Yes, M'Lord.
M'Lord, I call Sir Andrew Large.
====================================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f2270f72-db6d-11dd-be53-000077b07658.html
Large calls for stronger finance watchdog
By Norma Cohen
Published: January 5 2009 23:07 | Last updated: January 5 2009 23:07
Britain risks a repeat of the current financial crisis unless it establishes a body to tackle systemic risk that is independent enough to stand up to powerful vested interests, a prominent former regulator has warned.
Sir Andrew Large, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, says that the UK needs an independent body that would provide early warnings of systemic problems and have the tools to discourage excessive borrowing.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
SEC inspector-general testifies over Madoff - Jan-05
Record low interest rate expected - Jan-05
Sir Andrew added in a separate interview with the FT that the government must act quickly to set up a new body as there was a risk that the political will to do so would dissipate once the crisis passed. “In five years’ time it could all be over and everybody will forget,” said Sir Andrew, who was chairman of the Financial Services Authority’s predecessor, the Securities and Investment Board. “If people don’t grasp this nettle now, we will be back here in 25 years’ time.”
Sir Andrew said the new body would have to make it more expensive for banks to increase lending as overall borrowing in the system rose. Sir Andrew said his proposal did not alter the regulatory role of bodies such as the FSA, which would continue to have day-to-day oversight.
In his article, Sir Andrew says that the power of vested interests ranged against such an institution “is intense”.
“In good times, politicians want growth, even if it is debt-fuelled,” he writes. “Banks want profits. Bankers want bonuses. Borrowers and consumers – voters – want to go on borrowing and spending.”
Sir Andrew argues that central banks, such as the Bank of England, are best placed to take on an oversight role because of their perceived independence from the political process. They are best placed to glean market intelligence from each nation’s banking system and are the sole bodies able to create liquidity in financial crises.
“Experience also suggests that people respect central banks that are able and willing to stand up to politicians and governments, as much as the vested interests of bankers and their customers,” he writes.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
GAZA : IT WAS PLANNED LONG AGO. WANT PROOF?
You are not going to believe this, and it comes straight from the Israeli horse's mouth!
Below is a graph showing the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.
IT COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS!
[source : http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Behind+the+Headlines-+Calm+in+the+South+19-Jun-2008.htm ]
So what does it show?
It shows that during the truce between June to December the amount of rockets and mortars was virtually nil, until after Israel invaded Gaza on the day of the US Presidential election, when all eyes were on the USA (which of course the graph does not show).
July : total = 12
August : total = 11
September : total = 4 (!)
October : total = 2(!!)
November : total = 193 ( the month Israel invaded Gaza)
So what does this mean?
It means you are being lied to.
It means that Hamas exercised some restraint with the hope that Israel would abide by its side of the truce, which was to ease the blockade that was enforced after Hamas was democratically elected!
But Israel did not ease the blockade.
Yes, Israel can come out with these statistics that so many rockets have been fired over the years.
But look at the facts.
During the truce the number of rockets and mortars fired was very much less than before the truce, until Israel invaded Gaza. And those rockets that were fired may well have come from other rogue organizations in Gaza anyway.
This is evidence that no matter what, Israel was going in.
This is evidence that Gaza is part of a much larger Operation Justified Vengeance.
Cast Lead was planned six months ago.
Barak's wet dream has always been to invade Gaza.
The truce is going too well, so invade Gaza when nobody's looking on the day of the US Presidential election, to provoke rockets and mortars.
And before the MFA remove the graph I found it on SparrowWatch.
Is this worth dead starving Gazan children? Grieving Gazan parents? Grieving Israeli parents, even?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Below is a graph showing the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.
IT COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS!
[source : http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Behind+the+Headlines-+Calm+in+the+South+19-Jun-2008.htm ]
So what does it show?
It shows that during the truce between June to December the amount of rockets and mortars was virtually nil, until after Israel invaded Gaza on the day of the US Presidential election, when all eyes were on the USA (which of course the graph does not show).
July : total = 12
August : total = 11
September : total = 4 (!)
October : total = 2(!!)
November : total = 193 ( the month Israel invaded Gaza)
So what does this mean?
It means you are being lied to.
It means that Hamas exercised some restraint with the hope that Israel would abide by its side of the truce, which was to ease the blockade that was enforced after Hamas was democratically elected!
But Israel did not ease the blockade.
Yes, Israel can come out with these statistics that so many rockets have been fired over the years.
But look at the facts.
During the truce the number of rockets and mortars fired was very much less than before the truce, until Israel invaded Gaza. And those rockets that were fired may well have come from other rogue organizations in Gaza anyway.
This is evidence that no matter what, Israel was going in.
This is evidence that Gaza is part of a much larger Operation Justified Vengeance.
Cast Lead was planned six months ago.
Barak's wet dream has always been to invade Gaza.
The truce is going too well, so invade Gaza when nobody's looking on the day of the US Presidential election, to provoke rockets and mortars.
And before the MFA remove the graph I found it on SparrowWatch.
Is this worth dead starving Gazan children? Grieving Gazan parents? Grieving Israeli parents, even?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
SUPER 'TACHE BOLTON WANTS TO WIPE PALESTINE OFF THE MAP
Remember the furore when it was claimed that Iran claimed it wanted to wipe Israel off the map (I understand there was a (deliberate) mistake in the translation and that what was really said was that Iran wanted to remove the Zionist government of Israel, which is slightly different).
Anyway, John "let's nuke Iran" Bolton has written in the Washington Post that there should not be a two state solution. In fact Bolton proposes a three state solution, without any Palestine, effectively wiping Palestine off the map.
Bolton proposes that Gaza be absorbed into Egypt, and The West Bank be absorbed into Jordan.
=====================================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401434.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The Three-State Option
By John R. Bolton
Monday, January 5, 2009; Page A11
War in the Gaza Strip demonstrates yet again that the current governance paradigm for the Palestinian people has failed. Terrorists financed and supplied by Iran control Gaza; the Palestinian Authority is broken, probably irretrievably; and economic development is stalled in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians are suffering the consequences of regional power struggles played out through them as surrogates.
Israel isn't a happy place, either. It endures opprobrium from the world's High-Minded for defending itself from terrorism yet still finds itself subjected to terrorist attacks from Hamas and terrorists based in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's domestic politics are increasingly muddled, and its way forward obscure.
Neighboring countries also suffer. Egypt has walled off its boundary with Gaza; Lebanon remains under threat of a Hezbollah coup enabled by Iran; Syria slides further under Iranian hegemony; and Jordan is trapped in the general gridlock. Other Arab countries search for solutions, but their attention is increasingly diverted by the growing threat from Iran and the downturn in global oil prices.
Given this landscape, we should ask why we still advocate the "two-state solution," with Israel and "Palestine" living side by side in peace, as the mantra goes. We are obviously not progressing, and are probably going backward. We continue poring over the Middle East "road map" because that is all we have, faute de mieux, as they say in Foggy Bottom.
The logic to this position is long past its expiration date. Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine a new approach that the key players would receive enthusiastically. If the way out were obvious, after all, it would already have been suggested. So consider the following, unpopular and difficult to implement though it may be:
Let's start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a "three-state" approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty.
Anyway, John "let's nuke Iran" Bolton has written in the Washington Post that there should not be a two state solution. In fact Bolton proposes a three state solution, without any Palestine, effectively wiping Palestine off the map.
Bolton proposes that Gaza be absorbed into Egypt, and The West Bank be absorbed into Jordan.
=====================================
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401434.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The Three-State Option
By John R. Bolton
Monday, January 5, 2009; Page A11
War in the Gaza Strip demonstrates yet again that the current governance paradigm for the Palestinian people has failed. Terrorists financed and supplied by Iran control Gaza; the Palestinian Authority is broken, probably irretrievably; and economic development is stalled in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians are suffering the consequences of regional power struggles played out through them as surrogates.
Israel isn't a happy place, either. It endures opprobrium from the world's High-Minded for defending itself from terrorism yet still finds itself subjected to terrorist attacks from Hamas and terrorists based in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's domestic politics are increasingly muddled, and its way forward obscure.
