The Bent Copper, his Jail-Bird Lover, the Manhattan Zionist & the Tel Aviv Law Firm: a Curious Tale

Today’s referral by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to the Metropolitan Police of a complaint against me lifts the dirty tricks campaign of recent months into the surreal.

Louise Mensch boasts on Twitter that the complaint is from her. A New York based former cocaine addict, an ex-Tory MP, and a current Sun columnist, Mensch has been running a virtually non-stop Twitter campaign against me, however fuelled, for many months, sometimes tweeting about me hundreds of times in a single day.

I don’t know if she is telling the truth about her authorship of the complaint because IPSA have never informed me of the nature of any complaint still less put to me the basis of the complaint for me to answer it. Neither have they informed me of the identity of the complainant.

The answers are appended to the bottom of this article and are our responses to the flurry of media inquiries on the same subjects which, predictably enough dogged the final weeks of my recent general election campaign.

What is certainly true is that her co-complainant Aisha Ali-Khan (about whom much more later) was introduced to her Tel-Aviv lawyers by Mensch (working pro-bono obviously because Khan had herself declared bankrupt a few months ago).

So, an axis stretching from England to New York and Tel-Aviv has had both the British parliament and media dance to their tune. Neither can have been unwilling partners.

I spent nearly thirty years as a member of the British parliament and grew used to their ways. But I must express my shock that IPSA should have taken the action they have at the behest of such an axis without a single telephone call, e-mail, letter, nor jot or tittle of any complaint being communicated to me. No question asked, no answer given.

As I told the US Senate almost exactly ten years ago “I know standards have slipped around here but….”

Aisha Ali-Khan was briefly a parliamentary assistant of mine back in 2012. She has complained to IPSA in 2015 (or Mensch has on her behalf, as I say, I don’t know) having hawked her story along what used to be called Fleet Street for many weeks.

Khan was dismissed by me in 2012 since when she has been convicted in two separate courts and sent to prison. She was convicted with her lover, a bent copper by the name of Afiz Khan a former head of the Muslim Contact Unit of the Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Metropolitan Police, on Data Protection offences. Afiz Khan was given a term of imprisonment which was suspended whilst Aisha Ali-Khan was sentenced for Data Protection Offences.

Former Detective Inspector Khan was cashiered from the force losing his highly paid job and his lucrative pension.

His lover Aisha Ali-Khan was separately sent to prison in connection with the sending of explicit photographs to former DI Khan’s wife and failing to obey the court order to delete them and desist.

It should be noted that she slept at my house with her lover Afiz Khan, without my knowledge or permission, when I and my wife were away. This only emerged after a suspicious break-in when a parliamentary laptop was stolen and DI Khan had to tell the investigating officers that he had been there and his prints and DNA would be found, so that he could be eliminated from the inquiry.

A gruesome twosome you might say.

But there is more, much more.

Aisha Ali-Khan took an industrial tribunal claim against me after her dismissal. Her union the GMB (which she joined only after her dismissal) washed their hands of her complaint. Her Israeli lawyers deserted the case shortly before it was to come before the judge. She began a County Court case against me claiming “unpaid overtime” for precisely the tasks she now claims to IPSA she was wrongly paid for.

There is not a scintilla of truth in any case in these false claims. The “work” she claims to one court she wasn’t paid for and to IPSA that she was paid for and shouldn’t have been, in fact is wholly fictitious. A tissue of lies.

Now she is in the hands of her Tel-Aviv lawyers however, without care of the financial consequences as a self-declared bankrupt (to avoid paying £20,000 in costs to former DI Khan’s long-suffering wife) and being worked from New York by Louise Mensch the curious case of the bent copper his jailbird lover and the New York former coke-head has reached the desks of the hard pressed Metropolitan police.

All of this campaign has been mounted to damage me politically of course. Only an idiot would seek to deny this.

Now that I am out of parliament and planning my next campaign it is an obvious attempt to both disrupt my plans and harm my chances. I am not in control of the latter but I am of the former.

So, for the record this will not stop me. The gloves are off. The bare-knuckle fight begins….

APPENDIX 1  | email from The Sunday Times and our response
From: Arbuthnott, George
Date: 16 April 2015 at 11:17
Subject: Letter to Mr Hoveman
To: r………
Dear Mr Hoveman,
The Sunday Times
newspaper plans to publish a story this weekend that chiefly
relates to a complaint to the Independent
Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) that has been made
against George Galloway MP by Aisha Ali-Khan,
his former parliamentary
Ms Ali-Khan alleges in
her complaint that Mr Galloway misused public money because
she was instructed to carry out personal and political work
when she was employed by him and being paid by the taxpayer
to do parliamentary tasks relating to his position as an
MP. She
says she spent at least
three-quarters of her time performing such non-parliamentary
duties despite being
paid £30,000 a year to work as a parliamentary assistant
from April 2012 to October 2012. .
She says Mr Galloway’s
conduct was contrary to rule 15 of the
Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament as approved by the
House of Commons on 12 March 2012: It says: “Members shall
ensure that their use of public resources is always in
support of parliamentary duties. It should not confer any
undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone
else, or confer undue advantage on a political
IPSA guidance also
states: “MPs are not allowed to use any taxpayer-funded
business costs and expenses, including staff time, travel,
and office equipment for any electoral purposes. To do so
would be an illegal campaign donation under electoral
And the MP’s
Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses states that attendance
at political party conferences or meetings and work
conducted at the behest of a political party do not
constitute parliamentary duties.
It is alleged Mr
Galloway abused his position as an MP and misused public
funds by tasking his parliamentary assistant with performing
political and personal tasks for you – many of which were
conducted in normal office hours.
Of those, a number
appear to involve yourself in the tasking of Ms Ali-Khan
with political duties. They
1. In July 2012,
Mr Galloway instructed Ms Ali-Khan to organise an event to
launch the Respect Party in Huddersfield. You also told her that
you wanted her to promote the event on social
2. In June 2012, you
asked Ms Ali-Khan to assist in organising the Respect Party
National Conference – a
task that took her
five days to carry out. You told her to
promote the conference and communicate with the Respect
Party Treasurer who was arranging the event. She replied
that she would promote the event across all the networks in
Bradford and you then thanked her. Later you asked her to
arrange a meeting with the Respect
Party Treasurer and when she confirmed this was done, you
thanked her again. She liaised with
the Respect Party Treasurer, promoted the
event, contacted all the
members who were not registered for the conference and later
contacted potential volunteers to help at the conference.
The Treasurer requested that Ms Ali-Khan provide an update
on food, security,
accommodation, speakers and venue costs for the
3. In September 2012,
Mr Galloway told Ms Ali-Khan to emphasise the role he played
in saving Bradford’s Art Deco cinema
from demolition by posting on the ‘let’s elect
George Galloway for Bradford West’ Facebook page. Later
you told Ms Ali-Khan to organise a day-long seminar on the
future of the cinema under the ‘Respect
4. In June 2012, Ms
Ali-Khan was instructed to attend a meeting with the
organisers of a protest against the English Defence League
in Dewsbury to see whether the Respect Party could share a
platform with the organisers. You told Ms Ali-Khan that Mr
Galloway was willing to attend the demonstration if security
could be arranged, which she confirmed she would organise.
Ms Ali-Khan then repeatedly communicated with the
event’s organisers.
5. In May 2012, you
told Ms Ali-Khan to issue an appeal to the Respect Party
activists in Mr Galloway’s name calling for them to pay
a fee to register with the party. Later Ms Ali-Khan herself
paid registration fees for Respect Party
6. In October 2012, Ms
Ali-Khan sent you a proposal
for the establishment of a new women-only group for the Respect Party.
You approved the initiative and suggested she involved other women and a
committee structure was set up. Later you asked her for a
report on how the meeting had
7. In August 2012,
Ms Ali-Khan complained to Mr Galloway that she was unable to
do 40 hours of parliamentary work as stipulated in her
£30,000 IPSA contract because of the personal and political
work he had given her. Mr Galloway then offered her a new
contract which stated he would pay her £15,000 a year and
IPSA would pay her £15,000 a year. She subsequently signed
this contract but Mr Galloway suspended her before it came
into effect. Also in August, you told her to extend her
office hours beyond the 20 hours she had previously been
working until the new contract came into effect. You also
advised her to describe herself on her business cards as a
parliamentary assistant rather than a personal assistant to
avoid contractual difficulties with IPSA.
Do you accept you were fully aware that Ms
Ali-Khan was conducting personal and political work while
she was your parliamentary
assistant? Do you accept this is why she was offered a
new contract reducing her salary by
8. You were also being
paid by IPSA at the time so much of the conduct that relates
to you above represents a further potential contravention of
IPSA rules and electoral
law. Do you accept you
were fully aware that you were conducting personal and
political work while you were being paid by
We wish to give you the opportunity to comment
on Ms Ali-Khan’s allegations which will be reflected in
the article we intend to write. Please can you
respond by no later than 5pm on Friday 17th March in order
that we can include your reply in the article.
ArbuthnottSunday TimesTel: +442077825335
Mob: +447990566439
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Rob Hoveman <r……>
Date: 17 April 2015 at 16:24
Subject: Absurd allegations from Aisha Ali-Khan
To: Ron Mckay
Dear Mr Arbuthnott,
The allegations below that have been made by Ms Ali-Khan are entirely false and without foundation. Ms Ali-Khan was appointed to the post of parliamentary assistant following George Galloway’s by-election victory on 29th May 2012. I was her line manager for the entirety of her relatively brief employment by Mr Galloway. She was never his personal assistant as this role does not exist for parliamentary staff. Her contract of employment and job description which she signed clearly describe her as a parliamentary assistant and lay down the kinds of duties and responsibilities such a role entails.
Unfortunately, it became apparent at a very early stage of her employment that she was entirely unsuited to the job. She was incapable of keeping regular hours in the office. She failed to get on top of the parliamentary email system. She wrote letters to constituents which had to be substantially corrected and she was not good at keeping the parliamentary diary which, as you might suspect, is a very important task for someone with as many demands on his time as George Galloway.
Various efforts were made to try to improve her competence. We did not want to give her notice despite her incapabilities as she claimed to have given up a well-paid and prestigious job to come and work for George. Incidentally, and unknown to us at the time, she did not terminate her employment with her previous employer until one month after she began to receive a parliamentary salary.
In June 2012, I believe she approached George Galloway with a request to return to Bradford to work as her son was not getting on well with her estranged or divorced husband who lived in Huddersfield. We were happy to accede to this request as again we did not want to cause her personal difficulties by insisting she stay in London. The volume of work being handled by the constituency office in Bradford meant that she could usefully support the part-time case workers there.
However, we could not afford from the parliamentary budget to replace her in London and keep her on full time in Bradford, especially at the London rates of pay. The intention therefore was for her to go part-time in Bradford but, as we did not want her to lose income through the move, George Galloway was hoping to find additional part-time work in order to make up for the intended reduction in her parliamentary salary. Until such time as this happened, we decided to keep her on her full-time salary.
Unfortunately, it also became apparent that she was not pulling her weight in the constituency office after she moved back toBradford in July. In August, I sent her a strongly worded message saying that she had taken unauthorised leave from the office for one week and that she had not been attending the office in fulfilment of her full-time contract. More specifically the message pints out that she seemed to be working on her parliamentary duties less than the part-time staff who were being paid pro rata much less than her. She did not deny either of these claims but promised to put things right. There is a written record of this exchange as it was germane to an Employment Tribunal case she sought to bring but which she later abandoned.
In October 2012, emails were passed to us by persons unknown. These originated from her personal email account which showed that she had set up false email accounts to communicate secretly with the press and that one of these email accounts had been used to communicate with Helen Pidd of the Guardian newspaper. Staff, including and above all Ms Ali-Khan, were forbidden from any communication with the press without express authorisation of either myself or George Galloway’s press spokesman Ron McKay. She was therefore suspended from office, pending a disciplinary hearing, for gross misconduct.
Ms Ali-Khan then went on the sick on full pay claiming stress. The disciplinary hearing was finally conducted on 10th December, with the current Labour candidate for Bradford West Naz Shah in attendance as Ms Ali-Khan’s friend. As a result of that hearing, Ms Ali-Khan was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. At a subsequent appeal hearing, Ms Ali-Khan’s dismissal was upheld. In July 2013 she and her lover, now former Detective Inspector, Afiz Khan were convicted of criminal offences at Southwark Crown court, triggered by George Galloway’s complaint to the Metropolitan Police about the conduct of this senior police officer and his accomplice Ms Ali-Khan.
Ms Ali-Khan brought an Employment Tribunal case against George Galloway making a vast range of claims, none of which was true. She subsequently abandoned that Employment Tribunal shortly before she and her legal advisors were to appear before the ET judge. She then issued civil proceedings claiming over £32,000 from George Galloway, most of which consists of an absurd claim for £28,000 in unpaid overtime, or overtime amounting to roughly 50 hours a week for the entirety of her brief employment. We are strongly contesting this claim, pointing out that the hours she claims to have spent which were unpaid could not have been worked and were anyway spent on activities other than her parliamentary activities, including organising a party conference, activities on behalf of Viva Palestina, etc.
