The People's Movement, 25 Shanowen Crescent, Dublin (2026)

19/06/2026

The case against the West Just who enabled Gaza’s destruction?

From The Journal:

Fintan Drury’s new book, Genocide: Sponsoring the Destruction of Gaza, is out today. In it, he argues that the scale of Israel’s destruction of Gaza would not have been possible without Western support.

In a follow-up to his bestselling book, ‘Catastrophe Nakba II’, writer Fintan Drury has released ‘Genocide: the Destruction of Palestine’’.

In it, he focuses on how the United States and the UK stand accused of directly influencing the scale of the terror Israel has wreaked on Palestine and its people. Drury is unequivocal that it’s their direct sponsorship and that of some others which made Israel’s ongoing genocide possible…

THE MOTIVATION WASN’T to ease or even erase past trauma. This concerned how those involved in brokering and supporting the process could help ensure its sustainability and benefit from their efforts. There was to be no hiding what this was about, no subtlety. ‘So I hope everybody’s now joining up. Now we have no excuses. We don’t have a Gaza, and we don’t have Iran as an excuse. That was a good excuse.’

It wasn’t a mistake, a clumsy off-script remark. This stunning comment was written down. ‘We don’t have a Gaza’ meant that this ravaged place, home to two million Palestinians, would no longer be an obstacle to whatever scheme Trump and his allies would decide upon.

His intentions were laid bare; the moment when any small hope that humanity was a fragment of his motivation evaporated. In history, there have been opaque peace agreements drafted to hide the real intentions. This one did not have that failing; there was no attempt to conceal that commerce was the plan’s primary driver.

President Trump wanted to assure the nations whose support he needed that, as the plan’s originator, he could guarantee it would yield them a meaningful return. He said the participation of the four signatories to the agreement was on that basis, and that others could become involved if they chose to do so. Unsaid, it was safe to assume Israel would be a big part of the plan.

Trump’s ignorance or indifference to facts has rarely been so manifest. That the land belonged to Palestine didn’t matter to him, so neither should it to all those others who were getting involved. When he did, for the one and only time, refer to the Palestinians, it was to reassure them that peace would bring them a return to some form of normality.

That did not mean the exploitation of their land would be for their direct benefit: ‘for the people of Gaza, the focus now must be on restoring the basics of a good life’. The idea of returning to how things were betrayed the US’s disinterest in the plight of Palestinians.

‘We don’t have a Gaza’ meant that the irritation it represented would no longer prevent real progress. The plan was to create a commercial bonanza for the US, its Gulf partners and, of course, Israel. The consolation for Gazans was a return to the basics of life.
October 2023, and beyond

In Catastrophe: Nakba II, I looked at what life was like for Palestinians on 6 October 2023, the day before the Hamas attack. Returning to life before the genocide would mean living in a place – your homeland – where the coloniser limited the supply of food and other critical supplies so that 80 per cent of you relied on humanitarian aid.

It meant living where only four per cent of the groundwater was fit for human consumption. It would mean living in what is often described as the world’s largest concentration camp, knowing that less than five per cent of you have permission to move in and out.

In the West Bank, Israel’s methods were more subtle, but, from 2022, increasing numbers were being killed, and land was being settled (stolen) at a markedly increased rate.

The Trump administration’s casualness about life for the Palestinians post any ‘peace’ should have registered alarm across the world. It did not. In July 2025, Israel’s minister of defence, Israel Katz, had spoken about the creation of a ‘humanitarian city’ in Rafah in southern Gaza.

Briefing Israeli reporters, he said the IDF would secure the area from a distance and that 600,000 Palestinians would be accommodated in the camp, with a plan to increase this to two million over time. Palestinians would be free to emigrate voluntarily, provided they accepted that they could not return.

That plan never evolved, but that it was spoken of publicly showed that Israel will do whatever is necessary to expand its territory. This expansion requires either continued attrition and annexation-creep characterised by the last 58 years or finding the means to force Palestinians to leave in great numbers. Israeli public opinion was no less committed to completing what had been started in Gaza.

