this is for palestine ramala, gaza, this is for the child that is searching. why do you think little boys are going stones at tanks and we'll never really know how many people are dead? they drop bombs on innocent. girls while they sleep in their bed israel is a terror state and terrorists that terrorize i'll testify my television televise 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 we ever they try palestine will never die free palestine free palestine free palestine. hello, i'm chris

williamson and 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 weak. and the pro-palestine movement has been sweeping the country since october the 7th, as latif arab chakra 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 gazza has focused mines in the british elete because of the massive. sympathy for the

palestinians visible on the streets. the desperate attempts to cast pro-palestine protesters as genocidal is a desperate attempt to split the movement. the 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 of government. he has a history of involvement. with zionist lobby groups and, for example, was the first chairman of the neo-conservative and islamophobic think tank policy exchange. it's no coincidence that the new policy he's introducing was drempt up by of 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 to the prevent review in 2021. show cross 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 go'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. 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 of chain. the wolfson family also founds in betulhem. 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 rose and crance foundation which has given to the think tank for more than decade, along with other islamophobic causes. its director, robert rosencrantz 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 for islam and global affairs at istanbul university. it's also a co-director of the lobby and watch dog spinwatch and is a leading british scholarly critic of israel. our guest contributor today is dr. dr. layla is the... exprector and

senior caseworker at preventwatch, which is a community led initiative that supports 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 goes statement, mean could have been written by them, what what what do you make of that think tank? well, mean more or less was written by them, mean policy exchange is is the first think tank that think i ever looked at back in the weight to 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 was that amongst the people which who funded it with these foundations and the foundations were all named after individuals and we were we tried to work out what they were and it tr transpired that you 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 zieneus foundations so zianis foundations who were largely funding the policy exchange and other new conflict tanks and that's what we we have here we have effectively sign his 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 l mean what's your view then of the of the 2022 policy exchange report so that report was was 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 extended way beyond any of the muslim organizations that had been... highlighted in that report, 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 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. um for protecting freedoms while countering terrorism, it didn't look at the fact that professor 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 the people's review of prevent buse 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 for to the policy exchange report saying that um these people who are basically raising 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 muslim charities and to uh investigate them. now quite often those muslim charities were investigated 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 it's meant is that the the whole muslim charity sector lives in fear of the charity commission and and to try and be 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 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 prevents so he's you know he's not in the position to to do any significant serious review because of course he is party free he's all fundamentally uh conflicted well as i mentioned in the introduction there dr laylor mean you you were part of that people's uh review of of... prevent which which actually engaged didn't it in in debate with the review of extremism that was conducted by lord shaw crosted 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 uh 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... federation almost 600 cases of people who had actually been referred to prevent as well as all of the academic research that had come out previously on prevent um and at the end of that 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 suggest that it actively doesn't work, especially when you look at convicted terrorists who have been known to prevent prior, they weren't caught 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 wolfson family uh on this show a number of previously occasions, haven't we, and i see 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 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 wilson college oxford wilson college cambridge and many other uh charitable donations but of course also they give significant sums of money to designus projects so to to uh settlements uh in the west bank in particularly they fund the

jerusalem foundation which is engaged in illegal activities east jerusalem and they also fund and indeed uh the chair of uh this charity b halkim uh is an organization which gives money directly to the uh israel occupation forces so there's a real sense there in which they're involved directly in supporting the zin project and the genocide in gaza but also of course they're um involved in supporting islamof. activities through the policy exchange and for example or or simon are involved with that and as a result what you what you have is that you can see that the zionists are are actually core to developing pushing islamophobic ideas in the uk and in other countries too and that's a thing 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 but it's very clear that that there's a connection the zionists and the pushing of islamophobia and you can see it through this this particular connection between the wolfson family and the

