Give That Fascist A Nobel Peace Prize

SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-pressures-nobel-committee-to-declare-ukraines-president-a-peace-prize-nominee-leaked-letter/5452448 U.S. Pressures Nobel Committee to Declare Ukraine’s President a Peace Prize Nominee, Leaked Letter By Eric Zuesse Global Research, May 29, 2015 Region: Russia and FSU, USA Theme: Politics and Religion, US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT A leaked letter dated May 19th and sent by the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, Vladimir Groysman, to the chargé d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Oslo Norway, thanks her for “the efforts you have made to have Petro Oleksiyovych Poroshenko nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize,” but continues: “Still we consider your assurances of support by the two members of the Nobel Committee as insufficient,” because there are five members of the Committee, and the support of 3 of them is necessary.  Thus,     “We expect further efforts aimed at shifting the position of Berit Reiss-Andersen, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and especially that of the Chair of the Nobel Committee Kaci Kullman Five. Regarding the latter, we recommend that you take advantage of the information you are going to receive from Germany. Your colleagues in Berlin have assured us that the dossier will soon be delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. It is of utmost importance for Mr. Poroshenko to have firm guarantees that he will be awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, since it could highlight the unanimous support of Ukrainian integrity by the democratic community of the world. Assistant Secretary of State Viktoria Nuland has highly estimated your job during her visit to Kyiv.” The three mentioned Nobel Peace Prize Committee members are a politically varied group. Ms. Reiss-Andersen is from the social democratic or “Labour” party; Ms. Ytterhorn is from the libertarian or “Progress” party; and Ms. Five is from the Conservative Party. The two unidentified members are Thorbjørn Jagland from the Labour Party, and Henrik Syse from the Conservative Party. If this letter is correct, those are the two who are referred to by the letter’s phrase, “your assurances of support by the two members.” The letter also makes a vague reference to the poor reputation that the Committee has engendered on account of the Committee’s having granted the Prize to Barack Obama in 2009 (a decision that the Committee’s Chairperson, Ms. Five, concurred with and has been criticized for):     “We understand the difficulties you face when promoting the candidacy of the President of Ukraine, therefore we ask you to exert additional leverages by engaging those U.S. Senators who effectively cooperated with the Committee in 2009.” Presumably, this means that whomever “those U.S. Senators” were, the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament thinks that they were “effective.” President Poroshenko entered office on 25 May 2014 after a U.S.-sponsored coup in Kiev that installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukraine’s Prime Minister on 26 February 2014, after the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Asian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev on 4 February 2014 to get “Yats” appointed as the junta’s leader; she issued that instruction to him by phone on February 4th and the coup occurred on February 22nd; Yatsenyuk was then appointed on February 26th, and he remains in power today. One pro-Russian part of Ukraine, Crimea, then seceded and joined Russia, and another, Donbass, seceded and was not accepted by Russia; it thus was bombed by the Ukrainian Government during May through December 2014, since Donbass’s repeated requests to be allowed to join Russia were spurned by Vladimir Putin. (Yet, Ukraine accuses Russia of providing the fighters who are actually the men of Donbass, who refuse to be ruled by the U.S.-coup regime. Russia sends them guns, and volunteers have come from Russia and many other countries to help the Donbass defenders.) German intelligence estimates that “up to 50,000” people were killed in that bombing campaign, but U.S. and other official estimates are only around 5,000. Even before Poroshenko took office, the new Ukrainian government of “Yats” Yatsenyuk invaded Donbass, using bombers, tanks, rocket-launchers, and everything it had; and, when Poroshenko gave his victory speech in the ceremonial Presidential election on May 25th, he promised, and it was very clear from him, that: “The anti-terrorist operation [he called the residents there ’terrorists’] cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours.” (Another translation of it was “Antiterrorist operation can not and will not continue for 2-3 months. It must and will last hours.”) But it did last months — Poroshenko’s prediction was certainly false; and, moreover, he lost first one round of the war, and then another — his prediction of its outcome was likewise false. And recently, he said that the war must be resumed for yet a third round, in order that Ukraine win back both Crimea and Donbass. However, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned him on May 12th that he must not do that, and that if he did he’d be violating the Minsk II ceasefire accords