpowers on the planet - the USA and world public opinion. The global hurricane provoked political turmoil worldwide and Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair's biggest political crisis.

In an estimated 600 cities across the world, people marched - possibly more than 30 million in total - against a threatened war which they rightly feared would lead to greater global instability.

Ten years on from 15 February 2003, all the fears of the marchers have come to pass and then some. The invasion led to the slaughter of more than half a millionIraqis. Millions more Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Thousands of service personnel - including 4,486 in the US and 179 in the UK - have died.

Around the world lives continue to be lost and damaged in the name of the 'war on terror'. For example through drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the latest onslaught on Mali; through genocidal slaughter and repression, as in Sri Lanka; and through increasing denial of democratic rights. These are, in reality, wars conducted in the interests of big business.

Mass opposition
The war for oil has left Iraq and the world in a state of permanent instability to this day and hasn't done anything to reduce the risk of terrorism.

The scale of opposition to Bush and Blair's drive for regime change in Iraq could not be doubted after that momentous day. Up to two million marched in London. Demonstrations took place in most major cities across the USA and there were huge demonstrations in every country where their "leaders" backed Bush's war drive.

However, the protests of the biggest anti-war opposition humankind had ever experienced did not succeed. The war went ahead with all its ultimate consequences. So does that mean that the tens of millions of us who marched failed or that demonstrations change nothing?

Undoubtedly, the demonstrations made the ruling classes of the world pause, seeking further justification in the form of a second UN resolution for their imperialist aggression.

Socialists explained that the UN process was "merely a diplomatic ploy to legitimise a predetermined decision to launch a war against Iraq" and that the UN was unlikely to act against the interests of its most powerful constituent, US imperialism.

Moreover, the scale of opposition in Britain saw Blair, previously known as 'Teflon Tony' because apparently no scandal or complaint could stick to him, teetering on the brink of defeat. The impact of the anti-war movement was something from which he never recovered.

WMDs

The millions marching on that day were not marching to defend Saddam - as some, such as Observer columnist Nick Cohen, claimed. Most who marched were fully aware that Saddam was a vicious dictator who had ruled through the most brutal repression. The Socialist Party also gave no support to Saddam's rule and argued that his overthrow was the task of the Iraqi people.

No one doubted that Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and could use them again - though there was enormous scepticism even then about the claims of stockpiles of so-called weapons of mass destruction, which were later proved bogus.

The main reason millions marched, and hundreds of millions more backed the marchers, was because they didn't believe foreign intervention was justified. They feared the consequences; and they suspected that, behind the propaganda fig leaves of George W Bush and Blair, this was a naked imperialist war for regime change to get their hands on Iraq's oil. It was also concerned with US imperialism's strategic interests and Bush's prestige after the 9/11 attack.

The millions came from all sections of society. There were those from socialist organisations and trade unions, and those who had been involved in the anti-globalisation movement in the decade previously, who knew what the likely consequences of war would be.

Yet, overwhelmingly the millions were people who had not previously been involved in political activity and who were not persuaded of the need for war in Iraq and were motivated to take action themselves.

The demonstrations - particularly in Britain - represented a unique chance for those leading the movement to clearly call on those newly mobilised masses to come behind a new political movement: a movement that could offer an alternative to the neoliberalism and war offered by establishment politicians.

The demonstration speakers represented a kaleidoscope of British society - reflecting the Stop the War Coalition's (STWC) 'popular front' approach.

This meant that, despite objections from the Socialist Party, the leadership of the STWC, strongly influenced by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), bulldozed the decision through the STWC steering committee to allow a platform to then Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy - without any public criticisms of the fact the Lib Dems only opposed the war without a UN mandate.

The leadership also refused to allow any speaker directly on behalf of a socialist organisation, denying the millions who marched a chance to hear a real alternative to war and capitalism. This undoubtedly helped to build up the Lib Dems' 'radical' image particularly among young people, helping to pave the way for the Con-Dem coalition.

Former Labour cabinet member Mo Mowlam, who was also to speak, was being promoted by STWC leaders as a Labour rebel, but six weeks later she called in the Daily Mirror for more bombing to win the war.

The Socialist Party explained in leaflets and articles that, "unless Blair's rule, and the interests of the capitalist ruling class that he represents, are put at greater risk from a movement at home than they would be by not going to war, Blair will not be deflected from his path".

We explained that this meant action before the invasion took place, as well as after; building on the magnificent turnout on 15 February with mass civil disobedience, especially strike action, and seizing the time to build a mass political alternative, preferably in the form of a new mass workers' party.
Strike action

Among the platform speakers at the demo were some trade union leaders who made the call for industrial action to stop the war, who were also uneasy about giving a platform to Liberals and Labour. In its material and speeches elsewhere, the Socialist Party supported this but argued that decisive industrial action to stop the war would require serious preparation.