Therefore from the claim she entered in court, the time she spent on these activities was not spent during her paid employment and she was not compensated for them from the public purse. This seems rather an important admission on her part, don’t you think, subsequently contradicted of course by the absurd clams she has made to you.
It is a matter of extreme irony that she has now, according to you, lodged a complaint with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that she was “obliged” and “instructed” to carry out non-parliamentary duties whilst being paid as a parliamentary assistant. We were informed that a complaint had been lodged with IPSA some time ago but we were not informed of the nature of the complaint nor indeed who had made the complaint. I do not know if this is the complaint you are referring to but I am going to assume for the moment that it is. If these are allegations she has lodged with IPSA, no doubt they will raise them with us specifically in due course. I will however respond to each of them in due course in the terms that I would respond to them if put to me by IPSA. Before I do that, I would like to make the following more general comments.
Firstly, the fact is that Ms Ali-Khan was not only a parliamentary assistant, she was a Respect Party activist and member and indeed later a member of the Respect Party National Council. She was also an activist in Viva Palestina and she stayed rent free in George Galloway’s house in Streatham whilst she was working in parliament. Any activities she undertook in relation to any of these three roles were undertaken voluntarily and not under instruction and were undertaken on the understanding that time spent on them were entirely outwith the time she was obliged to spend on parliamentary duties under the terms of her contract. In addition, none of those activities were related to elections as there were no elections in the period covered by the specific allegations.
Secondly, former Detective Inspector Afiz Khan and his lover Aisha Ali-Khan engaged in a systematic dirty tricks operation to undermine George Galloway and the Respect Party over many weeks up to her suspension from work in October 2012 (and indeed ever since, witness the allegations she has brought to you). DI Khan engaged in continuous social media activity particularly through Twitter under one or more pseudonyms from July 2012 onwards. He and his accomplice Ms Ali-Khan created false email addresses to communicate with the press. Ms Ali-Khan spread malicious gossip about Respect Party members and systematically sowed division amongst the Bradford Respect Party members. Former DI Khan was given the Bradford Respect Party membership list by Ms Ali-Khan. In my view, the dirty tricks may have dated back to a suspicious burglary in May 2012 at George Galloway’s Streatham residence where Ms Ali-Khan was living rent free at the time and where only her parliamentary laptop was stolen.
DI Khan’s activities were investigated by the Professional Standards Unit of the Met Police following his suspension in December 2012. The investigation was codenamed Operation Bethany. We were very dissatisfied with the conclusions of this investigation when they were finally communicated to us. We therefore appealed against the findings to the Independent Police Complaints Commission with a series of detailed concerns. The conclusion of the IPCC investigation upheld key parts of our complaint and in our view supports our contention that a dirty tricks operation was carried out by DI Khan and his accomplice and lover Ms Ali-Khan, with or without the knowledge of superior officers. That is the story you would better spend your time pursuing if you are at all interested in the truth.
I will turn now to your specific points.
1) I have no recollection of this event or having spoken to her about it. However I would not have given her any instruction as her parliamentary line manager and any time she might have spent on it would have been outwith her contracted hours of employment as a parliamentary assistant.
2) I have no recollection of any conversation with Ms Ali-Khan about the Respect Party national conference but any conversations I had would have been because both of us were Respect Party members and would have been outwith our contracted hours of employment and my position as her parliamentary line manager.
3) I have no recollection of the events referred to and very much doubt that I would have had any conversation with her about it and certainly no conversation in my capacity as her line manager or her as a parliamentary assistant.
4) I have no recollection of any conversations with her concerning this event or the event itself. However, if I did have any conversations with her about this, it would have been in our party and not parliamentary capacity.
5) I have no recollection of any such conversation but, if I did, it would have been in a party and not a parliamentary capacity. I have no knowledge of her paying for party memberships. My experience of her was that she did not part with her own money easily.
6) I have a vague recollection of such a conversation. As Ms Ali-Khan well knows, this would have been a conversation between party members in which she sought advice but I did not give instruction.
7) This is complete nonsense. The reduction in hours that had been mooted was entirely driven by the fact that her going back to Bradford meant we needed to replace her with staff in London which then meant we would exceed the parliamentary staff budget. We therefore needed to reduce her hours in order to be able to stay within budget. It had nothing to do with her party or other non-parliamentary activities. As for the job description, I had suggested she would move to a contract as a constituency case worker, similar to the contracts of the other two case workers in the Bradford constituency office. She seemed to feel that this would reduce her standing in the eyes of the many enemies she seemed to have made after returning to work in Bradford. She said she wanted still to be known as George’s PA. I pointed out that the contract she had signed was to be George’s parliamentary assistant, not his personal assistant. The conversation was left, pending developments regarding alternative and additional employment were she to go part-time. However it was also made clear at the time that she continued to be on a full-time contract and those were the hours we expected her to put in in assisting with the constituency caseload.
8) I have always conscientiously carried out my responsibilities as laid down in my contract of employment. None of my activity as a party activist in any way contradicts this and I would regard as grossly defamatory any suggestion otherwise.
I trust this answers all your questions. Please get back to me with any further clarification you might need. In the meantime, I would draw your attention to the fact that there is an ongoing civil law case which Ms Ali-Khan has brought against George Galloway and to which we have entered a defence. I would not want you or the Sunday Times to find yourselves unintentionally in contempt of court.
Yours sincerely,
Rob Hoveman
APPENDIX 2  |  email from BBC and our resonse
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Sarah Knight <> wrote:
Dear Ron
I am writing from the Victoria Derbyshire programme which goes out on BBC 2 and the BBC News Channel.  It also broadcasts online.  We are intending to record an interview Aisha Ali-Khan, former aide to George Galloway, tomorrow.
As you will be aware she has lodged an official complaint with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). She claims that she spent just a quarter of her time on his parliamentary duties, and says she was paid public money to pursue a private agenda for Mr Galloway, doing personal chores for him and working for his political and charitable interests.
She has made the following points which may be included in the interview:
– When she first began working for Mr Galloway she lived in his house in Streatham, after he insisted she stayed there, with his then fiancee and other members of staff.  She says on a typical day when she first started working for him in London she would wake up and immediately prepare his and his fiancee’s breakfast. His fiancee would leave a note on the table outside their bedroom or she’d get a text last thing at night or first thing in the morning saying what they wanted her to make them for breakfast.
–  She says she was also asked to do their ironing and their food shopping. Initially she thought all of Mr Galloway’s staff were helping run the household but soon she realised it was just her.
–   She says the only thing she was doing that was parliamentary work was managing Mr Galloway’s diary, which also included organising his speaking engagements for his charity and travel arrangements.
–  She says the staff had no office and had to work from the café in Portcullis House in Westminster.   She says she was one of four members of staff who were paid using Parliamentary money.
–  She was also asked to help set up a beauty parlour business for his fiancee.  She says work included looking for venues and helping her get a business loan.
–  She says a lot of the activities that she was asked to do were outside the remit of parliamentary work. She says it wasn’t a one off, it was constant.
–  She was told by one of her colleagues that she had to say she was a parliamentary assistant on her business cards or they’d get into trouble with IPSA.
–  In the summer of 2012 she went to Bradford to set up his constituency office.  She says the main things she did in Bradford were charity work for Mr Galloway.  She says she also had to support people backed by Mr Galloway who were occupying a derelict building site in Bradford (where the Westfield company had scrapped plans to build a shopping centre a few years earlier).
– She says she was asked to help organise a women only convoy from Bradford to Gaza.  She says it raised thousands of pounds but the convoy was cancelled.  She says she raised concerns about the fundraiser and how it was being run and this led to her being sacked by Mr Galloway.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a statement for the above allegations, ideally before 11am tomorrow morning (Monday 18th May).  We are recording the interview late morning and I would like to have the statement by then to include it in the piece and put any points raised to Aisha Ali-Khan.  We won’t be transmitting it until later in the week.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thanks very much, Sarah
From: Ron McKay <r………>
Date: 17 May 2015 at 20:17
Subject: Re: BBC Enquiry
To: Sarah Knight <>


