they drop bombs on innocent girls while they sleep in their bed, israel is a terror state, the terrorists that terrorize. justify my television televize, i'm telling lies, how many more resolutions have to be violated, how many more children have to be annihilated, this is not a war, it is systematic genocide, but whatever they try, palestine will never die, freak free palestine, hello, i'm chris williamson and of you're watching palestine declassified

broadcasting twice a week, we're the only tv show that's dedicated to investigating and exposing the israeli regime's global war against solidarity with the illegally occupied people of palestine. after michael gove, the uk's secretary of state for leveling up, announced the government's redefinition of extremism, we'll be examining the implications of his statement in this week's show. it seems mr. gobe is attempting to invoke the divide and rule tactics of the former british empire to weaken the of pro-palestine movement has been sweeping the country since october the 7th as the... will explain in this report: the british government has been grappling with the question of extremism for years now, it has failed even to define extremism in any clear fashion and has been struggling to fight back against an avalanche of criticism that its counter extremism policies are islamophobic. the genocide in ghazza has focused mines in of the british elite because of the massive sympathy for the palestinians visible on the streets. the desperate attempts to car

pro-palestine protesters as genocidal is a desperate attempt to split the movement. the a government is trying to reframe extremism in such a way that more radical supporters of palestinian liberation are demonized, criminalized and disavowed by the rest of the movement. the minister leading this is the toxic michael gove, the most prozionist minister in the government. he has a history of of involvement with zianist lobby groups and for example, was the first chairman of... the neo-conservative and islamophobic think tank of policy exchange. it's no coincidence that the new policy he is introducing was dreampt up by the policy exchange in a paper published in 2022. all of its main proposals were adopted by lord william shawcross in his review of prevent, published in 2023. shawcross is famously islamophobic and was appointed as a senior fellow at the policy exchange in 2018, prior to being appointed.

the prevent review in 2021. showcross's recommendations were all accepted by the government and thus the new policy has effectively been written by leading islamophobic think tank. among the innovations are new blacklisting agency in gove's department and a change in the status of the commission for countering extremism, which changes from being an advisory to an enforcement agency. but behind policy exchange are a shadowy group of foundations which provide cash for its work. though they are secretive, we can reveal at least two. of the first and most significant is the charles wolfs and charitable trust, which donates almost every year and has given policy exchange more than 3 million pounds between 2007 and 2022. the wolfson family, which runs the trust, are the owners of the next retail chain. the wolfson family also founds betul, which channels money to the occupation forces and the jerusalem foundation, which is...

engaged in promoting illegal settlements in occupied east jerusalem. another source of funds is the rosencrance foundation, which is given to the thinktank for more than decade, along with other islamophobic causes. its director, robert rosencrance was appointed a director of policy exchange in 2010. in other words, british government policy on extremism is captured by policy exchange, and policy exchange is in part a front for zionist interests. joining me in the studio as usual is our resident expert david miller. david's an academic and a former professor at bristol university and is now a non-resident senior research fellow at the center of islam and global affairs at istanbul zayam university. he's also a co-director of the lobby in watsog spinwatch and is a leading british scholarly critic of israel. our guest contributor today is dr. aital hadj. dr. leela is the director and senior caseworker at prevent watch, which is a community led initiative that's individuals affected by the

prevent program. she's written extensively on prevent and co-authored the people's review of prevent, which was an alternative to the widely boycotted official review of the prevent policy. "welcome to the show, david, the policy exchange, they must be absolutely delightedly with - michael gobes's statement, i mean could have been written by them, what what what do you make of that think tank? well, i mean more or less was written by them, i mean policy exchanges that was the first think tank that i think i ever looked at back in uh the weight naughties uh and we looked at the uh the way in which it was encouraging islamophobia and that was why we looked at it and we discovered one of the things we discovered with" that amongst the people which who funded it with these foundations and the foundations were all named after individuals and we we tried to work out what they were and they transpired that you know amongst the other things that they funded were these israeli occupation forces, settlements in the west bank, and we realized that what we were dealing with here was zianus foundations, so zianous

