"Is It Terrorism When Israel Does It?"

Ever since MSNBC ran that story linking the Mossad to the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pointing the finger at Israel for 'participating in terrorism' and wondering with elephantine illogic why the US should be continuing to give aid to 'a supporter of terrorism'. Usually coupled with complaints about this supposed double standard are some of the usual fairy tales about how Israel was started by 'terrorists' who operated against the British .

It's high time to demolish this horse manure.

What's going on between Iran and Israel is a war between two sovereign states, plain and simple. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that regime has been quite open about being in a state of war against Israel and seeking its destruction. For that matter, they feel the same way about the United States.

Along with targeting the US military in operations like the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and numerous operations either directly by Iran's military or its proxies against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians have also sponsored plenty of terrorism aimed explicitly against civilians and strictly civilian facilities, including sponsoring and training 'Palestinian' homicide bombers, attacking the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.

If the Israelis are involved - and there's no direct proof they are, although it's likely - they have concentrated specifically on military installations and figures associated with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, weapons they could very well use to commit genocide. Whomever is targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and these scientists isn't hitting schools, pizza parlors, restaurants, community centers or any other facilities designed for civilian use. And even if they were, the Iranian practice of locating these targets near civilian facilities amounts to the use of human shields, something totally contrary to the rules of war. And just like the 'Palestinians' and Hezbollah who use the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned it makes these civilian targets fair game in wartime even if they do happen to get hit as collateral damage in a strike on military targets.

The British and the US used exactly the same standards in WWII in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and are using the same standards in drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan. War by its nature affects civilians on each side.

The difference between Israel and its enemies like Iran is that Israel's record on going out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while targeting its enemies is uniquely good among western nations, while Iran and it's proxies are deliberately targeting civilians as a war aim - the very definition of terrorism.

That definition also applies to the way Israel's Jewish underground conducted itself while trying to push the British out of a country that was supposed have been the Jewish State by international law of long standing. The usual example cited is the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun.

There are certain facts always left out of these stories.

There was an unusually high percentage of Palestine's Jews - about one third of the entire population - in uniform fighting for the allies. In contrast, the Arabs were largely pro-Nazi and the 'Palestinian' Arab leader the British appointed, Grand Mufti Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an active enemy. Not only did he translate Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic and do a great deal to bring the Arabs over to the Nazi cause, he recruited Bosnian Muslims in Europe for Hitler's SS and collaborated with his friend Adolf Eichmann in planning a Nazi death camp for Palestine's Jews, scheduled to be situated near what is now Nablus.

In spite of all that, the British were firmly pro-Arab, to the point of being actively anti-Semitic. They halted all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus dooming millions to death at the hands of the Nazis because few other countries were wiling to take them in, including Britain. At the same time, they allowed unlimited and unrestricted Arab in-migration, especially during the war because so many Jews were in uniform that there was an actual labor shortage in Palestine. This led to atrocities like the sinking of the refugee ship SS Struma in 1942, which was towed by Turkish authorities to the middle of the Black Sea and left there to founder with a disabled engine after the British refused to admit its refugee passengers to Palestine. 768 people were drowned, including more than one hundred children.

In 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed, the British were still turning away every Jewish refugee they could apprehend. Aside from operating what amounted to concentration camps of their own on the nearby Island of Cyprus, the British also sent a number of refugees by ship back to some of the very camps they'd just been liberated from.

The British also did little to quell Arab violence against Jews, while at the same time taking active steps to disarm Jews attempting to defend themselves.

The King David Hotel was Britain's military headquarters and the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine. The southern wing of the hotel where the attack was concentrated also housed British Intelligence, including files used against the Jewish resistance groups.

Aside from the fact this was definitely a military target, it's a matter of historical record that several phone calls were made to the British a half hour before warning them of the imminent bombing by the Irgun which is a funny way for 'terrorists' to act. The phone calls were dismissed by the British as hoaxes and no evacuation was done, with the result that 91 people, some of them civilian employees of the Mandatory government were killed.

In view of what goes by nowadays without being labeled terrorism, labeling the Irgun's act against the King David Hotel with the 'T' word is obviously a sign of an extremely obvious agenda.

"Is It Terrorism When Israel Does It?"

Ever since MSNBC ran that story linking the Mossad to the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pointing the finger at Israel for 'participating in terrorism' and wondering with elephantine illogic why the US should be continuing to give aid to 'a supporter of terrorism'. Usually coupled with complaints about this supposed double standard are some of the usual fairy tales about how Israel was started by 'terrorists' who operated against the British .

It's high time to demolish this horse manure.

What's going on between Iran and Israel is a war between two sovereign states, plain and simple. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that regime has been quite open about being in a state of war against Israel and seeking its destruction. For that matter, they feel the same way about the United States.