Below is the text of a letter sent by George Galloway to George Arbuthnott of the Sunday Times on April 17 when Arbuthnott raised, at Khan’s instigation, the alleged IPSA complaint. Again I repeat – no formal notification has come from IPSA that Khan has raised a complaint and all we know about what it may be comes from you, the Sunday Times and the Sun on Sunday. You will see that different questions were answered on the same subject.

I will respond to what remains of your questions in another email. But I have included here four relevant attachments.


Email to George Arbuthnott from George Galloway, April 17

It is clear that in seeking to give credence to the baseless allegations of a convicted criminal and liar, Aisha Ali Khan, you are attempting to smear me rather than to report honestly. It’s also abundantly clear that Aisha Ali-Khan is on some kind of vendetta against me after going to jail and being widely exposed for her manipulative scheming and serial untruths.

These allegations are being made three years after being dismissed when it was discovered she was conspiring with a senior Special Branch officer and using pseudonymous email accounts in an attempt bring me, as a Member of Parliament, and my office into disrepute. Her subsequent claim to an employment tribunal for unfair and wrongful dismissal was withdrawn by her last year. This also followed me giving evidence in the criminal case against her, in which she pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court.

So these allegations are a fabrication and a tissue of lies, which is custom and practice for Ms Khan. She was an employee until I first suspended her, little more than six months into the job, and then sacked her. But she was also a Respect activist. She is trying to claim that volunteer work carried out in her brief employment and in her own time was, in fact, undertaken and paid for on the parliamentary wage roll, which is a malicious lie I utterly refute. In fact, subsequent to the withdrawal of her employment tribunal case, she has made a claim for £28,000 incurred in the six months she was employed by me. This amounts to 50 hours overtime for each week of her employment. In identifying what she did in these 50 hours she lists party activities, Viva Palestina activities and personal matters. Our defence is that none of these were parliamentary duties, she has not been paid for them and is not owed for them. Her claim in the court contradicts what she has alleged to you where she claims she was paid for these activities.

Aisha Ali Khan was an incompetent employee, wilful and deceitful, who also made her own decisions, against instructions, which were usually wrong and repeatedly caused trouble for me. She lasted a very short time as my parliamentary assistant in London and then, after a break-in at my house in London where she introduced me to her secret lover and co-conspirator Detective Inspector Afiz Khan, I sent her to Bradford, where she proved equally incompetent and untrustworthy. After due process I sacked her.

The background, although you may ignore it, is this. In October 2012, I suspended Aisha Ali-Khan when it came to light that she, along with a senior Metropolitan police Special Branch officer, were secretly creating fake email accounts and exchanging untruthful information with journalists. This resulted in her immediate suspension and a restriction in work duties of the detective inspector involved, Afiz Khan.

In December 2012 Aisha Ali-Khan and Afiz Khan were arrested by the Metropolitan police on suspicion of data protection offences and conspiracy to engage in misconduct in public office. Aisha Ali Khan then made further untruthful and malicious complaints to the police.

Afiz Khan was at the time a DI in the counter terrorism command of the Met and also head of the Muslim Contact Unit. The Muslim Contact Unit had been formed in 2002 and headed up by Bob Lambert who had, in and amongst other roles, posed as a left-wing animal rights activist from 1983 to 1988, fathering a child with an unsuspecting activist during his deployment. In June 2012 he was accused in parliament by Caroline Lucas MP of planting the fire bomb that caused £340,000 worth of damage to the Harrow branch of a Debenhams department store in 1987 as part of his undercover work in the Animal Liberation Front.

These are perhaps extreme examples of the undercover and underhand tactics that Afiz Khan and Aisha Ali-Khan have attempted to use since October 2012 as a form of revenge.

In January 2013 I gave a witness statement to the police about this.

In July 2013 both Aisha Ali-Khan and Afiz Khan were charged with offences including the leaking of plans to arrest radical cleric Anjem Choudary

In December 2013 Afiz Khan pleaded guilty to a number of offences at Southwark Crown Court.

In March 2014 Aisha Ali-Khan was jailed for three months for Contempt of Court for refusing to confirm she had deleted explicit pictures she had obtained without permission of Afiz Khan’s wife from Afiz Khan’s computer equipment. Serious concerns were also raised by His Honour Judge Seymour QC as to Aisha Ali-Khan’s credibility as a witness of truth (see attached judgement, paragraphs 7, 8 & 14). That sentence of three months was later reduced to 28 days’ imprisonment.

It is worth noting that Aisha Ali-Khan held me somehow responsible for her incarceration and the instigation of those proceedings, as was touched upon by HHJ Seymour QC (see attached judgement, paragraph 12).

In June 2014, the day before her trial was due to start, Aisha Ali-Khan pleaded guilty to an offence of breaching Data Protection provisions by having requested from Afiz Khan material from police computers and was sentenced along with him in July 2014.

The combination of the imprisonment in March 2014 and the conviction at Southwark Crown Court in July 2014 has led to Aisha Ali-Khan losing her employment, losing all future employment prospects and considerable personal turmoil, all of which she holds me responsible for. This is evidenced by the numerous approaches she has made to press outlets to peddle her various untruthful and half truthful accounts, including now the Sunday Times.

On 10 December 2014 the Telegraph & Argus Newspaper in Bradford reported that she was organising a conference on child sexual exploitation in partnership with Just West Yorkshire.

Next day the Telegraph & Argus Newspaper in Bradford reported that she had misled a Bradford councillor with responsibilities in children’s and young people’s services as to her true identity, also misled him about other matters in the event she was trying to organise and misled the councillor on the make up of the panel for the event. Councillor Ralph Berry can be contacted on 07976 382993 to verify.