which had been arranged by France’s Francois Hollande and Germany’s Angela Merkel. Then, three days later, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had arranged the February 2014 coup, told both Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko to ignore what Kerry had just said, and that, “We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” Perhaps a reason why the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament is boldly demanding the U.S. State Department to arrange for Poroshenko to get at least a nomination for the Peace Prize (and even goes so far as to assert that, “It is of utmost importance for Mr. Poroshenko to have firm guarantees that he will be awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize”) is that otherwise they will follow through on Nuland’s statement of U.S. commitment, and re-invade Donbass. However, any invasion by Ukraine of Crimea would be exceedingly unlikely, because that would give Russia a virtual carte blanche to attack Ukraine, and neither the U.S. nor any other power will go to war against Russia in such an instance; Ukraine isn’'t yet a NATO member, and NATO would be exceedingly reluctant to go so far as a third world war, this time against Russia, in order to defend the Ukrainian Government from the consequences of that Government’s own then-blatant ceasefire violation — especially in the wake of what virtually everyone now recognizes to have been a U.S. coup that had installed the present Ukrainian regime (and even EU officials were shocked to find out that it had been a coup). And it was a very violent coup, which was followed shortly thereafter by the extremely violent ethnic-cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in Donbass. SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-pressures-nobel-committee-to-declare-ukraines-president-a-peace-prize-nominee-leaked-letter/5452448 --------------------- COMMENT Surely this is a joke.   Yeah, it's a joke that Obama got the Peace Prize.  But now Poroshenko, as well? Is Ukraine Pressuring US to Secure Nobel Peace Prize for Poroshenko? EXTRACT The letter is addressed to Julie Furuta-Toy, chargé d'affaires (head of the diplomatic mission) at the Embassy of the United States in Oslo and acting US Ambassador to Norway. It is apparently signed by the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, Volodymyr Groysman and is dated May 19, 2015, with a registered number 01-5/126(90542). SOURCE http://sputniknews.com/world/20150530/1022745342.html No nominees listed for 2015 - here. But keep your eye on the nominees.  Might be a few laughs in this. United States to nominate Ukrainian President Poroshenko for a Nobel Peace Prize

World Press Freedom Day

World Press Freedom Day "United Nations General Assembly declared May 3 to be World Press Freedom Day (or just World Press Day) to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the press and remind governments of their duty to respect and uphold the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and marking the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek, a statement of free press principles put together by African newspaper journalists in 1991." Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Day COMMENT So much for World Press Day and all those noble UN declarations when journalist and whistleblower publisher, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, has been denied liberty for over 4 years without charge. FAQ FAQs - https://justice4assange.com/ UK siege of Assange ticking money-meter -  https://govwaste.co.uk/ ARTICLE The siege of Julian Assange is a farce - a special investigation http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation

MSM Silence & US Hypocrisy - Ukraine Assassinations

Weekend Edition May 1-3, 2015 Silent on the Kiev Dead US Hypocrisy Over Ukraine and Saudi Arabia by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY Boris Nemtsov was a Russian politician who was shot dead in Moscow on January 27, 2015.  He was opposed to Russia’s government and its leader and therefore, according to Western dogma of these times, his murder must have been ordered by President Putin. Police began investigating the crime promptly but there was no pause for deliberation on the part of some western leaders and much of their media : they reacted immediately and leapt to censure the Russian government and especially President Putin in terms that were not only abusive, insolent and confrontational but confirmation of the fact that there is no intention on their part to ever consider diplomacy in their dealings with Moscow. French President Hollande described Nemtsov as a “defender of democracy” and called the death an assassination.  