Neighboring countries also suffer. Egypt has walled off its boundary with Gaza; Lebanon remains under threat of a Hezbollah coup enabled by Iran; Syria slides further under Iranian hegemony; and Jordan is trapped in the general gridlock. Other Arab countries search for solutions, but their attention is increasingly diverted by the growing threat from Iran and the downturn in global oil prices.
Given this landscape, we should ask why we still advocate the "two-state solution," with Israel and "Palestine" living side by side in peace, as the mantra goes. We are obviously not progressing, and are probably going backward. We continue poring over the Middle East "road map" because that is all we have, faute de mieux, as they say in Foggy Bottom.
The logic to this position is long past its expiration date. Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine a new approach that the key players would receive enthusiastically. If the way out were obvious, after all, it would already have been suggested. So consider the following, unpopular and difficult to implement though it may be:
Let's start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a "three-state" approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty.
IS GAZA STILL OCCUPIED TERRITORY? IF NOT, THEN WHAT IS ITS PRECISE LEGAL STATUS?
In 2005 Israel withdrew settlers and military installations from Gaza, and has since used this withdrawal to claim that Gaza is no longer classified as Occupied Territory.
Here are two legal arguments, one written in January 2007 arguing Gaza is still occupied,
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6415.shtml
and one written in 2008 arguing against
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=96
The exact legal status of Gaza is crucial as to how bring Israel to court.
Here are two legal arguments, one written in January 2007 arguing Gaza is still occupied,
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6415.shtml
and one written in 2008 arguing against
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=96
The exact legal status of Gaza is crucial as to how bring Israel to court.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
IS GORDON BROWN A MURDEROUS TWO-FACED C^&%?
Craig Murray, the only blog I trust, has written that while calling for an immediate ceasefire the British delegation to the UN is "under direct instruction" to block any ceasefire.
Under direct instruction from whom? Lord Malloch-Brown?
I listened to Brown on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning on the Gabby Logan Show, and he sounded such a lovely, warm chap.
Is he instead a murderous two-faced c^&%?
===============================
From http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
January 4, 2009
Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced Cunt
Brown is appeasing domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile British diplomats on the United Nations Security Council are under direct instructions to offer "tacit support" to United States' efforts to block a ceasefire.
I have been told this directly by a former colleague in the UK Mission to the United Nations.
Under direct instruction from whom? Lord Malloch-Brown?
I listened to Brown on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning on the Gabby Logan Show, and he sounded such a lovely, warm chap.
Is he instead a murderous two-faced c^&%?
===============================
From http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
January 4, 2009
Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced Cunt
Brown is appeasing domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile British diplomats on the United Nations Security Council are under direct instructions to offer "tacit support" to United States' efforts to block a ceasefire.
I have been told this directly by a former colleague in the UK Mission to the United Nations.
WHY DID I PREDICT AN INVASION OF GAZA IN 2005?
Shortly fter the London bombings on 7th July 2005 I wrote to the Intelligence and Security Committee confidently predicting that Israel was planning to invade Gaza and that the London bombings were part of a psychological preparation for that invasion.
I based this on the following;
1. there is very strong evidence to suggest that Israel had foreknowledge of 7/7 and had intimate knowledge of how the bombings were executed, knowledge that even the British investigating authorities did not discover or verify until a few weeks after the event.
2. Jewish settlers in Gaza were being forcefully removed from Gaza.
If Gaza was going to be subject to a blockade and eventually invaded then Israeli Jewish settlers would need to be relocated from Gaza, dragged screaming if necessary.
And such a blockade and invasion would require the support of the UK and the USA, and what better way to drum up support than to bomb London with Muslim stooges, leading to the comparison that 7/7 was our 9/11.
It has now come to my attention that a decade-long plan has been in operation, Operation Justified Vengeance, which includes the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer of the Palestine Occupied Territories, with Hamas controlling Gaza, leading to a justified invasion of Gaza.
[source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11606 ]
Yesterday I posted "Israel's goin' in" in which I posted my suspicions as to why no matter what happened, no matter what Hamas did, Israel was going to invade Gaza.
The existence of such a massive propaganda campaign by Israel is also evidence that a much larger and hidden campaign is ongoing.
I based this on the following;
1. there is very strong evidence to suggest that Israel had foreknowledge of 7/7 and had intimate knowledge of how the bombings were executed, knowledge that even the British investigating authorities did not discover or verify until a few weeks after the event.
2. Jewish settlers in Gaza were being forcefully removed from Gaza.
If Gaza was going to be subject to a blockade and eventually invaded then Israeli Jewish settlers would need to be relocated from Gaza, dragged screaming if necessary.
And such a blockade and invasion would require the support of the UK and the USA, and what better way to drum up support than to bomb London with Muslim stooges, leading to the comparison that 7/7 was our 9/11.
It has now come to my attention that a decade-long plan has been in operation, Operation Justified Vengeance, which includes the age-old tactic of divide-and-conquer of the Palestine Occupied Territories, with Hamas controlling Gaza, leading to a justified invasion of Gaza.
[source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11606 ]
Yesterday I posted "Israel's goin' in" in which I posted my suspicions as to why no matter what happened, no matter what Hamas did, Israel was going to invade Gaza.
The existence of such a massive propaganda campaign by Israel is also evidence that a much larger and hidden campaign is ongoing.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
ISRAEL'S GOIN' IN.
Haartez is reporting that Israeli troops are going into Gaza, and Israel Defense Forces Major Avital Leibovitch said, "The objective is to destroy the Hamas terror infrastructure in the area of operations,...We are going to take some of the launch areas used by Hamas."
[source : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052299.html ]
Let's just have a quick reminder of what has happened.
Haaretz recently stated that the current operation was planned six months ago.
During that time offers of a more permanent ceasefire made by Hamas were rejected by Israel. This has recently been stated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur Professor Richard Falk. Israel also did not keep its side of the deal brokered by Egypt, which was to gradually ease the blockade.
[source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-falk/understanding-the-gaza-ca_b_154777.html ]
Then on 4th November 2008 Israel officially broke the deal and invaded Gaza, allegedly to destroy tunnels used to smuggle food into Gaza.
As a result the number of rockets fired from Gaza increased, but did not kill anyone.
This consequence of the invasion of Gaza on the 4th November may well have given the Israelis a much better idea of the military logistics of Hamas in Gaza; where rockets were stored, who was involved, etc.
And with the fact that Ehud Barak's wet dream is to invade Gaza, all this leads me to suspect that no matter what happened, Israel was goin' in.
[source : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052299.html ]
Let's just have a quick reminder of what has happened.
Haaretz recently stated that the current operation was planned six months ago.
During that time offers of a more permanent ceasefire made by Hamas were rejected by Israel. This has recently been stated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur Professor Richard Falk. Israel also did not keep its side of the deal brokered by Egypt, which was to gradually ease the blockade.
[source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-falk/understanding-the-gaza-ca_b_154777.html ]
Then on 4th November 2008 Israel officially broke the deal and invaded Gaza, allegedly to destroy tunnels used to smuggle food into Gaza.
As a result the number of rockets fired from Gaza increased, but did not kill anyone.
This consequence of the invasion of Gaza on the 4th November may well have given the Israelis a much better idea of the military logistics of Hamas in Gaza; where rockets were stored, who was involved, etc.
And with the fact that Ehud Barak's wet dream is to invade Gaza, all this leads me to suspect that no matter what happened, Israel was goin' in.
MASS MURDERER BUSH BLAMES HAMAS
Quelle fucking surprise!
At least Bush offered a comment, unlike the incoming Obama.
Let's just remind ourselves what Bush and Blair did; they invaded Iraq on a bunch of lies and gave all the oil to their mates despite their promises, and killed an estimated 1 million civilians in the process.
Channel 4 should host a new BB show, Celebrity Gazan Brother, with the likes of Bush and Livni living in Gaza with Gazan families with cameras everywhere. Then we'd all see what living in Gaza is really like and see how the Zionists react.
I'd give Bush two days before he's calling in the air strikes on Tel Aviv.
At least Bush offered a comment, unlike the incoming Obama.
Let's just remind ourselves what Bush and Blair did; they invaded Iraq on a bunch of lies and gave all the oil to their mates despite their promises, and killed an estimated 1 million civilians in the process.
Channel 4 should host a new BB show, Celebrity Gazan Brother, with the likes of Bush and Livni living in Gaza with Gazan families with cameras everywhere. Then we'd all see what living in Gaza is really like and see how the Zionists react.
I'd give Bush two days before he's calling in the air strikes on Tel Aviv.
BANKS : PLEASE SIR, CAN WE HAVE SOME MORE
Where has all the money gone?
We’ve re-capitalised several banks, saving them from bankruptcy, with the explicit understanding that they start lending immediately to get the economy going. Instead the money has been either hoarded or gambled away, with the result being repossessions, job losses and depression.
In effect we are giving the banks our money so that they should lend it back to us, and with interest. This is such a ridiculous situation anyway that any one with any sense would stop it immediately, take the banks into bankruptcy and create accountable government controlled banks whose responsibility would be to finance a stable and growing economy for the benefit of society as a whole, not speculation for a quick buck for the few.
But what is really happening is that the banks are upgrading their computer systems to continue the derivative speculation with financial mathematics that got us into this mess in the first place, so the problem is not being solved. Instead the next and even bigger problem is being financed…AND WITH OUR MONEY.
Darling and Brown are members of the House of Commons, elected by their constituents to serve them, not to serve the banks with their constituents’ money to speculate with.
The banks have shown themselves unworthy of the power we have given them.
Take the banks into bankruptcy.
Create government controlled banks run by elected and accountable officials whose responsibility it is to create a stable and growing economy for the benefit of society as a whole.
And perhaps most important of all, hold a public inquiry into the current financial crisis so criminal bankers go to jail and the ordinary British taxpayer is never screwed by this or any other similar crime again (and yes it is a crime due to the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4).
===================================
From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5434660.ece
From The Times
January 3, 2009
Chancellor Alistair Darling on brink of second bailout for banks
Billions may be needed as lending squeeze tightens
Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor, and Gary Duncan, Economics Editor
Alistair Darling has been forced to consider a second bailout for banks as the lending drought worsens.
The Chancellor will decide within weeks whether to pump billions more into the economy as evidence mounts that the £37 billion part-nationalisation last year has failed to keep credit flowing. Options include cash injections, offering banks cheaper state guarantees to raise money privately or buying up “toxic assets”, The Times has learnt.
The Bank of England revealed yesterday that, despite intense pressure, the banks curbed lending in the final quarter of last year and plan even tighter restrictions in the coming months. Its findings will alarm the Treasury.
The Bank is expected to take yet more aggressive action this week by cutting the base rate from its current level of 2 per cent. Doing so would reduce the cost of borrowing but have little effect on the availability of loans.
Whitehall sources said that ministers planned to “keep the banks on the boil” but accepted that they need more help to restore lending levels. Formally, the Treasury plans to focus on state-backed gurantees to encourage private finance, but a number of interventions are on the table, including further injections of taxpayers’ cash.
We’ve re-capitalised several banks, saving them from bankruptcy, with the explicit understanding that they start lending immediately to get the economy going. Instead the money has been either hoarded or gambled away, with the result being repossessions, job losses and depression.
In effect we are giving the banks our money so that they should lend it back to us, and with interest. This is such a ridiculous situation anyway that any one with any sense would stop it immediately, take the banks into bankruptcy and create accountable government controlled banks whose responsibility would be to finance a stable and growing economy for the benefit of society as a whole, not speculation for a quick buck for the few.
But what is really happening is that the banks are upgrading their computer systems to continue the derivative speculation with financial mathematics that got us into this mess in the first place, so the problem is not being solved. Instead the next and even bigger problem is being financed…AND WITH OUR MONEY.
Darling and Brown are members of the House of Commons, elected by their constituents to serve them, not to serve the banks with their constituents’ money to speculate with.
The banks have shown themselves unworthy of the power we have given them.
Take the banks into bankruptcy.
Create government controlled banks run by elected and accountable officials whose responsibility it is to create a stable and growing economy for the benefit of society as a whole.
And perhaps most important of all, hold a public inquiry into the current financial crisis so criminal bankers go to jail and the ordinary British taxpayer is never screwed by this or any other similar crime again (and yes it is a crime due to the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4).
===================================
From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5434660.ece
From The Times
January 3, 2009
Chancellor Alistair Darling on brink of second bailout for banks
Billions may be needed as lending squeeze tightens
Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor, and Gary Duncan, Economics Editor
Alistair Darling has been forced to consider a second bailout for banks as the lending drought worsens.
The Chancellor will decide within weeks whether to pump billions more into the economy as evidence mounts that the £37 billion part-nationalisation last year has failed to keep credit flowing. Options include cash injections, offering banks cheaper state guarantees to raise money privately or buying up “toxic assets”, The Times has learnt.
The Bank of England revealed yesterday that, despite intense pressure, the banks curbed lending in the final quarter of last year and plan even tighter restrictions in the coming months. Its findings will alarm the Treasury.
The Bank is expected to take yet more aggressive action this week by cutting the base rate from its current level of 2 per cent. Doing so would reduce the cost of borrowing but have little effect on the availability of loans.
Whitehall sources said that ministers planned to “keep the banks on the boil” but accepted that they need more help to restore lending levels. Formally, the Treasury plans to focus on state-backed gurantees to encourage private finance, but a number of interventions are on the table, including further injections of taxpayers’ cash.
Friday, January 02, 2009
JOHN BUCHAN
Buchan was born in Perth, to an obscure family, the son of a Minister of the Free Church of Scotland, and attended a local Grammar School in Glasgow after the family moved there in 1888.
Buchan was awarded a scholarship and attended Brasenose College, Oxford between 1895 – 1899, where he was President of the Oxford Union in his final year.
About this time in Oxford a group called the Kindergarten was formed by Alfred Milner, and Buchan was invited to join, which he did. He was then in the company of such British Imperialists as Lionel Curtis, who had many important roles, one of which was as editor of The Round Table Journal which was created to lobby for the establishment of an Imperial Federation, i.e. one world government ruled by Great Britain.
Buchan was Private Secretary to Lord Milner during the period 1901 – 1903, administrating South Africa.
Buchan married into one of the richest families in Great Britain, the Grosvenors, better known as the Dukes of Westminster. He married Susan Charlotte Grosvenor, a direct descendant of Sir Richard Grosvenor 1st Baronet and MP for Cheshire.
During WW1 Buchan wrote for the War Propaganda Bureau while reporting for The Times in France, and eventually joined British Intelligence writing speeches and communiqués for Sir Douglas Haig, who planned and commanded the battle of The Somme which led to the deaths of over a half a million Allied soldiers and the same number of dead German soldiers.
In 1917 Buchan was appointed Director of Information of the Government of Great Britain.
In 1918 Buchan becomes Director of news for Reuters, then owned by Rothschild.
In 1935 Buchan is made Governor-General of Canada.
In 1939 Buchan is made Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.
In The Thirty Nine Steps, written in August 1914 and published in 1915, Buchan wrote the following in the first chapter, The Man Who Died, regarding an imminent world war;
==================================
I am giving you what he told me as well as I could make it out. Away behind all the governments and the armies there was a big subterranean movement going on, engineered by very dangerous people. He had come on it by accident; it fascinated him; he went further and then he got caught. I gathered that most of the people in it were the sort of educated anarchists that make revolutions, but that beside them were financiers who were playing for money. A clever man can make big profits on a falling market, and it suited the book of both classes to set Europe by the ears.
He told me some queer things that explained a lot that had puzzled me – things that happened in the Balkan War, how one state suddenly came out on top, why alliances were made and broken, why certain men disappeared, and where the sinews of war came from. The aim of the whole conspiracy was to get Russia and Germany at loggerheads.
When asked Why, he said that the anarchist lot thought it would give them their chance. Everything would be in the melting-pot, and they looked to see a new world emerge. The capitalists would rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage. Capital, he said, had no conscience and no fatherland. Besides, the Jew was behind it, and the Jew hated Russia worse then hell.
=================================================
Buchan then goes on to indicate that the conspiracy involved the assassination of Constantine Karolides in London by an Austrian that would be blamed on “the big folk in Vienna and Berlin”, and that the conspiracy was developed in Austria, Germany and Paris.
All this is very close to the truth.
In my analysis of World War 1 on my website The Conspiracy Explained you will find
1. that Freemasonry played a highly significant part, desiring and predicting the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand over a year before the event, and even assisting the guilty assassins with encouragement and logistics. Ferdinand knew of the Freemasonic plot to kill him and knew that Austrians were involved and where in Austria the assassination was discussed.
2. Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that a “distinguished German Freemason” told him that Freemasonry, specifically the Grand Orient, engineered World War 1 for the destruction of the Central European monarchies and church. The Grand Orient is based in Paris and is a derivative of English Freemasonry.
3. the blame for the war was placed on Germany.
4. Germany and Russia were placed at loggerheads thanks to the conspiring of Edward VII, who when conspiring was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE, pronounced ugly).
5. the Russian monarchy was overthrown, in a revolution that Jewish banker Jacob Schiff was proud to claim as his own, and was replaced by a tyranny that killed millions of its own subjects.
It is of great interest that Buchan went to Oxford merely as a clever Scot on a scholarship, but after meeting up with Milner he joined the Kindergarten, worked for Milner, married into one of the richest families in Great Britain, wrote a book that divulged the existence of a conspiracy to create a new world order by fomenting war between Germany and Russia, during WW1 he worked for the Rothschilds at Reuters and at the same time was also Director of Information for the British government, then governed Canada and was finally awarded one of the highest honours available, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.
It is also of interest that Alfred Hitchcock did not include the above section in his version of The Thirty-Nine Steps, because Hitchcock went on to become one of the most powerful film directors in Hollywood, if not the most powerful.
Buchan was awarded a scholarship and attended Brasenose College, Oxford between 1895 – 1899, where he was President of the Oxford Union in his final year.
About this time in Oxford a group called the Kindergarten was formed by Alfred Milner, and Buchan was invited to join, which he did. He was then in the company of such British Imperialists as Lionel Curtis, who had many important roles, one of which was as editor of The Round Table Journal which was created to lobby for the establishment of an Imperial Federation, i.e. one world government ruled by Great Britain.
Buchan was Private Secretary to Lord Milner during the period 1901 – 1903, administrating South Africa.
Buchan married into one of the richest families in Great Britain, the Grosvenors, better known as the Dukes of Westminster. He married Susan Charlotte Grosvenor, a direct descendant of Sir Richard Grosvenor 1st Baronet and MP for Cheshire.
During WW1 Buchan wrote for the War Propaganda Bureau while reporting for The Times in France, and eventually joined British Intelligence writing speeches and communiqués for Sir Douglas Haig, who planned and commanded the battle of The Somme which led to the deaths of over a half a million Allied soldiers and the same number of dead German soldiers.
In 1917 Buchan was appointed Director of Information of the Government of Great Britain.
In 1918 Buchan becomes Director of news for Reuters, then owned by Rothschild.
In 1935 Buchan is made Governor-General of Canada.
In 1939 Buchan is made Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.
In The Thirty Nine Steps, written in August 1914 and published in 1915, Buchan wrote the following in the first chapter, The Man Who Died, regarding an imminent world war;
==================================
I am giving you what he told me as well as I could make it out. Away behind all the governments and the armies there was a big subterranean movement going on, engineered by very dangerous people. He had come on it by accident; it fascinated him; he went further and then he got caught. I gathered that most of the people in it were the sort of educated anarchists that make revolutions, but that beside them were financiers who were playing for money. A clever man can make big profits on a falling market, and it suited the book of both classes to set Europe by the ears.
He told me some queer things that explained a lot that had puzzled me – things that happened in the Balkan War, how one state suddenly came out on top, why alliances were made and broken, why certain men disappeared, and where the sinews of war came from. The aim of the whole conspiracy was to get Russia and Germany at loggerheads.
When asked Why, he said that the anarchist lot thought it would give them their chance. Everything would be in the melting-pot, and they looked to see a new world emerge. The capitalists would rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage. Capital, he said, had no conscience and no fatherland. Besides, the Jew was behind it, and the Jew hated Russia worse then hell.
=================================================
Buchan then goes on to indicate that the conspiracy involved the assassination of Constantine Karolides in London by an Austrian that would be blamed on “the big folk in Vienna and Berlin”, and that the conspiracy was developed in Austria, Germany and Paris.
All this is very close to the truth.
In my analysis of World War 1 on my website The Conspiracy Explained you will find
1. that Freemasonry played a highly significant part, desiring and predicting the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand over a year before the event, and even assisting the guilty assassins with encouragement and logistics. Ferdinand knew of the Freemasonic plot to kill him and knew that Austrians were involved and where in Austria the assassination was discussed.
2. Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that a “distinguished German Freemason” told him that Freemasonry, specifically the Grand Orient, engineered World War 1 for the destruction of the Central European monarchies and church. The Grand Orient is based in Paris and is a derivative of English Freemasonry.
3. the blame for the war was placed on Germany.
4. Germany and Russia were placed at loggerheads thanks to the conspiring of Edward VII, who when conspiring was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE, pronounced ugly).
5. the Russian monarchy was overthrown, in a revolution that Jewish banker Jacob Schiff was proud to claim as his own, and was replaced by a tyranny that killed millions of its own subjects.
It is of great interest that Buchan went to Oxford merely as a clever Scot on a scholarship, but after meeting up with Milner he joined the Kindergarten, worked for Milner, married into one of the richest families in Great Britain, wrote a book that divulged the existence of a conspiracy to create a new world order by fomenting war between Germany and Russia, during WW1 he worked for the Rothschilds at Reuters and at the same time was also Director of Information for the British government, then governed Canada and was finally awarded one of the highest honours available, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.
It is also of interest that Alfred Hitchcock did not include the above section in his version of The Thirty-Nine Steps, because Hitchcock went on to become one of the most powerful film directors in Hollywood, if not the most powerful.
THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
The following is taken verbatim from the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I would greatly appreciate a comment from a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on how the Balfour Declaration has been honoured by Israel.
================================
From http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
I would greatly appreciate a comment from a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on how the Balfour Declaration has been honoured by Israel.
================================
From http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
Thursday, January 01, 2009
STATEMENT BY NETUREI KARTA OF THE ORTHODOX JEWRY ON GAZA
Apparently the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, stated that Gazans should be transferred to the Sinai Desert and leave Israel for the Jews! This fits well with Gaza : The Musical.
Haaretz reported on an interview of Metzger by The Jewish News, in which Metzger is reported by Haaretz as stating;
"take all the poor people from Gaza to move them to a wonderful new modern country with trains buses cars, like in Arizona - we are now in a generation where you can take a desert and build a city. This will be a solution for the poor people - they will have a nice county, and we shall have our country and we shall live in peace."
[source : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948907.html ]
Below is a photo of members of NK USA protesting in New York against the Gaza slaughter.
==============================================
From http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20080131_nkpalestine.cfm
NETUREI KARTA of THE ORTHODOX JEWRY
JERUSALEM, PALESTINE
Jan 31.08
URGENT PRESS RELEASE
In the past week the so-called Chief Rabbi of the so-called State of "Israel", Yona Metzger, has made vicious and provocative statements asserting that the Palestinians living in Gaza should be moved from their homes into the Sinai desert.
Yona Metzger is not an authentic Torah authority, despite the fact that he carries the so-called title of "Chief Rabbi". Chief rabbis of the Zionist State only carry legitimacy in the eyes of Zionist Jews. His status as a chief rabbi is not unlike the leadership of Theodor Herzl, who also wore a beard!
The State of "Israel" is illegitimate according to the Torah teachings. The founding of the State of "Israel" is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Torah which forbids the establishment of a Jewish state and commands Jews to remain in exile until released from that exile by G-d Himself, without any human intervention, at which time all nations of the world will live together in peace.
We are likewise forbidden to rebel against any nation. We are to remain peaceful and loyal citizens, in every country in which we reside. Therefore to oppress the Palestinian people, harm them, steal their land, expel them, etc. is totally forbidden according to our Holy Torah.
The Rabbinical authorities universally have stood in vehement opposition to the ideology of Zionism and have opposed the state of "Israel" from its creation until the present day.
