Greens need to learn from Palmer United on achieving goals

I must admit of few things before discussing the issues mentioned.

First of all I need to admit that Palmer is surprising me everyday with his political tactics and positions. But I need to admit also that I am no fan of this right -wing conservative politician. But this does not mean that I do not agree with him on many things.

With only limited political expertise and limited numbers of politicians in both houses, Palmer is challenging the government on major issues. And it seems that he is winning.

Comparing all this with the case of the Greens party, The Greens case is very disappointing and depressing.

With the Greens experience in politics of more than 40 years and 11 Federal politicians, tens of politicians in state parliaments and hundreds of local councilors, one would expect that the Greens would have changed the Australian politics long time ago. When indeed despite all the above mentioned strength in the Greens case, the only achievement they achieved for the last 4 decades is Carbon Tax. Ironically it seems that Palmer will deny them from even this orphaned achievement.

So where things went wrong for the Greens and right for Palmer?

The Greens party has no principles and follow no principled politics. All what matters for them is to accumulate power, regardless of the cost. For them, the most important is how to win more votes, not how to enforce socio-political changes.

Let me discuss one clear example.

Between 2010-2013, The Greens held the balance of power in the senate, shared the balance of power in the parliament and could enforce shift of power from Labor to Liberals with one single MP. But despite this huge power at all levels in federal politics, they did not use such power in responsible way to maximise their achievements and influence.

The Greens were taking each issue on its own: discus it with the government and vote on it individually. So when the Labor cabinet introduced Malaysian Solution, for example, all what the Greens did was to vote against it in both houses.

Comparing this pathetic approach with the more sophisticated and clever approach of Palmer, one could understand why this politician became so important in very short period.

In Palmer tactics, issues will be discussed and negotiated in group. Palmer, for example, does not want any cut of allowances to orphans of fallen soldiers. He could vote against the legislation individually. The government might be able to negotiate with Labor and pass it. But Palmer made it very clear: if Liberals insist on passing this legislation, we will block scraping the Carbon and Mining Taxes (even though Palmer United supported scrapping these taxes during the election campaign). But by doing this, Palmer is doubling his political influence and strength.
When Labor attack on refugees rights were at its height, I wrote to Adam Bandt, the Greens MP for Melbourne, and asked him to act by threatening to withdraw Greens support for Julia Gillard’s government. Such move could send the government to double dissolution election. A move that Labor was not ready for. The Greens utterly refused to use their power. They, however, assured me that they will vote against these legislations that saw re-introduction of Pacific Solution, freeze the process of applications of newly arrived boat asylum seekers for more than 5 years and other draconian changes. But all these laws passed anyway because the Liberals supported them and the Greens did not use their power.

At that time, the Greens should have used Palmer tactics: If Labor insists to pass these legislation, we (the Greens) would stop supporting the government. We (the Greens) will also side with Liberals to veto other legislations to embarrass Labor and enforce them to give more compromises.

The refusal of the Greens to use these tactics limited their influence and resulted in the sole achievement of introducing the Carbon Tax.

I would not claim that the Greens are naive and this naivety was the reason for not using such tactics (which limited influence and achievements). The Greens did not want to use their tactics because they did not want to bury some of these issues, which theoretically distinguish them form Labor and gave them a lot of support.

The Greens knew that if refugees’ suffering stop for good, a lot of Labor disgruntled voters will go back to Labor. And this is the case for other issues that the Greens refused to act on to enforce the Labor to retreat.

This is the highest opportunist political prostitution you can ever witness.

Palmer on the other side showed high principled political ethics in Australian politics for decades. He talked loud of what he thinks and insisted to achieve his goals. He bargained well and used all circumstances available. And he will achieve. This is why his party will grow steadily (to some extent).

Again, I do not agree with Palmer on many issues. And I noticed that he did not come clear on a lot of sensitive issues. He does not talk much about refugees, foreign issues (Palestine, Syria, Libya...) and housing crisis. He is not talking about crisis in our health and education (especially tertiary) systems. And he is leading a party based around and owned by one person. And for all these, I do not support him.

Despite all this, I respect him, because he is showing no political opportunism.

The Greens will claim that they are still significant players in our political system. For me, this is the case so far because on the left there is no better alternative. Despite my strong resistance to call the Greens “left”, but the perception among Lefties is that the Greens is the best choice currently.

And this is why we need to create strong principled left alternative to challenge such perception of Greens monopoly on left representation.

Wikileaks “party”: Unique One-man "party" operated through Facebook page

Australia can enter Guinness World record for different things. One of these things could be the introduction of the most unique “political party” in the world.

The Wikileaks “party” was established around one year ago. For the whole period, the party never functioned as any other parties (in Australia or in any country around the globe, including dictatorships).

Let us mention the unique nature of this “party”.

The Wikileaks “party has no policies, no offices, no party meetings, no spokespersons, never issued media releases, elected no official leader, elected no official management committee member, never debated position on any political issue, never discussed initiative or political move, never initiated rally or protest, has no active membership, issued no financial statement, published no one phone contact details of a leader or a spokesperson and has no known source of funding.

So how do you know about the existence of this “party”?

If it is not for its Fascebook page, you will not feel that such “party” is still operating in Australia. But even the Facebook page does not represent the “party”.

All what is published on the Facebook page is either an article written by others or news item quoted from News agency. Nothing can tell you if this status reflects the “party’s” views or it is just for general knowledge and to know what is happening in the world. And this was made on purpose.

Journalists were contacting the only known “official” of the “party” (John Shipton) and asked him if the “party” supports what was published on the Facebook on certain issue. John would reply that it is just a quotation that does not represent the “party’s” view. The same with enquiries on the seam Facebook page. When reader/s asked if the article represent the “party’s” official position , tbhe reply will be so quick “No... it is just an article or news item to alert members or supporters of views of writer/s”...

But nobody so far knows what the official view of this “party is on any issue that matters.

Even on the issue of the crisis in Syria and despite the Wikileaks “party” participation in 2 visits to Syria, we heard nothing about their official stance on the crisis. The only official comments after the two visits were “we went to Syria to explore the truth of what is happening there”. But no official account of the truth they explored.

One time I was told by the owner of the “party” John Shipton that the party consists from three persons only: John Shipton, myself and Gail Malone. No more, no less.

Can you imagine!!!

Practically it was true. Since September 2013, only these three people were doing all the jobs inside the “party” and the only ones visible to public. From talking to community leaders, to putting stories in the media and answering the journalists it was only John (myself on few occasions when John did not want to be seen in public on the issue). The Facebook page and the blog were assigned to John’s much-trusted Gail Malone.

I should admit that occasionally it was necessary for John to assign some minor jobs to others loyal to him. Sometime, Matt was asked to pass to members emails that were written to him by the major players in the “party”. At some stage, former candidate will be asked to make comments.

Would not you recommend such farce to be mentioned in Guinness World Records under “political party of one person operating through Facebook page”???

Maybe the more correct question to be asked here is “do you think that this “organisation” could be considered “political party”?

Why did Syrian president Assad ask me about Wikileaks?

By the end of the meeting on 24 Dec 2013, Syria President Bashar Assad farewelled Australian delegation visited Syria one by one. My turn came. I shook the president’s hands saying many words of solidarity with Syrians. I stressed that many Australians (unlike what our media shows) do not support the violence against Syria and Syrians.

To my surprise, President Assad asked me about my involvement with Wikileaks party and how long I was active with this party.

At the time, my answer was instant and honest. But the reason for the president to ask me this question did not ring a bell until later. Until now, I am not sure if my conspiracy theory is real or just imagination.

From the beginning of our visit, John Shipton was adamant that the bid of the Australian organisers of the visit to sideline Wikileaks party delegations was decided by Syrian authorities and not by the organisers themselves.

From the moment we arrived to Damascus, Australian organisers of the visit (Syrian honorary consulate to Australia) gave us strict guidelines and protocols to follow during our visit. We cannot leave the hotel until we notify him or the delegation head. If we have any complaint or observations, we need to communicate this to him or to the delegation head... The most important issue for John is that we were not given the approximate itinerary until the end of the visit. For the organisers, it is all about security of the delegation.

But we noticed, for example, that all other delegation members had the itinerary, except the Wikileaks delegation members.

For me, it was personal decision by the Australian organisers to keep us away from media comments because the organisers wanted all media focus on them. For personal ego, only. On this issue I should mention here that we were allowed to visit any place we wanted and talked to any person we wanted. For me all was about security and personal ego problems.

But for John, he was convinced that such treatment was ordered by Syrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. According to John, it was a punishment for Wikileaks for its leaking of millions of personal emails of Syrian officials, including President and his wife’s emails.

John was sure that the Syrian authorities do not trust “us” (Wikileaks party). This is why they imposed such strict guidelines and refused to give us the full itinerary.

Now, I think that John was right. And I think that Syrian authorities were right to keep Wikileaks party delegation in dark about the visit and the details of people we are meeting.

The latest development of Wikileaks party CEO meeting with Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood extremists in Australia and securing anonymous deal with them (http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-night-wikileaks-met-with-extremists.html) proved that Wikileaks brand organisations cannot be trusted.

Everywhere we visited in Damascus, John was always met with this question “why Wikileaks did not leak so far any important and significant documents about Israel”. John tried his best to refute this by saying “there were significant leaks about Israel, but no major newspaper agreed to publish them”... He repeated this time after time, as if he was a parrot that was taught to imitate sentences without understanding its significance or meaning.

Not only this. When we visited Al Nahar Arabic newspaper mid last year, he was asked this question “Julian is a CIA agent, is not he?”. John got angry. But who cares. It amazes me how the journalist of AL Nahar did not care about John’s frustration and loss of temper. And it seems to me that the journalist was not convinced of John’s reply.

I understand now why President Assad asked me about Wikileaks. I understand why Syrian authorities kept us in dark on the itinerary of the visit.

It is most likely that they have a lot of information about Wikileaks real agendas and coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. This is why they did not give Wikileaks any chance to get access to any source to infiltrate Syria.

The last point I want to mention here: the issue of Wikileaks bid to have office in Damascus.

Before arriving to Syria, I was asked by John about my information and expectation of increase in the prices of homes and properties in Syria after the end of the crisis. I confirmed to John what he expected earlier that properties’ prices will be skyrocketing after the end of the crisis.

I think that John was interested in buying properties in Syria for both reasons: for investment (money making out of Syrians’ misery) and to have headquarter for Wikileaks dirty operations in the Middle East. Or maybe it was the second under the excuses of the first.

But as Wikileaks could not fool Syrian authorities, I doubt that such project (establishing Wikileaks office) will go ahead. And this was mentioned clearly by John in his talk with the Guardian journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people )...

ليلة اجتماع ويكيليكس مع متطرفين: ما هي الصفقة نتيجة هذا الاجتماع!!!

في مطلع شهر اذار/مارس الماضي تلقيت اتصالا غريبا من جون شيبتون, والد جوليان اسانج ورئيس حزب ويكيليكس. سالني الرجل عن الشيخ فداء المجزوب وان كنت اعرفه. كان جوابي سريعا بانني اعرف الشيخ جيدا منذ عام 2008. كما اشرت الى ان مقتل اخيه مصطفى المجزوب في سوريا وانتقاداتي لقتاله في سوريا كانت خلف الحملة الشرسة التي تعرضت لها منذ عام 2012 وتضمنت تهديدات بالقتل واعتداء جسدي في منتصف عام 2013.

اخبرني جون ان الشيخ يلح عليه ان يلقاه في اقرب فرصة. فهمت من كلام جون ان الاتصالات التي جرت بين الشيخ وجون كانت اتصالات ماراثونية وتضمنت نقاشات مطولة ودقيقة.

ذكرّت جون ان اسم الشيخ كان قد ورد في لقائنا مع وزير الاعلام السوري عندما ذكر الوزير عمران الزعبي ان الشيخ كان مسؤولا عن فصائل مسلحة واعطى الاوامر بالهجوم على ريف اللاذقية وخطف مئات النساء والاطفال. اعتقدت لوهلة ان جون اصابه الخوف من هكذا لقاء. ولكن وبعد عدة مكالمات, اكد جون انه سيلقى الشيخ وبعض اصدقائه يوم الجمعة 7 اذار/مارس.

لم يكن لدي تحفظ على ان يلتقي جون مع الشيخ واي من مؤيديه من متطرفي استراليا. فجون يعرف تماما موقفي من العنف في سوريا. كما يعرف جون وولده نشاطاتي في هذا المضمار وما واجهت من مصاعب وتهديدات وعنف نتيجة ذلك. ولكن كان لدي تحفظ ان يذهب جون الى الاجتماع لوحده. لذلك اقترحت عليه الذهاب مع احد اعضاء او مؤيدي الحزب.

في البداية, وافق جون على الفكرة.