Around the same time that Defence Minister Katz was briefing the media, the Israeli daily newspaper, Haaretz, published an opinion poll that showed 82 per cent of the Jewish population would support the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza.

This was the highest figure yet, although all opinion polls over the course of the genocide consistently showed that a majority of Israelis wanted a complete expulsion.

Big ideas, no diplomacy

Donald Trump’s words in Sharm el-Sheikh revealed everything about his ambition. ‘We’re gonna have a lot of money coming into Gaza and a lot of rebuilding and building. It’s not so much rebuilding. It’s really building, cleaning up and building. And I’m pleased to announce that numerous countries of great wealth and power and dignity have come forward to me just today and over the last week to say they want to help in the reconstruction of Gaza, putting up whatever money is necessary.

‘And the money is, of course, it’s a lot of money, but it’s not much compared to the value or the wealth of these tremendous countries.’

For the Gazans, it was about ‘the basics’; for America’s partners, it would be about much more. Trump believed the Palestinians should be grateful that, after two years of genocide, the US, other Western countries and some Arab states were committing to rebuilding Gaza. What was on offer to the inhabitants was a consolation prize of ‘the basics of a good life’, and the Palestinians knew Israel didn’t think them worthy even of that.

There was no mention of their colonised land being returned to them. There was no mention of self-determination. There was no mention of human rights or of the need for those who had slaughtered their family and friends to be held accountable. There was no reference to how Israel and its genocide-sponsors would undertake to make Gaza safe and commit the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to rebuild an entire societal infrastructure that had been obliterated. There was no mention of how the tremendous economic value Trump talked of unlocking would be released for those whose land it was. The word ‘reparation’ appeared nowhere in Trump’s speech – but how could any of these imperatives have been referred to when they are not referenced anywhere in the ceasefire plan?

The Trump plan was Israel’s plan, the only one it would countenance. Israel did not want peace. Its government wanted to continue its genocide. Indeed, the hard-right-wing elements in the coalition government wanted to accelerate the killing of Palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza; as Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich said, the job must be finished.

Ben Gvir said, ‘I call on the Prime Minister, it is time to come to sense [sic], to return to intense fighting, to conquer, to crush, to win.’ Despite threatened resignations by these hardline ministers, the Trump plan had progressed at pace in response to activities involving France and Saudi Arabia at the UN.

Fintan Drury is a former RTÉ journalist, broadcaster and businessman. His new book, ‘Genocide: Sponsoring the Destruction of Gaza’ (Merrion Press) is published today, 18 June and is available from all bookshops.

19/06/2026

The official 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran:

1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

2 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.

4 — Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

6 — The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

8 — The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

9 — Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

10 — The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

11 — The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

12 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.

13 — After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

14 — The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

19/06/2026

People's forum will allow real discussion on neutrality

The UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, will be among eminent speakers on Saturday at the People’s Forum on Peace and Neutrality which will examine government plans to enact legislation that would remove the triple lock before the summer recess

Former President Michael D. Higgins will give the closing address on Saturday at The People’s Forum on Peace and Neutrality in Dublin’s Tailors’ Hall.

As major powers actively seek to undermine international law and multilateral diplomacy, and Europe rapidly re-arms in preparation for war, the Irish government is mounting a major push to fundamentally change Ireland's foreign and defence posture.

Today and Saturday, June 20, a group of international experts will gather in Dublin’s Tailors’ Hall for The People’s Forum on Peace and Neutrality — aimed at highlighting public alarm around these plans.

The event brings together leading academic researchers, legal experts, and former diplomats and politicians to discuss neutrality and international law, Ireland’s diplomatic tradition, and the international arms trade.

Former President Michael D. Higgins will give the closing address on Saturday, with former South African MP and investigator Andrew Feinstein and former MEP and TD Clare Daly, providing Friday’s keynote talks.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, will join Laëtitia Sédou of the European Network Against the Arms Trade, and Philip McDonagh, former Irish ambassador to Finland, India, and Russia, amongst other eminent speakers on Saturday.

Sounding the alarm

The immediate context of the People’s Forum is the government’s plans to enact legislation that would remove the triple lock before the summer recess.