Palestinians have an inherent right to return to their land in historic Palestine and to establish their independent state in the entire Holy Land, which was forcefully taken from them by the Zionists. Indeed, many Gazans are refugees who were expelled from other areas of Palestine by the Zionists ever since 1948.
Chief Rabbis of the Zionist state, whether Metzger or anyone else, are merely very well-paid stooges of the Zionists and serve their Zionist masters without regard for the welfare of the Jewish People, the Palestinians, or any other nation in the world.
The Chief Rabbinate of the Zionist State, just as all Zionist institutions, has importance only because of its coercive power over the religious, economic and everyday life of the Jewish residents of Zionist occupied Palestine. Whoever recognizes and supports the Zionist State, even innocently, has been taken over by the heretical Zionist movement, no matter how large the halo that it is granted by supposed Jewish authorities.
Chief Rabbis, and other rabbis who support the existence of the Zionist state, are wicked emissaries of evil. Such "rabbis" promote hatred and war, and use their coercive powers to demand subservience of Jews to the Zionist enterprise. This description that we posit of such people has been the long-standing position of authentic rabbis for the last century.
Yona Metzger expresses feelings of inhumanity which originates in his loyalty to the cult of Zionism and is perfectly prepared to sacrifice Jewish lives on the altar of his idolatry, the State of "Israel." Any moral person would much prefer to see the Zionist warmongers, including Metzger, removed from the Holy Land. METZGER AND ALL ZIONIST RABBIS DO NOT REPRESENT THE JEWISH RELIGION.
We urgently appeal to the leaders of the world nations, especially the great powers, to stop supporting the Zionist regime. Many nations believe that supporting Zionism shows friendship to the Jewish People. This is incorrect! True friendship to the Jewish People can be demonstrated by saving all the peoples of the Middle East, including Jews, from the bloodthirsty machinations of the dangerous State of "Israel" and by dismantling the Zionist regime entirely, peacefully and speedily in our day.
May Almighty G-d protect us from the influence of Zionism in general, their evil warmongering bloodthirsty leaders, and from their wicked servants who call themselves "rabbis."
Haaretz reported on an interview of Metzger by The Jewish News, in which Metzger is reported by Haaretz as stating;
"take all the poor people from Gaza to move them to a wonderful new modern country with trains buses cars, like in Arizona - we are now in a generation where you can take a desert and build a city. This will be a solution for the poor people - they will have a nice county, and we shall have our country and we shall live in peace."
[source : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948907.html ]
Below is a photo of members of NK USA protesting in New York against the Gaza slaughter.
==============================================
From http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20080131_nkpalestine.cfm
NETUREI KARTA of THE ORTHODOX JEWRY
JERUSALEM, PALESTINE
Jan 31.08
URGENT PRESS RELEASE
In the past week the so-called Chief Rabbi of the so-called State of "Israel", Yona Metzger, has made vicious and provocative statements asserting that the Palestinians living in Gaza should be moved from their homes into the Sinai desert.
Yona Metzger is not an authentic Torah authority, despite the fact that he carries the so-called title of "Chief Rabbi". Chief rabbis of the Zionist State only carry legitimacy in the eyes of Zionist Jews. His status as a chief rabbi is not unlike the leadership of Theodor Herzl, who also wore a beard!
The State of "Israel" is illegitimate according to the Torah teachings. The founding of the State of "Israel" is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Torah which forbids the establishment of a Jewish state and commands Jews to remain in exile until released from that exile by G-d Himself, without any human intervention, at which time all nations of the world will live together in peace.
We are likewise forbidden to rebel against any nation. We are to remain peaceful and loyal citizens, in every country in which we reside. Therefore to oppress the Palestinian people, harm them, steal their land, expel them, etc. is totally forbidden according to our Holy Torah.
The Rabbinical authorities universally have stood in vehement opposition to the ideology of Zionism and have opposed the state of "Israel" from its creation until the present day.
Palestinians have an inherent right to return to their land in historic Palestine and to establish their independent state in the entire Holy Land, which was forcefully taken from them by the Zionists. Indeed, many Gazans are refugees who were expelled from other areas of Palestine by the Zionists ever since 1948.
Chief Rabbis of the Zionist state, whether Metzger or anyone else, are merely very well-paid stooges of the Zionists and serve their Zionist masters without regard for the welfare of the Jewish People, the Palestinians, or any other nation in the world.
The Chief Rabbinate of the Zionist State, just as all Zionist institutions, has importance only because of its coercive power over the religious, economic and everyday life of the Jewish residents of Zionist occupied Palestine. Whoever recognizes and supports the Zionist State, even innocently, has been taken over by the heretical Zionist movement, no matter how large the halo that it is granted by supposed Jewish authorities.
Chief Rabbis, and other rabbis who support the existence of the Zionist state, are wicked emissaries of evil. Such "rabbis" promote hatred and war, and use their coercive powers to demand subservience of Jews to the Zionist enterprise. This description that we posit of such people has been the long-standing position of authentic rabbis for the last century.
Yona Metzger expresses feelings of inhumanity which originates in his loyalty to the cult of Zionism and is perfectly prepared to sacrifice Jewish lives on the altar of his idolatry, the State of "Israel." Any moral person would much prefer to see the Zionist warmongers, including Metzger, removed from the Holy Land. METZGER AND ALL ZIONIST RABBIS DO NOT REPRESENT THE JEWISH RELIGION.
We urgently appeal to the leaders of the world nations, especially the great powers, to stop supporting the Zionist regime. Many nations believe that supporting Zionism shows friendship to the Jewish People. This is incorrect! True friendship to the Jewish People can be demonstrated by saving all the peoples of the Middle East, including Jews, from the bloodthirsty machinations of the dangerous State of "Israel" and by dismantling the Zionist regime entirely, peacefully and speedily in our day.
May Almighty G-d protect us from the influence of Zionism in general, their evil warmongering bloodthirsty leaders, and from their wicked servants who call themselves "rabbis."
OLIVER KAMM PROPOSES JOINING THE EURO
Oliver Kamm is a Blairite who supported the invasion of Iraq, supported the re-election of Bush, and he is also a founding member of the Henry Jackson Society.
Kamm has today written in The Times that we should ditch the pound and join the euro.
This is another step to creating the European Superstate which in turn will be a "local" unelected power under the all-seeing all-knowing world government.
Beware of Kamm. He is a tool of the creepy conspirators who are now crawling out of the woodwork and from under the fridges to propose the formation of a world government, a world government that, of course, they should control.
Kamm's argument is that the current financial chaos is good enough reason. Kamm, like BBC's Robert Peston, does not mention the D word; DERIVATVE.
===============================================
The market has spoken: long live the euro
Detractors of the new currency have been proved wrong. We would be much better off if we were part of the eurozone
Oliver Kamm
Ten years ago today monetary union for the eurozone was established. Three years later the euro was born. Throughout the currency's gestation and launch, the panjandrums of British politics confidently predicted failure.
“I myself believe that EMU will probably break down before Blair is called on to take a decision whether or not Britain should join,” said Lord Healey, the former Labour Chancellor. The European single currency will fail “economically, politically and socially”, insisted Baroness Thatcher. “As the citizens of Europe wake up to the reality of what their politicians have committed themselves to, Britain should count its lucky stars it is not in the euro,” ventured Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
The elder statesmen did not merely oppose British adoption of the single currency. They depicted monetary union as intrinsically flawed. “A continental ‘one-size' bank rate as now imposed on Euroland... simply does not fit the varying needs of stimulus and restraint in so diverse an area,” declared the late Lord Shore, the former Labour Trade Secretary.
It is time for a reckoning. There have been economic stresses and political controversies in the eurozone, but the euro has plainly been a success. It now outstrips the dollar in the value of notes in circulation. It has established itself as the alternative international reserve currency to the dollar. Countries within the eurozone have survived the financial crisis in much better shape than, say, Iceland or Hungary.
During the euro's first two years, sceptics charged that the currency's supposed weakness against the dollar demonstrated a lack of investor confidence. From 2004, when the euro appreciated, the critics changed script without missing a breath. They now claimed that growth in the eurozone was hampered by excessive currency strength, which penalised exporters.