foundations who were largely funding the policy exchange and other newcon think tanks and that's what we we have here, we have effective resinas interests using a think tank to talk to government. and then the their views are then taken on by government by people who are appointed by government who come from the think tank itself and then those views themselves are passed to the minister who himself was a first chair of policy exchange, it's a it's a completely self-referential and closed circle, dr. layer, mean what's your view then of the of the 2022 policy exchange report? so that report was uh called delegitimizing counter-terrorism and it essentially attacked. every single muslim organization or individual who had a boycotted the show cross review of prevent um and b who had signed up and endorsed and supported the people's review of prevent. um, it was essentially a way to divide the muslim organizations from the non-muslim organizations and individuals,

because if you look at who boycotted the showcross report, it extended way beyond any the muslim organizations that had been highlighted in that report, um, but it also try to then divide... muslim organizations against one another as well, because um, following that report there was a tabloid splash of like four organizations that you know are seen as the main islamist agitators, so it kind of further then subdivided some organizations from the main list, it didn't look any of the non-muslim organizations, it didn't look at the fact that the people's review of prevent had the forward from the uh un special reporter from um for protecting freedoms while countering terrorism, it didn't look at the fact that professor. so conna getti had written the second forward, it didn't look at any of the ngos, the mainstream ngos, amnesties, the running meeds who had also supported that report, so i think it was just a way to um aplagize people's review of prevent because 90% of that report from policy exchange just spoke about our report without actually tackling

any of the issues um whilst just trying to smear uh these organizations and the former prime minister david cameron wrote a forward to the policy exchange report saying that um these people who are basically concerns about prevent are enablers of terrorism. well of course lord showcross, david was in charge of the charity commission, wasn't he? mean, you say a word to will you about his role there, will you? so he was appointed to the charity commission and - he appointed number of other people to the charity commission who were like him islamophobes and had connections to islamophobic organizations, and his role at the charity commission was to take on muslim charities and to investigate them. now quite often those muslim charities were investigate. after allegations were made about those charities which had eminated from israel, unsurprisingly, and so you you had attack a whole series of muslim charities, actually, and of course, really virtually no zionist charities for example were were targeted, and what is meant is that the whole muslim charity sector lives in fear of of the

charity commission and and to try and be in a charity and be be a muslim and to have a muslim charity is really very difficult now because of this british state onslot on the muslim. charity sector and of course then uh show cross goes after that to be appointed to the policy exchange and then to be appointed by uh government to do the review of prevent so he's you know he's not in the position to to do any significant serious review because of course he is party pre, he's all fundamentally uh conflicted, well as i mentioned in the introduction there dr. layler, i mean you you were part of that people's uh review of of prevent which which actually engaged didn't in in debate with the review of... extremism that was conducted by lord showcross, just tell us a little bit will you about what you found during that process? yeah, so the people's review of prevent was set up as an alternative to the show cross review, because once he was appointed and boycotted we knew he wasn't going to take any of the real issues and concerns that had been raised for well over

decade, nor was he going to look at people who had actually been impacted, referred to prevent etc. so the people's review of prevent took into consideration almost 600 cases of people who had actually been referred to prevent as well. all of the academic research that had come out previously on prevent um and at the end of that our three main conclusions was that prevent doesn't actually work, it's not fit for purpose, it doesn't prevent terrorism, there's been zero evidence to suggest that. and in fact all the evidence suggests that it actively doesn't work, especially when you look at convicted terrorists who have been known to prevent prior, they weren't called by prevent to stop and therefore prevent terrorism. um, the second main conclusion was that it causes harm, particularly to muslim families and children, traumatizing them. um, and the third main conclusion was that it is conttailing so many human rights um from freedom of expression to data privacy and data rights. so those were the three main conclusions and none of those conclusions were picked up. by government or engaged with any point, not that we expected them to be, other than that policy exchange report that