cash they give to the policy exchange. michael gove uh was the first chair wasn't he the uh policy exchange and as i was saying to david earlier mean this report or this statement could could have been written by them, what's your thoughts on that briefly before we go to our next report? mean, michael gover has been problematic for many reasons, not just the policy exchange link, mean he was at the center of the trosian horse affair effectively ruining education. in the uk 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 c everyone thought she was going to come out with definition of extremism and she didn't, um, robin simcotz 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 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 some of the title wave of support for palestine from the british people. let me just ask in the interest of balance is... is there anyone here who welcomes what michael gove had to say and supports 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, my gove named five extremist organizations on the parliamentary privilege, because he knows he would be subject to legal action or 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 leaked 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 shariah law. he named three groups. the muslim association of britain, cage, and mend, all perfectly legal organizations. mend immediately challenge golf 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 sophisticated engagement strategy. this is not just the political and strategic difference, but a question of defending the millions in state and zines funding plowed into the maintenance of hundreds of jobs in sophisticated engagement such as the interfaith industry. underlying all of this

is the danger that the definition best fits genocidal zinis groups and their supporters within government. most notable. 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. dr. lila, um, 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 illegal, 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, prevent technically is voluntary doesn't mean that it hasn't qu harm to thousands of people across the uk, mean we already seen lots of people being cancelled, mean david and a case casing point really, guess this is just going to exacerbate that that that problem, but david why do you think they're struggling so much then to to to define um extremism then? well because they start off with this idea that they're they're um counteracting 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 pergening uh terrorism legislation uh um on the statute books and that's been expanding uh over the years since they first introduction of the the preventional terrorism act temporary provisions uh as it was called back back in the 70ss and of course they then move 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 uh 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 and so 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 shine was was was prescribed but nobody could actually work out. supporting that organization meant and it was so ridiculous that the whole thing collapsed partly as a result of 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 been saying to intimidate, that's that these are the reasons they can't define it, well dr. layler, i mean earlier documents seem to suggest that mr. gobe would... considering naming much wider group of organizations, including your own uh prevent watching groups like palestine action and and friends of of alaxa, mean what's going on here? yeah, i mean, it's quite ridiculous, if you look at for example prevent watch, we are literally a helpline to support people, yeah, who have had their rights abused, um, so we would

never come under any definition, um, 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 i do think it is just attempt to intimidate and to place that um idea that, 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 of the organizations that have made the list, those 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 well excuse me david what what's your view of the the three organization, muslim organizations that um that were named, the muslim association of britain, cage and mendean mentioned in the report there, i mean perfectly respectable organizations, um, just say a bit, what's your view of 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 to 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

called to it was because it was a muslim organization and that was that was the essential success and that's what scared the horses and whitehall, muslims are getting politically active, and you see the same thing with with the the the the almost inclusion of friends, friends, of course, one the key organizers of the massive uh pro- palestine demonstrations. been since october the 7th along with palestine solidarity and stop the war, so again this is attempt to to take out part of the key coalition which brings together this massive wave of support 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 is human rights organization, dr. lee used to work there, and and i've written a number of occasions about cage should be not beat. there a human rights organization and it's absord to to accuse them of extremism and and then mend 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 califate is not any particular thing so it's a system of government which in which muslim ideas might be reflected just like christian ideas are reflected or hindu ideas are reflected. in some other systems of government, so this is this is a nonsense uh from start to finish, and of course the reason why they have, they can't name these organizations outsideers because they're going to be taken to court and they're going to lose, well just briefly because we're almost 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 hajj 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 design. by showing today's program on your social media platforms, so until next time when palestine classified will be back with more forensic investigations and analysis, this is chris williamson saying, bye for now. the israeli economy already shrink on. 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, this week on expos a, with the port to be established in gaza and no intention of

opening land borders, us president joe biden is using electoral propaganda to carry favor with the american people after his full fledged support to zionist israel. now the bidon peer plan in gaza has caused suspicion in western media indicating that although the obstruction by zinus israel remains a concern, its impact will now be evident during the distribution phase rather than the initial point of entry. also, social media users view the bidon peer plan for gaza as a dark joke, arguing that its sole purpose is to allow the zianist occupation to continue. you grabbing more land and to plunder gas deposits off the coast of gaza. stay tuned for expose. the truth is just a revelation away.

that in tamas welcomes adoption of gaza ceasefire resolution by the un security council stressing the need for a permanent cease fire and withdrawal of israel forces. iran says un security council's gaza. ceicifire resolution is a positive but inadequate step and the regime must be held accountable for its crimes. the un human rights expert says israel has committed acts of genocide in gaza and it's planned to forcibly displace palestinians amounts ethnic cleansing.