Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Global Awakening > Awakening The World - Every Heart Makes A Difference

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2012, 11:40 AM   #201
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default that speech

Clinton recaps years as secretary of state
Yitzhak Benhorin December2,2012

WASHINGTON – Ahead of retirement from her position as US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was given an informal farewell party Friday by Israeli American businessman Haim Saban; during which Clinton discussed her diplomatic experiences and specifically her ties with Israel.
Clinton recalled how late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace proposal at Camp David, and how Arafat called her husband, Bill Clinton, years later, after the latter was no longer in office, and asked to accept the deal.
"And Bill says, 'well, that's terrific, why don’t you call the white house and tell them that,'" she recounted.
She added that she believed a Palestinian state would have already been established had Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin not been murdered. "I think the Israeli people would have trusted him to make the hard decisions that were needed," she said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...314125,00.html

Reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2012, 12:09 PM   #202
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default calling the bluff

Calling the bluff of a man either mad, or mad with rage who will not accept the law of the world but relies on US aid and support, is not difficult. Cut off the aid as was recently requested by Evangelical leaders horrified by Netanyahu’s policies which they were funding, or send in peacekeeping troops. But do something now.


Netanyahu: 'We will continue to build Israeli settlements' in occupied territory
By Michael Schwartz and Chelsea J. Carter, CNN
December 2, 2012 -- Updated 1221 GMT (2021 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says settlements are of strategic interest
Netanyahu has rejected the U.N. recognition of the Palestinian Authority
Israeli settlements are widely considered illegal under international law
World leaders warn building new settlements will set back peace talks
Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused Sunday to reconsider a plan to build thousands of new homes in occupied territory, saying it was a necessary response to the Palestinian Authority winning recognition by the United Nations as a "non-member state."
The United States and a number of European nations called on Israel to roll back the settlement plan in the West Bank and East Jerusalem announced Friday, a day after the U.N. General Assembly overwhelming approved the Palestinian bid. Israeli settlements are widely considered illegal under international law, and world leaders warned building new settlements will set back efforts to bring about a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Given the latest move by the United Nations to upgrade the recognition of the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu said Israel will continue building in occupied territories that are of strategic interest.
"The answer to the attack on the Zionist character of the State of Israel obliges us to increase the tempo of settlement building plans in all the areas that the government has decided to settle in," Netanyahu said in remarks before the start of his weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.
"These are not my words. These are the words of the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and that was the language of the government decision in 1975 after the U.N. decision that equated Zionism with racism."
The prime minister called the Palestinian Authority's bid for recognition as a non-member state "a gross violation" of an agreement signed with the Israeli government.
"Therefore, the Israeli government rejects the decision taken by the General Assembly," he said.
Netanyahu's response was not unexpected given Israel's opposition to the Palestinian Authority's bid to upgrade its status before the eyes of the General Assembly.
As a non-member observer state, the Palestinian Authority has been granted the same status as that of the Vatican. Among the entitlements is the ability to have cases heard before the International Criminal Court, a concern for Israel as Palestinians have repeatedly tried to have their claims heard before the judicial body at the Hague.
France and Britain joined the United States on Saturday in calling on Israel to roll back the construction plans, saying it would virtually destroy any attempt to resume peace talks to create a "two-state solution."
Netanyahu has not publicly acknowledged the approval of the new construction. But a senior government official said Saturday that the prime minister signed off on building "3,000 housing units" in the East Jerusalem as well as authorizing planning and zoning for future construction in the West Bank town of Ma'ale Adumim.
The Obama administration has repeatedly warned Israel against settling East Jerusalem and the West Bank, particularly the Ma'ale Adumim area, because it would make it nearly impossible to create a contiguous Palestinian State.
Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula during the 1967 war. The Sinai has since been returned to Egypt. Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, a move not recognized by the international community and condemned by Syria, which still claims the land.
The more militant Palestinian group Hamas now controls Gaza, while the moderate group Fatah -- headed by President Mahmoud Abbas -- administers the West Bank, site of a growing number of Israeli settlements.
Ultimately, the Palestinians are aiming to unite Gaza and the West Bank under the authority of a new state with the capital of East Jerusalem.
The United States was opposed to Palestinian efforts to gain recognition by the United Nations as a "non-member state," warning that such a move might cause Israel to react.
Palestinian officials have refused to enter into new talks with Israel until it stops building settlements on West Bank land. Netanyahu, meanwhile, has said there can be no preconditions on talks.
The Palestinian bid to the United Nations and news of Israeli settlement construction came just days after a cease-fire took hold between Israel and Hamas that brought about an end to a series of Israeli military airstrikes against Gaza launched in an effort to stop Hamas rocket attacks.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/02/wo...l-settlements/

"No preconditions" he says but those are his preconditions. This man is making a laughing stock of the US and the UN, but I suspect they will laugh last. He has forgotten where his state came from. He faces an election and is talking tough, having killed over a hundred civilians to make his point that he will defend israel's security to his dying breath. But he has no idea what harm he is doing to it, and to his well meaning Jewish supporters in this world, and to the very idea of Zionism. It is curious diplomacy to take on President Obama in his second term after receiving his total support, and after rabidly supporting Romney and canvassing support for him. But Netanyahu is so sure of himself and his ability to brand anti-Semitic all his opponents that he dares to leap where angels fear to tread. That is into an abyss of his own making when he had everything that he and Israel could possibly want. Watch the 1948 borders start to creep into the dialogue as a result, when the 1967 borders had seemed unattainable.



reve x

Last edited by reve; 02-12-2012 at 12:09 PM.
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2012, 02:37 PM   #203
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Fracking

is extraction of gas from shale by pumping in chemically treated water. There are protests in New York based on health concerns and concerns about ground water near Fracking, nevertheless there are 60,000 Fracking wells operating in the US. The health concerns are an inconvenience to a big business and look likely to be swept aside as unnecessary delays.

In Britain 18 months ago fracking caused earthquakes in Lancashire and it was stopped. There are various annoyances quoted in realtion to fracking but causing an earthquake was a big one. Now 18 months later the company is getting fed up. They are saying if they do not get government support they will walk away. that support of course included government subsidies.

The company is described as a 'British incorporated company'. But nothing is as simple as that these days, particularly in Britain. It is owned by Riverstone and Lucas, who have appointed half ther directors each. Riverstone and Lucas are big Australian and US companies. One would think that after causing an earthquake and with genuine health concerns needing to be evaluated that they would be a bit more patient with us. But as Cuadrilla says:

"Francis Egan, chief executive of Cuadrilla Resources, said the company would have “little alternative” than to quit the United Kingdom if it is not allowed to resume its work shortly.

It is expected an announcement on whether to allow the resumption of the process will be made by Energy Secretary Ed Davey by the end of next week, after an 18-month delay following two earth tremors in Lancashire.

Cuadrilla has been carrying out hydraulic fracturing, a process which sees gallons of water and a chemical fired into shale rock under the countryside to release trapped gas, for the past two years.

He told The Sunday Telegraph: “If we get a negative decision this week, we would have little alternative than to walk away.

“We have proven that there is gas and that it will flow, in the three years we have been doing tests, they have drilled 60,000 wells in the US.

“We don’t have infinite patience and our investors don’t have infinite patience.”

The Chancellor George Osborne, who told the Conservative Party’s autumn conference he would create tax breaks to boost shale gas, is expected to announce the creation of a new Office for Shale Gas in his Autumn Statement on Wednesday.

At the weekend, anti-fracking campaigners staged protests up and down the country including at Cuadrilla’s site at Anna’s Road, near Lytham on Sunday.

National campaign group, Frack Off, accused the Government of “plotting to short circuit local planning procedures” including directly giving the green light to applications to ensure “local communities have no chance to object.”
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/environmen...king-1-5188805

All part of the problems we have keeping the poor planet going in the face of people who are merely interested in profit and bullying governments from their multinational status. Will the Government take them to task for their lack of patience? In the US they would be fined billions for causing an earthquake but our Government would rather get the money from the poorest citizens. They have signified their intent to allow building in our few green belts around cities. Why? They probably went to school with the developers. That is the kind of government we have elected. Many of them have vast estates in the countryside and green belts are not important to them. But heaven forbid someone should build a wind farm in sight of their castles. Wind farms they say cause health problems. In fact they cause energy and oil companies health problems in their long term aim to exploit the public need for fuel, but that is the same thing.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 07:55 AM   #204
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default about time

Readers here may think I am crazy but what I know has been known by our leaders and intelligence agencies for many years - they just never did anything about it until eventually the small boy pointed out the emperor is naked. Now things are moving very fast, not because of the settlement building which is the excuse, but because the West has had enough. The truth is coming out and they no longer wish to be seen to be supporting mass muder. This from Channel 4 today and refers to a Haaretz article from yesterday. Note Ban Ki-Moon does not get angry, the Heads of the UN never do. Well he is enraged. Removing ambassadors is the most exrtreme action possible in diplomacy just falling short of declaring war:

" Has Israel finally overstepped the mark? Within 24 hours of the UN vote granting Palestinian “non-member statehood”, the Israeli government announced the building of 3,000 more Jewish settlement homes on Palestinian land in Arab East Jerusalem.

