The resignation of Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara

July 15, 2007 - 0:0

In the June 23, 2007 edition of The Independent, Robert Fisk wrote, “I remain overwhelmed that this vain deceitful man (Tony Blair), this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is really contemplating being ‘our’ Middle East envoy.”

Tony Blair was in power for 10 years, and although elected three times, he ruled like a dictator. He deceived and lied to the people and the media supported him through mind control. His dossiers were manipulated to suit his tyrannical strategy. In spite of the wishes of the people, Tony Blair, like George W. Bush, said he took the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq based on his strong Christian values. He is responsible for such terror, and has the blood of tens of thousands of men, women and children on his hands. Many people and organizations want him brought to justice for crimes against humanity and sentenced accordingly. It is all too easy for the militarily strong to invade other countries not of their liking and then ‘judge’ and ‘sentence to death’ the leaders of those countries when the invaders themselves are the real terrorists and tyrants. And then they argue that the victims of terror, occupation and invasions should not possess nuclear weapons like they do in a clear strategy to maintain military superiority. They also argue that those victims have no right to defend themselves based on their own religious values or otherwise. The Jewish European invaders created Israel in Palestine in 1948, and the Palestinians have the right to reject this abject creation. Britain is at the heart of this abscess as she was occupying Palestine at the time. The Palestinian problem is totally different than the British partition of India. India was partitioned among her own people, while Palestine is the victim of Jewish European invaders who have occupied and squatted on Palestinian lands and are taking more through more violent squatting (which they call ‘settlements’) and through an iron curtain (which they call a ‘security barrier’) under a system of apartheid. If, according to some historians, Hitler persecuted Jewish Europeans and Europeans felt sorry about this persecution, it would have made more sense to create a Jewish state in Europe, not in Palestine. Their original choice was to create Israel in Uganda. Charity begins at home. Britain cannot offer Palestinian lands to others. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and they have elected Hamas to restore their rights in their country. The world should applaud the will of the Palestinians. Moreover, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees must have the right to vote in Palestinian elections. To the dislike of the European creators of Israel-in-Palestine, Hamas does not recognize Israel, and yet those Europeans are supposed to be fighting for democracy. Moreover, they are militarily and economically supporting the non-elected and discredited PLO Fatah movement, which they originally declared a terrorist organization but tolerated for decades because it recognized the terrorist state. Now they regard Hamas as the terrorist organization for wanting to free Palestine. In his article “Welcome to Palestine” (The Independent, June 16, 2007), Robert Fisk asks which Israel does the West want Hamas to recognize? The Israel of 1948 or 1967? I would go further and add whether it should be the heavenly Israel promised by God to the Hebrews. If the Palestinians do not wish to recognize a terrestrial Israel in their homeland, their will must be respected, and the squatters must leave. All the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living as refugees in neighboring countries have the right of return. Similarly, there is no obligation on Diego Garcians to accept European squatters in their homeland where they have the inalienable right of return, and those occupiers must leave, too. On May 3, 2007, Tony Blair’s Labour Party lost power in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and suffered heavy losses in the English local elections. On May 10, 2007, Tony Blair announced he would stand down as prime minister on June 27, 2007. He has now been replaced by Gordon Brown, who promised to inject a “soul” into the Labour Party, while, upon George Bush’s suggestion, Tony Blair has been appointed the UK’s Middle East envoy within the so-called quartet, comprising the U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN, in order to inject a “soul” into the so-called Middle East peace process. But the UK is part of the EU. Why should it have a separate envoy? People find Blair’s appointment nauseating, and Robert Fisk does not hide his revulsion that a tyrant with so much Arab blood on his hands could possibly be made such an envoy. He said: “Here is a politician who has failed in everything he has ever tried to do in the Middle East.” It is clear why Tony Blair has always failed -- because he wants the occupation and colonization of Palestine by Jewish Europeans to continue. It goes without saying as to where his offices will be as the new Middle East envoy. Labour MP Tam Dalyell, a senior member of the British Parliament’s House of Commons, denounced Tony Blair as “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers” (The Sunday Telegraph, May 4, 2003). Mr. Dalyell named Lord Levy, who has been charged in the “cash-for-honours” scandal, Blair’s chief fundraiser and personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, and Jack Straw, his former foreign secretary. Robert Fisk consistently refers to Blair sarcastically as “Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara”, referring to a city in eastern Iraq where British forces were defeated by the Ottoman army during the First World War. Blair has not yet been knighted, but it is customary for former prime ministers to receive knighthood soon after they leave office. Blasphemy and tyranny are also honored in the political West (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel)