Monday, 5 November 2018

israel Stooges Freak Out over Baroness Jenny Tonge’s Remarks – Again

They plot to get her removed from the House of Lords

4313661705 5d9a7fb6f3 z d1be3
“Absolutely appalling and a criminal act, but does it ever occur to Bibi and the present Israeli government that its actions against Palestinians may be reigniting anti-Semitism? I suppose someone will say that it is anti-Semitic to say so?”
What’s wrong with that?
Everything, according to the ‘usual suspects’ among the Inquisitors that makes up the Israel lobby.
Lord Pickles, in the House of Lords on 29 October responding to a Private Notice Question, said: “My Lords, will the Minister join me, along with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in condemning the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, in suggesting that the murders in Pittsburgh were caused by the actions of the Israeli Government? That suggestion will clearly cause great pain in Pittsburgh, and falls foul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.”
Jenny Tonge, a tireless champion of Palestinians’ rights, has fought long and hard in the struggle for their freedom. So what came as a surprise (for some) was the knife in the back from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), who issued this statement on 30 October: “In the aftermath of the massacre of 11 Jewish worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Baroness Tonge posted a comment on Facebook that suggested Israel’s policies and its treatment of the Palestinians could be contributing to a rise in anti-Semitism generally. Baroness Tonge subsequently removed the post.
“PSC regards the original post to be deeply troubling. Whilst the post acknowledged that the killings were appalling and a criminal act, it risked being read as implying that anti-Semitism can only be understood in the context of a response to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such a view risks justifying or minimising antisemitism.”
The PSC told Jewish News it had “contacted Jenny Tonge to express our deep concerns at her post and is in the process of considering any further steps.”
Jewish News also reported that Conservative Friends of Israel Parliamentary Chairman Lord Pickles and Conservative Friends of Israel Honorary President Lord Polak had condemned her “callous inflammatory” remarks. They said the post “is in clear violation of the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism adopted by the UK Government. For a Member of the House of Lords to publish such hateful thoughts brings Parliament into disrepute.”
Never mind that Jenny’s remark was accurate. The Israeli regime strains every sinew to ensure its behaviour is so appalling as to invite detestation and loathing, not because they are Jews but because they are the ‘amoral thugs’ that the late Jewish MP Sir Gerald Kaufman once called them.
Remember the warning from one of their own, former Israeli Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi, who wrote: “Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”
Bibi and his adoring supporters, not Jenny Tonge, need to think about that. It remains to be seen what motivated the atrocity at Pittsburgh. But whatever the IHRA definition says, the European Convention on Human Rights  and our Human Rights Act provide for freedom of expression which applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. Unless, of course, they call for violence, hatred or intolerance, which is not the case here.
Nothing to apologise for
Of course the Zionists, even within her own party, have been gunning for Jenny for a very long time. A doctor by training and profession, she is used to being stabbed in the back by scaredy-cat leaders. In 2012 she was sacked after suggesting that Israel would not last for ever. She rejected an ultimatum from party leader Nick Clegg to apologise and said she stood by her remarks.
The row blew up when Jenny allegedly told a meeting at Middlesex University: “Beware Israel. Israel is not going to be there for ever in its present form… Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown.”   She said America would one day get sick of funding what she called America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East. “One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA: Enough is enough.”
Israel’s admirers were soon queuing up to spit their venom. The Board of Deputies of British Jews condemned Tonge’s remarks as “sinister and abhorrent”. Chief executive Jon Benjamin said: “There is no place for someone like Jenny Tonge in mainstream political parties in this country.”
The then chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, said: “I am appalled at Baroness Tonge’s remarks. They are dangerous, inflammatory and unacceptable… Views such as those expressed by Baroness Tonge have no place in civil public discourse.”
The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel applauded Clegg’s “decisive action” and hoped the sacking would “draw a line under the continual smearing of Lib Dem party policy on Israel and the Middle East”. And according to The Guardian an unnamed Lib Dem spokesman said: “Jenny Tonge does not speak for the party on Israel and Palestine. Her presence and comments at this event were extremely ill-advised and ill-judged… The Liberal Democrats are wholehearted supporters of a peaceful two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue.”
Clegg, who was also Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government at the time, said: “These remarks were wrong and offensive and do not reflect the values of the Liberal Democrats. I asked Baroness Tonge to withdraw her remarks and apologise for the offence she has caused. She has refused to do so and will now be leaving the party. The Liberal Democrats have a proud record of campaigning for the rights of Palestinians, and that will continue, but we are crystal clear in our support for a two-state solution.”
And a fat lot of good adopting that position has done. Even in 2012 it was obvious the two-state solution was stone dead.
However John McHugo, chair of the LibDem Friends of Palestine, said: “Jenny’s motivation in speaking up for the rights of the oppressed is anger at injustice when others, who have the duty to speak out, pass by silently on the other side of the street.”
In 2004 she said about Palestinian suicide bombers: “If I had to live in that situation – and I say that advisedly – I might just consider becoming one myself.” Everyone went mad. A senior Conservative said her comments would “sicken those across the world who have lost loved ones to suicide bombers”. The ignoramus didn’t mention the thousands of Palestinian families who had lost loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods – everything – to Israeli terrorists and occupation forces.
Charles Kennedy, the then LibDem party leader, dismissed Jenny as children’s spokesperson, saying: “Her recent remarks… are completely unacceptable. They are not compatible with Liberal Democrat party policies and principles. There can be no justification, under any circumstances, for taking innocent lives through terrorism.”
But Kennedy too couldn’t bring himself to mention the casualties inflicted by Israel’s acts of terror and frequent high-tech military strikes on an occupied and defenceless civilian population.
Then, in 2006, Jenny told a fringe meeting at her party’s conference: “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they have probably got a certain grip on our party.” As if to prove her point the LibDem Friends of Israel immediately issued a press release saying: “In the coming days and weeks we will work closely with colleagues inside the Party to ensure every avenue is explored towards removing Baroness Tonge from the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords.”
The party’s leader at the time, Menzies Campbell, dissociated himself from her “offensive remarks” and “their clear anti-Semitic connotations”. Offensive? The pro-Israel lobby’s infiltration of Parliament and public life was there for all to see. That’s what was offensive. And the threat to national security was blazingly obvious. For example, our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee – were all headed by senior Friends of Israel. How could that be in our national interest?
Clegg and Co would do well to re-read the Preamble to their own party’s Constitution, a very fine document indeed especially where it says: “We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience… We reject all prejudice and discrimination… Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services.”
Those principles are as good as any for guiding a person through political life. But where are they reflected in our political elite’s dealings with the scandalous injustice in the Holy Land?
And just how principled was Clegg’s sacking of one of the country’s most committed campaigners for human rights, Jenny Tonge?
Jenny’s goodbye to the Liberal Democrat party and its sanctimonious hypocrites was a long time coming. She’s well rid of them.
PSC too timid to put down a marker for upholding international law?
And what of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? I had suspicions in 2007 that the PSC was infiltrated at headquarters level when they refused to review or give any space at all to my book “Radio Free Palestine” (Foreword by Jeff Halper) even after I’d sent them two complimentary copies which they claimed had gone astray. They refused again when the book was published on the web for all to read. How’s that for “Solidarity”? Although I have every admiration for the hardworking campaigners in PSC’s local branches the leadership has done nothing to inspire or give me confidence. Of course, it is to be expected that such a high-profile campaign group would be targeted.
At its Annual General Meeting in 2016 the PSC even threw out a proposal to seek Israel’s expulsion from the United Nations. Chairman Hugh Lanning was reported to have started proceedings on a positive note saying: “Let us recommit to Palestine to make sure that we make a difference in the coming year.”
But a motion put for the PSC’s Executive Committee to “request the Government of the United Kingdom, enforced by a petition and lobbying, to submit a motion to the Security Council recommending that the General Assembly expel Israel from the UN in compliance with the UN Charter, Article 6” failed — 76 for, 116 against. A statement by its main sponsor, Blake Alcott, said that an identical motion to the AGM a year previously was likewise opposed by the PSC leadership who felt “the time is not yet right”. He said: “Pro-Palestinians must wonder how much worse Israel’s crimes must be before the international community takes disciplinary action.”
There is ample reason to call for Israel’s expulsion from the UN. That racist endeavour clearly isn’t the ‘peace-loving state’ required by the UN Charter’s Article 4. Nor has it fulfilled the four conditions to its acceptance as a member back in May 1949. As the record shows, Israel has wilfully breached conditions of membership for decades. Many have argued it automatically disqualifies itself by failing to fulfill membership requirements in the first place. Furthermore it continues to show contempt for numerous UN resolution despite frequent reminders.
When considering what sort of response civil society should make, suspension sounds ‘softer’ than expulsion as membership can be speedily restored if and when Israel satisfies the other member states that it now conforms. And in the circumstances suspension would surely be more difficult to veto. But under the rules expulsion is also an option. This is what the relevant part of the UN Charter says:
(Article 5) A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.
(Article 6) A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
It might be argued that the passing of numerous UN Security Council resolutions amounts to ‘preventive action’ (although still awaiting enforcement). But Article 6, which stipulates expulsion, is more clear-cut. Israel has certainly violated every norm, every rule of decency, every principle of humanity. And it continues to do so without showing a shred of remorse.
Of course Mr Alcott’s motion, if passed, would have been brushed aside by the British Government which is pledged by successive prime ministers to protect and reward Israel right or wrong. But that is not the point. The aim of the motion was to put down a marker and provide a focus around which other campaign groups across the world could mobilise, bringing similar pressure to bear on their own governments and creating an irresistible swell of global opinion to ensure international law is eventually upheld.
The PSC failed that simple test. So how will it ever “make a difference” on behalf of the long-suffering Palestinians?
This week Jenny wrote on her Facebook page: “PSC are very worried about the furore surrounding my remarks following Pittsburgh and I have resigned to save them embarrassment!!! Sad day.”
She was a patron and had been a member for 10 years. I’d say she’s well shot of them and the LibDems, both.
*( Baroness Jenny Tonge, Stop the War Coalition Rally outside the Iraq Inquiry, London, Blair inside. Image credit: Chris Beckett/ flickr)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

BELARUS: WE’RE WITH RUSSIA AND WILL RESPOND MILITARILY IF POLAND HOSTS U.S BASE



Related image
Belorussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has advised the Polish foreign minister not to create “unnecessary” military bases, otherwise Russia and Belarus will respond.
The Belarussian president stressed that his country is not looking for any military conflict and carries out an exclusively peaceful foreign policy.
“I told the [Polish] foreign minister — he spoke here in Minsk: we are not going to fight with you. Therefore, there is no need to create unnecessary bases. Otherwise, we along with the Russians will have to respond. It means that we will have to deploy something in order to counteract you, ” Lukashenko said, as quoted by the Belta news agency.
On October 26, Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz said that Poland would strengthen military cooperation with the United States, emphasizing that Warsaw sought the permanent presence of US military personnel in the country.
Earlier, US President Donald Trump announced after a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda that his administration is considering establishing a permanent military base on Polish territory and that Warsaw is willing to pay “billions of dollars” for its installation.
In Poland, a US tank brigade with about 3,500 men is currently being set up on a rotating basis. In the territory of the country was also positioned a multinational battalion of NATO with a thousand or more soldiers.
While an attack on US forces in Poland establishes a huge liability in terms of loss potential and any expected US response would be justified on those grounds, nevertheless the present Polish government has found it wise to establish the country as a shock absorber and impact zone for any Russian response.
Russian diplomat Aleksandr Grushko said on the sidelines of the Security Conference of Munich days ago that Russia and Belarus have the technical-military potential to respond appropriately to the threats linked to the possible deployment of a permanent US base in Poland.
“Russia and Belarus have a whole spectrum of technical-military measures that allow them to do so effectively and without much cost,” Gruskko said, responding to a question about setting up the base. According to him, the two countries have enough potential “in any scenario to securely secure the interests of defensive capability and security,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexandr Grushko.
According to the diplomat, the most concrete questions should be addressed to the military. He stressed once again that the two countries have a whole range of technical-military possibilities to react effectively and without many costs.
“It will be a convincing demonstration that countries today call foreign troops into their territory not only do not enhance their security but expose themselves to a heightened danger,” Grushko said.
Taken together, it would appear that the US has pushed Poland again to use its limited funds and loan arrangements with the IMF to further purchase US arms, in a futile gambit or in a bizarre framework in which Poland might be an effective instrument against Russian aggression.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Two Days After US Call for Ceasefire, Saudis Pound Yemen

Airstrikes pound Sanaa Airport, other areas around major cities
Earlier this week, Defense Secretary James Mattis called for an immediate ceasefire in Yemen. In the course of this, he demanded an end to fighting, and an immediate halt to all airstrikes against populated areas.
Friday in Yemen was much like any other, with Saudi warplanes pounding areas in and around the northern cities of Hodeidah and Sanaa. Heavy airstrikes were reported particularly around Sanaa Airport, which is definitely a civilian-populated area.
Sanaa was mostly hit with airstrikes, while locals reported heavy clashes around Hodeidah, a vital port city that Saudi forces have been massing around all week. In no case is there any indication that a ceasefire is starting.
Saudi and UAE officials have yet to comment on the US call for a ceasefire and peace talks at all. The only response at all from their camp was from Yemeni officials backed by the Saudis, who embraced the idea of peace talks, but similarly showed no signs of stopping fighting in the meantime.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Lobby has Leaked