In addition I am aware Aisha Ali Khan gave untruthful evidence to the Nottingham Employment Tribunal in 2010/2011 where she described herself as single and divorced. However, in October 2012, she told the Guardian that she was married to Afiz Khan. While she undoubtedly had a sexual relationship with him and stayed at my house in London with him without my permission it was a lie to allege she was married to him, as he remained married to his legal wife.

Aisha Ali-Khan is a liar, a convicted criminal and a jailed blackmailer from the civil courts. Anything she alleges about me is therefore almost bound to be untrue. This complaint is just another attempt in a long line of attempts to smear, distort the truth and blatantly lie while blaming me.

 Since 2012 both she and Afiz Khan have been involved in an orchestrated campaign to smear me through the use of pseudonymous social media accounts for my efforts in assisting the Metropolitan Police by giving witness evidence against Aisha Ali-Khan and Afiz Khan.

I have appended my answers to your questions. But as I said at the beginning of this email Aisha Ali Khan is trying to claim that volunteer work willingly undertaken was illicitly carried out on the parliamentary payroll. Untrue and defamatory. My answers below will, therefore, be repititous, reiterating that the tasks carried out were as a volunteer. You have also contacted my colleague Rob Hoveman who will add further detail to my response no doubt. There is not a scrap of evidence that any of these tasks she alleges she was asked to do or carried out were anything other than as a volunteer.

1) In July 2012, you instructed Ms Ali-Khan to organise an event to launch the Respect Party in Huddersfield. You chastised her for not sending out enough leaflets to promote the event and for changing the venue. She was also tasked with promoting the launch on social media by your Chief of Staff. You had exchanges with her about distributing the leaflets and thanked her for her work.

A) I asked her to help in the organisation in her own time. She willingly concurred. It involved very little work and was carried out in evenings and over weekends.

2) In June 2012, Ms Ali-Khan was tasked helping to organise the Respect Party National Conference – a job which took up her time over five days. She liaised with the Respect Party Treasurer, promoted the event, contacted all the members who were not registered for the conference and later contacted potential volunteers to help at the conference. The Treasurer requested that Ms Ali-Khan provide an update on food, security, accommodation, speakers and venue costs for the conference.A) She was not tasked, as you put it, but helped other volunteers organise the conference. In her own time.

3) In July 2012, you suggested to Ms Ali-Khan that a Respect Party stall should be set up at the Islamic Relief Annual Summer Fair in Leeds.A) If I did it was a sensible suggestion and if it happened then the organisation of that was in her own time.

In September 2012, you instructed Ms Ali-Khan to approach Bradford University about setting up a Respect Party stall during Freshers’ week. She asked you to provide a quote on tuition fees which would be carried on a banner at the stall. She then corresponded with Respect Party Treasurer over the cost of the stall.A) As in 3 above. This could not have involved more than a couple of telephone calls.

5) In September 2012, you told Ms Ali-Khan to emphasise the role you played in saving Bradford’s Art Deco cinema from demolition by posting on the ‘let’s elect George Galloway for Bradford West’ Facebook page. Later your Chief of Staff told Ms Ali-Khan to organise a day-long seminar on the future of the cinema under the ‘Respect banner’.A) Is this a serious point? It must have involved her in about five minutes on a computer in her own time. The seminar did not happen.
6. In June 2012, Ms Ali-Khan was instructed to attend a meeting with the organisers of a protest against the English Defence League in Dewsbury to see whether the Respect Party could share a platform with the organisers. Ali-Khan then repeatedly communicated with the event’s organisers. 

A) Ms Khan instigated this idea and any subsequent correspondence. I was extremely wary of it and did not encourage her. If she did this while working for me when she was supposed to be carrying out parliamentary duties then I have no knowledge of this and if I had done I would have disciplined her.

7) In May 2012, your Chief of Staff told Ms Ali-Khan to issue an appeal to the Respect Party activists in your name calling for them to pay a fee to register with the party. Later Ms Ali-Khan herself paid the registration fees for Respect Party activists and contacted the Respect Party Treasurer to inform him she had registered ten new members.A) I am sure Rob Hoveman will deal with this in his response. Again any work would be in a volunteer capacity.

8. In July 2012, Ms Ali-Khan was instructed to organise a party celebrating the opening of a political office for the Respect Party in Bradford. She sent an invitation to the event in your name to numerous Respect Party members asking them to RSVP to her. She also asked your Media Spokesman to let the media know about the event. A) Volunteer work. But she will not have told you that, using a false excuse, she obtained the Respect Bradford membership list of more than 300 people from the membership secretary, and sent it to her lover, Afiz Khan, head of the Muslim Contact Unit, so that these people could be logged on Special Branch computers, presumably. His defence in his trial evidence that he only wanted it to put ‘names to faces’ was risible and was dismissed entirely in our complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

9) In October 2012, Ms Ali-Khan sent your Chief of Staff a proposal for the establishment of a new women-only group for the Respect Party. He approved the initiative and suggested she involved other women and a committee structure was set up. Later he asked her for a report on how the meeting had gone. A) Voluntarily.

10) In July 2012, you told Ms Ali-Khan to remove photos from Facebook of Respect Party members dressed up as Nazis and African tribal warriors that were taken at the Respect Party office in Bradford. You also told her to secretly remove various items of Nazi regalia including a ceremonial beret and armbands from the office
A) Was Prince Harry present? If there was a party I wasn’t present. I have never seen such items in the office in Bradford and wasn’t aware there were any. If I had I would certainly have binned them. I don’t have any recollection of this.

11) In September 2012, you instructed Ms Ali-Khan to visit a number of towns in Yorkshire to promote an anti-drones protest by – distributing posters and leaflets​ to raise awareness of your upcoming speech at the demonstration. She also drove to Blackburn to pick up a cameraman from the Ummah channel and deliver him back to Bradford so he could film the protest.A) She was an activist. She actually introduced the idea of visiting other places and I made it clear that if she did so it was on her own time and using her own petrol.

12. Between May 2012 to July 2012, you instructed Ms Ali-Khan to attend and report back on the “Occupy Westfield” demonstration on an almost daily basis for six weeks, which was organised by a Respect Party activist at your behest. This included taking photos and posting positive comments online about the protest using fake profiles. Ms Ali-Khan also set up email address and a youtube channel promoting the protest. She was informed her duties were to ensure the Respect Party received significant publicity for the protests and in June you praised Ms Ali-Khan’s performance at an Occupy Westfield meeting. Later you told her to attend a court hearing about the protest’s legality as your representative.A) Nonsense. I did not instigate the Westfield occupation but I was pleased it occurred and I supported it because it was instrumental in finally persuading Westfield to start building in the hole that had blighted the heart of Bradford for more than eight years. Respect never claimed any responsibility or credit for this at the time. She spent some evenings and nights there, I understand, supporting the occupation.

