Tag: politics

Israel: Next Step, Sanctions Please!

‘Next step, sanctions please

Law-breaking, resolution-busting Israel in a sulk after being told to play by the rules.

by Stuart Littlewood

Nothing could have been more calculated to ruin Hanukka for the Israeli High Command and bring Christmas cheer to the Palestinian Christians and Muslims they have abused and terrorised for decades. Yes,  the UN Security Council finally had the balls to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli “settlements” (posh word for illegal squats) on stolen Palestinian lands.

A statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says: “Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms.”

That’s good. The BDS boys and girls with be rubbing their hands with glee. It’ll mean a massive boost for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, particlarly as 200 legal scholars and practising lawyers from 15 European countries have assured everyone – including those governments that misuse their power to try to scupper boycotting of Israeli goods and other interests – that BDS is actually a lawful exercise of freedom of expression. It is protected by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and any attempt to outlaw it undermines a basic human right and amounts to supporting Israel’s violations of international law.

A not-so-good consequence is that Israel’s attitude problem is likely to ratchet-up anti-Semitism yet again. But Israelis are well aware that Jews worldwide suffer for the Jewish State’s misbehaviour, so the remedy is largely in their own hands.

Still railing against the Security Council, Netanyahu says: “Peace will come not through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties.” He speaks, of course, with his military jackboot on the neck of the Palestinian people. His idea of negotiations, as always, is holding a gun to the head of the other party. As everyone, especially America, knows peace doesn’t suit Israel’s purpose although the pretense of seeking peace does.

And not content with defying the UN, Netanyahu wants revenge on the countries that co-sponsored the resolution, namely New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal. He’s taking petty diplomatic reprisals against NZ and Senegal like recalling ambassadors and cancelling official visits.

Settlements “a flagrant violation under international law”

So what exactly does the resolution say? It condemns all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.

The resolution also:

  1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
  2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
  3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
  4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
  5. Calls upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

The US didn’t have the backbone to support the resolution, only to abstain. Furthermore, despite its tough wording, this was only a Chapter 6 resolution with more growl than bite. The situation clearly calls for a Chapter 7 job as Israel’s actions most definitely “constitute a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression” requiring coercive and enforceable measures.

Nevertheless it wasn’t entirely a waste of time. It turns a spotlight on Israel’s criminal conduct, it will have the effect of releasing the brake on various civil society actions against Israel – especially BDS – and it will hasten the day when countries slap sanctions on the rogue state and demand Israel’s expulsion for repeatedly failing to meet the obligations of UN membership.

The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, explaining America’s reasons for applying her veto, quoted Reagan in 1982: “The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period….  Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”

She said those words “highlight the United States’ long-standing position that Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 undermines Israel’s security, harms the viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region. Today, the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop – privately and publicly – for nearly five decades.”

As Power also pointed out, the total settler [squatter] population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem now exceeds 590,000 and nearly 90,000 are living beyond the separation Wall which itself cuts well into Palestinian territory.  In the last few months Israel has planned for more than 2,600 new settlement units. “Rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution’s sponsors to bring it before the Council.”

However, even if every settlement was dismantled Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem and blockade of Gaze would still be in place.

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) President Ronald S. Lauder complains that once again the UN “singles out Israel for condemnation. It is shocking that 14 of the 15 members of this council voted in favor of the resolution.” Whining about Israel being singled out is a favourite refrain, as is another of Lauder’s remarks that peace can only be reached through bilateral talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

People like Lauder don’t seem to comprehend that peace can only be achieved within a the framework of international law and a level playing field. Lopsided negotiation between an armed bully still in possession of stolen property and an unarmed, dispossessed weakling is no basis for a just peace.