Britain’s prime minister Cameron declared that “Boris Nemtsov is dead. But the values he stood for will never die,” and demanded that the death be “fully, rapidly and transparently investigated.” President Obama  announced that “we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder.” These Western heads of government knew well that their public pronouncements and peremptory demands were condemnatory insinuations against the democratically elected administration of Russia, but their intention is to cripple the country and topple President Putin and they seize any opportunity to disparage and insult him. Their line of attack is that if something unpleasant happens in Russia it is without doubt the fault of President Putin who must at once be subjected to vilification in terms that imply his personal responsibility for whatever crime has taken place. There would have been sanctimonious uproar in the west if Putin ever commented in such a fashion about, for example, the killing by police of unarmed black people in America, but spiteful pronouncements on Russia’s domestic affairs by western leaders are considered praiseworthy by most western mainstream news outlets which have been very quiet about some strange happenings in Ukraine where, as The Economist observes, “Dodgy economic policy, distaste for reform and endemic corruption have brought the country to its knees.” In the three months after the killing of Nemtsov there were at least eleven mysterious deaths in Ukraine, most in the capital, Kiev:     January ...29: politician Aleksey Kolesnik, dead by hanging.     February 24 : politician Stanislav Melnik shot dead.     February 25 : mayor of Melitopol Sergey Valter dead by hanging.     February 26 : deputy chief of Melitopol police, Aleksandr Bordyuga, found dead.     February 28 : politician Mikhail Chechetov, dead by fall from apartment window.     March ........ 9 : politician Stanislav Melnik shot dead.     March .......12 : politician Oleksandr Peklushenko shot dead.     March .......22 : former prosecutor Serhiy Melnychuk dead by fall from apartment window.     April ...........13:  journalist Sergei Sukhobok shot dead .     April ...........15 : politician Oleg Kalashnikov shot dead.     April ...........16 : journalist Oles Buzyna shot dead. By coincidence most of the dead had been critical of the Ukraine government, supportive of Russia, or possessed information that might have been embarrassing for the Ukraine’s  billionaire President Petro Poroshenko, owner of a mammoth confectionary corporation, car plants, a shipyard, and a major television station, who delivered an address to a joint session of the US Congress and continues to receive unquestioning western support for his increasingly erratic statements and behavior. Although most western media and all western political leaders ignored these deaths, the redoubtable Newsweek scented a story and began to investigate.  It recorded  that:     In reply to a legal request by Newsweek for information on investigations into the deaths of seven other former officials, all tied to [former President] Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, the General Prosecutor’s Office responded that all the information about all the deaths was a state secret — a staggering claim to make about a series of apparently unrelated civilian deaths they told the press were suicides. If the equivalent office in Moscow had given such a response to a western media inquiry there would have been scathing headlines in the New York Times, the British Telegraph and all the other determinedly anti-Russian media machines of the west.  Newsweek’s informative observations on obvious corruption in official legal circles in Ukraine elicited no follow-up of any kind in the west’s media — but had there been similar revelations about Russia there would have been a blitz of self-righteous condemnation. The end of Newsweek’s piece is especially noteworthy:     Watching the [Ukraine's] top prosecutors leaving the General Prosecutor’s Office in sharp suits and stepping into gleaming Porsches, BMWs and Land Rovers, it’s clear that the average state prosecutor’s wage, equivalent to 400 euros [USD 430]  per month, isn’t their only source of income. Within the same building, officials are representing an array of different interests. With such great wealth at stake, the truth about these deaths is unlikely to emerge any time soon. Back in Odessa, three prosecutors laugh as they dismiss allegations that their office tried to cover up Sergei Melnychuk’s murder. They have good reason to be happy. They’re off to the Rugby World Cup in London later this year, an event where one ticket . . .  sells for the equivalent of 400 euros. Just the sort of people you would trust to conduct legal action concerning mysterious deaths of anti-government figures. The leader of the west’s anti-Russian campaign is President Obama who told the media on March 2 that “freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of information, basic civil rights and civil liberties inside of Russia are in much worse shape now than they were four or five, ten years ago.”  If this is so, then he was right to point it out. But Obama’s condemnation of countries that are guilty of denying “civil liberties” is intriguingly selective. There is one particularly rich country that escapes the net of his disapproval. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE - http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/01/us-hypocrisy-over-ukraine-and-saudi-arabia/ Ukraine Hypocrisy Ukraine Minister of Foreign Affairs FAIR USE - COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. COMMENT Full article is at link provided. Funny how all those Western heads of state, politicians, ambassadors, former intelligence services & NATO talking heads, and the mainstream media that so delights in vilifying Putin, aren't as enthusiastic in calling attention to this perverse lawlessness in Ukraine and aren't condemning Poroshenko and his US masters.