was then subsequently uh published about a month or so after. david, um, we've mentioned the wolfsom family uh on this show a number of previously occasions haven't we, and i see that they are implicated in this process too, aren't they? so i wonder whether you could just outline what exactly then is their involvement in this particular issue, so the wilson family uh... have been making money in this country for decades and decades through the great universal stores and now most recently through next plc and they've made a reputation for philanthropy, so they have number of different foundations associated with the family, there are four or five different foundations, they give large sums of money to wolson college, oxford, wolson college cambridge and many other charitable donations, but of course also they give significant sums of money to ziners projects, so to to uh settlements uh in the west bank and... particularly they fund the jerusalem foundation which is engaged in illegal activities east jerusalem and they also fund

and indeed the chair of this charity b halkim is an organization which gives money directly to the israel occupation forces so there's a real sense there which they're involved directly in supporting the zinanis project and genocide in gaza but also of course they're um involved in supporting islamophobic uh activities through the policy exchange and andrew wilson for example or simon wolson are involved with that and um as result what you what you have is that you can see that the zionists are are actually core to developing pushing islamophobic ideas uh in the uk and in other countries too and that's a thing we i've been seeing for for many years now it's one of the things which attracted attention to to my views when i was at the university of bristol uh but it's very clear that that there's a connection between the zionists and the pushing of islamophobia and we can see it through this this particular connection between the... the family and the cash they give to the policy exchange. michael gove uh was the first

chair, wasn't he of the uh policy exchange and as i was saying to david earlier, i mean this report or this statement could could have been written by the moon, what's your thoughts on that briefly before we go to our next report? i mean michael gove has been problematic for many reasons, not just the policy exchange link, i mean he was at the center of the trosan horse affair, effectively ruining education in the uk uh and many other islamophobic as well as anti-palestinian. sentiments have come from him, um, but i mean he's involvement in this as well as policy exchanges involvement in the new so-called definition of extremism is to be expected, i don't think we can imagine anyone else who would have taken the reigns on this, not anybody who wanted to, i mean the independent review of terrorism doesn't have prevent under his perview, nor extremism, um, sarah khan when she was appointed as head of cce, everyone thought she was going to come out with definition of extremism and she didn't, um in simcots who then took over cce didn't so significant then that that it's mark to go, but it's important

i think that we shine a light on on on his role and uh, i think that will will undermine his credibility still further hopefully, but we'll just take pause now to watch our next report about the the naked abuse of parliamentary privilege to extend the title wave of support for palestine from the british people. let me just ask in the interest of balance, is there is there anyone here who welcomes what michael gove had to say? courts what he had to say, not not a hand up. okay, the british government is in a bind, it can't define extremism, and yet it wants to pretend that it can. it claims that its new policy contains a quote, new definition of extremism, but there was never an old definition, and the text they have published is not a definition either. there is still no legal definition of extremism, and this is why the governments are at pains to point out that this definition is not

statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law. the reason for this is that the government knows that if they try and create a statutory definition, it will be subject to legal challenge, which it will most probably lose. there's a nervousness about this, which is intriguing. first of all, michael gove named five extremist organizations under parliamentary privilege, because he knows he would be subject to legal action were he to name them outside the house. secondly, though the aim here is to destroy and disrupt the palestine solidarity movement, no primarily, palestine related groups were named, but pro- palestine groups, friends of alaxa was named in drafts of the speech leak to the media, the government were too nervous even to name them in parliament. go stated in the comments that islamism is totalitarian ideology, which calls for the establishment of an islamic state governed by sharia law. he named three

groups: the muslim association of britain, cage, and mend, all perfectly... legal organizations. mens immediately challenge gov to, quote, repeat his claims outside of parliament, and without the protection of parliamentary privilege. to provide the evidence that men has called for the establishment of an islamic state governed by sharia law. even normally staunch allies such as government advisor john mann have criticized the policy. the division is between those pushing for liquidnic scorch earth approach and those who favor a... sophisticated engagement strategy. this is not just a political and strategic difference, but a question of defending the millions in state and zinis funding plowed into the maintenance of hundreds of jobs in sophisticated engagement such as the interfath industry. underlying all of this is the danger that the definition best fits genocidal zinis groups and their supporters

within governments, most notably michael gove himself. the penetration and capture of key elements of. security policy by the zionist is nothing if it is not, as the new so-called definition puts it, attempt to undermine, overturn or replace the uk system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights in the service of attempting to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, most obviously muslims and palestinians and their supporters. i mean, some people... uh suggesting that this is just attempt to prescribe organizations by by the back door, what do you think about that? absolutely agree with that, because if you look at from legal perspective, there is nothing that these organizations are doing that is legal that could be used in a way against them to shut them down, um, and this is one way, as i say, this new definition of

extremism, it's not statutory, um, but it doesn't mean that it won't have impact, this will have impact on the ground. of course it will, if you look at charities for example who are trying to host events with these organizations, they may have to jump through extra hurdles via the charity commission in terms of if you're inviting an extremist speaker and technically they will be on that list of extremist speakers without being able to not being afforded to even challenge it legally because there is no legal basis and exactly what we see with prevent you know prevent technically is voluntary doesn't mean that it hasn't caused harm to thousands of people across the uk, mean we've already seen lots of people being. sord, i mean, david and i case casing point really, i guess this is just going to exacerbate that that that problem, but david, why do you think the struggling so much then to to to define um extremism then? well, because they start off with this idea that the the're um contracting and countering terrorism, and of course that involves the commission of acts of violence and which are you know identifiable as being

against the law, and and we have a burgening uh terrorism legislation uh um on on the statute. and that's been expanding uh over the years since then the first introduction the the prevention of terrorism act, temporary provisions as of it's called back back in the 70s, and of course they've then moved to this idea of non-violent extremism or of of extremism which which is of a sort which might not really be terrorism but might be leading up to terrorism, but they can't really define that because of course these are um these are actions which are not illegal, which are not violent and which ' only only arguably in their own minds are have anything to do with the process of leading up to violence, the process of what which they call radicalization. now of course we saw this in the in the the case of the irish conflict where in the 1980s uh shin fein were banned from television, so that the idea of supporting an illegal organization or an organization named in this notice should fain was was was prescribed, but nobody could

actually work out what supporting that organization meant, and it was so ridiculous that the whole thing collapsed partly. all the the peace process too, so we'll find find something similar here, if you have definition, then when you try and work out what actually means, it will just be absurd and will collapse, and that's why they've got this this pretend definition, and also it's an attempt, as dr. lee has been saying to intimidate, that's that, these are the reasons they can't define it, well dr. layer, i mean earlier documents seem to suggest that mr. gobe was considering naming much wider group of organizers. including your own prevent watching groups like palestine action and and friends, mean what's going on here? mean it's quite ridiculous if you look at for example prevent watch we are. literally a helpline to support people ye have had their rights abused um so we would never come under any definition and not that we would even respect any definition put forward for

extremism in a way because of the fact that the the whole trajectory and the history of trying to define it has been nonsense including this new one um but do think it is just attempt to intimidate and to place that um idea that you know if you support these organizations then there may be a problem. if you look at actually the shift from the old so-called definition of extremism to this new one, it's shifted from being very individual-based, so looking at individuals who might be extremist to the infrastructure that supports the muslim community, so we're now looking at institutions, and there was a report published few years back, i can't remember which report it was, but the sole purpose of that report was to look at all of these organizations and look at their social media influence, and so if you look at some the organizations that have made the list, those organiz organizations have huge uh impact when it comes to their social media reach um and it was by one of these right right-wing think tanks um this report that was conducted and i'm sure it has influenced