Meanwhile J-Wire reports that Christian Zionists in New Zealand – the Flaxmere Christian Fellowship – condemn what their pastor calls “the anti-Israel resolution outlawing Israeli settlements.” He adds: “We are disgusted at the leading role New Zealand played today at the UN. This is a day of shame for New Zealand. This resolution denies the rights of the Jewish People to build and live on the Holy Land of Israel, Land that has been promised to them in an everlasting resolution by a much greater authority than the New Zealand Government or the United Nations but by the God of Nations Himself….

“At a time when we should be celebrating the birth of the Jewish Saviour we have decided instead to back an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Resolution at the United Nations. We condemn the UN Resolution completely.”

All that matters, then, is the mythical rights of the “Jewish People”, not the legitimate rights of the genuine Palestinians. They don’t even get a mention.

The Flaxmere Christian Fellowship website carries a map showing occupied Palestine as all-Israel. It promotes the following statement: “Regarding Israel, we believe it is their God given right to inherit the Bible Land of their forefathers, and this includes Judea & Samaria (West Bank) which is currently the matter of dispute between Israel and those who call themselves Palestinians.

“Part of the problem regarding the Middle East conflict is ignorance. Many people are ignorant of the historical facts not to speak of the Bible narrative. We as a church aim to bring education to people —especially Christians, regarding the unique plan God has for the Jewish People & Israel in these last days.”

Ignorance? Facts? Education? This “Christian fellowship”

  • believes that God has a unique plan for the Jewish people and the Nation of Israel.
  • believes that as Christians they are called to bless and support the Jewish people and if they do so God Himself will bless them.

Inside the church the flag of Israel hangs beside the New Zealand flag. It’s an interesting insight into the mixed-up mind of the Zionist.

Netanyahu’s office states that ​​”Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.” So he’s banking on Trump being as crazed as he is.  If that turns out to be the case, we’re all in trouble.

Veterans Today

Washington Post-CIA connection undermines Post’s election-hack claim

Washington Post-CIA connections destroy Post’s “election-hack” claim

By Jon Rappoport

“The CIA says” is never a great way to start a sentence. But that’s the basis of the latest charge that Russia hacked the US presidential election.

 

Members of Congress have now been secretly briefed by the CIA on “the Russian affair,” and media, led by the Washington Post, are running with the story that Russia influenced the US election on the side of Trump.

 

Until and unless the denizens of Langley decide to show specific and convincing evidence for their claim, this is disinformation.

 

It’s easy to assemble a circumstantial case. But each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the devil is in the details. If we aren’t privy to those details in the “Russian affair,” no judgement is possible. Of course, major media outlets don’t seem bothered by that. They’re happy to cite the CIA as an authority—conveniently ignoring the fact that people in the intelligence field are taught to lie. It’s their stock in trade.

 

You might remember the Washington Post’s role in defaming and destroying Gary Webb, who, in 1996, published a series of articles in the Mercury News about the CIA seeding black Los Angeles neighborhoods with crack cocaine. The Post basically asked the CIA whether the charge was true, and when the Agency denied it, the Post attacked Webb as a “fake news” reporter. The same Washington Post is now leading the campaign to tie the Russian government to Hillary Clinton’s defeat. And the Post, once again, is using unproven statements from the CIA to back up their claim.

 

I could go on and on about the Post and its historic CIA ties. But now, right now, the owner of the Post is Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon. And Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide the CIA cloud computing services.

 

Boom.

 

Ordinarily, that would be called a fatal conflict of interest, whenever the Post opens up its yap about the CIA in any context.

 

However, mainstream news outlets, the very big ones, don’t go around criticizing each other’s ownerships; so the Bezos-CIA relationship is conveniently ignored and left “in the past.”

 

An honest lead paragraph on the current Russia-CIA-Trump allegations in the Post, however, would start this way:

 

“Our paper is owned by Jeff Bezos, and Jeff is making $600 million to provide the CIA with computing services, so take everything below with a grain of salt the size of Langley.”

 

Going one step further, Amazon and the CIA are both in the data-collecting business. What are the chances that Amazon, in the interest of “national security,” has been sharing its massive customer data with the CIA and other US intelligence agencies?