13) You told Ms Ali-Khan to arrange your wedding, including the preparation of the wedding list, sending out the wedding invitations, organising the hotel accommodation and travel arrangements, liaising with the staff at the House of Commons to book menus and the Terrace as a location for the reception. She performed these tasks from July to September 2012 and you repeatedly contacted her to ensure she was performing such tasks. She says you never reimbursed her for the £500 deposit she paid to to secure the House of Commons as the wedding venueA) Totally untrue. She did have some small part in the arrangements and I fully paid her.

14) During her period of employment, Ms Ali-Khan was asked to accompany your wife on a number of personal trips and errands including visiting a hair salon and beauty parlour. During these trips, Ms Ali-Khan was expected to act as an interpretor for your wife. On behalf of your wife, Ms Ali-Khan also purchased cigarettes, earrings, gold slippers, clothing and a pirate birthday cake for your son.A) My wife speaks perfect English and several other languages and would therefore have no need of Khan’s assistance in any purchases. The two were friendly at the time and may have accompanied each other to the places you instance

15) For the three months Ms Ali-Khan lived at your home in Streatham she made breakfast for you on a daily basis. S​he also​ frequently had ​to make supper, ​iron and launder your clothes and buy your shirts and underwear. You also asked her to buy flowers for your mother on her birthday and have them delivered to her home in Scotland.A) Please, this is beyond parody. Ms Khan lived rent-free in my house and ate the food I paid for. If she occasionally cooked or volunteered to undertake some household tasks then she did so. There was no ‘had to’. There was no compulsion to anything she did.

16. In June 2012 you told Ms Ali-Khan to help co-ordinate the first ever ‘Women’s Convoy’ to Gaza to help deliver humanitarian aid to women and children. Ms Ali-Khan was told to organise a fund-raising dinner, create promotional posters, send out tickets, arrange and collect prizes as well as recruit volunteers and be one of the convoy’s drivers. She worked on these tasks throughout the whole of July and most of August. A) Codswallop. She suggested that she organise such a convoy, but did not work throughout July and August on it, but as above. The convoy did not happen. She did, however, organise a fundraising dinner, but was unable to account for any of the money raised, some £4000, which she subsequently accused several other people of stealing (I have confirmation).

17) Your Chief of Staff and Media Spokesman were also being paid by IPSA at the time so much of the conduct detailed above relating to them also represents a further potential contravention of IPSA rules and electoral law. A) As this is untrue it follows that no rules were contravened and that this is another smear.

18) In August 2012, Ms Ali-Khan complained to you that she was unable to do 40 hours of parliamentary work as her £30,000 IPSA contract stipulated because of the personal and political work you had given her. You then offered her a new contract which stated you would pay her £15,000 a year and IPSA would pay her £15,000 a year. She subsequently signed this contract but you suspended her before it came into effect. Also in August, your Chief of staff told her to extend her office hours beyond the 20 hours she had previously been working until the new contract came into effect. He advised her to describe herself as a parliamentary assistant on her business cards rather than a personal assistant to avoid contractual difficulties with IPSA. 

A) Again a totally untrue smear. Rob Hoveman is covering this in his answers to your questions.

19) Do you accept you were fully aware that Ms Ali-Khan was conducting personal and political work while she was your parliamentary assistant? 

A) I do not. She was, as I have said, an undiscplined and incompetent employee in her brief period with me. If she carried out personal work it was without my knowledge and, had I known, I would have disciplined her earlier than I did. As I said, she has made an overtime claim to cover this.

20) Do you accept this is why you offered her a new contract reducing her salary by half? 

A) Fallacious. As Rob Hoveman will have told you this was because of her wish to return to Bradford and our need to employ someone in London and trim our problems. I also wanted to reduce her hours because she was not competent.