Israel may just have gone one step too far. The move has triggered an international firestorm of criticism. From London to Washington, from Berlin to Paris, even including UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, there has been some of the firmest criticism of the Israeli government seen in recent years. Ban Ki Moon warns that the 3,000 home settlement would destroy any prospect of a two-state peace negotiation.

This is getting serious. Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, reports that Britain and France are considering withdrawing their ambassadors from Israel. Such a move would be without precedent.

The Israelis have gone further. On the heels of the UN vote, the Israelis have frozen the transfer of taxes they collect on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

In its six-decade existence Israel has rarely looked so isolated. That UN vote mustered the full panoply of frustration with the Israeli Government. That isolation is distilled in an article in the very same Haaretz newspaper.

The UN General Assembly voted 138 to nine, with 41 abstentions and five no-shows. The no votes were Israel itself, the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Panama. Three of these — the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau are former US colonies which are now “freely associated” with the US. These entities enjoy US zip codes and much else that gives them the status of all but American states.

As my last Snowblog suggested, Britain has been stumbling towards being critical of Israel. Foreign Secretary William Hague’s condemnation of the 3,000-strong settlement plan was more than strong by his standards.

But it’s hard to imagine that Britain would go so far as to withdraw her ambassador. If it happens hold the front page. It would represent the UK’s most decisive opposition towards the settlement campaign that has seen half a million settlers move into the occupied territories in the past decade.

Follow Jon on Twitter via @JonSnowC4
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/b...r-israel/19293

Hillary also delivered a stinging rebuke at what was to be a friendly affair. Things are on the move and the move is back to 1948 and what was intrended and given, not what has been taken resulting in millions in camps which is what the UN were trying to prevent at that time.

Not perhaps the news they want on the even of their election. Israelis will be horrified as they discover what has been done in their name supposedly for peace and their security.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 09:09 AM   #205
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default regrets

As the ambassador crisis hits the TV screens and the tabloids today, even if they do not withdraw them in the end, there is disgust in Canada at their government voting against the Resolution. This is unheard of and here is an article ion the Toronto Star today:

" “This resolution will not advance the cause of peace or spur a return to negotiations. On the contrary, this unilateral step will harden positions and raise unrealistic expectations while doing nothing to improve the lives of the Palestinian people.”

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird delivered this message in a strident speech from the podium of the UN General Assembly before the historic Thursday vote that affirmed Palestine statehood. But in the end his words failed to resonate with the rest of world, quite literally, as Canada found itself stranded in opposition to the resolution with a hodgepodge of Pacific island nations and Israel’s stalwart ally the United States (and, for whatever reason, the Czech Republic). The final vote was 138 countries in favour, 41 abstentions and 9 against, the latter representing only 5 per cent of the world’s population.

It wasn’t always this way. Canada traditionally played a much more even-handed role in the conflict, realizing the need to support both Israel’s security and Palestinian aspirations for statehood. But over the last decade Canadian policy on the Middle East conflict has become increasingly one-sided in its affinity for Israel. At the UN, Baird asserted that the resolution did not serve the interests of peace. Yet rather than promoting peace, the lonely Canadian UN vote only empowered extremists on both sides and could contribute to increased violence.

The push for recognition at the world body was the culmination of an effort that was launched roughly two years ago by the Palestinians, led by President Mahmoud Abbas. In his speech in New York, Abbas reiterated that this initiative was intended not to “delegitimize” Israel but instead to “affirm the legitimacy” of Palestine. The campaign is one of only a few non-violent forms of activism left in the Palestinian arsenal to achieve a two-state solution.

After more than 64 years of dispossession and 45 years of occupation, Abbas and the Palestinian leadership viewed the UN vote as a light at the end of a very dark tunnel. That message resonated not just with countries that Prime Minister Stephen Harper could dismiss but also with democratic nations such as Norway, Spain, France, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Italy — not really a motley crew of rogue states.

It would be easy to ignore the significance of the Canadian vote. After all, it’s hardly news that under Harper Canadian policy has lacked balance. But today the Holy Land finds itself at a seminal inflection point, where there is a greater tolerance for intransigence on both sides. Coming out of the crisis in Gaza, where residents suffered massive casualties and destruction, Abbas was viewed as a weak, irrelevant figure. His invisibility, combined with changes in the wider region, has meant that the profile of Hamas has been raised. During the recent conflict, leading political officials from the Arab world met with senior Hamas figures in Gaza for the first time in five years.

Beyond this, among the Palestinian community, commitment to a two-state solution has been waning. It is no longer viewed as tenable given the growing encroachment of settlements in the West Bank. Leading activists have started to reintroduce the democratic solution that promotes one state in which there is universal suffrage, as in the South Africa model. For them, Abbas’s UN initiative was dead on arrival, regardless of whether it received support.

Against this backdrop, the Canadian government’s message is that this last-gasp support for a two-state solution and a peaceful Palestinian movement toward that end is “utterly regrettable.” Not only that, the government has also intimated it will review its aid to the Palestinian Authority.

There should be no illusions about what this means. Palestinians — after many decades of waiting — are looking for realistic traction toward self-determination. If the peaceful avenues leading to that end are closed, it will leave only the extremist approach. Hamas will point out that Gaza doesn’t have any Israeli settlements, that their kidnapping of Israeli Gilad Shalit led to the release of Palestinian prisoners, and that Arab states are recognizing their leadership. And then they will ask: What has President Abbas done for you lately?

Beyond the question of whether Canada is on the wrong side of history, which hardly seems debatable, it now appears to be empowering violence and extremism. How can you support Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution and inexplicably oppose that very reality, claiming it is not conducive to peace? That cognitive dissonance should stimulate a deep examination of Canadian policy — there is a lot more at stake here than just a UN vote"
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...ers-extremists

The world is changing and uniting, countries do not want to be on the wrong side having been subdued by fear of being branded 'anti-Semitic' for generations and now seeing that they have in fact been supporting racism. The US stands alone today, but how much longer can Netanyahu rely on their veto?

PEACE is coming and when the Palestinians are given back their land and water there will be great haoppiness out there for Arab and Jew alike. But first we need to stop the men in charge from having the world war they have set their hearts on. Today it looks unlikely but the worst scenario would be a unilateral nuclear attack, automatic US support and the rest of the world getting involved. That I have to say is on the cards as a cornered rat is at its most dangerous and may feel it has nothing to lose if it acts now before even the US change tack, as they will. They will not support terrorism and the ICC will declare Israeli policies to be exactly that as more facts are made known.

reve x

Last edited by reve; 03-12-2012 at 09:11 AM.
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 10:24 AM   #206
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default our Ambassador

Before he is recalled let us have a look at our ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould who you will see is a somewhat controversial (see Controversies below for the rather unusual wiki statement) choice for this position but brings to the job the fact that he cannot be branded anti-Semitic by Israel which is in fact very important when given the job of criticising their policies on behalf of the UK. He was at school with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne which doubtless helped his chance of landing the job. This is from wiki:

“ Ambassador in Israel
Gould is the first Jew to serve as British ambassador to Israel, and has spoken of his pride in the position on a number of occasions. In a video message that coincided with his arrival in Israel, Gould outlined his three goals: Explaining Israel to Britain; explaining Britain to Israel and forging a strong partnership between the two. Gould said, “I need to give a strong message from Britain that as Israel goes down the difficult path to peace, Israel isn't alone.” He also said, “Britain is very clear: We regard Israel as an important strategic partner.”
Holocaust survivors initiative
In 2011, Gould and wife Celia, together with then-Israeli ambassador to London Ron Prosor, launched an appeal in the UK Jewish community to raise money to aid Holocaust survivors in Israel Approximately half of the £2 million goal has been raised, and six social clubs for survivors are being set up around Israel. The first was officially opened in February 2012, in the presence of Israeli Welfare Minister Moshe Kahlon.
Israel and Iran's nuclear threat
Gould told the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz in November 2011 that efforts at preventing a nuclear program in Iran are continuing and that “The U.K. and Israel stay in very close touch about the threat from Iran.”
Israel's 'Boycott bill'
Following the passage by the Israeli Knesset in July 2011 of the ‘Boycott Bill’, which allows Israeli citizens to sue organizations or persons calling for a boycott against Israel or parts of Israel, and forbids the government from funding such organizations, Gould told the Israeli daily Maariv newspaper, “We are concerned about the passing of this law, which damages the legitimate right to freedom of speech, and which conflicts with the strong Israeli tradition of lively and vigorous political debate.”
In November 2011, he warned Israeli MK Ophir Akunis that the passage of a bill that would limit foreign funding to human rights organizations, would “reflect badly on Israel in the international community.” Gould has also spoken at major conferences to urge Israel to ensure it is living up to its founding vision of a nation for all its citizens, saying that if Israel's prosperity is to be sustainable, it needs to harness the economic potential of all its communities – including the Arab community of Israel.
Promoting Israeli and UK hi-tech
In October 2010, Gould and the British Embassy in Israel officially launched the UK-Israel Technologies Hub. The Hub is tasked with forging a tech partnership between the two countries. The goal is to position the UK as a natural partner of choice for Israel in technology, and ensure the UK market can make full use of the breadth and quality of Israeli R&D and innovation. The former CEO of NICE Systems and Director-General of the Israeli Finance Minister Haim Shani serves as the Hub’s non-executive chairman. The Hub focuses on three major areas in particular: digital, bio-medical, and clean tech. The Hub is “unique as the team is the only dedicated group in the world promoting high-tech cooperation from inside an embassy.”
Promoting Israeli-UK Science initiatives
Gould has been involved in a number of groundbreaking projects aimed at strengthening relations between the two countries: this includes the revamped BIRAX Regenerative Medicine Initiative, through which £10 million will be invested in 15 major UK-Israel research projects over a five-year period. The initiative was officially launched at a conference at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in November 2011, which drew 250 experts in the field, including 60 British scientists from 20 different universities.
International community support for Israel
Gould said in an interview in August 2012, "Israelis might wake up in 10 years time and find out that suddenly the international community has changed, and that patience for continuing the status quo has reduced." Though these comments raised some criticism, Anshel Pfeffer, writing in Haaretz, said, "not only is Gould not betraying his roots, he is doing the Jews of Britain a huge favor," saying that this will give strength to those British Jews who wish to say something critical of Israel but at the same time show support for Israel. According to an article in the Jewish Chronicle of London, an "Israeli Foreign Ministry source said privately that it was a pity more diplomats did not say what Mr Gould had said."
Controversies
 An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (November 2012)

Before he was ambassador, Gould was involved in a number of secret meetings organised by Denis Macshane, involving himself, Liam Fox, Adam Werritty. The Foreign Office said in response that "The FCO has total confidence that Matthew Gould has acted appropriately at all times and at no stage was he acting independently, or out of line with government policy."
Gould was attacked in Parliament by the Labour MP Paul Flynn who accused him of having divided loyalties, saying that the British ambassador to Israel should be "someone with roots in the UK [who] can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty".
Middle East Minister Alistair Burt said in response that: "Paul Flynn should take some time to consider his comments, which could easily be misconstrued. There is absolutely no reason why our ambassador to Israel should not be Jewish. Any allegations about Matthew Gould's conduct are utterly unsubstantiated. He is a first-class ambassador." Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "The faith of any British diplomat is irrelevant to their capability to their job. To make suggestions otherwise is wrong and offensive. On a personal note I know from my time in government Matthew Gould embodies all that is good in British diplomacy."
Gould issued a condemnation of Israeli construction in January 2012 based on "a statement put out by Ir Amim," and immediately clarified it saying that the Israeli government “has made clear to us that there has been no new announcement of tenders for building in east Jerusalem today, and that reports of such new tenders were incorrect. This is a welcome reassurance.”
According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, Gould said that when he met then Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, he genially apologised to her that the "British Mandate authorities had arrested her parents, Eitan Livni and Sara Rosenberg, both prominent Irgun members. 'Don’t worry about that,' she told him. 'You almost arrested me!'"
Personal life
Gould married Celia Leaberry in 2009, and their daughter Rachel was born at the Tel Aviv Medical Center in April 2011. They live at the British Ambassador's official residence in Ramat Gan with three cats and two dogs.
wikipedia.

In fact I have great faith in the man but think that he might find it hard to push Israel back to its 1948 borders.

Jewish Chronicle 15 November 2012:
British envoy warns that Hamas rockets have to stop
By Jenni Frazer, November 15, 2012
Britain's ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, returned today from a spontaneous visit to Kiryat Malachi, where three Israelis were killed by Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza, pledging solidarity with the people of southern Israel.”

He might have said something about the more than 100 innocent Palestinian civilains bombed by Israel and the fact that Israel assassinated the Hamas military head on the day he was about to sign a peace treaty, which I am sure he would have known about.

“By Shimon Cohen, August 16, 2012
Follow The JC on Twitter
The British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, recently expressed the view that those who care about Israel's standing in the world "should be concerned by the erosion of popular support" for it in the UK. The problem, he suggested, is not confined to fringe groups who call for boycotts "and the rest of it." Instead, he said that among the mainstream British public, in and out of parliament, there has been a shift away from positions sympathetic to Israel…...It is worth recalling that Gould has, throughout his mission to Israel and previously, never done anything to suggest that he is anything but a committed friend of Israel. …”
http://www.thejc.com/news/topics/matthew-gould

Hmmmm and

“ This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.
On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.
Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.
The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..
This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.
Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.
Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak…”
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...o-attack-iran/

Intriguing

On second thoughts let’s bring him back. This is a very sensitive time and we do not want to be accused of fomenting a world war whether the above is truie or not.

Reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 10:43 AM   #207
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default the plot to invade Iran

Here is the rest of that rather worrying blog of Craig Murray who may well know what he is talking about. He is a steadfast opponent of the War on Terror and for those who do not know him here is a short extract on his wiki:

“Craig John Murray (born 17 October 1958) is a British political activist, former ambassador to Uzbekistan and former Rector of the University of Dundee.
While at the embassy in Tashkent, he accused the Karimov administration of human rights abuses, a step which, he argued, was against the wishes of the British government and the reason for his removal. Murray complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in November 2002, January or early February 2003, and in June 2004 that intelligence linking the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to al-Qaeda, suspected of being gained through torture, was unreliable, immoral, and illegal.[4] He described this as "selling our souls for dross".
Murray was subsequently removed from his ambassadorial post on 14 October 2004” wikipedia

Here is the dreadful stuff he has to say about a secret plot to invade Iran:


“Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.
I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.
I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.
But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.
This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.
Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?
The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was
“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”
O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that
“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”
All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.
For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.
O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:
“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”
So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?
The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.
Hague replied to Corbyn that:
“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”
Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.
This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.
That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.
My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.
O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:
“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”
There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.
I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.
Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.
Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.
I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.
I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.
This is the story I was given.
Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.
According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.
My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.
On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.
There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?
The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.
Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?
There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.
Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.
It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.
There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?
Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.
UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:
“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.
From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled immediately
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...o-attack-iran/

yikes! Craig may get his wish, perhaps that is why there is talkj about a recall now. Who knows what goes on in this secret world but how I hope our governments start to be a bit more open and honest with us. We do not need a world war to put things right.

Reve x

Last edited by reve; 03-12-2012 at 10:46 AM. Reason: addition
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 04:29 PM   #208
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default ignorance

Although Ms Livni and Mr Olmert have accused Netanyahu of slapping Obama in the face and making Israel more isolated than ever, he still believes he has the country and perhaps his God behind him. He has told Europe he will not stop the settlements. Palestine and Iran can relax as the battle for the rights of Palestinians suddenly finds overwhelming global support. They could not have dreamed of this two weeks ago. The next step may be for the UN to grant Palestine full statehood based on its original borders, with the US unable to veto the resolution this time due to international disgust. Following that will be the peacekeeping force to establish the new State safely as the airport fills with emigrating Israelis. US funding will also stop and Netanyahu will lose the election as Israel belatedly rushes to make peace.

I have been reading the Jerusalem Post and noticed the very many readers' comments below the article. I was absolutely stunned and shocked. Check them out yourselves -

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol...aspx?id=294256

I will not copy such vicious nonsense here but they are even more ignorant than their Prime Minister. These readers do not believe that the State of Israel was created by the UN in 1948, but that it was resisted by Jew hating Europe and only won on the ground by the Haganah, which they claim was not a terrorist organisation. The land they claim never belonged to Arabs but to Britain and before that Turkey. Arabs have no right to be there but Israel does and they have more right to build in Jerusalem than Europeans to build in their cities. It beggars belief but this is what they were taught at school. They will never accept peace with Palestinians as they appear to hate them with a venom. They hate Europe and they absolutely hate and despise Obama. Check it out yourself. There is the odd dissenting voice which is then overwhelmed with bigotry and a rewritten history. If that is what Israel is becoming the world must move fast. These people appear to be able to contemplate a 'final solution' for the Palestinians as cruel and thoughtless as that envisaged by Hitler and 'propaganda' has made that possible. I put it down to an extreme right wing religion that should be outlawed. Some comments maintain that Christianity and Islam are sham religions. The Jerusalem Post allows such stuff to be published but it may serve a purpose as it is time that Europeans and US citizens knew how the recipients of 50 years of unblinking support actually feel about them. One can see why the 'peacemakers' of our time have met sticky ends and it is hard to see an end of this. Our leaders need to wake up and stop trying to mislead us about peace plans which do not exist. My worry is that some of these presumably young men will turn to more terrorism if they are stopped, and that when a Palestinian State is created it too will suffer as Israel has suffered.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 09:24 AM   #209
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Change of mind

Me, not Netanyahu who in the Jerusalem post article has reiterated that he will build over the 2 State solution in spite of Australia now summoning his ambassador. Other news stories have been pointing out that international disapproval never stopped anyone, but in this case various myths are being exposed after 65 years. First there is no 2 state solution, second there is no intention for peace, third there is a conspiracy to invade Iran unilaterally (the word they object to), fourthly the two parties who should not be involved in the 2 State talks and eventual resolution are Israel and Palestine - it will have to be done multilaterally without them by the UN.