VIDEO: Wikileaks reveals Sony & US State Dept. mutual effort aimed at ISIS, Russia

Wikileaks reveals Sony & US State Dept. mutual effort aimed at ISIS, Russia SOURCE:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EMSkkT9mPVM Close ties between Sony & US State Dept exposed. WikiLeaks Sony archive belongs in public domain because:  archive shows inner workings of an influential multinational corporation; it is newsworthy & at centre of geopolitical conflict. That %$#$ Harf US State Dept spokesperson referring to 'a very high level of Russian propaganda' to 'hide' what Russia is doing in Ukraine ... errr, ... never mind the CIA coup in Ukraine and what the imperialist US is doing in Ukraine (and all over the WORLD) - including decades long dissemination of poison: US propaganda - makes me want to puke all over the keyboard. US State Dept attitude, as conveyed by Harf, summed up by reporter: US government in talks with entertainment giants to promote US foreign policy can be summarised in two words:  so what. Richard Stengel is not the first US official to put Russia and ISIL in one list of 'challenges'.  FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. That's Obama in Brisbane, Australia, vilifying Russia (by linking Russia to the 'fight' against ISIL, America's terrorist proxy in the Middle East) and calling on the 'international community' (but, really, his corporate serving allies), sounding off about the 'fight to destroy the terrorist group ISIL and opposing Russia's aggression against Ukraine," in the same breath. Thus Obama smears and vilifies Russia, while writing off the ethnic-Russian people of what is now eastern Ukraine (historically a territory of the Russian Empire), dismissing their legitimate struggle for their very lives and for independence from US installed and backed Ukraine fascists that have attacked these civilians with US and European Union backing and blessing. Support for Obama's aggression against the people of eastern Europe is a stain on every government and people that has supported this US aggression, and the insatiable American political-corporate-military drive for domination and exploitation of Europe. Yet this imperialist aggressor paints the Russians as a 'threat'; which is the standard tactic for this lying, despicable, imperialist invader. Check this out: FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. The US imperialist is aiming to invest millions in 'countering' what it calls Russia's drive to reclaim lost territories.  Never mind the US drive to claim territories on Russia's doorstep, eh?  And this from the hypocrite US government that declared the Monroe Doctrine, basically claiming control of North America and South America (entire continents, Hello????), functioning as a declaration of US hegemony (see Chomsky). Note that this is a priority over countering ISIL propaganda.  Of course it is; ISIL serves their purpose in the Middle East. What is of utmost priority to the US, is US propaganda funding to sell US incursions into eastern Europe. Note also, that propaganda funding amount referred to above is trifling, compared to the US Broadcasting Board of Governors' annual US taxpayer funded propaganda budget: SOURCE - http://bbgwatch.com/bbgwatch/ FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. The 2014 Broadcasting Board of Governors budget was:  $733 million Loosely quoting Richard Becker, Answer Coalition: This is a revival of the cold war, particularly in the field of culture (see book:  The Culture of Cold War).  USA - for decades - used reporters, film companies, radio broadcasting - all different forms of communication & culture to promote the cold war against the Soviet Union, and now they are doing the same.  It has never stopped, really. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has funded anti Cuba propaganda by paying journalists & creating radio & TV stations (spending 100s of millions of dollars over the years), so the notion that has been presented by the US State Dept. spokesperson (ie Harf above) that this isn't something that the US government engages in or that it's up to the entertainment company is COMPLETELY FALSE. This is a COLLABORATIVE effort and IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES, and now it has been revived in a big way against Russia as well as against others. US propaganda can be produced for the State Dept by Hollywood as follows:  TV shows, movies, music video ... list goes on and on; Sony (and they're not the only ones approached) is an extremely large corporation and have many means by which to propagate a narrative that shows them as a bastion of democracy, while whoever they're targeting is portrayed in the worst possible way. Presenter:  [If we look at the WikiLeaks Sony archive revelation] ... it shows us a case of private companies becoming an arm of US interests ... Richard Becker: These entertainment corporations are huge capitalist corporations and they have a government that is very much on their side along with other big corporations, so there's nothing really new about this.  But after the end of WWII (70 years ago), this collaboration was exponentially intensified to turn the big media - newspapers, movies, TV, radio etc - into ARMS OF THE GOVERNMENT and, in effect, they serve that purpose as arms of the government. [Cooperation between movie companies, the US government and the US military] has been going on for a very long time ... most people are hearing about that for the first time, but in reality the Pentagon and the military - again, going back to the time of WWII - have collaborated with the film studios and TV production and other forms of media, when they were doing programming that the military / the Pentagon felt was helpful to the US wars around the world.  