u/GlacialTurtle

>The construction plans include building new bunkers in Suffolk, which will seemingly be used to store nuclear weapons, and modernising facilities to help covert units run secret operations.
> >The US military is also planning to upgrade its base in Gloucestershire, from which waves of powerful bombers attacked Iran earlier this year on the orders of Donald Trump.
> >The plans highlight the breadth of the US military and security establishment’s footprint in the UK, where more than 12,000 US military personnel are spread around at least 15 bases and facilities.
> >There are questions about whether Britain should continue to host the US installations on its soil.
> >For more than seven decades, successive governments have seen the bases as a foundation of the UK’s military partnership with the US.
> >[...]
> >Another $1.1bn is earmarked for Mildenhall airbase in Suffolk, at which about 4,000 American military personnel are stationed. During this year’s US-Israeli war on Iran, the base played an important part in facilitating bombing missions. Huge planes flew from the base to the Mediterranean to refuel other airborne aircraft flying to and from Iran.
> >Less visible are the covert forces based at Mildenhall. They are tasked with flying special operatives into what they call “hostile, denied and/or politically sensitive territories” across Europe and Africa.
> >An unspecified portion of the $1.1bn earmarked for Mildenhall will fund the construction of purpose-built facilities, to enable these special forces to house their aircraft in one place. This, according to the Pentagon, will enable the forces to react more rapidly in a crisis.
> >Nearly $500m is to be spent at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which played a vital role in US bombing raids on Iran this year.
> >The base has a very long runway, at almost 2 miles, and is reinforced to withstand heavy bombers, such as the B-1 and B-52, which can carry huge payloads, including the so-called “bunker buster” bombs.
> >This enabled the bombers to take off from Fairford instead of the US, cutting out thousands of miles.

Looking at one of the first emails of Jewish Greens response to the motion:

>Firstly, a few members suggested that definitions of Zionism are too porous for it to be properly understood as racism. Zionism is often seen in our community as the belief in the continued existence of the state of Israel or the theoretical belief in Jewish national self-determination rather than a racial ideology. Some members argued that racism was not intrinsic to Zionism, but an amendment to it. This would include supporters of both a two state solution, and a single democratic state, and also firm opponents of the state of Israel as it currently exists. For some, Zionism represents the belief that Jews should have a place of safety in the event of violent repression analogous to the Holocaust, and they don’t believe that this is in itself a racist belief, even if the realisation of this vision in the state of Israel was racist. Members suggested that describing all of these people as racist was both inaccurate and needlessly divisive. > >A number of members picked up on an inconsistent use of concepts within the motion. Zionism is variously described as racism, settler colonialism, promoting ethno-nationalism and as the endeavour that founded Israel. It’s worth noting that each of these definitions of Zionism are slightly different and contradictory, and some people feel that this represents extremely sloppy policymaking. > >Some members were partisan to the idea that Zionism is a form of nationalism. They acknowledge that racism has intertwined itself with Zionism since its founding but believe that these are distinct phenomena. This is directly analogous to the relationship between racism and British nationalism or Hindutva. > >Others see Zionism as closer to settler colonialism. They don’t necessarily fully reject the idea that Zionism is racism, but are concerned about the singling out of Zionism as racism when it is not structurally different to other forms of settler colonialism or post-imperial border violence. This implies an Israeli sonderweg (special path) where Israel has departed from the norms of settler colonial nationalism and in some way is racist in a way that the US, Canada or Australia aren’t. The structural similarities between ethnic cleansing in Israel and other settler colonial states, and the enthusiastic alliances between for example Israel and the US suggests that this isn’t the case. > >Instead of viewing Israel as an exception from the international norm, it should be viewed as a particularly violent representation of it. If international policy were to reflect this, it should extend the analysis of racism as essential to much modern statecraft beyond Israel to other similar states. > >While most of our members disagreed that Zionism is racism, they also acknowledged the role that racism has played in Israel, including in the current situation in Gaza.

What we see here is apologia for Zionism and deliberate obfuscation, with the usual hand wringing over "singling out" of Israel and Zionism, whilst trying to claim that e.g. ethno-nationalism and settler colonialiasm must somehow be contradictory or inconsistent (they are not).

Edit: forgot the link:

https://greens4palestine.uk/press/publishing-full-consultation-timeline-zionism-is-racism-motion

>However, his letter is revealing in ways he does not intend. It reveals that arms spending is actually set to rise by £13 billion annually, a point which will surely be overlooked in the media hullabaloo over his departure, which makes it seem as if the military budget was actually being cut. > >It isn’t. And Healey’s letter shows where the increases are being spent – on leading a force in the Straits of Hormuz to try to get President Trump out of the mess he has created with his British-enabled aggression against Iran.

Manufacturing a crisis to enforce even more austerity for bombs, because clearly weapons manufacturers aren't getting enough with all the current death and destruction already happening.

>More than 100 documents from the Epstein Files released by the US Department of Justice, seen by Byline Times, reveal that Peter Thiel personally solicited and maintained a business partnership with Jeffrey Epstein that stretched from 2014 through 2019 – all the way up to Epstein’s final arrest. > >During this period, internal documents and communications confirm that Epstein was a significant limited partner investor in a fund managed by Thiel’s Valar Ventures firm, receiving “confidential” and “time-sensitive” investment opportunities, facilitating meetings between Thiel and Russian intelligence operatives, and building what former MI6 Russia desk head Christopher Steele assessed as a fortune originating from Russian organised crime. > >[...] > >In 2018, Thiel’s firm Palantir hired Mandelson’s lobbying company, Global Counsel, to facilitate its penetration of UK Government contracts. At the same time, Epstein remained an active Valar partner receiving confidential investment opportunities from Thiel’s fund and responding to opportunities suggested by the Valar principals. > >If Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein disqualifies him from holding power, why does the company controlled by Epstein’s business partner retain access to the UK’s most sensitive national security infrastructure? > >[...] > >The previous year, however, Palantir Technologies – Thiel’s data surveillance company – hired Mandelson’s lobbying firm, Global Counsel. The explicit purpose was to position Palantir as a respectable partner to the British government. > >At this point, both Thiel and Mandelson were intimately connected to Epstein, raising the question of how much Palantir’s leadership and indeed Thiel himself knew about the nature and extent of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein when they engaged Global Counsel. > >The documented record shows that Global Counsel’s engagement with Palantir was not passive advisory work but active, high-level facilitation. In April 2018, Global Counsel brought former Health Minister Nicola Blackwood on board, where her work included providing Palantir with “political risk analysis.” > >Matthew Swindells, who served as Deputy Chief Executive of NHS England until July 2019, joined Global Counsel just two months later in September 2019 – at which point he immediately began advising Palantir on NHS contracts. > >Swindells would go on to chair Palantir’s health advisory board whilst simultaneously serving as joint chair of four prominent NHS hospital trusts, including Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, the first to pilot Palantir technology. (The trust said Swindells was excluded from Palantir-related decisions, though how such exclusion was enforced remains unclear.)