Anyway here are the comments made today, or the first few after the article in: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol...aspx?id=294520

I think they need a look and a bit of analysis. i am not being selective, which may happemn mext, these are just the first batch which I have not read yet but am copying. I will put in my comments but did not submit them for publication.


"Did Canberra summon the Palestinian Arab representative to register Australia's protest about Palestinian Arabs firing 1400 rockets on Israeli civilians a fortnight ago? No?
How about Canberra's outrage over the constant barrage of racist indoctrination and naked anti-Semitism in (UN-funded) Palestinian Arab schoolbooks, on TV and radio, in mosques, in the press? No?
Perhaps Canberra summoned the Palestinian Arab representative to express outrage over the Palestinian Arab government-affiliated group that carried out the bus bombing in Tel Aviv 2 weeks ago that maimed 16 civilians? No?
OK, so there's no need then to be too worried about Canberra suddenly expressing its moral outrage about Jews building homes, extending their kitchens, or wallpapering their living rooms in the Israeli capital Jerusalem."

Reve: This suggests to me that the Palestinians need their own ambassadors in each nation and foriegn embassies in east Jerusalem so that they can all be summoned.


NormanF> Ilya Meyer•3 hours ago

The world gets exercised over Jews living in Jerusalem. Its just thinly disguised anti-Semitism. Its no more complicated than a refusal to extend to the Jews the very treatment they take for granted.

Reve: This is how they see things, it is a veil drawn over the facts and is taught from when they are very young. Semitic is a term that in fact includes the Palestinians and Arabs. There is a lot of antti-Semitism about.

John Malouf> NormanF•3 hours ago

No one is anti Semitic anymore, this is a word that is exclusively used by Israelis to push away any criticism of Israel, but you should look at yourself and ask, why is this happening to Israel ?
The answer is simple, no one believes your lies any longer, so now it is time to be sincere and either toe the line or go it alone, you win with the first choice and lose with the second.

Reve: let us see what response that provokes

NORMAN COHEN> John Malouf•2 hours ago

The only liar I see on here is you. Go and tell the Jews in Manchester UK who are daily harassed and abused by so-called Muslims that there is no Antisemitism. Tell me please why are Jewish schools facilities and institutions in Europe under heavy guard - because there is NO anti-Semitism?Tell us why did Abbas go to the UN to seek nationhood when the Palestinians have been telling us (at least since 1964 when Arafat created the notion that there was such a thing) that they have been around for 1000's of years and the Jews stole their land from them.
What is this line you wish us to toe - the one Czechs toed in 1938 after seeing what that got them - no thanks. No wonder they voted with Israel. Keep your advice it's not wanted here.

Reve: Exactly - In fact Manchester has an eminent Jewish community and I have known many well. But Islamic women are still discriminated against in British towns and considered to be scroungers who have immigrated fror free housing and to have copious families the British must support. The Holocaust is constantly recited but what is forgotten is that the initial Nazi moves against Jews were orchestrated to steal their land, housing, businesses, money and jewelry, was very cynical and played on the anger that many poor Germans had about Jewish landlords. Hitler it is said built up his resentment because of his experience. It became the biggest humanitarian atrocity because it did not stip at stealing land. In Palestine it is mostly about stealing land and property, farms and the water business


kjwrite> NORMAN COHEN•an hour ago

Well said, as an Australian (and part Czech) couldn't agree more. Develop your capital city Israel. It is yours no matter how much History is made up along the way by people who just want to go Jew hunting.

Reve: I think everyone needs a real history lesson. this is taken from Arafat's wiki article and is in fact true:
In an interview with the Arabic news network Al-Jazeera, Arafat responded to Ariel Sharon's suggestion that he be exiled from the Palestinian territories permanently, by stating, "Is it his [Sharon's] homeland or ours? We were planted here before the Prophet Abraham came, but it looks like they [Israelis] don't understand history or geography."


John Malouf> NORMAN COHEN•an hour ago

What I really want you to do is to come down from your deluded state where you think every time you lie and accuse people of being anti Semitic, or Jew haters, or self hating Jews, or anti Zionist, or anti Israeli, and the list goes on.
None of it exists, or if it does, it has been so over used that it now fall on deaf ears.
You lie, you cheat, you pretend innocence, you pretend to be the victim while you are malicious with your dealings with the Palestinians, and now the world can see you for what you are, you have been found out and all the lies will not save you now, it is a time for truth.
But still if you become SINCERE with your dealings with the Palestinians and the world, I'm sure they will be willing to forgive, which is something you are not capable of.


Reve: Anger gets incited on both sides which is why the debate should be taken away from both sides. Mercy and forgiveness are Christian and Muslim ideals but Judaism can also be forgiving and now is the time for much forgiveness on all sides.

NormanF> John Malouf•an hour ago

I've yet to see an anti-Semite and Israel hater capable of forgiving Jews!

Reve: Hopefully he will see one but until israel stops destroying peace and practices State humiliation of another Semitic people he will probably see mostly anger. This is programmed rhetoric and very sad. We need to close down the Pakistan Madrassa that prerach violence, the Mosques in Eyurope if they do and all the Jewish snchools that are teaching this racial hatred.j

Yeasin Ahmed> NormanF•29 minutes ago

Maybe you wouldn't be hated so much if you didn't lie, cheat, steal and murder children. Israel is the most hated country in the world not because its a Jewish State but because it is an occupier that kills and maims at will. During its last offensive, 174 Palestinians were killed, including more than 100 civilians, among them at least 37 children and 14 women. Pure evil.

reve: It would be better to try to defuse the situation. this is likely to inflame more anger and retaliation. Israel is not the most hated country in the world, just in part of the world. Saying that strengthens the bunker mentality there that they only can rely on themselves for justice. Iran is as hated in other parts, North Korea etc and the palestinians have many enemies who seem to bvelieve they all belong to Al Qaida which is reinforced every time they celebrate some attack on the US.

AhmedShahMassoud> Yeasin Ahmed•9 minutes ago

The real killer of Children are Muslims. Who mainly kill other Muslim children.

Once in while they go and kill Christians and Jews.

Why do you think Hamas fire rockets on Israeli cities? It is with the intent of killing as many children as possible.

Reve: petrol is on the fire now.


AhmedShahMassoud> John Malouf•10 minutes ago

Its easy to lecture us about antisemitism when you have never walked a mile in our shoes and don't know what it is like.

reve: That is quite profound and a much better way to deal


NormanF> John Malouf•3 hours ago

Nearly 50,000 Arabs have been killed in Syria and the world is silent. But it hits the roof in outrage and gets upset over a few thousand homes for Jews in Jerusalem. Can any one explain why building real estate is considered a more heinous offense in the eyes of the world than mass murder?

None of this computes from a rational standpoint and Israelis find it hard to take all of this wrought criticism seriously, simply because there is no basis to it.

Reve: this Syrian equation comes up all the time in defence of the division of Palestine by housing estates for Israelis. I have not written here about Syria because I await the facts of how that civil war started and who is really behind it. But it is true that the world cannot intervene. It may yet need to do so as man's inhumaity to man is dire when practised by a despot like Assad or the gangs that oppose him and execute people too. But in my mind peacekeeping troops are required in Syria and in Israel.


John Malouf> NormanF•an hour ago

Because you are building on someone else's land, what's so hard to understand, occupied Palestine is not for you to do what you wish with it. Now is the time for peace, the whole world has declared it, so please for the sake of all stop being so arrogant and aggressive and let's all sit and try to find a suitable solution for both people.

Reve: Excellent response


VictorMC> John Malouf•an hour ago

Tell that to the Gaza Hamas terrorists. Gaza that is the place Israel gave up in return for peace and the terrorists trashed it and turned into a rocket launch pad.
Remember that do you?