For the first time in the history of the state, the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025 would allow the government of the day to send Irish troops on military operations without a UN mandate led by, or in partnership with the EU, OSCE, or NATO, outside the structures of international law.

Despite opinion polls consistently showing that a large majority of people want Ireland to remain neutral, and 13 County Councils across the island having passed motions in favour of keeping the triple lock, the current government is determined to push ahead with a radical repositioning of the state in world affairs without adequate public debate, let alone the democratic participation of the people.

Redressing the imbalance

The information provided by the government to explain and justify these developments is at best partial and lacking a proper evidence base, and at worst, inaccurate and actively misleading. Perhaps most alarming, the government is not making the stakes of the changes they are preparing clear to the public.

The People’s Forum is designed to redress the limitations of this official discourse by providing the public with clear and accurate information and evidence-based analysis from leading Irish and international experts.

The People’s Forum was partly conceived in response to the Government’s 2023 Consultative Forum, which was stacked with speakers in favour of diluting Irish neutrality, and developing closer military partnerships with the EU and NATO powers, while voices supporting Ireland’s tradition of neutrality were almost wholly excluded.

18/06/2026

Two small island economies blew up in 2008. Iceland and Ireland. Their names differ by one letter, and their handling of the crisis differed starkly – starting with the most basic fact of all. Ireland was in the eurozone, tethered to the European Central Bank and the disciplinary machinery of Brussels. Iceland was not. And now, with that memory already fading, powerful forces in Reykjavík are working to sleepwalk the country straight into the EU, precisely where Ireland sat when the trapdoor opened.

Iceland's three big banks – Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and Glitnir – had grown assets to roughly ten times the country's GDP by 2008. Pure credit-fuelled madness. When the crisis hit, the Icelandic government did the unthinkable: it let them fail. Bondholders ate the losses. The state refused to socialise private bank debt onto 320,000 citizens who never signed up for it. Capital controls went up, the króna collapsed, and the politicians actually prosecuted bankers. Twenty-six of them went to prison. Sigurður Einarsson and Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson, the men who ran Kaupthing, served real sentences. Outside the EU, with no lender of last resort to answer to and no supranational treaty forbidding capital restrictions, Iceland had the legal and political room to do what made sense.

Ireland took the opposite road. In September 2008, the Irish government issued a blanket guarantee covering the liabilities of its major banks, including Anglo Irish Bank, a property-lending casino that should have been allowed to die in peace. But Ireland was inside the EU's monetary tent; and, the ECB in a panic over systemic contagion, leaned heavily on Dublin to avoid any disorderly failure that might shatter the common currency zone. The taxpayer absorbed the bill. By the time the rescue ended, Ireland had poured around €64 billion into its banks, roughly 40 percent of GDP. The state took on private gambling debts, then went to the Troika in 2010 hat in hand for an €85 billion bailout, and accepted years of austerity to pay for losses it had no business owning – all while bound by EU rules that demanded fiscal retrenchment in exchange for survival.

Both economies recovered. Both eventually grew again. The difference is who paid and who learned. Iceland made creditors and reckless bankers bear the consequences of their own decisions, which is supposed to be the entire point of capitalism: profit and loss, not profit and bailout. Ireland protected the people who made the bad bets and handed the invoice to schoolteachers and shopkeepers – a choice shaped by the fact that Dublin could not simply close its borders or let its currency float free without risking a rupture with Frankfurt.

Iceland jailed its bankers. Ireland reimbursed theirs. And yet, today, a concerted lobby in Iceland – business elites, euro-enthusiast politicians, and Brussels-aligned think-tanks – are whispering that membership in the EU is the only "responsible" path forward. They present it as a benign upgrade: stability, integration, influence. But read the fine print: membership means adopting the acquis, joining the banking union, and surrendering the very monetary sovereignty that allowed Iceland to tear up the creditors' cheques in 2008. The forces pushing for accession are, knowingly or not, campaigning to forfeit Iceland's single most potent crisis weapon – the freedom to let banks burn without burning the nation with them. If they succeed, the next crash will not end with prison sentences in Reykjavík. It will end with a Brussels-mandated bailout, a Troika sequel, and a bill that, this time, no one will be allowed to refuse.