–
Jewish power as I define it is the power to silence criticism of Jewish Power. This power has been dwindling…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sunday, 4 November 2018

Only 49% of Britons have an unfavourable view of israel



Crowds build in front of the Royal Liver Building for a rally to be attended by Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Liverpool on September 22, 2018, the eve of the official opening of the annual Labour Party Conference. (AFP photo)Crowds build in front of the Royal Liver Building for a rally to be attended by Britain’s opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Liverpool on September 22, 2018, the eve of the official opening of the annual Labour Party Conference. (AFP photo)
A study of attitudes towards Israel in the UK has found that 49 percent of Britons have an unfavourable view of Israel.
The annual poll of UK attitudes about Israel was conducted by the Populus polling company and was commissioned by an Israel lobby group, the British Israel Communications and Research Center (BICOM).
But despite the pro-Israel bias of the commissioners, the poll found that only 20 percent of the British public feels “warm” towards Israel and 23 percent feels warm towards Israelis.
Meanwhile, 49 percent said they felt “cold” towards Israel and 45 percent said they felt cold towards Israelis.
When asked if they consider Israel to be “an important trading partner of Britain post-Brexit,” only 38 percent said yes.
When asked if they agreed with boycotts against Israel only 14 percent supported this.
And when asked if they believe Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, 38 percent said yes while 25 percent said he is “a committed campaigner against racism of all kinds including anti-Semitism.”
The poll was conducted with a nationally-representative sample of 2,035 adults from 5-7 October.
The UK authorities continue to maintain a strong military, political and business relationship with Israel, and British mainstream media is heavily pro Tel Aviv and anti Jeremy Corbyn.
Britain has approved arms sales to Israel worth $445 million since the 2014 Gaza war and it is believed that at least some of this equipment has been used to oppress people in the Occupied Territories.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis

Via The Saker
The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis
November 02, 2018
By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-non-existent-sea-of-azov-crisis/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20181101/1021618870.html
After the resolution of the European parliament that, contrary to international law and common sense, condemned the actions of Russia in the Sea of Azov, Ukraine cheered up and achieved the bringing of the question concerning elections in the DPR/LPR to the consideration of the UN Security Council.
Russia couldn’t block the introduction of this issue into the agenda both for moral and long-term political reasons.
The fact is that Moscow in 2015 also tried to obtain, and actually did obtain, the approval of the Minsk Agreements via the decision of the UN Security Council. This allowed to put Ukraine on the hook of international legitimacy. Kiev, which desired to jump away from the topic, couldn’t state any more that it doesn’t consider itself to be bound to any agreement with “terrorist-separatists” and that it isn’t obligated to them at all. The decision of the Security Council also enshrined that Russia isn’t a party to the conflict. Kiev after this shouted a lot, caused a fuss, sabotaged the implementation of all without exception points of the Minsk Agreements, but didn’t at all dare to officially withdraw from them.
But every coin has two sides, it is possible to find something bad in any good situation, and in any bad situation – something good. The same thing applies here: cementing its position via the decision of the Security Council, Russia couldn’t, without suffering serious reputation losses, deny the Security Council its right to consider the implementation of the decisions approved by its resolution.
Of course, the Security Council couldn’t adopt an anti-Russian or anti-Donbass resolution in connection with the existence of Russia’s veto. But the 5 member countries of the Security Council (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Great Britain) made a statement of non-recognition of the elections being prepared in Donbass and urged Russia to cancel them. The statement was supported by Germany, Italy, and Belgium. It is strange that there was no America among the declarants. However, this allows to present the statement as the collective position of the European Union, while Washington receives the opportunity to later express itself in support of its allies, but in the meantime to make one more attempt to carry out behind-closed-doors bargaining with Moscow.
Both parties are formally right. Ukraine and its Euro-American intercessors specify that elections in Donbass, according to the Minsk Agreements, have to take place under Ukrainian laws, but Minsk will be violated if they take place now. The People’s Republics, whose position Russia supports, state that this may of course be true, but Ukraine long ago had to adopt a whole complex of acts and carry out other measures, including disengaging troops and ceasing shelling before the turn of the People’s Republics to observe the Ukrainian electoral laws comes.
Judging by separate passages of the speech of the Russian envoy in the UN Security Council, Moscow suggests to consider these elections as the simple legitimation of the heads of the republics, who, unlike their predecessors, weren’t elected by anybody. The West is proposed to look at these elections as the solution to a purely technical problem. Moscow has a trump card on its side  – the fact that the head of the DPR Zakharchenko was killed and charges of organising murder were brought to official Kiev structures.
Europe, however, didn’t want to accept the arguments of Russia, which is demonstrated by the statement of 8 EU states. This, of course, can be the usual diplomatic demarche without consequences — occupying an advantageous position for bargaining in the great global game. But there can also be more serious undertakings that as a result will lead to the realisation of Kiev’s dream of disavowing Minsk, but for reasons that are not at all joyful for Ukraine.
We remember that Germany and France weren’t at all afflicted when Russia froze meetings in the Normandy Format until Ukraine took a more constructive position. They sighed freely, because Kiev bothered them worse than a bitter radish, and sat down in the first row of the parterre to see how Volker will get out of the situation. But they remain guarantors of the Minsk Agreements. It is clear to all that Minsk will never be fulfilled. Kiev doesn’t hide from the West that it is afraid of a domino effect if Donbass is given special status. But Paris and Berlin can’t just say “we changed our mind, Minsk doesn’t work any more”. It is for this same reason that Russia can’t deny the UN Security Council its right to periodically consider the question of implementing the Minsk Agreements. France and Germany themselves insisted on these agreements, they participated in their development, they declared that this is their big victory. The political losses that both countries and their leaders will incur if they change their position will be too great.
France and Germany need to have a pretext to free themselves from the obligation of solving the Ukrainian crisis. If it is impossible to withdraw from the agreements at their own will, and if it is impossible to allow it to be disrupted by a Kiev supported by the West, then it is necessary to shift the blame onto Russia and the People’s Republics.
The West perfectly understands that the refusal under obvious pressure to hold elections in the People’s Republics will cause essential damage to Russia’s international authority. That’s why it acts maximally publicly, up to the level of collective statements following the results of the UN Security Council meeting, closing for Moscow the option of changing its mind and once again “postponing” elections. After the elections have taken place, the West can refuse to recognise Pushilin and Pasechnik as negotiators in connection with the non-recognition of the elections that they were elected in. Also the powers of other delegates signed by them during negotiations can also not be recognised. This is enough to bury the Minsk process under an absolutely plausible excuse.
But if indeed the West does this, then it won’t be done to start a new round of negotiations and reach compromises that are more acceptable for Kiev. If there was the desire to save Ukraine, then it would be enough for Germany to stop the construction of “Nord Stream-2” and not prevent Poland from paralysing the work of “Nord Stream-1”. The geopolitical situation surrounding Kiev would immediately significantly change, and the chances – albeit tiny – of lasting at least 5 years while Russia searches for new markets and delivery routes for its gas would sharply grow for the regime. But Germany initially didn’t plan to opt for such sacrifices, which indeed granted us [Russians – ed] the right to affirm that the destiny of Ukraine, in principle, has been decided, therefore it is better for the Kiev regime to immediately die because long agony only increases the torture.
The West in general, and Europe in particular, needs to jump away from the toxic topic, because it is already clear that Russia will soon raise the question of who will pay for the restoration of Ukraine, like how it already raised such a question concerning Syria. By the time that such a question will be asked by Moscow, it is necessary not to have any formal connections with the Ukrainian crisis. The destruction of the Minsk and Normandy Formats — formally not due to their own fault — allows France and Germany to distance themselves from the problem, while at the same time keeping their finger on the pulse. After all, Poland, Hungary, and Romania won’t be able to avoid border problems connected with their minorities in the West of Ukraine. This means that the EU will anyway be involved in a settlement. But Germany and France will be free from obligations and will be able to dictate to their younger partners in the EU the conditions of support for their position, threatening to leave them alone with their problem in the event of obstinacy.
The Azov crisis should be considered from the same point of view. The West didn’t notice this problem during a year, and then suddenly the European Parliament started to care about it, while even Ukraine recognises that although the economic losses from Russia’s actions in the Sea of Azov and big, Moscow acts in full accordance with international standards – no violations of protocols by Russian customs groups were documented.
There is nothing extraordinary about Russia’s actions. The US examined the vessels going to Cuba not only in the days of the Caribbean Crisis. Israel examined the vessels going to Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, which even caused a diplomatic incident and the cooling of earlier excellent relations with Turkey. It is possible to give a plethora of examples: a warship’s right to examine a trade vessel in the high sea is the ABC of international law.
Nevertheless, the European Parliament started talking about a possible aggravation in the Sea of Azov and began to threaten with sanctions.
Who will aggravate? Russia has no need to do this, Ukraine can’t, and there isn’t anyone else there. Sofa “experts” already started talking about the entrance of the “NATO fleet” in the Sea of Azov. Those who are cleverer speak about its entrance in the Black Sea, understanding that a warship can only pass in the Sea of Azov with the permission of Russia, and a breakthrough – moreover, by a whole “NATO fleet” – equals war. In addition, large ships anyway can’t breakthrough there, but small cutter boats and dinghies can be brought to the Sea of Azov by Ukraine via land routes without any NATO. But this won’t change anything since Russia can sink everything that floats on this sea. This water area is completely exposed to barrelled artillery fire from the coast, not to mention missile systems. If someone wants to launch a war against Russia, then they will find a more convenient place than the Sea of Azov.
NATO ships, for the purpose of flying the flag, entered, enter, and will continue to enter the Black Sea. The Sea Breeze exercises are staged there annually, but, having an unsinkable “aircraft carrier” named Crimea, Moscow reliably dominates in its water area so much so that a hypothetical attack of Russia using the forces of a really large squadron or shock aircraft carrier grouping is possible no closer than from the region of the Aegean Sea. In the Black Sea a fleet hostile to Russia becomes too vulnerable. Because of Crimea it has nowhere to manoeuvre, and it can’t quickly leave in case of danger – a large grouping of ships can’t overcome the Turkish straits overnight.
So all of this is a fairy tale in favour of idle chatter. The non-existent Azov crisis is invented, on the one hand, for the purpose of mobilising Russophobic voters in the EU for the European Parliament elections in May, 2019, and on the other hand — this noise masks the real actions of the West, and allows it to drift away from Ukraine, imitating its comprehensive support.
Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the West didn’t see the danger of the situation being aggravated during a whole year (when it really existed), but saw it precisely now when the problem was solved. The fishermen of “Nord” were exchanged for the Ukrainian poachers lassoed by Russia. It is only left to exchange captains, then vessels, and then the crisis will fizzle out. Especially if Kiev doesn’t forget to return “Mekhanik Pogodin” after “Nord”.
By the way, apparently Kiev started to suspect that something was amiss, because the comments of Ukrainian officials concerning the Azov crisis were wonderfully weighted, especially against the background of the West’s hysterics. The Kiev regime doesn’t even want to denounce the agreement on the status of the Sea of Azov, contrary to its habit of disrupting all agreements with Russia. However, the regime is now concentrated on destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and creating a pocket “local church”. It is too busy for the Sea of Azov.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Germany is reluctant to fight the war against Russia with the rest of NATO, by Ruslan Ostashko