Reve: Quite a lot of rhetoric about how Israel 'gave Gaza back'. Actually it is surrounded by Israeli farms and is fenced in like a prison camp. People approaching the wire were shot in the legs and one in the head last month when they wanted to put their flag on the fence. Israel did not want this most densely occuped town in the world.
NormanF> John Malouf•an hour ago

This is land that under the LON Mandate is open to Jewish settlement. Its there in black and white: go look it up!

Reve: Curious statement


AhmedShahMassoud> John Malouf•11 minutes ago

As a Jew who grew up in South Africa I encountered antisemitism many times. Which is partly why I moved to Israel.

The only place a Jew can call home.

reve: I was brought up in apartheid South Africa where the 'coloureds' as they were called (mixed race) were discriminated by the Africans and Europeans. Where my father a priest was ordered to segregate his congregation, hold separate services for black and white and not allow black to sit in white seats. He refused and we had to return to Britain. To liken the treatment of Jews in that country to the plight of the Africans is a bit strong. here again was a country taken from the indiginous population who then had to pay for food as all the farmland was stolen. Israel has now adopted an Apartheid policy in Israel and even built an enormous Berlin type dividing wall.



reve: That is enough for me but i wanted to show here the attitude of some of the people who are 'stakeholders' in a solution in Israel. Education and the truth emerging is a must but will never be achieved in time. The UN must intervene now and allocate adequate land and water for both countries bearing in mind that neither will be happy. But to think that a housing estate with swimming pools and a hotel with 1000 beds might stop justice for the indiginous population in Palestine is rather naive of My Netanyahu. Still you can see where he is coming from and what kind of attitude he has to justice.


Reve x

Last edited by reve; 04-12-2012 at 09:25 AM.
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:34 PM   #210
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Comment

From the National Post a Canadian newspaper - first comment posted 18 minutes ago

" There is no place for to states solution. Palestinian view of two states is Palestine state west from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea and Jordan state east from the river. Palestinian view of peaceful coexistence with Jews is coexistence with dead Jews (with their graves desecrated). There is no peace process, it never existed and never will, unless Muslims abandon their goal to kill all Jews (but i see no sign they are going to do so)."

More to the point is the Washington Post article of a couple opf houirs ago relating to the most extraordinary news of the day, buried deep in Google.

Have a look, I cannot copy it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...02c_story.html

It is saying that yesterday the U.N. General Assembly has by a vote of 174-6 with 6 abstentions, called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The no votes were of course Israel, US, Canada, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Although the US voted against it, it did vote for universal adherence to the Non Proliferation Treaty and called on all countries to ratify it, but India and Israel voted against that.

This is an example of how fast things are moving and how much of the world is now actively engaging. They all know that Israel is intending to use nuclear armaments to disable all the Iranian communications prior to the attack as it is all over the net having been distributed by them to various parties.

Canada is facing dissent from the government line and is under pressure to join the real world. Just how long the US can hold out is hard to say. If 90% of their population objects to being cornered with Israel as the only companion, and some tiny Pacific islands, they will have to change. It must be so embarrassing for them as they have asked for the settlement building to stop and had sand kicked in Obama's face by Netanyahu on that.

Each hour brings something new to this tsunami of protest across the world, all peaceful and on the side of law, as it is gathering momentum against an illegitimate and very corrupt, racist policy.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 03:02 PM   #211
feralgoose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 617
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Just saw this in the related articles - wonder what for?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...l?tid=obinsite
__________________
The man without a face, I stay anonymous
The way we live day to day stays monotonous -like your bland sound
But with the weight of the world on top of us we still stand ground
and break down your fascination with the fabrication of the truth
Make use of your imagination in the pursuit of expression
Not as a disguise to hide behind when adressing your brethrens
I reckon the question is this: 'To be or not to be?' - a simple lesson in risk
feralgoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 03:31 PM   #212
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default logic

interesting fg - who knows, but the 911 in its name suggests something relating to 'emergencies'. 911 has been used as an excuse to change ourt world and to kill countless thousands of people. Heaven forbid it ever becomes countless millions. Certainly it served some well to use 911 but it has been a catastrophe for Muslims and that would have been realised in its planning stage, which leaves unsettling questions in many minds. Anyway history repeats.

" Security concerns are so great that non-Israeli employees hired by the builder can come only from “the U.S., Canada, Western Europe countries, Poland, Moldavia, Thailand, Philippines, Venezuela, Romania and China,” according to the Corps notice. “The employment of Palestinians is also forbidden,” it says.

Even more curious given the strained relations between the US and Venzuela and China. I hope it is for peace.

The logic on that UN resolution is this. Both Israel and Iran refuse to admit having nuclear weapons or even seeking to acquire them, although everyone knows that is not the case. Iran has to put up with inspectors. The US and Israel demand them. Israel has bombed nuclear sites already in Iraq and I think Syria. How could they be exempt from inspections? But again we all know they wont happen. But behind this I see a decision by certain nations, maybe one day even with US approval, to ensure Israel is not a nuclear armed country as they are the most likely nation in the world to find reasons to use them. They are paranoid and the statement that a high level (and very polluting) nuclear explosion should be used to disrupt Iranian communications suggests that civilian life is not taken into account when planning to take out installations that are regarded as a threat.

It is all a bit creepy when one looks at the reality of modern armies. Iran says they downed opr captured a drone last week. This is perhaps linked with that special ray it is claimed they have. No wonder there is talk of taking out their 'communications'. The best way of dealing with nuclear nations is by ensuring they do not wish to use them aggressively. Such weapons are called deterrents, to stop others attacking you. Iran gets upset by the Palestinian issue and constant Israeli threats to attack it. They then threaten Israel. Sanctions and what they perceive as unfairness in how they are treated merely aggravate the whole situation. Of course that is what the war mongers want, but not what most of the UN and the 'elders' want for our planet. You do not have to be a military analyst or expert strategist to realise that. Common sense gets lost in diplomacy and the machinations of conspiracies hidden from view.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 11:02 PM   #213
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Jimmy Carter

I have been reading the most dreadful slanders of President Obama and a lot more hateful bigotry -the 'Inconvenient Truth' and Baltimore Sun being notable for publishing this kind of stuff. I have been naive and did not realise how much they hate both Muslims and their President. It is a relief to read some sound and knowledgeable sense just written by Jimmy Carter who as well as being an 'Elder' knows this whole Middle East hsitory and situation better than any other. this is the full text of that.

" 5:56PM EST December 4. 2012 - The United Nations General Assembly vote last week that overwhelmingly recognized Palestine as a state could serve as a stepping stone to relaunch the long moribund Middle East peace negotiations.

In an attempt to advance the peace negotiations, President Obama emphasized two crucial issues during his first year in office: that the building of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory should stop, and that the basis for peace should be the pre-1967 border (or Green Line), to be modified by mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

With all moderate factions now absent from the two-party Likud-Beitenu coalition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are precluding the possibility of the two-state solution for peace in the Middle East. Their concept of greatly expanding Israel's borders has been branded as a tragedy for Israel by previous prime ministers, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.

In addition to rapidly confiscating Palestinian territory for new Israeli settlements, announcing permanent control of Palestinian air space and the Jordan River Valley, requiring acknowledgment by Palestinians of a Jewish state that marginalizes 20% of Israel's population, and blocking reconciliation among the major Palestinian factions, the Netanyahu government has announced the building of several thousand settlement units in an area that cuts the West Bank into two parts and permanently separates East Jerusalem from what would be left.

U.S. policies disregarded

Never before has an Israeli government so flagrantly disregarded clearly stated U.S. policies, as well as those of its previous prime ministers and the international community.

It is good to remember that the 1978 Camp David Accords called for peace between Israel and Egypt and also specified that "the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn" from the West Bank, and that "the agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts." Based on this same basic formula, all Arab nations have offered peace to Israel.

The new Netanyahu policy is also counterproductive for the future well-being of Israel in that it might precipitate legal actions by Palestine under its new status as a state. These could include filing a complaint within the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice against Israel for violations of international law, including building settlements in occupied territory, transferring Palestinian prisoners to Israel and the siege of Gaza.

All these developments can best be avoided by strong action of the U.N. Security Council, led by the United States, Egypt and other influential nations to enforce common agreements that have already been approved by Israel within the U.N. and at Camp David.

Palestinian concessions

An equally necessary issue to be resolved is reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, within the context of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Most likely to be orchestrated by Egypt and with full backing of other Arab states, this will require that in a final two-state agreement, all Palestinians and Israelis guarantee the right of Israel and Palestine as safe and secure nations within recognized borders.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has agreed to accept the right of Israel to live in peace alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. His only proviso is that any such agreement be put to a referendum among the Palestinian people. Despite disagreement from his more militant associates, Meshaal reiterated this commitment during a recent interview with CNN. The combined influence of Egypt and all other Arab states, plus U.N. peacekeepers if necessary, would ensure compliance.