17/06/2026

The report doesn't even acknowledge how many were killed:

Fox News reports:

"President Trump says the strike on an Iranian school that reportedly killed over 100 children at the beginning of Operation Epic Fury wasn’t done on purpose and is being investigated by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth"

“It's such a strange question to be asked at this state because you're talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose… Mistakes are made. War is nasty. But I know it's under investigation.”

17/06/2026

These people seem obsessed with "humiliating" Putin with NATO-backed strikes into Russia. The jibe is that he is weakening Russia's deterrence by not retaliating against European NATO members. Will these people chant "unprovoked" again?

17/06/2026

The Israeli Supreme Court rejected Dr Hussam Abu Sefia's appeal and ordered the continuation of his unlawful detention, knowing full well that he is being held in abhorrent conditions, without cause or indictment and being subjected to torture on a regular basis.

Hostage taking, torture, rejection of the most basic human rights; with this kind of democracy, who needs fascism?

17/06/2026

The Ditch reports:

Palantir founder Peter Thiel will host a gathering this August at the Powerscourt Hotel in Wicklow – with 87 of the 222 guests listed as first-time attendees.

Leaked records for the meeting of the most powerful people in world politics and defence name NATO Europe commander Alexus Grynkewich, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and Republican senator Ted Cruz as attendees.

Billionaire Peter Thiel co-founded Dialog in 2006.

It convenes US officials, government figures and Silicon Valley executives at off-the-record annual retreats and has spent two decades refusing to disclose its members.

Its 2026 gathering runs from 12-16 August at the Powerscourt Hotel in Enniskerry.

Bring Back Nuclear, Navigating WWIII and Battlefield Technologies are among the titles of planned sessions at the Irish event, according to an investigation by Swiss hacktivist maia arson crimew.

Other talks include Build-a-Cult moderated by the founder of the Christian networking site Pray.com, and Build-a-Party run by a former White House national security official.

Palantir is complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, according to the BDS movement.

The Powerscourt Hotel has been contacted for comment.

16/06/2026

While Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke insists that the start of Ireland's EU presidency on 1 July is not a deadline for concluding the investigation into Aughinish Alumina, the very controversy surrounding the plant underscores a far deeper reality: the facility has become a glaring symbol of the heavy price Ireland is forced to pay for rigidly aligning with EU sanctions policy against Russia—a policy that increasingly serves Brussels' geopolitical agenda rather than Ireland's own economic and strategic interests.

The refinery on the Shannon Estuary, which directly and indirectly supports nearly 1,000 Irish jobs, now finds itself at the centre of allegations that its alumina shipments are ending up in Russian weapons systems used against Ukraine. Following media reports, Taoiseach Micheál Martin ordered reviews by the Departments of Enterprise and Foreign Affairs, with Minister Helen McEntee stating yesterday that the probe would conclude within weeks. However, Burke swiftly rejected that timeline in Strasbourg, arguing that the situation is "very complex" and that the investigation must be allowed time to ascertain the true destination of the plant's product.

Yet Burke's insistence that "Ireland does not go it alone" on sanctions enforcement—that it acts "collectively within the European Union"—only confirms the uncomfortable truth: Dublin is subordinate to a collective EU foreign policy that forces Ireland to jeopardise a major domestic employer for the sake of "EU solidarity" By explicitly decoupling the investigation from the 1 July presidency handover, Burke is inadvertently admitting that the timeline is driven not by Irish priorities, but by the cumbersome machinery of EU bureaucracy. His claim that the controversy will "absolutely not" overshadow the presidency rings hollow when the very existence of that presidency obliges Ireland to perform loyalty to Brussels, even as a vital domestic industry faces existential threat over allegations that remain unproven.

In essence, the Aughinish affair is not about due process or evidence-gathering—it is a test case of how far Ireland must bend to EU diktat, sacrificing its own industrial base and regional employment on the altar of a sanctions regime whose costs fall disproportionately on member states like Ireland, while yielding questionable strategic gain. The investigation may drag on, but the real verdict is already clear: Ireland is paying a steep price for a policy that does not serve its own people.