 

This should lead to another conflict-of-interest statement from the Washington Post: “As you read any article in our paper, keep in mind that our owner may be data-mining you and passing the information to the CIA. Have a nice day.”

 

Am I being too hard on Amazon? Do they have the basic guts to stand up to the intelligence community and resist its demands? Here is what author Norman Solomon had to say about that in 2014 (Huffington Post):

“Amazon’s trajectory into the CIA’s spooky arms may be a bit more than just corporate eagerness to land a lucrative contract. In late 2010 – amid intense public interest in documents that WikiLeaks was posting to illuminate U.S. actions overseas – Amazon took a notable step. As the Guardian reported at the time, Amazon ‘pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.’

 

“It didn’t take much for Amazon to cave. ‘The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off … only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security,’ the Guardian noted.”

 

Let’s see. In 2010, Amazon cuts off WikiLeaks, proving its willingness to cave to the intelligence community.

 

In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, buys the Washington Post.

 

In 2016, during the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks releases tons of email data exposing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and associated players.

 

In 2016, after Clinton loses, the CIA—now Amazon’s business partner, and by extension, the Washington Post’s business partner—tells the Post that Russia influenced the election on behalf of Trump, and also implies/asserts that Russian hackers supplied Wikileaks with those tons of email data…

 

And the Washington Post accepts what its business partner, the CIA, is saying at face value and then leads the charge to blame Russia for handing the election to Trump.

 

The Post doubles down and absurdly accuses numerous sites and blogs of being a) “fake” and b) conscious or unconscious dupes of the Russian government.

 

A nice neat package.

 

Who exactly is the fake news outlet?

 

Trump Calls For Hate Crimes To Stop.

Fakery: Media Theft Of Election Night Outcome? John Rappaport

Screenshot (141)

Fakery: major media preparing to steal election-night outcome?

by Jon Rappoport

October 17, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.

Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.

Therefore, they control it.

Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.

The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.

Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.

The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”

The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.

So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:

“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.

“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.

“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?

Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:

“Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

“Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.”

But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.

And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.


power outside the matrix


“Well, there it is, America. All networks are now projecting the winner. We are waiting for a concession speech from the loser…”

Between now and election night, expect pressure to build on Trump to concede if/when he loses…

“In our American democracy, a peaceful transition from one President to the next is the hallmark of our stability. If Mr. Trump refuses to play by the rules, he is a clear and present danger…”

Trump goes on national television and refuses to concede. Instead, he calls the vote-count a criminal act and has his lawyers file numerous suits.

Then, precisely timed, George Soros-funded riots break out in key cities. Amid the destruction, the media blame Trump for the violence. It’s all his fault. He’s the great divider.

Lifted by strong arms from her wheelchair, pumped up on God knows what drugs, Hillary walks out on stage in a large hall, before screaming adoring fans, and with eyes glowing and a huge smile pasted on her face, gives a speech about a new era in America, and how she will heal wounds and help restore unity and opportunity for all…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.Screenshot (141)

Hitler’s War: What The Historians Fail To Mention

Site Icon -SmallThere are two sides to every story……

The “Android Like” Lester Holt: From John Rappaport.