Israel has overwhelming power to retaliate against any rocket attacks from Gaza, but it has become increasingly clear that Hamas in Gaza cannot be defeated without horrible bloodshed among the 1.7 million Palestinians confined in the cramped area, with a tight economic boycott dampening their efforts for economic survival. This would leave Israel ever more isolated in a region where citizen rights are gaining force.

Although the U.S. now has reduced influence among either Israeli or Palestinian leaders, Egypt can be a helpful partner in peace efforts, as demonstrated recently in alleviating the recent crisis in Gaza.

The path to peace in the Middle East has always been difficult, but never impossible.

Former president Jimmy Carter (1977-81) is founder of the non-profit Carter Center, dedicated to advancing peace and health worldwide.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...tions/1746767/

I wish that this would be read, believed and understood by the bigots but I am sure they will just add Carter to their list of Jew haters. However it has been published and may help Obama make some very difficult and unpopular decisions soon. Whatever mistakes were made in 1948 by Arab leaders like King Abdullah of Jordan, were made because of them. The fact is that the poor Palestinian people were not consulted, not even by the UN, but have always been blamed for starting a war against Israel. Over 700,000 civilians were evicted from their homes because some arrogant neighbouring countries wanted to annexe the land that Britain was vacating. Egypt. Syria, Iraq and Jordan all had their eyes on this land, so did the new Israelis who grabbed as much as they could. It is time to change the record and restore to the innocents some recognition and some human rights, so long refused and hidden behind blatant propaganda. The US and UK have a heavy responsibility with this and need to own up to the fact. We are so close to the end of this world, or to a new beginning, but the most formidable obstacles stand in the way of the latter.

Carter can see a future and could broker a peace, but he is a long retired President. Surely the White House can follow his lead. In my view they should offer full Statehood to Palestine now, knowing that Israel has no intention of ever allowing that, nor of making peace. Rhetoric will achieve nothing even if it does awaken the world.

I like these 'elders'. What does Nelson Mandela think about it?

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 08:02 AM   #214
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Teach your children well

this is from Haaretz today:

" Blowback to tidying up Israel's history

Hiding the controversies when we teach children about Israel's modern history is designed to promote a unified national story. But it would be better for our children to have the chance to grapple with the messy reality of their heritage now before those dormant controversies erupt again..."
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-speci...emium-1.482396

I would not be so polite. But after considering what I wrote yesterday I have deciode that I am also rude about my leader, David Cameron. He was my late mother's MP and is a very nice man with a lovely family. Compared to some leaders he is a saint and I am sure he only means well for all the UK population. He just represents the counter balance against years of Labouir government. I am also hard on Tony Blair. Our leaders do not bomb their own people and the UK is not one of the main corrupt countries. I just wish they could see what I have seen over the lasyt 20 years and not listened to the media barons.

Also in Haaretz:

" Israel ranks 39 on list of most corrupt countries

Despite the efforts of campaigners in different parts of the world, Transparency International's corruption perception index (CPI) shows that of the two-thirds of 176 nations surveyed had a score below 50, which means they are very corrupt.

By DPA | Dec.05, 2012


Israel has ranked 39on the list of most corrupt countries in 2012 with a score of 60, according to the world corruption watchdog Transparency International's annual report released Wednesday.

The results of the report indicated that corruption has become an entrenched part of the global economy: Despite the efforts of campaigners in different parts of the world, Transparency International's corruption perception index (CPI) shows that of the two-thirds of 176 nations surveyed had a score below 50, which means they are very corrupt.

"A growing outcry over corrupt governments forced several leaders from office last year, but as the dust has cleared it has become apparent that the levels of bribery, abuse of power and secret dealings are still very high in many countries," Transparency said releasing the survey.

While Denmark, Finland and New Zealand once again topped the CPI, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia were once again on the bottom rung of the index.

Based on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean), Denmark, Finland and New Zealand tied with a score of 90 points. Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia each had a score of just 8.

Worryingly, the survey showed that there has been little improvement in the corruption rankings of nations that have emerged from the upheavals of Arab spring. This includes both Egypt and the Middle East.

Countries at the center of the eurozone debt crisis have also continued to score poor marks in the CPI with financial and economic crisis appearing to be a key factor in helping to spur corruption.

Greece's ranking in the 2011 survey stood at 80. This year the debt-hit the nation slipped to 94 in the global league table.

Italy was ranked 72, sharing the spot with the Balkan state of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the Central African state of Sao Tome and Principe.

"Corruption is the world's most talked about problem," said Transparency's Managing Director Cobus de Swardt.

"The world's leading economies should lead by example, making sure that their institutions are fully transparent and their leaders are held accountable," de Swardt said.

"This is crucial since their institutions play a significant role in preventing corruption from flourishing globally," he said.

Western industrialized nations such as Switzerland, Canada, Australia and Sweden dominated the top ten cleanest states again this year.

But China - the world's second biggest economy and a powerhouse of global growth - continued to languish well down in the rankings at number 80, with a score of 39 points.

The world's biggest economy, the US stood at number 19, while Japan came in at the 17th position. Europe's largest economy, Germany was at 13.

With its considerable natural wealth, Russia appears to have made little headway in tackling problems of corruption. It was again a major under performer, occupying the 133 slot in the 2012 survey. "
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national...tries-1.482583

I know you want to know where the UK is on this very important index as corruption really is the biggest problem apart from war.

This is from the site of 'Transparency'

"Corruption in the UK report

In 2011 Transparency International UK (TI-UK) launched the major findings from a series of studies which examine corruption in the UK. The reports – which represent the most comprehensive research ever undertaken in this area – examine the levels of corruption in 23 UK sectors and institutions.


The research represents a ‘corruption health-check’ for the UK. Although corruption is not endemic in the UK, it is correct to say that in some areas of UK society and institutions, corruption is a much greater problem than recognised and that there is an inadequate response to its growing threat. The report found that the growing threat of corruption is often met with complacency, and that key institutions are refusing to confront the problem.


Of particular concern are prisons, political parties, parliament and sport – where the response to the increasing corruption risk is often incoherent and uncoordinated "
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results#myAnchor1

Phone hacking was one concern. Political funding and MP expenses fraud. We came 17 with a score of 74 - as the US are 19 with 73 and we are behind Australia and Canada we have much to do but were let down by our politicians and that is where we need to start.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 08:19 AM   #215
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Today

Netanyahu is infamous for this statement:

" In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed."
wikipedia

He is in Germany and has been lecturing Merkel about the fact that she abstained in the UN vote. He seems to know no shame :

" Netanyahu: In abstaining from UN vote, Germany did not advance peace

Visiting in Berlin, the prime minister tells press that many Israelis are disappointed with Chancellor Merkel and that in supporting the Palestinian bid, European countries violated the Oslo Accord.

By Ofer Aderet | Dec.06"

"I think that there’s a willingness to believe the worst about Israel in some quarters of Europe, and that’s something that has been part of our history in Europe for many generations," Netanyahu said. "People believed outrageous things about the Jewish people, as some now believe about the Jewish state. What is our great crime? What is it we’re doing? We’re building in the areas that will remain in a final peace settlement of Israel. This is not some foreign land. This is the land in which the Jewish people have been for close to 4000 years."

The prime minister continued: "What we’re talking about is suburbs contiguous to Jerusalem. And everybody knows that they will remain part of Israel. You don’t change the map, you don’t prejudge anything. I think there is heightened sensitivity. I didn’t see this heightened sensitivity from some of these governments when the Palestinians violated the Oslo Accords."

When asked if he is accusing the countries that supported the bid in violating the Oslo accord, Netanyahu said: "I think maybe that wasn’t their intention. Maybe their intention in voting for it or even abstaining was the thought that they were somehow advancing peace. In effect, the consequence was the exact opposite."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.482997

What he is saying is that Israel was never going to return this land to the Palestinians. He has broken the Oslo Accord anyway but that accord was to be a temporary agreement pending permanent peace talks by 1996 at the latest. Netayahu is not talking to the West, this is entirely for the Israelis so that they will vote for him. I am sure the European leaders object to being used in this way. France's Hollande recently stated his objections very clearly after a memorial service in France was hyjacked by Netanyahu for his campaign and anti-Iran rhetoric.

The answer is very simple. The land in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and the Refugee Camps should be allocated to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples according to their population sizes, and allow all access to water and transport. There should be a peacekeeping force there to enable this and both sides need to disarm. Otherwise all the Palestinians face being squeezed into concentration camps and charged by Israel for water paid for by international aid, while the Israelis live in comfort, farm all the land, and build settlements for ever more European immigrants. There will never be peace or justice in the Middle East as a result. One democratic government or two still means that they need to work and live together. The basic agreement was made years ago but the land that Israel has been prepared to hand back has shrunk dramatically based on the lie that they need defensible borders. This is clear from Netanyahu's statement here at the top and his subsequent land grabbing actions. Millions of innocent Palestinins suffer greatly as a result.