16/06/2026

The European Union has been sitting on a legally unassailable right to freeze its entire trade and cooperation relationship with Israel since 2017 and refused to exercise it.

A confidential memo from the European Commission's own top legal mind, obtained by EUobserver, reveals that Brussels knew with absolute legal certainty — that it could suspend cooperation with Israel over its flagrant violations of international law in the West Bank.

Science grants through Horizon Europe were spendable as were student exchanges through Erasmus. The entire EU-Israel Association Agreement governing duty-free trade worth billions? Freezable. And the EU did precisely nothing.

The seven-page document, dated 5 October 2017 and marked "strictly confidential," was signed by Luis Romero Requena, then director general of the Commission's legal service. It laid out in cold, clinical legal prose what should have been the death knell for business-as-usual with a state that has spent decades trampling Palestinian rights under the jackboot of occupation.

The EU knew about Israeli abuses. The EU knew they were worsening. The EU knew that "dialogue" with Israel was a farcical exercise in diplomatic self abuse. The EU knew Palestinians had zero legal recourse. And the EU did nothing.

The memo explicitly cited UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), which demanded that UN members take measures to prevent acts of destruction in the West Bank. A total or partial suspension of the EU-Israel trade agreement, Romero Requena wrote, "would comply with customary international law."

So the EU's own institutional memory confirms that trade sanctions would have been lawful — indeed, consistent with the highest norms of international legality — eight years ago.

And what has happened since? Israel's violations have not merely continued — they have spiralled off the charts.

In Gaza, the International Court of Justice declared in 2024 that Israel stands at serious risk of committing genocide — triggering a binding "duty to prevent" under the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which all 27 EU member states are signatories. A UN Commission of Inquiry went further in 2025, declaring that Israeli forces "have committed and are continuing to commit genocide."

So the European Union's response to the genocide although it had this 2017 legal opinion authorising economic consequences — has rarely gone further than statements of "concern" or calls for "restraint"? Condemnations that change precisely nothing?

Since 2015, Israeli forces have destroyed or seized more than 1,000 structures funded by the EU and its member states in the West Bank. That's over a thousand schools, clinics, water systems, and livelihood projects — millions of euros of European taxpayer money — bulldozed into rubble by the very state with which the EU maintains a privileged trade relationship.

The EU has financially nurtured the infrastructure of Palestinian existence, only to watch Israel systematically demolish it — and has continued writing cheques as if the past decade never happened.

The International Court of Justice in 2024 further declared Israel's presence in the occupied territories illegal under international law, triggering yet more obligations on the EU to help end this manifest illegality.

"What in 2017 was already a legitimate option, today is a legal obligation," said Claudio Francavilla of Human Rights Watch. He is correct. The EU is not merely entitled to suspend the Association Agreement — it is compelled to do so by its own treaty obligations, its commitments to international law, and the sheer moral weight of a genocide unfolding on Europe's doorstep.

Every day that the EU continues trading duty-free with Israel, every day it permits Israeli participation in Horizon Europe and Erasmus, every day it maintains normalised relations while Israel commits atrocities with impunity — is a day of complicity.

The legal path was cleared in 2017. The moral imperative has only grown more urgent with each passing year. The evidence of Israeli violations is overwhelming. The ICJ has spoken. The UN Commission has spoken. The EU's own lawyers have spoken.

The only silence that remains is the deafening silence of European inaction.

The Romero Requena memo is not merely a historical curiosity — it is an indictment. An indictment of the European Commission's institutional cowardice. An indictment of member states that have shielded Israel from accountability. An indictment of a political class that has chosen trade over human rights, commerce over conscience, and short-term economic interest over the very foundations of the rules-based international order it claims to defend.

When the history of this dark chapter is written, the men and women who held the 2017 memo in their hands and did nothing will stand exposed. They knew. They always knew. And they chose to look away.

The EU must suspend the Association Agreement. Not tomorrow. Not after "further dialogue." Now.

The People's Movement

19/06/2026

19/06/2026

19/06/2026

18/06/2026

17/06/2026

17/06/2026

17/06/2026

17/06/2026

16/06/2026

16/06/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organisation

Shortcuts

Share

Category