We have received an interesting data in regard with the saber-rattling NATO drill in Norway.
Why would it be so?
The Western Media headlines are screaming that NATO has never hold military exercise on the scale of the Trident Juncture. Under the aegis of a “unifyed 3-prong pitchfork” NATO has gathered servicemen from 29 countries members of the alliance plus formally non-NATO members Finland and Sweden. I think you have seen the numbers.
An active phase of this military excise will take part in Norway and the North Atlantic regions, in the Baltic Sea near Denmark and in the airspace of Finland and Sweden.  Some 50,000 troops from 31 countries, about 10,000 combat vehicles, 65 ships and some 250 aircraft are taking part in the drills that kicked off last week and will go on till November 7.
The showoff of strength? Without a doubt. I am sure this show will make pro-American Eastern European stooges very happy. “Look at our overlords,” they might say. “They are the strongest in the world. They will bend you over, damn Moscals, with one left hand. Piu-piu” … And so on.
But all this is on a surface level. Let’s look what exactly is gong on with one of the NATO’s members, Germany.
“Out of 97 pieces of military equipment delivered to the Armed Forces in 2017, only 38 are fully operational, the German Defense Ministry acknowledged, in response to a parliamentary inquiry. The proportion of working equipment works out at about 39 percent.”
Oi! Wait a minute. If the liberals to be believed it’s Russia where everything is rusty and wooden and German machinery is the coolest, per default. Germany builds its own weapons. Could it be that good German Bürgers are selling junk to the state?
“The ministry hopes to boost these figures to 70 percent. The cutting-edge Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) and the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft is what concerns the German military the most. The quality of new military equipment “still needs further improvements,” said the Parliamentary State Secretary for the Ministry of Defense Peter Tauber.”
“Only 27 out of 71 Puma IFVs delivered to the army in 2017 were actually combat-ready. Out of eight A400M aircraft delivered to the German Armed Forces, only 4 turned out to be ready for deployment. Only two out of seven ‘Tiger’ strike helicopters are ready for service; in the case of the NH90 transport copters, it’s four out of seven.”
Remember how in 1990s, there was a trend in Russia to label “Euro” everything to stress the exceptional quality of merchandise. We had “euro-house repairs,” “euro-fighters,” “euro-copters.” And here we see that 3 out of 4 or 70% of new fighter jets delivered to the troops are found to be not combat-ready. This is in a country with an annual defense budget in 37 billion Euros or $45 billion, which is on the fifth place in defense spending in the world.
So, what’s going on?
I have an idea.
Let’s set aside a working version that Europe is also a subject to a trivial theft from the state coffers. We are being left with only one possibility.
Germans are watching NATO’s military buildup on Russia’s border and understand that NATO, with the US at its helm, capable to start a war against Russia. Germans had already fought against Russia, and they really don’t need this. Let’s assume that the Deputy Federal Minister for Defence of Germany gets the defense manufacturers in his office and tells them something like that:
“So, meine Herren, let’s be frank, we are not ready to fight a war against Russians.”
“How exactly not ready are we?” ask disciplined manufacturers.
“We are not ready at all,” says the deputy minister. “We have only 39% of all new equipment functioning.”
“But we had at least 80% of equipment functioning,” the manufacturers try to correct him.
“No, you have an outdated data,” the deputy cuts them off. “We looked closely and realized that it’s only 39%, verstehen?”
“Jawohl! Herr gruppenfuhrer! Or, not a “gruppenfuhrer,” but still “Jawohl”
And the army keeps receiving faulty machinery.
“If tomorrow is a war against Russia, no one is ready due to some circumstances absolutely beyond our control, Mr. President of the Unites States.”
“Our Infantry Fighting Vehicles failed to start, and our fighter jets are not flightworthy. The reason, we suspect, are the Russian hackers. We manufacture the most advance technologies and they are very crafty. We wish you all the cheers, successful occupation of Moscow, without us, and a festive mood. We are right behind you, if we fix our equipment. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of mechanics, because our youth prefers to major in the Gender Studies and not engineering. Hello? … Hello? …  What’s going on? Oh, Putin got back to you? Tell him, if you can, that we weren’t a part of it.”
How do you like my version of events, my friends?
It’s either that, or we have to assume that the famous German quality is a myth and that they also steal from the state budget.
But, that’s impossible, isn’t it?