That's been going on a long time and it's good that at least some of the population here is finding out about this. [Segment concludes] LOOK-UPS RICHARD STENGEL FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. "Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs" must mean under secretary for propaganda. Politico reported: At the State Department, Stengel will find himself in the company of other veteran journalists. Last week, as first reported by The Huffington Post, the White House announced that Douglas Frantz, late of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, has been named the State Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs. Glen Johnson, formerly The Boston’s Globe’s political editor, took a position as a senior state department advisor earlier this year. Source:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/richard-stengel-leaving-time-state-department-96732.html So judging by the US State Dept. appointments from the commercial sector, there's also a cross-over between corporate journalism and the US State Dept. RICHARD BECKER Richard Becker West Coast Coordinator at ANSWER Coalition     San Francisco Bay Area     Political Organization [linkedin] Monroe Doctrine The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding European countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. Criticism Critics of the Monroe Doctrine, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has functioned as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas  ... [wikipedia] MORE ON US PROPAGANDA USA 'MINISTRY OF TRUTH' 'Freedom News Network' House Measure to Change Voice of America’s Mission Is Drawing Intense Debate By RON NIXON   MAY 20, 2014 EXTRACTS WASHINGTON — A bill to overhaul Voice of America has prompted an intense debate among supporters of the legislation who say it will better enable the broadcast news service to counter Russian disinformation and opponents who say it will turn the service into an American propaganda tool. The legislation, which recently passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, would make changes to the mission of the government-financed Voice of America that its sponsors say would more clearly define its role in support of the United States. Specifically, the bill revises the language of Voice of America’s mission to explicitly state that the outlet has a role in supporting American “public diplomacy” and the policies of the government. Walter Isaacson, a former chairman of the Board of Governors as well as a former chairman and chief executive of CNN, said that the legislation was a response to changing times and that Voice of America should have a dual mission to clearly present American policy as well as provide objective news.  LMAO!!! Inside Voice of America, the legislation has created widespread fear among staff members who have long considered themselves professional journalists rather than spokesmen for government policy. During a recent staff meeting, journalists angrily voiced their concerns to managers. One journalist said the broadcast network could see a mass exodus if the legislation passed. Dan Robinson, who worked at the service for more than two decades before retiring this year, said the legislation would create additional problems if passed into law: It could endanger the lives of journalists and broadcasters who work abroad. “So do foreign governments now start seeing journalists from V.O.A. as agents of U.S. policy rather than as journalists?” he said. “That’s a real concern.” But Helle C. Dale, a senior fellow for public diplomacy at the Heritage Foundation, who supports changes to overhaul Voice of America and other international broadcasting, said such claims were absurd. “It’s not like people don’t already know,” she said. “It’s completely funded by the U.S. government, and it’s called the Voice of America. How does this legislation change this reality?” In addition to Voice of America, the federal government runs Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Under the legislation, those broadcast outlets would be reorganized into a single organization called the Freedom News Network. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/us/politics/house-measure-to-change-voice-of-americas-mission-is-drawing-intense-debate.html  Director of Voice of America Is Planning to Step Down By RON NIXON   APRIL 7, 2015 EXTRACTS  WASHINGTON — David Ensor, who as director of the Voice of America has presided over significant growth in the news agency’s audience despite budget cuts, announced Tuesday that he was stepping down. According to survey data prepared for the board, the Voice of America’s international radio, television and online audience has reached 172 million people a week, an increase of 49 million during Mr. Ensor’s tenure. Mr. Ensor, 64, a former reporter for NPR, ABC News and CNN, was the director of communications and public diplomacy at the United States Embassy in Afghanistan before joining the Voice of America. The House passed a bill last year saying that the Voice of America should support American “public diplomacy” and policies. The move set off a revolt among staff members, who said the change would affect their editorial independence. The Senate did not take up the measure. It is expected to be introduced again in the House. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/director-ofvoice-of-america-is-planning-to-step-down.html?_r=0  CONCLUSION The entire entertainment industry & corporate media, as well as the US state funded media, is a propaganda arm of the US government ... EDIT - LOL, I WRITE BADLY ... SO MELODRAMATIC MELODRAMA IN PICTURES IS AT LEAST FUNNY BAD WRITING IS ... BORING YAAAAWN!

