Why Britain Needs A New Non-Eurocentric Anti-War Movement

John Rees: Unmasking the Anti-Americanism of a British “Revolutionary Socialist”

One would be entirely forgiven for not being familiar with British left-wing fringe politics and understandably never have heard of a certain Mr. John Rees, a self-anointed “Revolutionary Socialist”, academic and importantly a co-founder of the British anti-war movement, “Stop-the-War Coalition” (StWC). There is every noble reason to be blissfully ignorant of him but unfortunately circumstance compels us to mildly scratch the surface of his posturing as a professed anti-imperialist. The Coalition he co-founded original purpose was to oppose United States and British wars on the Arab and the Muslim world during the War on Terror. This Coalition took the lead in organising anti-war demonstrations over the last two decades and recently is central to organising the anti-genocide demonstrations in support of Palestinians in Gaza. Unfortunately, the latter demonstrations have proven to be completely ineffective in terms of influencing government policy but admittedly they have allowed hundreds of the thousands of people in Britain to vent their disapproval of the Gaza genocide. In the following I highlight three pillars of posturing by Rees and his “Revolutionary Socialist” ilk which exemplifies the utter poverty of British anti-imperialism in the hope a consequential anti-war organisation eventually emerges to effectively challenge American-British warmongering. 

Firstly, central to British alleged anti-imperialism, as exemplified by Rees, is a simple anti-Americanism rooted in historical illiteracy and eurocentrism. Whereas most of the world would rightly denounce the Americans for their imperialism, for a good proportion of Britons, whether left-wing or right-wing, it is denounced for not supporting the British establishment and its military. For example, Rees is right to argue that the so-called “special relationship” between Britain and the United States is “little understood” but totally wrong to say that “the US had been a reluctant – and late-arriving – ally in the two world wars of the 20th century.” This comment is not only ahistoricism, but also plain British propaganda. The fact is Britain and the United States were not close allies before World War One or before World War Two. Indeed, before the latter war, the relationship had been strained because Britain had defaulted on its World War One debts after the United States had financially and militarily bailed out them out in that war.

Continue reading

Nazism is a Colonialism; Zionism is a Colonialism

A Refutation of an aspect of the IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism

A worldwide initiative driven by Western experts and talking heads is afoot to silence any comparison between the Zionist state (i.e “Israel”) and the Nazi German regime of the 1930s-40s. Even in the midst of the current Zionist genocide in Gaza, the comparison draws the ire of western contemporary mainstream political sensitivities. This de facto taboo was given immense credence by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) organisation which claimed, “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitism”. Yet confusingly adds that an example of antisemitism in “public life” is to compare “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” This essay argues, at the very least, there is a common denominator which underpins the territorial ambitions of the Nazi German regime and the British Imperial foundations of the contemporary Zionist state….

…It is quite clear that a certain aspect of the IHRA working definition of anti-semitism lacks historical literacy. The IHRA’s definition doesn’t consider both the global historical context of the emergence of the Nazis as led by Adolf Hitler and also how Zionism became manifest in the hands of the British Empire during its occupation of Palestine…

To read the full essay click here.

***

©Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Please click here to support my work. Thank you in advance.

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is the author of “Debunking the Myth of America’s Poodle”. The book conclusively shows that British militaristic foreign policy, during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is rooted in the history of British imperialism’s own historic militarism and not because of any subservience or kowtowing to United States’s foreign policy. His X account is @NumanAbdalWahid

Time to Ditch Britain’s ‘America’s Poodle’ Hoax

Against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of world’s inhabitants, American and British imperialist forces, led respectively by George W. Bush and Tony Blair, invaded Iraq twenty years ago on a poisoned puree of allegations and claims revolving around Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The British political and media establishment produced some of the most fabulous lies in the run-up to the Iraq war. Among the most famous fabrications for the case for war was that Iraq could deploy WMDs within45 minutesand that Iraq had made ‘Uranium purchases from Niger’. For the warmongers in the imperial metropole, both these fabrications proved Iraq was an imminent threat to “world peace” and both were quickly proved to be false after the invasion.

As short-lived as these fabrications proved to be, another fabrication about Britain’s role in imperialist warmongering has stood the test of time. That is, the notion that Britain is United States’ “poodle”. That is, contemporary British military intervention is a result of Britain’s subservience to United States foreign policy. To read more click here.

Tectonic shifts in the “Middle East” and the American Revolution of 1776

Between President Biden’s presidential campaign and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman recent courting of China, much has been written in the Western and Gulf media about major “tectonic” changes in the “Middle East”, or to use the region’s non-colonial name, West Asia…. 

In conclusion, as the settler-colonialist in North America came to the fore to continue slavery and ethnic cleansing in the 1770s, and performed an “American Revolution” in order to do so, the Gulf states are now coming to the fore to consolidate the Sykes-Picot colonial order in West Asia. 

Read the full article at al-Mayadeen by clicking here.

Cordoning Yemen: A Saudi War at British Geopolitical Bidding?

The latest reports of British special forces injuries fighting in the Saudi led war on Yemen once again provides further evidence the British political establishment are the main Western backers behind the war launched in March 2015. It’s not for the first time British elite forces operating in Yemen are reported to have been injured. Yet western commentary, especially before these injuries became known, largely blames the United States as the main instigator behind the current destruction of Yemen. For example, former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband’s latest article on the humanitarian crisis in Yemen claims that the war is a “strategic failure” and only the United States possesses the might to put it right. Above all else, he implies the US is the nation most responsible for the dire situation.  Last year, the same Miliband was forthright and declared after a visit to Yemen, that the United States, has a “threefold responsibility” for the crisis in Yemen without mentioning the British role in assisting the Saudis. But in the light of these latest reports of British injuries how accurate is it to say or imply that the United States is the main global power behind the war on Yemen? Continue reading