you know how many organizations are being put up whether they're officially named or whether it's like oh we might leak these organizations or no we won't i mean they've already leaked it the damage has been done potentially excuse me david what's your view the of the three organization muslim organizations that that were named the muslim association of britain cage and mend, i mean mentioned in the uh report there, i mean perfectly respectable organizations, um, just say but what's your view are those organizations? well, i mean the muslim association of britain is an interesting uh organization, it's it's said by golf to be the the british affiliate of the of the muslim brotherhood, supposed to put scary quotes around it, but the muslim association of britain of course was one of the three organizations which set up stop the war coalition after the invasion to after the invasion of iraq and was core to... the success of the of the anti-war movement which had two million people on the streets in 2003 and of course the reason it was core to it was because it was a muslim organization and that was that was the the essential success

and that is what scared the horses and white haul muslims are getting politically active and you see the same thing with with the the the the almost inclusion of friends of friends of course one of the key organizers the massive uh pro palestine demonstrations have been since october the 7th along with palestine solidarity and stop the war so again this is an attempt. to to take out part the key coalition which brings together this massive wave of support uh for for palestine and against british foreign policy, complicity and direct engagement of the british in the genocide, so that's that's one thing right, the second thing is of course the other organizations cage, it's a human rights organization, dr. lee used to work there and and i've written a number of occasions about cade should be not be attacked, they're a human rights organization and it's absord to to accuse them of extremism. and and and i mean mend are are are milder than khr, it's completely absurd to say, i mean the idea that men is an

organization which calls for califate, which would itself in my view be completely fine because it's not the is not any particular thing, it's a system of government which in which muslim ideas might be reflected, just like christian ideas are reflected, hindu ideas are reflected in some other systems of government, so this is this is a nonsense uh from star. finish and of course the reason why they have they can't name these organizations outside is because they're going to be taken to court and they're going to lose well just briefly then because all my out of time dr what should we then make of mr go's new policy briefly i think absolutely nothing of it other than another dog whistle politics attempt to intimidate people not only to not support individuals who might have ideas that are very conservatively muslim but also to try and attack the infrastructure that helps these. muslim to participate in public life, indeed, and probably we should be ridiculing it whenever we get the opportunity, it is so absurd, isn't it? but thanks for watching and thank you to our guest dr. laila aital hadj and our

resident expert professor david miller. remember, you can follow the show on facebook, twitter and telegram where we post regular clips and updates. you can also help us to counteract the disinformation pedaled by the corporate media about palestine and the resistance to the designest entity by sharing today's program on your social media platforms. so until next time when pol we'll be back with more forensic investigations and analysis. this is chris williamson saying bye for now. bismillahirrahman.

the israeli economy already shrink almost 20%. the israeli economy is very dependent on the exploration of palestinian workforce. what was done in agriculture with high-tech irrigation does not have the labor from foreign sources, which was bad in any case.

last week we showed you a vanday graph machine and how we would use proton beams emitted from it to determine the age of ancient artifacts. this week we're also determining the age of ancient artifacts, but this time using gamma race, so stay tuned to see how that works.

the resistance is also ready to defend the palestinian people. with the same intensity and longer than the enemy may expect, first of all he threatens the operation in rafah, but this threat from the resistance

perspective has no... to wait, because even if they enter into rafah, this won't change the situation on the ground. and i believe that the issue of rafa is going to be delayed, because the zionist army is not ready for such a battle, and in any case it won't change the facts on the ground because israel. will not do in rafah more than it did in kanyunis or in gaz or in the north.

information about palestine abounds on social networks, many times without context. they do not allow us to go deeper and understand all the dimensions of a catastrophe that is dragging on for centuries. daniel hardway, chilean mayor of palestinian origin, opens a window to palestine to understand in depth, the present cause of the palestinian people, exploring its history and future prospects. do not miss a window to palestine.

as expansive land with diverse climate, iran is blessed with numerous natural attractions. this time i'm going to visit the largest island in the persian gulf, an island which is larger than 65 countries in the world. hi, i'm javard gare, an iran trotter. i believe iran to be a unique country, on my travels to the most pristine spots in iran, i will show you the beauties of my beloved country, a country i'm proud of.