USA - Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Benjamin Netanyahu Stuns Israel Backers by Embracing Republicans on Iran Bipartisan Unity in Danger as Premier Sides With GOP Congress By Nathan Guttman Published January 28, 2015, issue of February 06, 2015. Washington — Within one week, the fundamentals of the mainstream pro-Israel community have been shaken like never before. Its centerpiece legislative effort — the drive to impose new sanctions on Iran — has been frozen in place and, more importantly, the notion that support for Israel is a bipartisan issue in American politics has suffered a serious blow. The source of the setbacks suffered by the organized Jewish community could be tracked down to one event: House Speaker John Boehner’s January 21 invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak on Iran in front of a joint meeting of Congress — and Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation, by prearrangement — without consulting Boehner’s Democratic counterparts and without telling President Obama about his outreach to a head of state to visit. From that moment, events spiraled downward quickly, leaving the community with more questions than answers and with blame being assigned in all directions. When Rep. John Yarmuth, a Jewish Democrat from Kentucky, was asked about the latest entanglement, he pointed to the large American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group, and to big donors as responsible for pushing Congress far to the right on issues relating to Israel. “Unfortunately,” Yarmuth told liberal radio host Stephanie Miller, “some of the demands made of [Congress] members by AIPAC and by some Jewish supporters are that we defer to Israel more than we defer to the United States.” Turning Israel into a partisan issue has long been the greatest fear of pro-Israel advocates who argue that in the long run, the Jewish state needs support from both parties in order to remain America’s closest ally. Events surrounding the GOP’s invitation to Netanyahu have raised concerns in the Jewish community that siding with Israel, and specifically adopting its view regarding the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran, have now become a political football. “It is too important an issue to politicize it,” said Abraham Foxman national director of the Anti Defamation League, who argued against Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. For Democrats, such as Yarmuth, it was clear who was at fault for this politicization: the Republicans and those in the pro-Israel establishment who support their views. “Israel needs bipartisan support and I am worried that when you take an individual issue and try to drive a wedge, it weakens the long term foundations of this relationship,” said Greg Rosenbaum, chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who is also a top-level AIPAC member. A strong relationship between the United States and Israel has long been a cornerstone of the American Jewish community. Fears that it is now crumbling are overstated, argued Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “This does not rise to the ‘end of the relationship’ discussion that seems to be going on,” he said. “This is more of a ‘take a breath’ moment.” Gutow stressed that while there are clearly differences between the U.S. and Israel on how to deal with Iran, they are only tactical; the strategic goal of stopping Iran from becoming nuclear is shared by both nations. Events on Capitol Hill surrounding the Iran sanctions legislation demonstrated how polarized the debate had become. The bill, sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, faced many hurdles on its way to a vote in the Senate Banking Committee. First and foremost, there was the president’s vigorous threat to veto the legislation because of the destructive effect he argued it would have on the ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Supporters of the bill had hoped that with the help of Democratic senators, ten of whom had indicated their willingness to co-sponsor, they’d be able to reach a super majority of 67 needed to override a presidential veto. Netanyahu’s planned speech in Congress was expected to help crystallize this support. Three Jewish Democrats: New York’s Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ben Cardin of Maryland were among the key backers of the bill. The Senate’s seven other Jewish lawmakers did not join the drive, with California’s Dianne Feinstein actively working to defeat it. But as the controversy over Netanyahu’s invitation to Congress took over Washington’s political agenda, Democratic support for the new sanctions legislation melted away. In a January 27 [letter] ](http://images.politico.com/global/2015/01/27/iranletter1.pdf) to Obama, all the original Democratic supporters of the bill promised they would not support the legislation on the Senate floor before March 24, the current deadline for reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran. They said further that they would vote for new sanctions only if negotiations failed to reach an agreement. [Which is putting pressure to reach agreement, on the threat of sanctions.] The bottom line delivered by Senate Democrats was that new Iran sanctions — AIPAC’s central piece of legislation and a top goal for Republican supporters of Israel — has been put on freeze by Democrats, with all Jewish senators on board. [Hardly a freeze.] “Democrats are wary of the partisan agenda behind this push for sanctions on Iran,” said Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the dovish lobby J Street, a group that opposes new sanctions on Iran. “This worry they had was confirmed by Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s gambit.” AIPAC did not respond to inquiries relating on this issue from the Forward. But the recast debate thrust the entire organized Jewish community into an uneasy position. Most major Jewish groups chose to avoid speaking out publicly on the controversy. An official with one of the big national organizations said that the recent events had caught the community by surprise and that “there is no good way to respond.” The official explained that Jewish groups have nothing to benefit from taking sides in a political dispute between Republicans and the White House, or, for that matter, between the president of the United States and the Israeli prime minister. At least one Jewish senator has expressed, in an off record conversation, his wish to try and broker some sort of an arrangement that would defuse tensions, though he noted that it is not clear if there are partners on the other side of the isle for a compromise. Short of finding such a middle road, Jewish communal activists now face two immediate questions: How to keep up the pressure on Iran now that the option of new sanctions is on hold? And how should they treat Netanyahu once he arrives in Washington? The first is a practical problem. New sanctions are still the main vehicle for the pro-Israel lobby to increase pressure on Iran and AIPAC will continue pushing for their approval. But this drive has become all the more difficult now that the sanctions legislation has turned into one of the most contentious partisan issues, making it harder to get Democrats on board. As for rolling out the welcome mat for Netanyahu – all Jewish officials reached by the Forward said they could not envision a situation in which Jewish groups would shun the Israeli leader. Staff members from congressional offices of Jewish lawmakers also stressed there is no intention to boycott Netanyahu’s speech. But this doesn’t mean partisanship will be off the table once Netanyahu arrives at Capitol Hill. The Emergency Committee on Israel, a heavily Republican organization known for its critical views of President Obama, has already announced it will be hosting a reception for the Israeli prime minister after he addresses Congress. The event, ECI said in a statement is meant to “make clear, in case there’s any doubt, that whatever the president does or says, Americans value our friendship with our ally Israel.” http://forward.com/articles/213645/benjamin-netanyahu-stuns-israel-backers-by-embraci/? COMMENT If you want to get things done in terms of political lobbying, it's best to have both sides on-side, rather than to turn issues into bipartisan partisan political issues, is what I got out of that. A lot of pro-Israel lobby groups appear to be involved. It's not to pro-Israel lobbyists advantage to get caught up in a Republicans vs the White House or USA versus Israel issues. Furthermore, Israel cannot afford to alienate either party.  For continued support, must straddle both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, it looks like it's important for pro-Israeli lobbyists to continue to show their support for Israel, so Israel's visiting PM will be hosted by a heavily republican 'Emergency Committee on Israel' after his Congress address.