By Jon Rappoport
Others have pointed out how many times debate moderator Lester Holt slanted criticism toward Trump, rather than Hillary. Others have suggested Hillary and Holt were a tag-team, with Hillary throwing hand signals to Holt indicating she was ready to hit Trump with a zinger.
On a different level…
Watching the debate-host, Holt, working his way through Trump vs. Hillary, sitting in his chair, bathed in a spotlight glow against a sea of total darkness, eerie metallic glimmers reflecting from his glasses, I was reminded of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the barely human chairman of the corporation that designed androids in the film Blade Runner.
—Holt, the man who had the script and the questions and the facts at his immediate disposal. The brain. The wisdom figure. The synthetic guide with a touch of humanity built in.
Quite an archetype.
As I pointed out recently, the ridiculous notion of a debate with a moderator is modern. When Lincoln and Douglas famously debated slavery for hours at a time, over the course of several weeks, there was no intermediary voice. One man spoke for an hour, and then the other man spoke for an hour.
The moderator is a prop, a pretense of introducing objectivity into the proceeding.
The moderator is the “voice of rationality,” as it were. From that perch, he can, of course, slant the event—and Holt certainly did.
His dry speech patterns, in fact, resembled those of Barack Obama, when the President is reciting script.
Watching Holt operate, I was also reminded of the technocratic wet dream of a human brain hooked up to a computer, from which emanates undeniable wisdom.
Holt adopted the persona of a machine, and he pulled it off.
Which means? This is where the world is heading, if the technocrats have anything to say about it. You “need the best data—and one day soon you’ll get the data from a computer your brain is connected to. All will be well.”
Holt is also NBC’s national news anchor, which means he tells the stories of our time, every night, to millions of tranced viewers who are seeking a voice not their own.
Anchor and debate moderator—a powerful combination.
Hypnotically commanding.
Replay the debate moment when, out of nowhere, Holt’s words suddenly crackled like dry autumn leaves: “[Stop and frisk] was ruled unconstitutional.”
The narrator thus spake.
A brain not their own…a voice not their own…a narrator of reality…a fount of instant wisdom…the answer from on high…there are many, many people who want those things, and they want them embodied in a machine-like structure that assures them of dispassionate “honesty.”
Holt provided.
It’s no surprise that giant television networks have made these debates their own property. After all, the companies consider the events media-moments. Hosting them and appointing the moderators is no different from designing and presenting the nightly news broadcasts.
Of course, when you stop and think about this arrangement for debates, it’s absurd. Why would Lester Holt be more qualified to guide the proceeding than a car mechanic from Peoria?
Why have a guide at all?
Why allow media companies or government entities or even non-profit organizations a place in the debates? The two ruling political parties are the correct sponsors. We’re watching their candidates.
Holt was a well-groomed device. A hint of the near-future. A figure of “just-enough-authority” sitting in the darkness, dispensing voice-of-god to the masses, backed up by a production crew with split-screen, miced-up, podium-on-stage technology to provide a fatuous imitation of a real debate
Instead, let there be a stage in a glen. Two or three television cameras. Let there be a topic. Foreign policy. Hillary ascends the stage and speaks for an hour. Then she leaves. Trump appears. He talks for 90 minutes. Then Hillary comes back for 30 minutes. The candidates never speak to each other. There is no moment-to-moment exchange of daggers or jokes or gotchas. This isn’t entertainment. It isn’t grins or hair or dress or tie or teeth.
If there is a moderator, he stands down off-stage and to the side, grumpy and frowning, holding an umbrella in case it rains. He reads a book while the candidates speak, he eats a hot dog. He combs and re-combs his hair. He waits. He thinks about his 20-dollar-an-hour salary. He must remain absolutely silent.
He’s an actual prop put there to remind people of a time when things were different, when the so-called news was delivered by media stars, who competed to see which ones were the most clever at inventing reality that seemed factual, but wasn’t.
In a world with a shred of sanity, that’s what Lester Holt would be doing.
What is modern television news (including debate moderation)?
From their perch, anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.
But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right.” “You can rely on us for that.”
This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.
The anchor is the narrative voice of his time, for all people everywhere. The voice that replaces what is going on in the heads of his audience—all those doubts and confusions and objections in the heads of the great unwashed. The anchor will replace those and substitute his own plot line.
The network anchor is The Wizard Of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.
The anchor must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own. On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.
This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.
Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”
All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion.
The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.
The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news.
There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”
Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control.
Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.
The other night, Lester Holt was the machine-like agent of the Cosmic Charity of All Souls dedicated to higher wisdom from an unimpeachable source. That was his role and he played it.
“I take no sides. I have no opinions. I am objectivity personified. I am…The Fact Checker.”
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.