View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter


P_Deshayes
✔@P_Deshayes
Et soudain, un Tupolev au-dessus du navire-amiral de l’: la Russie s’invite dans les grandes manoeuvres  (photos exclusives de @jnackstrand) http://u.afp.com/oKR3  
They didn’t see Russians coming.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

French MP Asks Macron: How Many People Should Die to Stop Saudi Criminality?


November 2, 2018
French MP Bastian La Chaux lashed out at President Emanuel Macron’s foreign policy regarding supporting the Saudi regime in its (43-month) war on Yemen and the various crimes it commits elsewhere.
“How many people should die to stop those crimes?” La Chaux asked Macron.
La Chaux considered that Macron’s policy stigmatizes France which prefers the Saudi billions of dollars to its own honor, stressing that Saudi has committed hundreds of war crimes in Yemen.
The French MP also stressed that Saudi has spread the dark thought across the various countries, condemning Macron’s invitation to the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman to visit Paris on November 11 and considering that the latter purchases France’s silence via the weaponry deals.
La Chaux also disapprovingly stressed that the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered (October 2 in Saudi consulate in Istanbul) by a group of criminals sent by the Saudi regime which is supported by France.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hezbollah: New Lebanon’s Cabinet Will Never Be Complete without Representing Independent Sunni MPs



Hezbollah Deputy Chief Sheikh Naim Qassem
Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Nauim Qassem stressed that representing the independent Sunnite lawmakers in the new Lebanese cabinet has been demanded since PM-designate was tasked on May 24, adding that the latter disregarded this demand and sought resolving the rest of the ministerial knots.
Sheikh Qassem said that after surpassing the Christian and the Druze two obstacles, the Sunni knot appeared to be new, but added that the independent Sunni lawmaker met the PM-designate during the unbinding consultations and informed him about their demand.
His eminence also confirmed that if the Sunni lawmakers from outside the Future Movement weren’t represented, the national unity cabinet will never be complete.
In turn, the head of Hezbollah executive council Sayyed Hashem Safieddine also emphasized that the independent Sunni lawmakers have the right to be represented in the new cabinet because they themselves represent a considerable segment of their popular incubator.