Along with targeting the US military in operations like the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and numerous operations either directly by Iran's military or its proxies against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians have also sponsored plenty of terrorism aimed explicitly against civilians and strictly civilian facilities, including sponsoring and training 'Palestinian' homicide bombers, attacking the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.

If the Israelis are involved - and there's no direct proof they are, although it's likely - they have concentrated specifically on military installations and figures associated with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, weapons they could very well use to commit genocide. Whomever is targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and these scientists isn't hitting schools, pizza parlors, restaurants, community centers or any other facilities designed for civilian use. And even if they were, the Iranian practice of locating these targets near civilian facilities amounts to the use of human shields, something totally contrary to the rules of war. And just like the 'Palestinians' and Hezbollah who use the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned it makes these civilian targets fair game in wartime even if they do happen to get hit as collateral damage in a strike on military targets.

The British and the US used exactly the same standards in WWII in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and are using the same standards in drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan. War by its nature affects civilians on each side.

The difference between Israel and its enemies like Iran is that Israel's record on going out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while targeting its enemies is uniquely good among western nations, while Iran and it's proxies are deliberately targeting civilians as a war aim - the very definition of terrorism.

That definition also applies to the way Israel's Jewish underground conducted itself while trying to push the British out of a country that was supposed have been the Jewish State by international law of long standing. The usual example cited is the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun.

There are certain facts always left out of these stories.

There was an unusually high percentage of Palestine's Jews - about one third of the entire population - in uniform fighting for the allies. In contrast, the Arabs were largely pro-Nazi and the 'Palestinian' Arab leader the British appointed, Grand Mufti Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an active enemy. Not only did he translate Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic and do a great deal to bring the Arabs over to the Nazi cause, he recruited Bosnian Muslims in Europe for Hitler's SS and collaborated with his friend Adolf Eichmann in planning a Nazi death camp for Palestine's Jews, scheduled to be situated near what is now Nablus.

In spite of all that, the British were firmly pro-Arab, to the point of being actively anti-Semitic. They halted all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus dooming millions to death at the hands of the Nazis because few other countries were wiling to take them in, including Britain. At the same time, they allowed unlimited and unrestricted Arab in-migration, especially during the war because so many Jews were in uniform that there was an actual labor shortage in Palestine. This led to atrocities like the sinking of the refugee ship SS Struma in 1942, which was towed by Turkish authorities to the middle of the Black Sea and left there to founder with a disabled engine after the British refused to admit its refugee passengers to Palestine. 768 people were drowned, including more than one hundred children.

In 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed, the British were still turning away every Jewish refugee they could apprehend. Aside from operating what amounted to concentration camps of their own on the nearby Island of Cyprus, the British also sent a number of refugees by ship back to some of the very camps they'd just been liberated from.

The British also did little to quell Arab violence against Jews, while at the same time taking active steps to disarm Jews attempting to defend themselves.

The King David Hotel was Britain's military headquarters and the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine. The southern wing of the hotel where the attack was concentrated also housed British Intelligence, including files used against the Jewish resistance groups.

Aside from the fact this was definitely a military target, it's a matter of historical record that several phone calls were made to the British a half hour before warning them of the imminent bombing by the Irgun which is a funny way for 'terrorists' to act. The phone calls were dismissed by the British as hoaxes and no evacuation was done, with the result that 91 people, some of them civilian employees of the Mandatory government were killed.

In view of what goes by nowadays without being labeled terrorism, labeling the Irgun's act against the King David Hotel with the 'T' word is obviously a sign of an extremely obvious agenda.

UK's Cameron Vetoes Changes to EU Treaty..France And Germany Outraged

The efforts to save the eurozone took another body blow as UK PM David Cameron exercised, for the first time, the UK's veto over major changes to the Eu treaty France and Germany worked out.

The new changes amounted to “automatic consequences” for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3 per cent of gross domestic product and a cap on countries’ structural deficits at 0.5 per cent. The tighter rules would be also be entered in the individuals laws of member countries, and the 'consequences' would be enforced by the other 27 members.

This is a fairly shocking abandonment of national sovereignty, and the French in particular were originally not planning to agree with it. But Germany's Angela Merkel was able to get France's Nicholas Sarkozy to capitulate.

And then Britain threw a monkey wrench into the entire structure by vetoing it. That led to several other countries refusing to go along until they 'consulted with their parliaments', namely Denmark, Sweden, The Czech Republic and Hungary.

PM Cameron's main sticking point was that he wanted secure safeguards for the single market and the City of London's financial infrastructure, and France and Germany refused to provide them..

'There are some real problems and nonsense there in terms of having safe and secure financial services, some deep unfairnesses that are currently in the system that I feel badly need to be addressed,' he said.