Former Labour MP George Galloway had said in private discussions before the big day that he was going to use his speech to call for a new anti-war political alternative to be established. On the day he pulled back and spoke more obliquely, denouncing Blair and Bush, but only warning in general of splits in the Labour Party if Blair went ahead in supporting the war, saying that he and others would "refound the Labour Party" on socialist principles.

In the event George Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003, at the time of Blair's choosing, and that opportunity to launch a mass party was lost.

However, even though some punches may have been pulled in speeches, why did the demo not then translate into mass civil disobedience and general strikes which could have halted Britain's involvement in the war?

The steering committee of the STWC met three days after the massive demonstration. The SWP and Communist Party of Britain leadership of the STWC acknowledged that "there is a massive responsibility on this committee to come out with a clear plan of action in the next few days."

At the time, the Socialist Party had three members on the 50-plus steering committee but did not have any members in the inner core of officers who made the day-to-day decisions and who were responsible for the political direction of the STWC.

However, it was forcefully put by Socialist Party members at the meeting that it required something more than abstract talk of a "political crisis" to make "mass civil disobedience" and effective industrial action a reality.

Recall TUC

Under pressure from us, backed up by former NUM leader Arthur Scargill and George Galloway MP, it was agreed that "after getting two million on the streets we need to take up the call made by some trade union leaders for a reconvened TUC and to popularise the idea of all forms of industrial action."

It was understood at that meeting that it would be wrong to put all our faith in a reconvened TUC calling industrial action, as was proved a few weeks later.

After 15 February, a serious attempt was needed to involve the majority of those who had marched into representative, democratic and effective coalitions at every level of society.

Socialist Party members were also particularly vocal on the need to draw on the experience of a mass civil disobedience movement that had brought down Thatcher - the anti-poll tax movement where mass demonstrations were combined with 18 million people refusing to pay the hated tax.

Of course, a campaign to stop a global war was on a bigger scale than the anti-poll tax movement, but the scale of opposition and potential anger that could be mobilised was even greater as well.

But, we argued, the most crucial aspect of building a movement out of the mass turnout on 15 February had to be organising effective and sustained action in the workplaces. Strikes, then as now, show that it is working class people who have the real power in society to bring everything to a halt.

Day X

To bring to reality the slogan of "stop work to stop the war" serious preparations had to be made. Socialist Party member Bernard Roome, who was a member of the Communication Workers Union national executive at the time, had successfully moved a resolution at the union's executive "to campaign for all members to take protest action on the day that war is officially declared."

Socialist Party councillor and former Labour MP Dave Nellist also had successfully moved at a STWC steering committee that a planning meeting calling together all the executive and leading activist members of trade unions should be convened to coordinate action on Day X - the first day of the war.

Even before Day X, if a mass day of civil disobedience had been called on the day that Parliament voted to support an invasion, then it was possible this could have had the impact to force MPs to vote against war and defeat Blair.

If Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq had been stopped, even at that late stage, this would not have stopped Bush and the US regime. It was a life or death matter for the regime in the US.

In fact, veteran journalist Bob Woodward, in his book Plan of Attack, revealed that in March 2003 Bush had offered Blair the chance to keep British troops out of the war. But Blair was determined to assert Britain's prestige.

However, the growing anti-war movement in the US would have been given an enormous push from the defeat of Blair and an impetus could have developed for a new political party in Britain.

Blair and much of the Labour leadership faced growing anger over their war policies, as well as pursuance of privatisation, university fees and their anti-working class agenda. This even spread to the party itself with a parliamentary 'revolt' and a handful of resignations.
Labour

Could Labour have been reclaimed for the anti-war masses, starting to take action and thinking about how to effect change? Following years of erosion of Labour's democratic structures it was impossible for working class people to have an impact on the party's policies, as was shown by various failed attempts to pass anti-war resolutions.

Even those who argued reclamation was possible put forward no clear strategy beyond asking people to join, an invitation that most anti-war activists declined and membership and support fell.

The Socialist Party argued that the anti-war movement did need a political voice and welcomed all positive steps towards working class political representation. However, in the belated formation of Respect, George Galloway, the SWP and others made fundamental programmatic and organisational mistakes, which prevented Respect from providing an effective political channel to the masses moving into action against the war and over other issues.

After 15 February, there were inspiring displays of trade union action, civil disobedience and the heroic organised and determined action of school students who walked out en masse on Day X - the day the war started.

International Socialist Resistance, a youth campaign initiated by young Socialist Party members, had distributed 60,000 leaflets on 15 February making a call for school students to organise themselves and prepare for school strikes. ISR members helped coordinate the strikes in many areas.

Opportunity wasted

However, the leadership of the anti-war movement did not seriously address how to build and sustain a mass campaign of civil disobedience against the war.

Instead, they organised cross-party People's Assemblies and further demonstrations. Feeling the hot breath of the anti-war movement on their backs a number of politicians from the pro-war parties found their 'consciences' and participated. But the STWC leadership did everything they could to accommodate these right-wing establishment representatives - rather than make demands on them.