Cabinet Formation: Undue Delay, No Positive Developments

Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri
The Cabinet formation process has witnessed no positive developments and the current increasing complications are delaying the creation of the new government until early 2019. Any of the parties has not shown any intentions or willingness to make concessions regarding its demands.
All parties were still clinging to their demands, with the Progressive Socialist Party insisting on three Druze seats and the Lebanese Forces seeking a significant share that reflects the gains it made in the latest parliamentary elections. However, all obstacles were overcome till days before, when a new knot has found its place to impede the cabinet formation.
Sunni MPs from outside the Future Movement have been demanding to be represented by at least one minister in the next Cabinet. Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri has turned down their demand, while Hezbollah and Amal Movement have stressed that their rightful demand should be met.
“We believe that their demand is eligible, and we’ll stand by their side,” said Hussein al-Khalil, political aide to Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, in televised comments after meeting with a group of Sunni MPs.
Nevertheless, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Hezbollah said they still supported Hariri to head the new government.
In the same context, MP Walid Sukkarieh denied Wednesday that he and other Sunni MPs from outside the Future Movement were responsible for delaying the government’s formation, saying it was up to the premier-designate to determine how the group would be represented in Cabinet.
Sukkarieh said they are keen that the government be formed “as quickly as possible, and we do not take responsibility for the formation delay.”
“We formed a coalition as we are [MPs] from different areas, but we agree on the same things, and we represent a segment of the Sunni population that should be represented in the Cabinet,” he said in an interview with local radio station Voice of Lebanon.
Hariri Tuesday held a 1 1/2-hour meeting with President Michel Aoun in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, without speaking to reporters at Baabda Palace.
Lebanon desperately needs a government that would embark on economic reforms that are said to be more urgent than ever, provided that Lebanon is saddled with the third highest debt to GDP ratio in the world in addition to its economic recession.
A major obstacle was removed on Monday when debate over Christian representation was settled with the Lebanese Forces offering concessions to Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement.
Related Videos
Related Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Syrian War Report – November 2, 2018: Syrian Army Discovers ISIS Depot With US-supplied Ammunition



02.11.2018
On November 1, Hayat Tahir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) announced that its members had attacked positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the village of Abu Qamis in southeastern Idlib. Three SAA soldiers were reportedly killed.
A source in the SAA told SouthFront that clashes had erupted near the village, but declined to provide additional details. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least one Hayat Tahrir al-Sham member was killed.
Later on the same day, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and another al-Qaeda-linked group, Horas al-Din, shelled multiple SAA positions in northern Hama and western Aleppo.
Meanwhile, Turkish and US troops carried out a first joint patrol near the town of Manbij. The patrol was carried out near the Saju Stream, which separates the Turkish-held city of Jarabulus from Manbij, which is controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF consists mostly of Kurdish armed formations like the YPG, which are considered as terrorist groups by Ankara.
Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar publicly promised that members of the YPG and another Kurdish armed group, the PKK, “will be buried in the trenches it has dug” near Manbij. He also stated that Ankara would continue its military operations against the PKK in northern Iraq, where the group has a wide infrastructure used for attacks in Turkey.
Sporadic clashes between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the YPG/PKK are still ongoing near Kobani in Syria. Reports also appeared that the TAF is now forming a list of Turkish-backed groups, which would participate in a possible military operation against the YPG near the Euphrates River.
In the province of Deir Ezzor, the SAA uncovered a large ammunition depot, which included 450,000 bullets of 7.62×51mm caliber, near the city of al-Mayadin. This ammunition depot had been left behind by ISIS terrorists when they lost the battle for al-Mayadin to the SAA. According to the Syrian state media, this ammunition had been supplied by the US to Syrian militant groups, which then sold it to ISIS. Over the past few years, there have been multiple examples when US-backed “opposition groups” have appeared to be terrorist groups or openly cooperated with ISIS.
Relevant Videos
Relevant Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!