'You've got everyone else in the room saying give up your national interests, just go along with what everyone else wants, that would be the easy, comfortable, convenient thing to do. But it wasn't the right thing to do, so you've got to stick to your guns.'

France's President Sarkozy was particularly incensed at this, perhaps because he had caved in to Germany's demands in the face of considerable political pressure not to.

'What was on offer is not in Britain's interest so I didn't agree to it,' Cameron told reporters in Brussels.

'We're not in the euro and I'm glad we're not in the euro.'

'We're never going to join the euro and we're never going to give up this kind of sovereignty that these countries are having to give up.'

Merkel and Sarkozy are essentially ignoring the UK's veto and announced their plans to go ahead with finalizing the agreement,which is due to be signed in March.While this huge alteration of the Lisbon Treaty should normally signal referendums in the individual countries,there's no sign that this is going to happen. José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president was quoted as saying that in his opinion,these difficulties could be "worked around."

In other words, they'll just impose it. Greece, Portugal,Ireland,Spain and Italy aren't going to squawk since they're in deep financial trouble and France and Germany are already on board,although it remains to be seen how long.

So why do these European shenanigans matter on this side of the pond? Well, among other things, thanks to President Obama, we're likely going to be footing the bill for a big chunk of the bail out cost.

Bypassing Congress,of course.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

UK's Cameron Vetoes Changes to EU Treaty..France And Germany Outraged

The efforts to save the eurozone took another body blow as UK PM David Cameron exercised, for the first time, the UK's veto over major changes to the Eu treaty France and Germany worked out.

The new changes amounted to “automatic consequences” for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3 per cent of gross domestic product and a cap on countries’ structural deficits at 0.5 per cent. The tighter rules would be also be entered in the individuals laws of member countries, and the 'consequences' would be enforced by the other 27 members.

This is a fairly shocking abandonment of national sovereignty, and the French in particular were originally not planning to agree with it. But Germany's Angela Merkel was able to get France's Nicholas Sarkozy to capitulate.

And then Britain threw a monkey wrench into the entire structure by vetoing it. That led to several other countries refusing to go along until they 'consulted with their parliaments', namely Denmark, Sweden, The Czech Republic and Hungary.

PM Cameron's main sticking point was that he wanted secure safeguards for the single market and the City of London's financial infrastructure, and France and Germany refused to provide them..

'There are some real problems and nonsense there in terms of having safe and secure financial services, some deep unfairnesses that are currently in the system that I feel badly need to be addressed,' he said.

'You've got everyone else in the room saying give up your national interests, just go along with what everyone else wants, that would be the easy, comfortable, convenient thing to do. But it wasn't the right thing to do, so you've got to stick to your guns.'

France's President Sarkozy was particularly incensed at this, perhaps because he had caved in to Germany's demands in the face of considerable political pressure not to.

'What was on offer is not in Britain's interest so I didn't agree to it,' Cameron told reporters in Brussels.

'We're not in the euro and I'm glad we're not in the euro.'

'We're never going to join the euro and we're never going to give up this kind of sovereignty that these countries are having to give up.'

Merkel and Sarkozy are essentially ignoring the UK's veto and announced their plans to go ahead with finalizing the agreement,which is due to be signed in March.While this huge alteration of the Lisbon Treaty should normally signal referendums in the individual countries,there's no sign that this is going to happen. José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president was quoted as saying that in his opinion,these difficulties could be "worked around."

In other words, they'll just impose it. Greece, Portugal,Ireland,Spain and Italy aren't going to squawk since they're in deep financial trouble and France and Germany are already on board,although it remains to be seen how long.

So why do these European shenanigans matter on this side of the pond? Well, among other things, thanks to President Obama, we're likely going to be footing the bill for a big chunk of the bail out cost.

Bypassing Congress,of course.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Iranians Sack British Embassy In Tehran

Protesters and 'students' attacked and looted the British Embassy in Tehran, throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails and burning documents looted from the offices. They tore down and burnt the British flag and replaced it with the Iranian flag while parading the streets with th eRoyal Crest and a framed portrait of Queen Elizabeth II.



Another group of protesters broke into a second British Embassy compound at Qolhak in north Tehran. This compound is now used to house diplomatic staff, a library and a school. The protesters likewise damaged the buildings and took six embassy staff hostage who were later freed by police, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

This 'spontaneous' demonstration was in response to the clerical Council of Guardians approving a parliamentary bill submitted to them by the majlis to expel Britain's ambassador an downgrade diplomatic relations to a charge d'affairs in retaliation for the UK's participation in increased sanctions over Iran's rogue nuclear arms program.

The Iranian government claims that the incident was not planned by them, that they regretted the attacks and were committed to ensuring the safety of diplomats. Considering how well organized and timed the taking of the embassies were and that the Iranian police did absolutely nothing to stop it, it's fairly obvious that this was as 'unofficial' as the taking of the American embassy in 1979.