These incompatible criticisms utterly failed to grasp the significance of the new currency. Fluctuations in the dollar-euro exchange rate were nothing extraordinary, let alone apocalyptic. They reflected divergences in relative growth rates and interest rates. These swings were less disruptive for the euro area - comprising a fifth of the world's output and almost a third of its trade - than they would have been for its member states individually, had national currencies still been in force.
In short, the disdain that British policymakers traditionally reserve for European ventures has been just as traditionally refuted. The euro has worked. It has broadened and deepened European financial markets, reducing the cost of capital for business. It has achieved reserve currency status because investors have confidence in its future stability.
The success of EMU, although unforeseen by much of Britain's political class, does not necessarily mean that we should give up the pound and embrace the euro. But we should. The potential benefits are legion. They include increased trade flows (businesses can be more confident about the value of future sales receipts), greater price transparency (consumers can directly compare prices across countries), and lower transactions costs for consumers and businesses.
Such arguments admittedly make no difference to those who believe that the euro involves an intolerable violation of national sovereignty. But a currency ought not to be an issue of dogma. Any treaty obligation involves giving up something in return for a benefit. The issue of euro membership is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. A useful test is whether the opponents of the euro consider that that calculation has been affected in any way by the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s. They appear to think not. George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, complains that advocates of the euro have “seized on economic difficulties for political ends”.
Mr Osborne is wrong. The crisis does shift the balance of the argument. In keeping out of the euro, Britain faces greater costs while the benefits are less clear.
The dramatic fall of sterling against the dollar and the euro provides, in theory, help to British exporters. But the boost to growth will be negligible: the global economy is in recession. And the volatility of sterling - which partly reflects the sharp deterioration in the public finances - has costs to set against this notional benefit. It will cost the Government more to borrow money (international investors require a higher premium to compensate for the risk of holding UK government bonds) and the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill eventually.
The crisis has also underscored the importance of international action to stabilise the economy. There have been co-ordinated interest rate cuts, but decisions on fiscal policy and banking regulation - notably with national guarantees on bank deposits - have been taken unilaterally. That must change. Being part of the eurozone would make it easier, by joining with other countries to get things done that will benefit the UK.
It used to be argued that the greater importance of the financial services sector to the UK economy made euro membership unsuitable for us. Surely no one can now maintain that a common European approach to banking supervision and capital adequacy is a threat. The weaknesses of the UK financial system are glaring and need to be remedied. If the UK were in the euro, then it could advance effective European regulation, while opposing impractical schemes that would simply distort markets.
The idea that the UK economy has characteristics that are distinctive from those of Europe has been undermined. The greater importance of our housing sector is a crippling weakness, not an idiosyncrasy. The peculiarly destructive cycle of
boom and bust in the UK is a product of specific policy errors. Joining the euro will not work miracles, but it would make easier the task of repair.
Kamm has today written in The Times that we should ditch the pound and join the euro.
This is another step to creating the European Superstate which in turn will be a "local" unelected power under the all-seeing all-knowing world government.
Beware of Kamm. He is a tool of the creepy conspirators who are now crawling out of the woodwork and from under the fridges to propose the formation of a world government, a world government that, of course, they should control.
Kamm's argument is that the current financial chaos is good enough reason. Kamm, like BBC's Robert Peston, does not mention the D word; DERIVATVE.
===============================================
The market has spoken: long live the euro
Detractors of the new currency have been proved wrong. We would be much better off if we were part of the eurozone
Oliver Kamm
Ten years ago today monetary union for the eurozone was established. Three years later the euro was born. Throughout the currency's gestation and launch, the panjandrums of British politics confidently predicted failure.
“I myself believe that EMU will probably break down before Blair is called on to take a decision whether or not Britain should join,” said Lord Healey, the former Labour Chancellor. The European single currency will fail “economically, politically and socially”, insisted Baroness Thatcher. “As the citizens of Europe wake up to the reality of what their politicians have committed themselves to, Britain should count its lucky stars it is not in the euro,” ventured Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
The elder statesmen did not merely oppose British adoption of the single currency. They depicted monetary union as intrinsically flawed. “A continental ‘one-size' bank rate as now imposed on Euroland... simply does not fit the varying needs of stimulus and restraint in so diverse an area,” declared the late Lord Shore, the former Labour Trade Secretary.
It is time for a reckoning. There have been economic stresses and political controversies in the eurozone, but the euro has plainly been a success. It now outstrips the dollar in the value of notes in circulation. It has established itself as the alternative international reserve currency to the dollar. Countries within the eurozone have survived the financial crisis in much better shape than, say, Iceland or Hungary.
During the euro's first two years, sceptics charged that the currency's supposed weakness against the dollar demonstrated a lack of investor confidence. From 2004, when the euro appreciated, the critics changed script without missing a breath. They now claimed that growth in the eurozone was hampered by excessive currency strength, which penalised exporters.
These incompatible criticisms utterly failed to grasp the significance of the new currency. Fluctuations in the dollar-euro exchange rate were nothing extraordinary, let alone apocalyptic. They reflected divergences in relative growth rates and interest rates. These swings were less disruptive for the euro area - comprising a fifth of the world's output and almost a third of its trade - than they would have been for its member states individually, had national currencies still been in force.
In short, the disdain that British policymakers traditionally reserve for European ventures has been just as traditionally refuted. The euro has worked. It has broadened and deepened European financial markets, reducing the cost of capital for business. It has achieved reserve currency status because investors have confidence in its future stability.
The success of EMU, although unforeseen by much of Britain's political class, does not necessarily mean that we should give up the pound and embrace the euro. But we should. The potential benefits are legion. They include increased trade flows (businesses can be more confident about the value of future sales receipts), greater price transparency (consumers can directly compare prices across countries), and lower transactions costs for consumers and businesses.
Such arguments admittedly make no difference to those who believe that the euro involves an intolerable violation of national sovereignty. But a currency ought not to be an issue of dogma. Any treaty obligation involves giving up something in return for a benefit. The issue of euro membership is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. A useful test is whether the opponents of the euro consider that that calculation has been affected in any way by the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s. They appear to think not. George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, complains that advocates of the euro have “seized on economic difficulties for political ends”.
Mr Osborne is wrong. The crisis does shift the balance of the argument. In keeping out of the euro, Britain faces greater costs while the benefits are less clear.
The dramatic fall of sterling against the dollar and the euro provides, in theory, help to British exporters. But the boost to growth will be negligible: the global economy is in recession. And the volatility of sterling - which partly reflects the sharp deterioration in the public finances - has costs to set against this notional benefit. It will cost the Government more to borrow money (international investors require a higher premium to compensate for the risk of holding UK government bonds) and the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill eventually.
The crisis has also underscored the importance of international action to stabilise the economy. There have been co-ordinated interest rate cuts, but decisions on fiscal policy and banking regulation - notably with national guarantees on bank deposits - have been taken unilaterally. That must change. Being part of the eurozone would make it easier, by joining with other countries to get things done that will benefit the UK.
It used to be argued that the greater importance of the financial services sector to the UK economy made euro membership unsuitable for us. Surely no one can now maintain that a common European approach to banking supervision and capital adequacy is a threat. The weaknesses of the UK financial system are glaring and need to be remedied. If the UK were in the euro, then it could advance effective European regulation, while opposing impractical schemes that would simply distort markets.
The idea that the UK economy has characteristics that are distinctive from those of Europe has been undermined. The greater importance of our housing sector is a crippling weakness, not an idiosyncrasy. The peculiarly destructive cycle of
boom and bust in the UK is a product of specific policy errors. Joining the euro will not work miracles, but it would make easier the task of repair.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
2009 : THE YEAR WE TAKE OUR PLANET BACK
Well, in 2008 they tried to start wars, and failed.
They are still trying, but the current war on Gaza will be the last attempt because Israel is in a lose-lose situation, i.e. even if it wins it loses because a victory for them will mean a lot of dead innocent civilians and international condemnation.
Yes, outrage will manifest in terrorism (as it is designed to do), but I think after 9/11 there are many more members of the intelligence and military community who have become wise to the situation that the human race finds itself in. For that we can congratulate ourselves, but we are not done yet.
2009 will be the year we take our planet back.