The scale of the anti-war movement in Britain, the US and elsewhere did lead to on-going crises for Bush and Blair, but not enough to topple either regime and stop the war.

Ten years on, the consequences of this blood for oil reverberate everywhere still. Nowhere is this more the case than in Iraq - billions of dollars were poured in to try and rebuild the country's infrastructure but whole swathes of the population have very limited access to electricity and drinking water.

Meanwhile the profits of the subcontracting and arms companies have skyrocketed. Deadly and near-daily attacks on security forces and civilians continue to claim lives.

15 February 2003 was an inspiring day to be alive, you saw the potential for the war to be stopped. Nevertheless, it also showed that mass demonstrations are not enough in themselves to stop political leaders whose power, prestige and ultimately political survival are at stake.

Gaza Demo and March in Bristol last Friday

Details of this Saturday's demo here: http://www.facebook.com/events/505053126195546/505423982825127/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity

Stop the Israeli state terror!

Socialist Party Meeting: Stop the Assault on Gaza

Tomorrow - Tuesday 20th November 2012

Cheltenham Road Library,

Bristol,

BS6 5RH

7.30pm

The Israeli government has declared that its shocking and brutal assault on the Gaza strip will be a "widespread campaign" and threatens "protracted conflict".

Among its opening strikes was the assassination of the military leader of Islamist party Hamas, Ahmed Jabari, and more than ten other Palestinians, as a terrifying rain of missiles were fired from the air.

The onslaught was clearly aimed at escalating the conflict, with the Israeli regime turning its back on a ceasefire agreement that had just been negotiated to stop military attacks from both sides.

Assassinations of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces in recent months have played a central part in escalating the conflicts in the south of Israeli and Gaza.

Nevertheless, British foreign secretary William Hague blamed Hamas as bearing "principal responsibility" because of the rocket fire from Gaza, as effectively did Labour's Douglas Alexander, both refusing to condemn the Israeli regime for deploying its massive, vastly stronger, military might.

"I am responsible for us choosing the right time to exact the heaviest price and so be it" was the chilling message of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Palestinians fear a repeat of the invasion of Gaza at the end of 2008, when nearly 1,400 people were slaughtered, including 314 children, and are in a state of terror and panic.

There are ominous signs that a ground invasion is being considered, with Israeli soldiers' leave cancelled and some reservists called up.

As well as the terrible toll of Palestinian deaths and injuries, following the killing of Jabari three Israeli civilians were killed in the Israeli town of Kiryat Malakhi when their building was hit by a Palestinian missile.

Netanyahyu and Co knew that their assault would bring this kind of response but their aim was not to encourage peace and security for Israelis or Palestinians, but was to serve their own interests.
Seeking votes

In particular they are desperately trying to boost their support prior to the general election scheduled for January by trying to appear to be fortifying security in Israel.

In recent weeks, opinion polls have showed that Likud Beytenu, the newly merged party formed by Netanyahu and Lieberman, was losing support.

They want to draw attention away from the burning social problems in Israel, which Lieberman said he's "sick of hearing all the cries about".

The Israeli government's decision to respond to straying shells from Syria by returning fire, along with other threats of retaliatory military action, and threats of punitive action against the West Bank based Palestinian Authority, are also part of the election campaign of these failing nationalist politicians.

They fear losing their seats and are therefore willing to engage in mass slaughter of Palestinians and to gamble on the lives of ordinary Israelis.

Leaders of the main Israeli 'opposition' political parties, Yachimovich (Labour), Lapid (Yesh Atid) and Mofaz (Kadima) were quick to stand by the government and speak with one voice.

They don't even pretend to offer any real alternative to the narrow, mad and dangerous agenda of the current government.

In addition to their re-election aims, the Israeli leaders want to cut across the revival of a Palestinian bid for UN recognition later this month, pre-empt any pressure for peace talks from re-elected Obama in the US, and to try to counter any strengthening of Hamas as a result of the major changes and tensions in the region - in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon etc.

But their blood-filled strategy can spiral out of their control and rebound on them by massively inflaming relations between countries and the situations within them; already there are protests and demonstrations breaking out across the Arab countries and worldwide, as well as in the Palestinian territories.

In Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, a call to defend the residents of Gaza is being made on demonstrations.

Opposition to the war plans of Israeli leaders Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman must also be rapidly organised in Israel to make it clear that the bloodshed is not in the interests of ordinary Israelis and to counter the lies of the government.

Reports from demos around the country: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/15709/18-11-2012/protests-against-strikes-on-gaza

Bristol protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza - tomorrow...Not one more bomb!

This event has been organised tomorrow, please come along and show solidarity with the people Gaza: http://www.facebook.com/events/471435896229125/

Not one more bomb! Stop Israeli attacks on Gaza!

Friday 16th November 5pm

The Fountains, Bristol Centre (opposite the hippodrome)