كان الاتفاق ان يلتقي جون بقيصر طراد امام محطة قطارات ياغونا الساعة السابعة من مساء الجمعة, ليذهبا سويا الى الاجتماع في احد مطاعم جرين ايكر في سيارة قيصر. ثم اصبح الاتفاق ان يتصل جون بقيصر ويحصل منه على عنوان المطعم. ويذهب جون مع ممدوح الى الاجتماع. بهذا الترتيب يستطيع ممدوح ان يحرج الشيخ وقيصر بان يكون شاهدا على اي كلام يقولونه لجون واي عرض قد يعرضوه. كما ان وجود ممدوح قد يعطي جون الفرصة للانسحاب من الاجتماع في الوقت المناسب ان حدث تطور غير محسوب. كما ان هذا الترتيب سيتيح شفافية لعمل حزب الوكيليكس, وهذا من صلب فلسفته كما يدعي.

في اخر لحظة ولاسباب غير مقنعة, غير جون المخطط وقرر ان يذهب لوحده للقاء المجموعة ويجتمع معهم لفترة قصيرة ... ولا داعي لاحراج ممدوح. وهذا ما حصل.

بعد منتصف نفس الليلة تلقيت مكالمة من جون يخبرني بها عن مخطط جوليان لتجميد الحزب عن طريق استقالاتنا انا وجون وجايل من عضوية المجلس الوطني... ثم يستحوذ جوليان على الحزب ويجمده...

في ذلك اليوم وبسب ضغوط المفاجاة التي فجرها جون بوجهي, لم التفت للربط بين توقيت اجتماع جون مع المتطرفين والانقلاب الذي قرره جون-جوليان. كان كل همنا هو انقاذ الحزب وتحييد جون وجوليان وانهاء سيطرتهما المطلقة عليه.

يوم الاثنين التالي وفي اجتماع كان مقرر سلفا للجنة جمع التبرعات من اجل سوريا,سالني بعض المجتمعين عن نتيجة الاجتماع الذي ضم جون لمتطرفين. طلبت منهم ان يوجهوا السؤال لجون مباشرة.

ما قاله جون كان مفاجئا وغير متوقع و "لا يركب على راس". قال جون انه لم يحضر للاجتماع معه الا قيصر طراد. كما قال جون انه لم يحدث اي نقاش في العشاء. قيصر كان مهتما فقط بالتقاء جون واخذ صورة معه لوضعها على صفحته في الفيس بوك.

الان وبعد شهر مما حدث, دعونا ننقاش حقيقة ما حدث بين جون من جهة وقيصر ورفاقه المتطرفين من جهة اخرى.

هل يمكن ان نصدق ان الشيخ المجزوب والذي لاحق جون لاسبوع لعقد هذا الاجتماع, يتخلف عنه ودون اسباب مقنعة؟
وكيف يمكن تصديق ان قيصر طراد اكتفى بطلب الحصول على صورة مع جون, ولم يحصل عليها ولم يناقش شيئا مهما؟

ولماذا تزامن الاجتماع وبنفس اليوم مع انقلاب جون-جوليان على كل الممارسات الديمقراطية في هذا البلد للتخلص مني واحكام السيطرة الكاملة على الحزب.

لفهم ما حدث, دعونا نعود لانطلاق الوكيليكس ونجومية جوليان.

هل من المصادفة ان انطلاق نجم جوليان كان من على شاشات قناة الجزيرة القطرية في مقابلتين واحدة بالعربية والاخرى بالانجليزية في اواخر شهر كانون اول/ديسمبر 2010!!!

وهل هي مصادفة ان الشيخ فداء المجزوب كان عضوا في مجلس اسطنبول للمعارضة السورية, الممول من قطر!!!

وماذا عن ام المصادفات: ان يحصل الاجتماع مع المتطرفين في نفس يوم انقلاب جون-جوليان عشية يوم السبت 8 اذار/مارس!!!

والا لماذا لم يحصل الاجتماع مع قيصر ورفاقه بعد اسبوع او حتى شهر من الانقلاب؟

ولماذا رفض جون حضور عضو اخر من الوكيليكس للاجتماع مع قيصر ورفاقه؟

بل السؤال الاهم هو لماذا طلب الشيخ المجزوب ورفاقه المتطرفون لقاء جون ومسؤولي حزبه؟ للشكوى ضدي؟ بالرغم من ان كل نشاطاتي ومواقفي معروفة علنيا.