UKRAINE - Progress Report

UKRAINE PROGRESS REPORT

Israel - Palestine Conflict: Mads Gilbert & Noam Chomsky

ISRAEL / PALESTINE MADS GILBERT Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZzIf7Bk8CHM Talk to Al Jazeera - Mads Gilbert:  'People are questioning Israel' Mads Gilbert is a convincing voice for Palestine and it's worthwhile taking the time to view this video, which is from the perspective of a medical professional that has long been active in helping people in Palestine. Gilbert says that, according to international law, an occupied people have the right to take up arms to defend themselves.  That isn't something the mainstream media makes clear.  In fact, I think that's the first time I've ever heard anybody say that. It is also illegal to occupy a people!  Wow, I didn't even know that. During this interview, Gilbert calls into question the Israeli narrative of Israel as a people under attack. Gilbert goes on to say that the solution is a political one rather than a military one. NOAM CHOMSKY Which takes me back to another video that I watched about Palestine and Israel - Noam Chomsky's UN speech: Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2LNyZ6NNeE Noam Chomsky at UN (Oct 14th, 2014)  "Solutions To The Israel-Palestine Conflict" It's worthwhile taking the time to watch the Noam Chomsky video  because he explains the ways in which a political solution has been dodged. Watched this video some time ago and summarised some of the points Chomsky made during the first half hour or so of the video.   Summary below: Israel-Palestine conflict: general outlines of a diplomatic solution has been clear for at least 40 years. Resolution brought before UN 1976 called for two-state settlement internationally recognised border which guarantees rights of both states 1976 resolution brought to UN by 3 major Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria ('the Confrontation States') 1976 UN resolution -- Israel refused to attend the session. Resolution vetoed by US. 1976 UN Resolution> US veto typically DOUBLE-VETO  1) Non-implementation Resolution  2) Event vetoed from history .. 1976 UN Resolution> Israel refusal to attend + US veto of implementation of Resolution (& from history) SET PATTERN SINCE 1976 UN Resolution> most recent US VETO 2011 #Obama - vetoed implementation 4 official US policy / for opp. to expansion of settlements Opposition to expansion of settlements >*expansion* not issue / issue is illegal *settlements* + infrastructure projects for long time, overwhelming international consensus in support of a [illegal] settlement along these general lines UN pattern set 1976 continues to the present /Israel rejects settlement of terms with unremitting & decisive support of US UN pattern set 1976 continues with unremitting & decisive support of US -- military, economic, diplomatic & ideological pattern continues with support of US, establishing how conflict viewed & interpreted in US & within US sphere of influence pattern> ceasefire, Israel disregards >continues assault on Gaza, incl. continued siege, intermittent violence, settlement &  development. pattern> Hamas observe ceasefire until Israel escalation elicits Hamas response >Israel exercises 'mowing the lawn'  [ie military offensive against Palestinians] pattern > Israel 'mowing the lawn'  [ie military offensive against Palestinians] > each episode more fierce & destructive than the last -- in a series Agreement on Movement & Access Nov 2005, called for crossing between Gaza & Egypt (Rafah) 2005 Agreement > for export of goods & transit of people , continuous op of crossings between Israel & Gaza 4 import/export + transit of people 2005 Agreement > called for reduction of obstacles to movement w/in the West Bank, bus & truck convoys between West Bank & Gaza ... 