We will take our planet back because we can, and when we know we can then we will.
Forget fear.
We will take our planet back.
It is ours.
We know who most of them are, and we will see them in court one way or another, either as witnesses or as the accused.
I am looking forward to 2009 very much, because it will be the year we take our planet back.
Best wishes for the New Year to everyone...and good luck!
They are still trying, but the current war on Gaza will be the last attempt because Israel is in a lose-lose situation, i.e. even if it wins it loses because a victory for them will mean a lot of dead innocent civilians and international condemnation.
Yes, outrage will manifest in terrorism (as it is designed to do), but I think after 9/11 there are many more members of the intelligence and military community who have become wise to the situation that the human race finds itself in. For that we can congratulate ourselves, but we are not done yet.
2009 will be the year we take our planet back.
We will take our planet back because we can, and when we know we can then we will.
Forget fear.
We will take our planet back.
It is ours.
We know who most of them are, and we will see them in court one way or another, either as witnesses or as the accused.
I am looking forward to 2009 very much, because it will be the year we take our planet back.
Best wishes for the New Year to everyone...and good luck!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
WAHABBI CLERIC ISSUES FATWA AGAINST ISRAEL
If Obama and the USA are to experience a terrorist attack soon after Obama's inaurguration, as indicated by several well-placed insiders, then that attack will require terrorists, or to be more precise patsies.
A Fatwa has been issued by an influential Wahabbi cleric who has been identified as encouraging terrorism.
Of course, such a terrorist attack will be allowed to happen.
A brief history of how and why a Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and a Zionist Israel were deliberately created is provided on my website.
======================================
From http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/12/29/saudi-wahhabi-cleric-calls-global-jihad-against-israel-threa.html
Saudi Wahhabi Cleric Calls for Global Jihad Against Israel, Threatens the U.S.
Increase Decrease
December 29, 2008 (LPAC) -- A leading Saudi Wahhabi cleric, Awadh Al-Qarni (also spelled Al-Garni) issued a Fatwa "to spill the blood" of Israelis everywhere in the world, as a revenge for the Israeli attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. His fatwa, a religious decree, was published today in Islamonline.org website, which in turn is run by Sheikh Yosuf Al-Qaradhawi, a leading Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member and anti-American agent provocateur.
"All Israeli interests, and anything else related to Israel, are a permitted target for Muslims everywhere... They should become targets. Their blood should be shed as the blood of our brothers in Palestine has been shed. They should feel pain more than our brothers," Al-Qarni stated. He added: "This is a fatwa that I am responsible for in front of Allah," Qarni said. Implicating other moderate Arab nations, such as Egypt, he accused them of being "part of the conspiracy". "The recent visit by Israeli Foreign Miniter Tzipi Livni to Egypt, and her embrace by Egyptian officials in front of cameras, followed by her confirmation that the situation in Gaza is going to change, and the lack of any response from Egyptian officials, are part of the conspiracy," he said.
Al-Qarni also attacked the United States for its silent condoning of the Israeli massacres. "Washington, by its silence and support for the Israeli massacres, will destroy the future of humankind, not only relations between Muslims and the West."
Another Saudi cleric, Salman Fahad Al-Oudeh, (chairman of the Saudi institution Islamtoday.net) also issued a statement calling on Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to respond to the Israeli attacks "with actions, not merely words."
These statements should be viewed as signals for Saudi-British sponsored Salafi terrorist networks to wreck havoc internationally and target not only Israeli interests but even American or the interests of U.S.-allied nations. This comes amid warnings that "a third force", not the Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad, nor Lebanese Hezbollah, could expand this conflict into a global threat by targeting other nations with terrorism. This would put the whole world and the incoming Obama Administration in an impossible situation regarding peace in the Middle East and U.S.-Muslim relations.
The two above mentioned Saudi clerics, Al-Qarni and Odeh are part of a 20-person powerful Wahhabi faction in Saudi Arabia who have a key role in sending marching orders and recruits for terrorist operations internationally. In 1994 this grouping was sent to jail by former King Fahad for supporting a call by then London-based Osama Bin Laden for "reform" of the kingdom. These clerics were later released after cutting a deal with the Saudi royal family, according to which the Saudi government support some of their demands for supporting Jihad operations in the Caucasus, Kashmir and other targets of British operations, in return for directing their rhetoric away from the royal family and against the "west", Russia, China, India or other powers allegedly oppressing Muslim minorities.
In November 2004, following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the two joined a group of 20 Wahhabi clerics who issued another Fatwa calling for armed resistance against the Americans in Iraq and anybody who collaborated with the Americans. The "collaborators" category included not only Iraqi government officials, police or armed forces, but almost every Iraqi who went to his job and did not participate in armed resistance against the U.S. troops. Saudi youth and others from Arab countries poured into Iraq after this fatwa to launch suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians. Al-Qaeda and extreme Sunni militant groups inside Iraq used this and similar fatwas to justify to the most heinous crimes against Iraqi and foreign civilians.
This is what these clerics are hoping to arouse now, but on global scale.
A Fatwa has been issued by an influential Wahabbi cleric who has been identified as encouraging terrorism.
Of course, such a terrorist attack will be allowed to happen.
A brief history of how and why a Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and a Zionist Israel were deliberately created is provided on my website.
======================================
From http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/12/29/saudi-wahhabi-cleric-calls-global-jihad-against-israel-threa.html
Saudi Wahhabi Cleric Calls for Global Jihad Against Israel, Threatens the U.S.
Increase Decrease
December 29, 2008 (LPAC) -- A leading Saudi Wahhabi cleric, Awadh Al-Qarni (also spelled Al-Garni) issued a Fatwa "to spill the blood" of Israelis everywhere in the world, as a revenge for the Israeli attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. His fatwa, a religious decree, was published today in Islamonline.org website, which in turn is run by Sheikh Yosuf Al-Qaradhawi, a leading Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member and anti-American agent provocateur.
"All Israeli interests, and anything else related to Israel, are a permitted target for Muslims everywhere... They should become targets. Their blood should be shed as the blood of our brothers in Palestine has been shed. They should feel pain more than our brothers," Al-Qarni stated. He added: "This is a fatwa that I am responsible for in front of Allah," Qarni said. Implicating other moderate Arab nations, such as Egypt, he accused them of being "part of the conspiracy". "The recent visit by Israeli Foreign Miniter Tzipi Livni to Egypt, and her embrace by Egyptian officials in front of cameras, followed by her confirmation that the situation in Gaza is going to change, and the lack of any response from Egyptian officials, are part of the conspiracy," he said.
Al-Qarni also attacked the United States for its silent condoning of the Israeli massacres. "Washington, by its silence and support for the Israeli massacres, will destroy the future of humankind, not only relations between Muslims and the West."
Another Saudi cleric, Salman Fahad Al-Oudeh, (chairman of the Saudi institution Islamtoday.net) also issued a statement calling on Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to respond to the Israeli attacks "with actions, not merely words."
These statements should be viewed as signals for Saudi-British sponsored Salafi terrorist networks to wreck havoc internationally and target not only Israeli interests but even American or the interests of U.S.-allied nations. This comes amid warnings that "a third force", not the Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad, nor Lebanese Hezbollah, could expand this conflict into a global threat by targeting other nations with terrorism. This would put the whole world and the incoming Obama Administration in an impossible situation regarding peace in the Middle East and U.S.-Muslim relations.
The two above mentioned Saudi clerics, Al-Qarni and Odeh are part of a 20-person powerful Wahhabi faction in Saudi Arabia who have a key role in sending marching orders and recruits for terrorist operations internationally. In 1994 this grouping was sent to jail by former King Fahad for supporting a call by then London-based Osama Bin Laden for "reform" of the kingdom. These clerics were later released after cutting a deal with the Saudi royal family, according to which the Saudi government support some of their demands for supporting Jihad operations in the Caucasus, Kashmir and other targets of British operations, in return for directing their rhetoric away from the royal family and against the "west", Russia, China, India or other powers allegedly oppressing Muslim minorities.