Why is the world so weak in the face of such grave injustice? Such land 'development' is termed a war crime. Our weakness has been that the US and Europe have supported Israel come hell or high water for 65 years. Time for a change - we should only support fairness and honesty. Whether we can read that into recent developments we shall see.

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:08 PM   #216
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Guinea foul play suspected

Let us have a peep at Africa and especially a place few know anything about. Guinea is one of the poorest countries in the world and has perhaps the lowest rates of literacy. Being on the Atlantic coast and home of the highly valued Mandingo tribe, it suffered abysmally from kidnapping for slavery in the Americas. One might have hoped that things had improved since slavery was abolished.

Wiki ’From independence until the presidential election of 2010, Guinea was governed by a number of autocratic rulers, which has contributed to making Guinea one of the poorest countries in the world‘
The literacy rate of Guinea is one of the lowest in the world: in 2003 it was estimated that only 29.5% of adults were literate (42.6% of males and 18.1% of females


The great Niger, Senegal and Gambia rivers have their source in its highlands. It has substantial jungle. But curiously for one of the poorest countries in the world it has some of the richest reserves. It is not a desert country, like some of its neighbours. Indeed it has half the world’s largest bauxite (aluminium) ore reserves - 25 billion tonnes all sold to Eastern Europe and Russia. It has large off shore oil reserves, and huge gold and diamond (90% gem quality) reserves. It also has vast reserves of iron ore for steel manufacture ( In the 1960s, Thomas Price, then vice president of US-based steel company Kaiser Steel, said, "I think this [the Pilbara] is one of the most massive ore bodies in the world). It has fertile soil, 23% forested, and has exported bananas, coffee, palm oil etc.

Now on paper it should be one of the richest countries in the world. So what has gone wrong for its 10 million people? Well they have not had a happy time

“ The issue of human rights in the country remains controversial. In its 2012 Freedom in the World report, Freedom House named the country "partly free" for the second year in a row, an improvement over its former status as one of the least free countries in Africa. The United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, which produces annual human rights reports on the country, claims the most pressing human rights issues are the use of torture by security forces, and abuse of women and children through such acts as female genital mutilation” wikipedia

The country has been exploited and is still being exploited on a simply massive scale. This last piece may offer a clue to how it happens:

“In June 2012 The Sunday Times revealed that in April 2011, five months before the Mining Code became law, Mohamed Lamine Fofana, the mining minister, agreed a USD25 million loan with Palladino Capital, an investment vehicle registered in the British Virgin Islands by South African business man Walter Hennig. The deal was also signed by the finance minister, Kerfalla Yansane and Samuel Mebiane, who was listed as a “proxy holder” for Palladino. This loan of USD25 million has never been publicly revealed to Guineans, or ticked off in the national budget, although President Alpha Conde has said that "contracts that commit Guinea will be published on the Internet." The terms of the loan include a provision that if the Guinean government defaults, Palladino can convert the debt into an equivalent value in shares in the operations of one of the subsidiaries of the national mining company to a maximum of 30% stake.
According to independently confirmed sources and an investigation conducted by Business Day of Johannesberg, Tokyo Sexwale, Mark Willcox (CEO of Sexwale’s Mvelaphanda Holdings) and several other businessmen of "South African, Polish, and British extraction" are behind Hennig and the $25 million loan. This type of agreement is in violation with the Mining Code, which stipulates in Article 150 that "The State reserves the right to sell all or part of its participation in cash, without pre-emption rights of other shareholders of the holder of the mining company, through a bidding process that is open and transparent."
Labour MP Eric Joyce is one of many who believe the loan could allow Palladino Capital, and by extension Walter Hennig, to gain a large stake in Guinea’s mining industry at a bargain price. George Soros has called on the Guinean government to fully investigate the loan.
The loan was allegedly intended as a start-up for a state mining company though any potential investigation into the matter now will have to determine whether this was the genuine motive or whether the loan was intended to benefit political or individual interests in return for mining concessions.
As a result of the loan to Guinea, the firm was to be granted as much as 49% of the equity stake and voting rights in the state mining company, as well as the option to choose to negotiate minority or majority stakes in any state-linked mining asset without reference to an open-bid licence process. Additionally, Guinea would not be permitted to sell any state interest in a mining asset without first offering the option to Palladino and should the firm wish to acquire a stake in a mining asset, it would be granted the privilege of a six-month negotiating period. If a deal could not then be struck, Guinea would only be allowed to negotiate with a third party without first right of refusal from Palladino.” wikipedia

Everyuthing above is on wiki - it is no secret but the world allows multinationals to pillage the country with no concern for the impoverished inhabitants. Guinea is bit one example of what is happening in our world. And I call it war, and long overdue for our general education and attention and indeed peacemaking.

Chances of that? Zero

Reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 02:15 PM   #217
feralgoose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 617
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

I wonder why the anti-zionist brigade is so quiet on this forum. I mean those who believe the 'global conspiracy' is headed by Zionists. What is happening is showing that that is not the case, or if it is the case then it is unravelling.

Yesterday I saw that even the Daily Mail was sticking the boot into Israel and admitting the peace plan was a myth, though the blame for that was the US in this article.
__________________
The man without a face, I stay anonymous
The way we live day to day stays monotonous -like your bland sound
But with the weight of the world on top of us we still stand ground
and break down your fascination with the fabrication of the truth
Make use of your imagination in the pursuit of expression
Not as a disguise to hide behind when adressing your brethrens
I reckon the question is this: 'To be or not to be?' - a simple lesson in risk
feralgoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 03:47 PM   #218
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default Equatorial Guinea

the other Guinea is a very rich country - for some

" With an area of 28,000 square kilometres (11,000 sq mi) Equatorial Guinea is one of the smallest countries in continental Africa. It is also the richest per capita; however, the wealth is distributed very unevenly. With a population of 650,702, Equatorial Guinea is the third-smallest country in continental Africa. It is also the second smallest United Nations (UN) member from continental Africa.

The discovery of sizeable petroleum reserves in recent years is altering the economic and political status of the country. Its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranks 64th in the world; however, most of the country's considerable oil wealth actually lies in the hands of only a few people.

Equatorial Guinea has one of the worst human rights records in the world, consistently ranking among the "worst of the worst" in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights and Reporters Without Borders ranks President Obiang among its "predators" of press freedom. Out of 44 sub-Saharan countries, Equatorial Guinea ranks 9th highest in the Human Development Index (HDI) and 115th overall, which is among the medium HDI countries.

The Trafficking in Persons Report 2012 states "Equatorial Guinea is a source and destination for women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking." The report rates Equatorial Guinea as a "Tier 3" country, the lowest (worst) ranking: "Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so."
wikipedia

Can the world do something about this? Chances if that - zero

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 04:24 PM   #219
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default maybe

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralgoose View Post
I wonder why the anti-zionist brigade is so quiet on this forum. I mean those who believe the 'global conspiracy' is headed by Zionists. What is happening is showing that that is not the case, or if it is the case then it is unravelling.

Yesterday I saw that even the Daily Mail was sticking the boot into Israel and admitting the peace plan was a myth, though the blame for that was the US in this article.
Hi fg maybe it is the anti-Zionist, hence considered anti-semitic, that is the secret strength of the Zionist. The Defence Israel consistently puts up when criticised is that half the world does not want them to exist and that anti-Semitism is on the increase. Without any criticism they would be unable to use that defence.

If you have a job - say at a University - and you make anti-Zionist comments you will likely lose it. If you are in a political party you will be evicted. It means that anyone with any clout is terrified to expose the myth and those that do can be dismissed as meaningless bigots. But the media has sufddenly chanbged and in the last few days many papers, as you say the Daily Mail, that have never criticised Israel have started to do so with a vengeance, some reporting in such a way that the reader is left to form a critical opinion too. I have never seen this before. TV is worried since its recent problems and lags behind.

Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, has complained about the Washington Post, the most ardent of fans of Israel, for its coverage of Gaza! So this came yesterday in that paper:

" Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, complained [“Falling for Hamas’s story,” op-ed, Nov. 29] that The Post and other U.S. media unfairly exaggerated Palestinian suffering during the Gaza conflict last month. Rather than engaging in public relations wars and endless fighting, it is urgent for both sides of this conflict to understand that their best interests lie in coming to an agreement that will make them both better off. This is not impossible.

Warren Clark, Washington"

Meadoweiss is an interesting dissenting Jewish voice and published this:

"Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren spoke at the Jewish Community Center on the Upper West Side last night, and more than a dozen protesters organized by Jews Say No! stood out on Amsterdam Avenue to protest his appearance and talk to passersby.

The group told the JCC administration that it wanted their voices heard inside the community center, and the voices of others who support Boycott, divestment and sanctions.

They passed out a flyer with this statement:

JEWS SAY AN EMPHATIC NO! TO ISRAELI AMBASSADOR MICHAEL OREN WHO IS MICHAEL OREN?