2005 Agreement > called for the building of a sea port in Gaza, the reopening of airport in Gaza (that Israel had destroyed) Terms of 2005 Movement & Access Agreement are essentially terms of successive ceasefires, incl. one reached few weeks ago. 2005 Agreement timing significant > it was moment of Israel's disengagement from Gaza & removal several thousand Israeli settlers 2005 Israel disengagement stated goal was the FREEZING of the peace process to prevent establishment of Palestinian state 2005 Israel disengagement stated goal was to ensure that diplomacy has been removed indefinitely from agenda ... Israel-Palestine:'05 Israel disengagement reality:  ruined territory not released for even single day from Israel military grip or occupation '05 Israel disengagement stated reality - Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services & people with no present or future 2005 Israel disengagement stated reality: settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier 2005 Israel disengagement >occupier continues to control territory kill & harass inhabitants >means of formidable military might Oslo Accords established 20 years ago >> Gaza & West Bank are INDIVISIBLE TERRITORIAL UNITY > integrity cannot be broken up For 20 years US & Israel dedicated to separating Gaza & West Bank in VIOLATION of the ACCORDS they had ACCEPTED Separation of Gaza & West bank look at map explains why: Gaza offers only access to outside world to Palestine. if Gaza is separated from the West Bank whatever autonomy it might be granted in West Bank would be imprisoned. September. West Bank = Imprisoned; Israel on one side & hostile Jordan (ally of  Israel)  on other and Israel-US Jordan valley takeover Israel's slow & steady US-backed policy is to take over Jordan Valley, about 1/3 of West Bank & much of arable land Jordan Valley take-over is major geostrategic reason for Israel with US backing INSISTENCE on SEPARATING Gaza & West Bank Jan 2006 = first full free election in the Arab world (monitored & recognised) occurred> HAMAS won control of Parliament Hamas win election result in 2006 was not what US & Israel wanted 2006 Hamas win of Parliament good test of US 'democracy promotion' agenda > Fail: Palestine harsh siege instituted US/IS following 2006 Hamas win of Parliament, US began to immediately organise a military coup - as per standard US record post 2006 election, US organised military coup >> to its shame & discredit, European Union went along with this. sounds like the punishment, violence, US arranged coup (accepted by EU) led to Israeli escalation + end to Nov 2005 Agreement 2007 Hamas committed even greater crime than winning fair election; it pre-empted planned military coup & took over Gaza! 2007 elected Hamas PREVENTING US-arranged coup is described in West as Hamas taking Gaza over by 'force'. Hamas preventing planned & US-arranged military coup against the Hamas elected government led to substantial attacks on Gaza. Jan 2008 another. ceasefire reached. Similar to 2005 terms. Israel publicly rejected ceasefire. Hamas observed the ceasefire. one-sided ceasefire cont. to Nov 4, 2008 - day of US election - Israeli forces invaded Gaza & killed Hamas militants ... Nov 2008 Israel attack on Gaza led 2 rocket fire on Israel, a huge Israeli response, lots killings: Palestinians, as usual mid Dec 2008, Hamas offer to renew the ceasefire, Israeli doveish Cabinet rejected & launched next military op 'Cast Lead' 2008 Israel Op 'Cast Lead' >> horrible Op .. caused substantial international reaction, investigation: UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch 2008 Israel Op 'Cast Lead'  >> precisely timed to end before  #Obama inauguration .. so Obama didn't have to respond. no comment / let's forget about the past & look to the future is standard slogan for those engaged in serious crime Jan 8, 2009 >> UN Resolution passed (US abstaining) >> calling for immediate cease-fire with usual terms - NEVER OBSERVED > UN ceasefire Resolution of Jan 8, 2009 > broke down completely w. next episode of 'mowing the lawn' in Nov. 2012 >Nov. 2012 'mow the lawn' [ie military offensive against Palestinians] >> get good sense what going on looking @ casualty figures: 79 killed / 78 of them Palestinians The above points were summarised weeks ago, and this is one of the things I didn't get around to finishing.  Hopefully it makes sense. I thought the Chomsky UN video was amazing.  It explains in simple terms what's really going on, which was a revelation to me, as I'm new to politics and as you don't get this sort of information from mainstream media.  [Excuse any typos.  Another all-nighter, no sleep.  Getting to be a baaaaad habit.]