Reflections on Question Time of 5th February 2015

In the wake of last week’s BBC Question Time and subsequent events I wanted to make some observations. They are not in order of importance indeed to an extent the reverse.
I feel very let down by David Dimbleby. I have known him a long time, have always respected him and I didn’t expect the serial failures of which he was clearly guilty.
Again in no order of importance; his gratuitously insulting comment “when you turn up” was not just fatuous (he knows well that I am in parliament every day for much of my last 27 years) but was the only jibe at any of the panelists last night. Why? To insult just one of five panelists – me – in the highly charged atmosphere of the Finchley studio was questionable judgement to say the least.
Mr Dimbleby told me immediately after the show that the final question posed by the audience was not in fact the question which had been tabled and selected. The last part of the question which sought to put me on show trial, make the final part of the show about me, had merely been added after the fact by the questioner. This has subsequently been admitted by the questioner in the Jewish Chronicle.
But there there was no point in telling me this in private with an apologetic air (he did not actually apologise, I gave him more credit than he deserved in my initial comments after the show) when millions of people oblivious to the trickery were about to watch the results on the show.
Mr Dimbleby had a couple of options when this ruse occurred:
He could have shot the question again, the show is not live, there is time for editing (although the only person who was edited was me with a chunk of my answer on Bradford schools mysteriously excised).
He could have made it clear on the recording, immediately, that the question had been changed, with obviously potentially defamatory consequences.
He did neither and with predictable results.
The audience selection supposedly scientifically calibrated was laughably biased. Ludicrous and counter productive though that turned out to be, there was no guarantee of that outcome.
I know of several pro-Palestinian supporters, Muslims, and Respect members who were turned down in their attempts to join the audience. Fanatic supporters of Israel evidently had no such difficulty.
Contrary to contrived opinion, Finchley is not in an overwhelmingly Jewish borough. There are, to name just one section of the Finchley community, many Muslims who live there. Not a single visibly Muslim person made it to the audience.
Instead of punishing those loudly shouting against me, whom he had repeatedly asked to stop barracking me trying to stop me from speaking, Mr Dimbleby explicitly told two of them that he would call them to speak and then cut me off in order to facilitate it. It would never happen in parliament.
A special place in the hall of shame must go to the Guardian’s executive editor Jonathan Freedland selected for the role of chief prosecutor in the show trial. The Guardian, a faux liberal newspaper which last summer accepted (that which even Rupert Murdoch had declined) a paid full page advertisement from an Israeli organisation while the blood was still running in the streets of Gaza seeking to justify the slaughter and slander the Palestinians, thousands of whom had by then been slain.
There is intense competition for the title of Hypocrite in Chief at The Guardian but Freedland in my view shades it.
Once the doctored question had been posed, he lit the touch paper before smugly stepping well back. He made a series of distorted allegations against me knowing that if I got into rebutting them there would have been no time for the bigger picture. Like a latter day McCarthy he patted a portfolio which he claimed contained the basis for his allegations. Who produced this dodgy dossier must be open to question.
He said that I had claimed “Israel was behind the revolution (sic) in the Ukraine” but this is false.
I did say on a television programme that the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz had run a feature on at least two Israeli army reservist officers who themselves boasted of their role in the fighting in the Maidan coup against elected government of the Ukraine, prior to the overthrow of the President, the burning of the Parliament and the holding of guns to the heads of the parliamentarians to force them to validate the coup.
In that television broadcast last year I pointed out the irony of Israel army officers lending their military expertise to a “revolution” the cutting edge of which was provided by (and seen by all to be) ultra right wing Ukrainian nationalists and several thousand explicit fascists who held aloft the portrait of their historic leader Stepan Bandera who openly collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces and herded Ukrainian Jews into the cattle trucks bound for the death camps. Thus a statement of mine attacking antisemitism and the Holocaust was transformed by Freedland into a charge on my indictment for antisemitism.
He further alleged that I had claimed that Israel had supplied chemical weapons used in the attack on Goutha which in 2013 had propelled the US and Britain and others onto the tarmac, their engines revving ready to be the Air Force of what has now become ISIS.
I did say at the time of the attack that one theory was that the Syrian ‘rebels’ were the ones who had used these weapons on the basis that the  Syrian regime was unlikely to have chosen the day of the arrival of the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to launch a chemical weapons attack a few kilometres from where the inspectors were just settling into their hotel. I continue to believe that this was the case. I did say that if they did one possible source of the chemicals could have been Israel.
As it happens this theory was superseded by my later claim on the BBC Daily Politics with Jo Coburn that the supply of the chemical weapons was more likely to have been provided by other regional powers.
But there was nothing outlandish about my first theory. The proximity of Israeli forces to the Syrian ‘rebels’ is at its closest a few hundred metres.
 Israel has a mountain of chemical biological and nuclear weaponry. Israel has used its chemical weapons against Palestinians and UN facilities in the territory. Israel is militarily engaged in Syria against the Assad regime and has repeatedly bombed their positions, facilities and allies. Most recently in the Quneitra on the Golan Heights in January of this year.
The Israeli media has reported that wounded Islamist fighters have been treated and sent back to the battle field from Israeli field hospitals and in Israel itself.
Finally the Israeli security service the Mossad is more than capable of assisting the Syrian opposition in such a way if they were minded to do so.
Moreover both of these instances cited by Freedland were broadcast on a television station no longer available to British TV viewers nor can they have been seen by many in Britain. Certainly to hold these responsible for a spike in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK is absurd. In addition to these two specific allegations Freedland claimed that my “rhetoric” had in part produced the atmosphere for the spike. He did not elaborate because he could not. All of my rhetoric and for more than forty years is against Israel. None of it is against Jews. The only time I ever mention Jews in my “rhetoric” is to single out Jews for honour and praise, to repetitively insist that our fight is NOT against Jews. And of course to describe as I did again on QT (though my critics were not listening) the Holocaust as the greatest crime in human history and to call for the denial of it to be a criminal offence in Britain as it is in several European countries.
Freedland’s own rhetoric spoke volumes however. He referred to last summers slaughter as a “resumption of violence” in Gaza. Firstly violence has never ceased in Gaza for almost half a century at least if you include military occupation, siege, calorie-counting quarantine, targeted and un-targeted assassinations and regular full scale invasion as violence as most people would.
Last summer was not the ‘resumption of violence’ but the cold-blooded killing and maiming of thousands of people, most of them women and children, inside a prison camp from which there was no means of escape.
In drawing on the CST report coincidentally released on same the day of Question Time, Freedland deliberately exaggerated its contents. Whilst every single incident of antisemitic bigotry is to be utterly condemned it is simply untrue to say as he did that 1000 attacks on Jews took place in Britain on 2014. In fact the number of Jews attacked was 84. One of which was a serious violent attack. I know about those as I’ve suffered one myself by a Jewish convert and Zionist fanatic wearing an IDF shirt.
The figure of 1000 includes for example “on-line” anti-semitic slurs and no doubt, threats. That would be a quiet year for me. I’ve received about a thousand such slurs in the last few weeks. It is hurtful alarming and disgusting when such things happen and the police should deal with it rigorously. But it is not the same as an attack as most people would understand it. There is and always has been anti-semitism in Britain as there has always been racism of other kinds. I am its implacable enemy and have been all my life.
But if there are, as Freedland said,around 300,000 Jews in Britain then statistically speaking the number of attacks upon Jews even if we include attacks on their properties bears no comparison to the numbers of hate attacks upon other minorities including homosexuals, black people, Asians, not to mention Muslims who have suffered many times over more such attacks than have British Jews, the main difference being there are not many police officers standing guard outside mosques. Recorded anti-semitic hate crimes constitute 0.5% of all recorded hate crimes in Britain almost the same proportion as Jews to the population as a whole.
All attacks on any minorities or their property should surely be condemned equally. They certainly were not on Question Time.
Finally Freedland was right about one thing though. Every time there is as he put it “trouble” in the Middle East there is a rise in anti-Semitism just like every time there is an outrage by Islamist extremists there is a rise in Islamophobia.
All the more reason then to resist and repel the false conflation, the fake synonyms that Israel equals Jews and Muslims equal terrorism. Freedland like so many liberals wants to have it both way.
Having painted a picture of a Britain seething with anti-semitism he then said that Britain was “not an anti-semitic” country. He said the fear was of a “Paris style attack” motivated by Al Qaeda or ISIS type elements.
But what could that conceivably have to do with me? Is there anyone in this country more opposed to these fanatical head-cutting heart-eaters than me? Has anyone denounced such people and their ideas more loudly or for longer than me? It is a pity Mr Freedland doesn’t listen to my television shows more often…
It is those who insist with such vehemence that they must defend what Israel does, that it does it in their name, and in the name of their religion who are responsible for the blurring of the dichotomy upon which I always, without exception, insist.
I turn momentarily to the bit-players on the panel.
Cristina Odone the saintly figure with wandering hands who is never done telling us what a Christian she is, her voice breaking with emotion, told us of the melancholy sight of police officers guarding a synagogue she had just passed. It is indeed a sad sign of the times and quite right that the police are there. She obviously is blissfully unaware, if she wasn’t she would have mentioned it, of the actual attacks upon mosques and other Muslim property which happens so regularly in Britain that it scarcely makes the news (at least that might be the reason it scarcely makes the news). In my own constituency just last year a fascist organisation actually invaded several mosques and terrorised the worshippers therein as well as invading the home of the then Lord Mayor of Bradford just because he was a Muslim. An elderly Muslim man in Birmingham was decapitated by a Muslim-hating fanatic prior to the atrocious murder of Lee Rigby. The two events attracted very different levels of media coverage, and sadly there were no police officers standing guard to prevent them.
But Odone is obviously equally unaware of the plight of the Christians of Palestine. The pleas of the hierarchy in Jerusalem have not been heard by Saint Cristina. Even the Holy Father praying at the Apartheid Wall with the Catholic faithful passed her by. She doesn’t know that Bethlehem is under siege, surrounded by checkpoints and walls and that expectant mothers often give birth, and die at them. She doesn’t know that Nazareth seethes with anger at the cruel fate of the Palestinian people trapped there, as “Israeli Arabs”, the lowest class of “citizens” in the apartheid system.
Last and certainly least is the hapless Tristram Hunt MP (who attended the same expensive public school as Freedland, in fact I was the only person sitting at the table who hadn’t been educated at a private school). Struggling all night as a B (lair) division stand in for New Labour he said only two things of any note.
The first was when he managed to slander the entire worldwide movement for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel as a movement for boycotting “Jewish goods and shops”. This slander was probably the result of stupidity rather than wickedness though I’m not sure which is worse in a man who wants to be in charge of our schools and universities.
And the last was when in his peroration he made the ritual act of obeisance and pledged himself and his party to the eternal and undivided determination to ensure the safety and security of the state of Israel. That wasn’t a result of stupidity. That was the real New Labour deal.
George Galloway MP
House of Commons