Michael Oren represents the Israeli government, which is responsible for:

--a brutal occupation that denies the Palestinian people their right to self-determination;

--systematically denying the Palestinian people in the occupied West Bank and Gaza and inside Israel their basic civil and human rights;

--Israeli assaults on Gaza, which indiscriminately kill Palestinian men, women, and children and extensively damage Gaza’s infrastructure;

--planning the construction of 3,000 homes in Area E1 of the West Bank that will make geographically impossible a contiguous, viable Palestinian state.

Michael Oren is not interested in the free exchange of ideas and information. In April 2012, Michael Oren called CBS to try to get a story about Palestinian Christians pulled from “60 Minutes” before he even saw it because he thought it would be a “hatchet job.”

WHY CAN’T WE HEAR OTHER JEWISH VOICES AT THE JCC?

The JCC is supposed to represent all Jews. While it is offering a platform to Oren, who represents a reactionary government that is becoming increasingly militaristic and anti-democratic, it has not provided forums for the many Jews whose Jewish values lead them to support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement until Israel complies with international law and basic principles of civil and human rights. Nor has the JCC scheduled programs featuring Jews who question whether a state that privileges Jews (or any other religion) can ever be a “democratic state.” That kind of inquiry and self-reflection is in the best of the Jewish tradition and should be a hallmark of JCC programming!

Sponsored by Jews Say No!
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/chilly...issenters.html

Really when Israelis and Jews start to criticise Israel publicly things may change as these views cannot be described as anti-Semitic. Haaretz serves a minority of Israelis who do not support thne regime and consider it Apartheid. Suddenly haaretxz articles are being published all over the main stream media simply because they cannot be termed anti_semitic. editors are being very clever but what is certain is that the brakes on criticism have been taken off at a very high level (think President).

Netanyahu came to Europe with his Defence Minister, his Foreign Minister and other Ministers in tow as a high profile election stunt. But look what the Guardian picks up on and publishes:

"Israeli academic banned from German conference by Netanyahu

Rivka Feldhay barred from scientists' meeting because of her criticism of the Israeli government
Associated Press in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 December

Israel has barred a Israeli academic from taking part in a science symposium in Berlin on Thursday that was part of prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to Germany, drawing renewed charges that his government has little tolerance for dissent.

An official travelling with Netanyahu said professor and human rights expert Rivka Feldhay was banned from a meeting of Israeli and German scientists because the prime minister did not want to allow the participation of an Israeli "who tarnishes the name of Israeli soldiers and pilots".

Feldhay signed a petition in 2008 that supported Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in Palestinian territories, the official said.

Feldhay said in an email that she had travelled to Berlin at the invitation of the Israeli embassy in Germany.

After her arrival, the embassy notified Feldhay that the head of the National Security Council, Yaakov Amidror, "refused to confirm my participation since I am a critical of the government of Israel".

In her subsequent communications with government officials, Feldhay said she was attacked as "an enemy of the state".

"I am amazed that the Council of National Security has found nothing more important in terms of Israeli security than myself," she said. "It fits other types of regimes than democracy, a regime [where] there is no distinction between opposition to the government and enemies of the state."

Opposition figures have accused Netanyahu and his political allies of trying to stifle dissent and pluralism through a string of bills brought before parliament.

One of the measures, assailed by Israel's attorney general and put on hold, would sharply restrict funding for dovish groups.

Others, passed into law, require non-Jewish new citizens to pledge a loyalty oath to a "Jewish and democratic state". They also deny state funding to groups that mourn what Palestinians call "the catastrophe" of Israel's 1948 creation and punish Israelis who advocate boycotting Jewish settlements.

The government rejects claims that dissent is being quieted, citing Israel's raucous press and independent courts.

Critics counter that the government has tried to muzzle those institutions as well, saying proposed legislation would undermine the independence of the supreme court, the sole check on the Israeli legislature.

Journalists have warned of an anti-media blitz through political appointments to the country's public broadcasting system, sidelining prominent critics and an amended libel law that could put a chill on investigative reports"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...d-by-netanyahu

The Guardian has to be careful having been branded anti-Semitic for years. So irt publishes something about an Israeli critic. this may change public opinion in Israel and strengthen Ms Livni's hand in the coming election but really Netanyahu will use it as the world/Europe hates us sob story.

However it is showing how the tide has turned. The Press are getting ready for a host of policies which will change everything and are testing the water. Israeli Ambassadors would have been going mad about all of this a couple of months ago, but nearly all of them have been hauled before the Foreign Ministries in the countries where they are based and had the riot act read to them. Meanwhile the mainstream media is now refusing to publish the usual staunch Zionist statements which pour into its offices after any criticism of Israel at all.

Not that anything has changed in the camps. Yet.

reve x

Last edited by reve; 06-12-2012 at 04:26 PM.
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 04:42 PM   #220
reve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 107 (70 Posts)
Default William Saletan

is a Jewish Republican who lives in Maryland. He supported George Bush attacking Iraq but he has just written about Netanyahu's visit to Germany in no uncertain terms:

"...Now Netanyahu has opened a trip to Germany—Israel’s most reliable friend and arms supplier in Europe—by insulting Europe, Germans, common sense, and critics of his land-grab policy. In an interview with Die Welt. Netanyahu argues that diplomacy is war, criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and U.N. resolutions—but not Israeli settlements—are unilateral....

This is quite a piece of manipulation. It starts with an invocation of the Holocaust—one of four times Netanyahu brings up the Nazi genocide to exploit the guilt of his German audience, of whom no one younger than 67 was even alive during the Third Reich. From there, he segues to the 20th-century Arab wars against Israel, and then to contemporary terrorism. Then, in a majestic leap, he declares that Israel is now “being attacked again,” this time with “slander” and “vilification.” He speaks of “Israel,” “the Jewish state” and “the Jewish people” interchangeably, implying that anyone who criticizes his policies is orchestrating violence against Jews. He goes on:


We had no defenses before the establishment of the Jewish state, and we could be tossed like a leaf in the wind. And we were incinerated like refuse. And so the Jewish state was established, among other things, to give the Jewish people a home in their ancestral homeland, but also to give them the capacity for self-defense. Our enemies who know that they cannot defeat us on the battlefield in legitimate warfare, are using two types of weapons against us: the weapon of terror—rockets fired on our cities. And the weapon of lies. … We seek to live in peace with our neighbors, and they seek to either eradicate us with a frontal attack, or to establish a state that will not live in peace with us. And either one is unacceptable.


That’s a straight line, in Netanyahu’s telling, from Hitler’s ovens to Hamas’ rockets to Abbas’ “weapon of lies.” Without shame, he lumps together the rocket attacks with the pursuit of statehood through the U.N.: “Either one is unacceptable.” When the interviewer points out that “the French and British have even threatened to recall their ambassadors” to protest Israel’s new settlement plan, Netanyahu cracks, “I suppose Israelis should have become used to the fact that we don’t get a fair hearing in Europe.” With a burst of moral narcissism, he adds: “We’re the only country threatened with genocide.”


The interviewer, referring to European criticism of the settlement plan, asks, “Were you surprised by the reaction of France and UK and Sweden?” Netanyahu replies:


I think that there’s a willingness to believe the worst about Israel in some quarters of Europe, and that’s something that has been part of our history in Europe for many generations. People believed outrageous things about the Jewish people, as some now believe about the Jewish state. What is our great crime? What is it we’re doing? We’re building in the areas that will remain in a final peace settlement of Israel. This is not some foreign land. This is the land in which the Jewish people have been for close to 4000 years. What we’re talking about is suburbs contiguous to Jerusalem. And everybody knows that they will remain part of Israel. You don’t change the map, you don’t prejudge anything.


That’s a pretty transparent allegation that European criticism of the settlement plan is anti-Semitic. For good measure, Netanyahu casually asserts “everybody knows” the area being settled “will remain part of Israel.” Never mind that Abbas calls construction in this area a “red line.” Never mind the U.S. State Department’s affirmation that “this area is particularly sensitive and construction there would be especially damaging to efforts to achieve a two-state solution.” This is Israel’s land, because Israel says so. But when Abbas persuades the U.N. to vote 138-9 for Palestinian statehood, that’s “unilateral.”


There’s a case to be made for many of Israel’s concerns about Palestinian statehood. But this isn’t it. Rockets are violence. Speeches and resolutions at the U.N. aren’t. Israel is entitled to demand probationary security mechanisms in the Palestinian territories based on recent history. But it isn’t entitled to claim those territories based on the Bible. Israel can bargain for parts of the West Bank, but it can’t take them. The Holocaust must be remembered, but never abused.

Someday, Israel will have a prime minister capable of making this case to the world. My fear is that the world will no longer be listening.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._n.single.html

You can see what I mean

reve x
reve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.