وياتي السؤال الاهم: ماذا دار في الاجتماع بين جون وقيصر (ورفاقه) وادى الى الانقلاب داخل الحزب وبنفس الليلة؟؟؟

بدون ان يكسر قيصر او احد من رفاقه الصمت ويخبرنا عن حقيقة ما حدث, فانه من الصعب ان نعرف حقيقة ما دار من نقاشات في مطعم جرين ايكر. بالرغم من ذلك, يمكننا ان نتوقع ما حدث.

هل من الصعب تصور ما حدث في اجتماع المطعم بين منظمة متهمة بانها صنيعة المخابرات الامريكية (الوكيليكس) ومجموعة من المتطرفين الممولين من قطر (عملاء نفس الاستخبارات) والتي ادت الى الضغط علي لاخراجي من الحزب!!!

هل عرض قيصر طراد تمويلا قطريا لحزب الوكيليكس مقابل هذا الانقلاب؟ ام ان العرض كان مختلفا في نفس السياق؟

ام ان قيصر عرض وعدا للوكيليكس بالدعم نيابة عن الجالية وعن بعض الدول الاسلامية/الخليجية؟

ادعو هنا كل من جون وقيصر ان يعلنوا حقيقة ما جرى في ذلك اللقاء وما تمخض عنه من صفقات حقيرة.

اخر ملاحظة هنا:من الملاحظ ان حزب الوكيليكس لا يهتم كثيرا بالسياسة وموقعه على الخريطة السياسية في استراليا, والا فكيف يرسل اهم مسؤوليه في زيارات سياحية الى ايران وسوريا بينما الحزب يواجه انهيارا تاما وخسارة مذلة في انتخابات ولاية غرب استراليا.

هل هذا يقودنا الى استنتاج ان تنظيم الوكيليكس يعتقد ان اختراق سوريا وايران وحلفهما اهم من نجاح الحزب سياسيا.

The night Wikileaks met with extremists: what was the outcome/deal?!!!

At the beginning of last March I received phone call from John Shipton, the father of Julian Assange and CEO of Wikileaks party. He asked me about “Sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub” and if I know him. I told him that I know him very well, since 2008. John told me that he was contacted by the sheikh seeking meeting with representative of Wikileaks party. The sheikh insisted to meet with John as soon as possible.

Talking to John, I understood that the conversation/s between him and the Majzoub was/were lengthy and in details.

I told John what I know about the sheikh, who was mentioned by name by Syrian information minister Omran AL Zubi to be “leader of rebels who kidnapped and raped hundreds of women in Latakya rural area”.

Many conversations followed about the possible meeting between John and the sheikh (and some extremist supporters).

I did not object for Wikileaks party’s representative/s to meet with these people. But John should not go to meeting alone. I discussed this with John and with other Wikileaks party active members. John agreed to go to the meeting with one of the active members/supporters.

The role of active member is to be witness in case agreement of any kind reached between two parties. It is also more professional for any respected political parties to have more than one official/active member present at any meeting. This will perfectly serve the “transparency” goals of Wikileaks declared political agenda.

The meeting was scheduled to be Friday 7 March. Please remember this date very well. Keysar Trad supposed to pick up John from Yagoona train station at 7 pm. Then both will go by Trad’s car to a restaurant in Greenacre to meet the rest of the extremists (including sheikh Majzoub).

I thought that I was successful in convincing John to call Keysar and apologise for changing the arrangements. John supposed to go with Mamdouh direct to the restaurant and meet the extremists group.

At last minute, John called me and told me that he will go alone and briefly meet the group... and no need to bother Mamdouh.

And he did exactly that.

After midnight of that day, I received phone call from John telling me that Julian wants to suspend the work of the party and demanded that we all (John, Gail and myself) to resign as National Council members to pave way for Julian’s group from London to take over.

With the stress of the whole saga, I forgot about the meeting with Keysar and the rest of extremists. Our work was focussed on salvaging the party and tries to neutralise Julian and his father’s monopoly on the party.

On Monday 10 March, there was meeting to finalise details about fundraising dinner for the mission to Syria. Members of the committee asked me about the outcome of John’s meeting with Muslim extremists. I asked them to direct their questions to John himself.

John claimed that the meeting was only with Keysar Trad. He claimed that there was no discussion in that meeting. He claimed that Keysar wanted to meet him to take photo with him so that he can claim that he met the father of Julian Assange and post the picture on his Facebook account.

Now and after month of events, let us try to examine what really happened between John and Keysar and his associates of extremists.

So Sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub was chasing John for meeting for more than a week and then he did not attend that meeting!!!

And Keysar Trad attended the meeting with John and discussed nothing with him, instead he asked for picture with Julian’s father!!!

And then in the same night, John and Julian attempted coup inside the party to get rid of me and regain full control of the party!!!

Can a young child in year 2 believe this!!!

Let us go back to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Is it also coincidence that the launch of Julian Assange’s popularity was on Al Jazeera Qatari TV (in 2 interviews in Arabic and English December 2010 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html, http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/pages/be37378d-b604-478b-af7c-2ee8da306331)?

Does this match with the fact that sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub was member of the Istanbul Coalition of Syrian rebels financed by Qatar?

And what is the big coincidence that the meeting and attempted coup was on the eve of Saturday 8 March?

If there is no coincidence, meeting with Keysar could have happened week later of the John/Julian’s move to demand full control of the party... or even in different month altogether!!!

And why did John refuse the attendance of other Wikileaks party active members/supporters in this highly controversial meeting?!!!

John and Julian knew very well about my stance on Syrian crisis and activities that resulted in death threats and physical assaults. My activities and views were very public and broadcasted on many media outlets. So whatever they were told by Keysar or Sheikh Majzoub should not surprise them.

So what was really discussed by John Shipton and Keysar Trad (and his extremist associates) that led to the coup in the party?

Without leaks from Keysar Trad, we would not know exactly the truth. But we can speculate.

If we connect the dots, we can try to solve the puzzle...

Meeting between group that was accused of being CIA shopfront (Wikileaks group) and group of extremists financed by Qatar (agents of CIA) that led to a coup to enforce me out, will have one thing to discuss.

Did Keysar offer Qatari funding of Wikileaks (group and party) in return of this coup?
Or did he offer something else similar???

Did Keysar make any promises to help Wikileaks, on behalf of Muslim community and some Muslim/Gulf countries??

I call on both John and Keysar to come forward and enlighten Australians about the discussions and the dirty deal resulted from such discussions.

The last note on these issues: it seems that Wikileaks party does not care about politics and its political stance/achievements. Otherwise why its officials are insisting to participate in tourism tours to Iran and Syria during the WA senate by-election, while the party is crumbling and getting less than 6000 votes in WA senate by-election (despite getting the Donkey votes estimated to exceed 5000 votes)...!!!

This would lead us to believe that Wikileaks thinks that its infiltration attempts of Syria/Iran camp are more important than improving political stance and try to rebuild the party.

The death of Wikileaks party

We can debate for hours and days about the results of last Saturday’s WA senate by-election, their significance and future implications on Australian politics. Except for the results of one political party: the Wikileaks party.

How would anyone dispute the straightforward results of this party?

The official results for Wikileaks party (so far) is that it got around 6000 votes (0.6%). This is a reduction of 40% of its results in last year’s election.

But this is not the end of the story.

This election the Wikileaks party secured number 1 on the ballot paper. It is well-known that there is something called Donkey-votes, where deeply dissatisfied voters just vote by crossing 1 in the first box on the ballot paper. In senate, this would usually mount to 0.5% (ie 5000 votes in WA). In lower house seats, it usually mounts to 1%.

This means that Wikileaks party indeed got only 1000 votes, despite the local TV and social media advertisements.

Last election, the Wikileaks party got around 10,000 votes, without the Donkey votes.

But the story of this party’s disastrous results and practices are deeper than this.

Originally the Wikileaks party was standing in opinion polls on 21% early 2013 (http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/roy-morgan-research/2013/06/11/1370907445/new-polling-shows-assanges-wikileaks-leads-new-partie). But with the disastrous organisational decisions taken by the Assange-Shipton junta of building secretive organisation that has no regard to basic democratic processes in any political parties in any Western democracies, the real results were reduced to 1% in the last election.

But the Assange-Shipton junta did not learn the lesson. Instead of departing their disastrous decisions and style, they went even further. And after their farce of demanding resignations of the National Council members to enable Assange total control of the party, the party lost the last straw of credibility. This is why they struggled to get more than 1000 votes in the last Saturday’s WA senate by-election.

Hey Assange-Shipton: time to issue the death certificate of Wikileaks party!!!

The Assange-Shipton junta has very good sense of humour. Instead of issuing the death certificate and deal with its consequences, Shipton is on tourism tour in the Middle East... as they have no political agenda of this tour.... unless they have secret non-political agendas....