In November 2004, following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the two joined a group of 20 Wahhabi clerics who issued another Fatwa calling for armed resistance against the Americans in Iraq and anybody who collaborated with the Americans. The "collaborators" category included not only Iraqi government officials, police or armed forces, but almost every Iraqi who went to his job and did not participate in armed resistance against the U.S. troops. Saudi youth and others from Arab countries poured into Iraq after this fatwa to launch suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians. Al-Qaeda and extreme Sunni militant groups inside Iraq used this and similar fatwas to justify to the most heinous crimes against Iraqi and foreign civilians.
This is what these clerics are hoping to arouse now, but on global scale.
Monday, December 29, 2008
GAZA : THE MUSICAL
Bang. Bang.
Boom. Boom. Boom.
Whooosh...BANG!
Aaaagh, aagh, aagh, aaaaaagh!
Boom. Boom. Boom.
Fuck you Gazan scumbags.
We want all your la-and, and we're going to get it.
Whooosh...BOOM!
We will drive you into Egypt, if not there then into the sea.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Whooosh...BOOM!
Run you fucking scumbags, you don't deserve to live.
You're on our land so leave it now.
We've got lots of money for all the bombs we need.
You won't get a dollar. We'd rather see you starve.
Bang. Bang.
Boom. Boom.
[silence]
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Oh no, my five beautiful daughters are dead.
I've lost my beautiful children.
My mangled son is blown to bits.
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Aaagh! My mother is dead.
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Aaagh! My father is dead.
HA! HA! HAA! Die you fucking scumbags.
DIE!!!
Whooosh...BOOM!
Or run into Egypt. If not there then into the sea.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Boom. Boom. Boom.
Whooosh...BANG!
Aaaagh, aagh, aagh, aaaaaagh!
Boom. Boom. Boom.
Fuck you Gazan scumbags.
We want all your la-and, and we're going to get it.
Whooosh...BOOM!
We will drive you into Egypt, if not there then into the sea.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Whooosh...BOOM!
Run you fucking scumbags, you don't deserve to live.
You're on our land so leave it now.
We've got lots of money for all the bombs we need.
You won't get a dollar. We'd rather see you starve.
Bang. Bang.
Boom. Boom.
[silence]
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Oh no, my five beautiful daughters are dead.
I've lost my beautiful children.
My mangled son is blown to bits.
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Aaagh! My mother is dead.
Nee-naw. Nee-naw.
Whooosh...BOOM!
Aaagh! My father is dead.
HA! HA! HAA! Die you fucking scumbags.
DIE!!!
Whooosh...BOOM!
Or run into Egypt. If not there then into the sea.
Whooosh...BOOM!
ISRAEL'S TRUTH ECONOMY
Johann Hari in The Independent has written a good article on the inhumanity and criminality of the Israeli assault on Gaza.
According to The Israel Project just 4 people have died this year from the rockets and mortars fired from Gaza, and since June 2004 just 16 have died from this rocket fire.
[http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=3887857]
Yes, it is 16 too many.
But the corpse count in Gaza is currently over 300, and will continue to rise as bodies are dragged from under the rubble.
Is that a proportionate response, particularly with a blockade that has destroyed the Gazan economy and driven many children to starvation? No.
Read Hari's article below.
=========================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html
Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling
Monday, 29 December 2008
The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.
To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.
There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.
The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.
Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.
It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.
The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.
Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.
The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."
Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.
The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."
According to The Israel Project just 4 people have died this year from the rockets and mortars fired from Gaza, and since June 2004 just 16 have died from this rocket fire.
[http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=3887857]
Yes, it is 16 too many.
But the corpse count in Gaza is currently over 300, and will continue to rise as bodies are dragged from under the rubble.
Is that a proportionate response, particularly with a blockade that has destroyed the Gazan economy and driven many children to starvation? No.
Read Hari's article below.
=========================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html
Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling
Monday, 29 December 2008
The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.
To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.
There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.
The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.
Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.
It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.
The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.
Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.
The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."
Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.
The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."
IS ISRAEL PROVOKING THE ATTACK FOR OBAMA?
Several well-placed insiders have indicated that Barak Obama will be confronted with a massive terrorist attack shortly after his inauguration that will test his resolve.
If such an attack is to involve real terrorists and encouraged and allowed to happen then the current massacre in Gaza will provide them.
If such an attack is to involve real terrorists and encouraged and allowed to happen then the current massacre in Gaza will provide them.
THE QUESTION IS NOT IF BUT HOW AND WHEN
"The question is not if but how and when".
This is a quote from an anonymous source close to Ehud Barak which was printed in The Times on 17th June 2007, BEFORE Barak became defence minister for Israel.
"Israel plans attack on Gaza", by Uzi Mahnaimi at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1942918.ece
It was recently reported by Haaretz that the attack on Black Saturday was planned six months ago.
The US Presidential election gave Israel a fantastic opportunity to break the ceasefire and invade Gaza while attention was focused on Obama, which it did, resulting in an increase in rockets from Gaza. This then led Israel to increase the blockade, leading to sustained rockets from Gaza, which led to Black Saturday.
I think it is evident that Bloody Barak has been itching for this.
I think it is evident that the invasion of Gaza on the day of the US Presidential election (a similar tactic used by tie-muncher Saakashvili during the Olympics in his bloodlust in South Ossetia) was a provocation designed to provide Barak with the excuse to execute his long time goal of invading Gaza.
Whoever lobbied for Barak to be inserted into his current position is close to the inner circle.
This is a quote from an anonymous source close to Ehud Barak which was printed in The Times on 17th June 2007, BEFORE Barak became defence minister for Israel.
"Israel plans attack on Gaza", by Uzi Mahnaimi at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1942918.ece
It was recently reported by Haaretz that the attack on Black Saturday was planned six months ago.
The US Presidential election gave Israel a fantastic opportunity to break the ceasefire and invade Gaza while attention was focused on Obama, which it did, resulting in an increase in rockets from Gaza. This then led Israel to increase the blockade, leading to sustained rockets from Gaza, which led to Black Saturday.
I think it is evident that Bloody Barak has been itching for this.
I think it is evident that the invasion of Gaza on the day of the US Presidential election (a similar tactic used by tie-muncher Saakashvili during the Olympics in his bloodlust in South Ossetia) was a provocation designed to provide Barak with the excuse to execute his long time goal of invading Gaza.
Whoever lobbied for Barak to be inserted into his current position is close to the inner circle.
WE'RE ALL GAZANS NOW
The consequences of Israel's bloodlust could be global. That's why we're all Gazans now.
Every dead child murdered by a cowardly Israeli Air Force pilot from thousands of feet above his defenceless victim drives many more to hate us.
This in turn increases the probability of reprisals against us.
This in turn leads to us losing our freedoms as our governments strip us of our rights in order to protect us from potential terrorism.
But here's a question; who is financing Israel?
It's not Israelis.
It's not the World Jewish Congress.
It is our ally, the USA.
And our government is not unfriendly either. Where are Labour Friends of Israel now, eh? Rubbing their hands with glee? Raising a glass to the Israeli Air Force?
That's right. Our governments are supporting Israel as it murders innocent defenceless children in order to drive many men and women into hatred and terrorism, which of course benefits our governments because it wants to control us as much as it can so we don't discover the even more horrendous crimes it has committed against us in preparing and executing world wars 1 and 2 and the current chaos in the Middle East.
That's why we're all Gazans now.
Israel is effectively bombing our rights and freedoms to smithereens.
Every dead child murdered by a cowardly Israeli Air Force pilot from thousands of feet above his defenceless victim drives many more to hate us.
This in turn increases the probability of reprisals against us.
This in turn leads to us losing our freedoms as our governments strip us of our rights in order to protect us from potential terrorism.
But here's a question; who is financing Israel?
It's not Israelis.
It's not the World Jewish Congress.
It is our ally, the USA.
And our government is not unfriendly either. Where are Labour Friends of Israel now, eh? Rubbing their hands with glee? Raising a glass to the Israeli Air Force?
That's right. Our governments are supporting Israel as it murders innocent defenceless children in order to drive many men and women into hatred and terrorism, which of course benefits our governments because it wants to control us as much as it can so we don't discover the even more horrendous crimes it has committed against us in preparing and executing world wars 1 and 2 and the current chaos in the Middle East.
That's why we're all Gazans now.
Israel is effectively bombing our rights and freedoms to smithereens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)