Mass Murder in Gaza: Déjà Vu

As the death toll mounts and the pile of lifeless children grows higher the same old suspects loom into view.

The Bush and Blair Corporation formerly known as the BBC plumbs new depths though. Three Israelis are “killed” whilst twenty times that number of Palestinians have “died” with the former of course deserving first billing in the story. I knew that Palestinian blood was cheap, just not quite that cheap.

Sky News (my phone IS on guys?) play follow the leader, Rupert Murdoch, dementedly tweeting his slavering support for Israel’s murderous attack.

Little Willie Hague the bon vivant Foreign Secretary takes to the floor of the House (as opposed to Geoffrey Archer’s) to dispatch verbal gunboats bearing “Great” Britain’s peremptory demands; foremost of which is that the victims of the mass murder must stop their aggressive behaviour. Even Gilbert&Sullivan couldn’t make it up.

The moral vacuum that is President Barak Obama says the same. That’s Obama who “couldn’t look at Netanyahu’s face” (as he conveyed to Sarkozy and millions more via an unguarded microphone) whose presidency the Israel lobby tried so hard to destroy. Obama who has no more need of any lobby, need raise no more campaign billions, who knows the truth but continues to tell the lies. Of them all it is of him for whom I feel most ashamed.

Then there’s the middle east “peace envoy” ( now THAT’s going well, huh?) the war criminal Tony Blair. Not since Caligula appointed his horse a pro-consul of Rome has there been a more grotesque appointment than that of Mr Blair as a middle-east “peace envoy”. Dripping in blood (pockets stuffed with blood money) from head to foot having climbed to his pinnacle over a mountain of dead middle-easterners. Blair too is very clear about it; its Hamas what is to blame!

As I once told a Sky News interviewer during an earlier part of the war six years ago (Anna…my phone IS on?) this crisis didn’t start when Sky news turned up…

Israel is murdering Palestinian women and children because there is Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

There is Palestinian resistance in Gaza because the 1.5 million people, mainly refugees, who live in Gaza have been under siege for more than five years, totally blockaded in what David Cameron called a “huge prison camp”, to punish the people there for how they voted in a free election. For Hamas.

The people are refugees because their country, Palestine, has been wiped off the map. Thirteen million Palestinians now live under siege, or illegal occupation, in illegally annexed territory, as third class “citizens” in what they call Israel, or in their millions as refugees and exiles outside of their country. The vast majority have no passports, papers, status, rights, or hope. What they do have are the titles to the houses and lands from which their families were driven by “Israelis. And they have their eternal legal and moral right to return to their homes.

The Palestinians could have resigned themselves to the destruction of their society by “superior” western, European, settlers more than sixty years ago. They could have quietly entered the museum of “Ex” nations. We could today be visiting that museum, viewing their garments in the glass cases, lamenting their lost culture.

But they refused to go quietly into that good night. They still exist because they resist. They will not be quiet. They will not surrender. Even if abandoned by the rotten rancid corrupt cowards who rule virtually every Arab regime. Even if abandoned by the so-called “Jihadists” who are too busy murdering other Arabs and Muslims to notice the Palestinian blood and tears running in rivers right by them. Even if every last western journalist, feasting upon their suffering turns their face away. As long as 100 Palestinians remain alive they will never surrender their rights.

Friends of “Israel”; know this. As long as there is no justice there will be no peace. As long as there is no peace in the middle-east there will be no peace in the world. You have been warned.

[George Galloway MP]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Al-Aqsa under fire -business as usual?

Last Friday in occupied Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites in Islam, the Al-Aqsa mosque was violently attacked during the Juma’a prayers – the most significant prayer of the week – by illegal armed “Israeli” settlers and then by foreign occupation soldiers firing live rounds rubber bullets, gas and stun-grenades.

The leaders of the Muslim “Ummah” (people), however, did precisely nothing about it, leaving western leaders to continue their bottomless support for “Israeli” crimes.

In other words: it was business as usual.

The western part of Jerusalem was violently seized and ethnically cleansed more than sixty years ago. The eastern part likewise, in 1967.

All demands by the so-called “international community”, the passage into international law of successive UN resolutions demanding “Israeli” withdrawal from the stolen property, have been treated with contempt.

Indeed, “Israel” has gone further and illegally annexed the Holy City of Jerusalem, an annexation recognised by nobody. This recognition however, has now been promised by both Mitt Romney and President Barak Obama over the last few weeks.

The ethnic cleansing and Judaeisation of Jersualem has been well charted elsewhere, best of all by the Jewish academic Illan Pappe in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), who is now in exile at Oxford University and a hero and intellectual giant of the struggle for justice for the Palestinian people.

What happened last Friday is just the latest terrorist attack upon Palestinian Muslims in their own city, but its significance to the nearly two billion Muslims in the world cannot be underestimated.

If Jerusalem is no ordinary city, then the twin Mosques on the Haram al Sharif – the Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock – are no ordinary Mosques.

Before Mecca was liberated by the Muslims in 624, Jerusalem was, because of its significance to the People of the Book, their first direction for prayer.

And it is from the roof of Al-Aqsa, Muslims believe, the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) ascended to the heavens on the Night Journey, where he met and prayed with earlier Prophets (peace be upon them) like Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Joseph and Jesus, and returned with Revelations.

The sight of fire, smoke, clouds of gas and the sound of guns and grenades erupting from the weapons of foreigners from Brooklyn, London, Paris and Moscow last Friday in such a holy place reverberates mightily.

The sound of silence from the Muslim leaders however, echoes even louder.

Many Muslims will contrast their inability to even raise a finger in defense of the Al-Aqsa, with their hyper-activity, guns and money being spent in attacks upon other Muslims, whilst “Israel” destroys the Arab character of Jerusalem.

And they will be nursing their wrath, to keep it warm…

[George & Gayatri]