حقيقة موقف ويكيليكس من سوريا: من فمك ادينك!!!

في اول حديث صحفي عن الزيارة لسوريا المزمع مشاركته فيها, وضع جون شيبتون احد مالكي متجر الوكيليكس بعض النقاط على بعض الحروف عن حقيقة هذه المشاركة.

ففي رد على سؤال عن امكانية مشاركة وفد الوكيليكس في لقاء جديد محتمل مع الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد, اكد جون شيبتون, المدير التنفيذي للوكيليكس بان هذا الاحتمال معدوم تماما وان حزبه سيرفض لقاء الرئيس الاسد بتاتا وبشكل قاطع. كما اكد جون انه ووفد حزبه سيرفضون لقاء اي وزير سوري او اي مسؤول في الحكومة.

اذا لماذا انتم ذاهبون الى دمشق؟
يجيب جون ان ذهابهم الى دمشق سيكون من اجل ارسال مساعدات طبية بقيمة 15 الف دولار جمعها الوفد الاسترالي. كما انهم سيقابلون "السلام", ولم يعط تفصيلات عن عنوان هذا السلام او اين يمكن لقاؤه.

اذا فحزب الوكيليكس تحول (او يريد التحول) الى منظمة اغاثية على غرار منظمة جيش الخلاص او الوورلد فيجن وترك السياسة والانتخابات وتغيير السلطة وفضح الحكومات وتطبيق الشفافية الحكومية وكل الكلام الفارغ الذي اشبعنا بها الوكيليكس خلال الاعوام الماضية.

وبالرغم من ان الزيارة القادمة لسوريا كان من اهم اهدافها المعلنة من قبل المنظمين في لندن هو "ارسال رسالة تضامن لسوريا وحث جميع الاطراف السياسية على العمل على حل الازمة سلميا", ولم يكن ضمن اهدافها ارسال ادوية بهذه القيمة التي لا تكفي لسد احتياجات عيادة طبية في احد احياء دمشق ليوم واحد. الا ان جون يعتبر ان اهم هدف للزيارة هو ارسال بعض الادوية لسوريا, من اجل التملص من اي احراج امام الصحافة الاسترالية والعالمية عن الموقف من الارهاب الضارب في سوريا للثلاث اعوام الماضية.

ومن اجل اكمال وضع النقاط على الحروف عن حقيقة موقف الوكيليكس من سوريا, صرح جون ان حزبه قد صرف النظر عن افتتاح مكتب في دمشق لان "الهدف الاساسي من افتتاح المكتب كان محاولة تجميع معلومات مهمة". اي بكلمات اخرى, فان مهمة المكتب هو التجسس على سوريا لمحاولة الحصول على وثائق قد تحرج سوريا وتساعد في تصعيد المؤامرة, كما فعلت الوكيليكس قبل عام. ولكن وبسبب ان الاحداث تفاقمت في اوكرانيا, فان جون سينقل المكتب (الذي لم يفتتح اصلا) من دمشق الى كييف!!!

طبعا بملاحظة ان الحزب لا يملك مكتبا في اي مدينة استرالية!!!

لنعد ونلخص ما قاله جون في جملة واحدة: سنشارك في زيارة سوريا للاغاثة وليس لاي هدف سياسي او اخلاقي للتضامن مع سوريا ضد الارهاب. كما ان الحزب سيصرف النظر عن افتتاح مكتب تجسسي على سوريا....

ولم يقل لنا لمصلحة من كانوا سيتجسسون على سوريا!!!

ودعونا نسال اسئلة افتراضية هنا:
لو تم دعوة الوفد الدولي للقاء وزير او رئيس الوزراء او حتى الرئيس, كيف سيتصرف وفد الوكيليكس؟؟ هل سيتمترسوا في الباص ويرفضوا النزول, ام يعلنوا الاضراب عن الطعام؟

لو اجرى التلفزيون السوري لقاءا مع جون وسال عن هدف الزيارة والانطباعات الناتجة عنها, فهل سيجيب عنها بالحديث عن شؤون الاغاثة ونقص الادوية؟

لو التقى الوفد مع سياسيين اوروبيين متضامنين مع سوريا, فهل سيصر جون ووفده الحديث عن الادوية, دون التطرق للوضع السياسي والعسكري وامكانية حل الازمة؟

القصة عن حقيقة الوكيليكس اسهل من ذلك ويمكن الوصول اليها من كلمات جون القليلة مع موقع الغارديان الالكتروني. فالقصة لا تعدو, وكما ذكرتها انا في مقال سابق, ان تنظيم الوكيليكس المشبوه الاهداف اراد اقامة علاقات وثيقة مع دمشق للتجسس عليها.

ما لفت انباهي اليوم تعليق من احد اكثر الناشطين من اعضاء الوكيليكس والذي كتب تعليقا على صفحة الوكيليكس على الفيسبوك يقول "انا وكعضو فعال في الحزب ان اردت الاتصال بالحزب, كيف ومع من يمكنني الاتصال؟".

هذه السرية التامة تذكرني بقناة الجزيرة الاخبارية والتي لم استطع (وانا سياسي وناشط اعلامي) الاتصال بها لسنوات. مع انهم اتصلوا بي عدة مرات وطلبوا تعليقات مني عندما ارادوا ذلك.

الحزب الذي يعلن لزوم الشفافية التامة من الحكومات والاحزاب والمؤسسات, يمارس سرية مطبقة وغياب لاي شفافية. هذا الحزب لديه الكثير من الاجندات المخفية المدمرة.

نامل ان يتنبه المسؤولون السوريون لهذه الاجندات ويعملوا على احباطها وعدم تمكين القائمين على هذا المشروع ان ينفذوا مخططاتهم السرية.

I refused Wikileaks blackmailing: Syria needs real friends not with hidden agendas

After the successful fundraising campaign to raise money to buy medical supplies for Syrians which generated so far around $10,300.00, some unfortunate development on the mission to Syria ought to be announced.

With deep sorrow and shock I note here the Wikileaks “party” move to politicise this highly humanitarian aid and solidarity mission to Syria to try to cover their deep problems of internal infighting and total lacking of transparency and democracy.

I was invited to participate in the “Peace Pilgrimage to Syria” as “Palestinian activist” in an email sent to me and to the organizers of the mission on 15 January 2014. The main reason behind inviting me is my active role in defending Syria for the last 3 years and because of my participation in organizing and participating in the solidarity visit to Syria last December.

After my public resignation and total divorce with this notorious “party”, I thought that Australian internal politics will be kept separate from the mission to show solidarity with Syria and send some humanitarian aid. I advised the organizers in London about this divorce and my hope that nothing will be changed about the mission to Syria, as a totally separate issue. The organizers agreed in an email sent to me on 14 March 2014.

The Wikileaks “party”, who has hidden agenda in participating in visits to Syria (see my article on http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/my-conspiracy-theory-wikileaks-as-al.html) insisted to mix the two issues.

The party/family convenient store put all their weight to demand from the organizers in London to ban me from going on the mission, unless I go under the Wikileaks party banner. For me this is cheap blackmailing. Otherwise how would Wikileaks demand me to go under their umbrella after my public resignation and very public criticism to the Wikileaks for total lacking of transparency and democracy inside the party?

And more importantly, why would Wikileaks compromise not only the humanitarian and solidarity mission to Syria but also the unity of pro-Syrian movement altogether by their demands to mix between the two separate issues? Also, why would Wikileaks deny the highly needy Syrians victims of terrorism and violence of thousands of dollars in medical aid and supplies?

Can you see the hidden agenda of this “family convenient store” behind its bid to prevent very active member who was campaigning for years against violence in Syria, to the point of receiving death threats and physically attacked? And how could such move help sending message of solidarity and support to Syrians?

The Wikileaks “party” argued that the Australian representatives on the delegation are either from a local Anglican church or from Wikileaks "party". Consequently, I should be allowed to participate in this mission only under one of either of these banners.

Contrary to this false assumption, I note here that the majority on the Australian delegation are neither from the church nor members of Wikileaks party. Otherwise, where would Wikileaks classify the Muslim cleric in the delegation: under Anglican Church or with Wikileaks “party” membership?

This is deeply troubling double standard of a delegation that has a lot of hidden agendas, and not a delegation to send solidarity support or aid mission to Syria.

I refused the blackmail. And I refused to participate in the mission to Syria under Wikileaks “party” banner. And this is why we are in intense talks with many sides to explore how to send the medical aid soon to Syria.

I will update the community how we will deliver the aid to Syria, soon. We will also update community about our next mission to Syria. We expect to organize one in the next few months.