The Iranian police only forced the 'students' out of the embassies after they had been given plenty of time to loot and destroy them and things looked like they might be going a little further than the regime intended.

Al Jazeera's Iranian correspondant Dorsa Jabbari was fairly emphatic that that the police and the government had prior knowledge of the protest, which was organised by the student arm of the Basij militia, President Ahmadinejad's alma mater.

"Any such action of this could scale can never be independent in the Islamic Republic. These gatherings are always approved by higher officials," said Jabbari.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague issued the following statement:

“It amounts to a grave breach of the Vienna Convention which requires the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances.

We hold the Iranian government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our embassy as it is required to do.

I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister this afternoon to protest in the strongest terms about these events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff in both embassy compounds.

While he said he was sorry for what had happened and that action would be taken in response, this remains a very serious failure by the Iranian government.

The Iranians, of course, are quite aware that after the gutting of the Royal Navy and its other military forces after a long period of Labour rule, Britain has little capacity to do much more than sputter and voice outrage. You have to wonder what a prime minister from Britain's former days like Benjamin Disraeli or Robert Gascoyne-Cecil transported into today's times would have to say about the spectacle of the British Lion being forced to acquiesce to this sorry situation out of sheer weakness and impotence.

Iran has been a rogue nation that ignores the rules most civilized countries abide by since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and thus far they've gotten away with it. The end result of this appeasement will not be pleasant.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Iranians Sack British Embassy In Tehran

Protesters and 'students' attacked and looted the British Embassy in Tehran, throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails and burning documents looted from the offices. They tore down and burnt the British flag and replaced it with the Iranian flag while parading the streets with th eRoyal Crest and a framed portrait of Queen Elizabeth II.



Another group of protesters broke into a second British Embassy compound at Qolhak in north Tehran. This compound is now used to house diplomatic staff, a library and a school. The protesters likewise damaged the buildings and took six embassy staff hostage who were later freed by police, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

This 'spontaneous' demonstration was in response to the clerical Council of Guardians approving a parliamentary bill submitted to them by the majlis to expel Britain's ambassador an downgrade diplomatic relations to a charge d'affairs in retaliation for the UK's participation in increased sanctions over Iran's rogue nuclear arms program.

The Iranian government claims that the incident was not planned by them, that they regretted the attacks and were committed to ensuring the safety of diplomats. Considering how well organized and timed the taking of the embassies were and that the Iranian police did absolutely nothing to stop it, it's fairly obvious that this was as 'unofficial' as the taking of the American embassy in 1979.

The Iranian police only forced the 'students' out of the embassies after they had been given plenty of time to loot and destroy them and things looked like they might be going a little further than the regime intended.

Al Jazeera's Iranian correspondant Dorsa Jabbari was fairly emphatic that that the police and the government had prior knowledge of the protest, which was organised by the student arm of the Basij militia, President Ahmadinejad's alma mater.

"Any such action of this could scale can never be independent in the Islamic Republic. These gatherings are always approved by higher officials," said Jabbari.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague issued the following statement:

“It amounts to a grave breach of the Vienna Convention which requires the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances.

We hold the Iranian government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our embassy as it is required to do.

I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister this afternoon to protest in the strongest terms about these events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff in both embassy compounds.

While he said he was sorry for what had happened and that action would be taken in response, this remains a very serious failure by the Iranian government.

The Iranians, of course, are quite aware that after the gutting of the Royal Navy and its other military forces after a long period of Labour rule, Britain has little capacity to do much more than sputter and voice outrage. You have to wonder what a prime minister from Britain's former days like Benjamin Disraeli or Robert Gascoyne-Cecil transported into today's times would have to say about the spectacle of the British Lion being forced to acquiesce to this sorry situation out of sheer weakness and impotence.

Iran has been a rogue nation that ignores the rules most civilized countries abide by since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and thus far they've gotten away with it. The end result of this appeasement will not be pleasant.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The UK's New Law: Internet Bans For Criminals And "A Wider Group Of Offenders"

The UK has a brand new law that enables police and courts to make use of what are called “cyber sanctions” to restrict access to the social networks and instant messaging services in cases of hacking, fraud and online bullying. Sex offenders and those convicted of 'harassment or anti-social behaviour' also can have their internet access restricted or terminated under the new law.

Officials are now looking into whether "cyber tag" technology could be used to monitor offenders and report to authorities if break their bail or sentence conditions by using the internet.

"The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office will consider and scope the development of a new way of enforcing these orders, using ‘cyber-tags’ which are triggered by the offender breaching the conditions that have been put on their internet use, and which will automatically inform the police or probation service," cyber security strategy said.

It added that if the regime is a success restrictions on internet use could be imposed on "a wider group of offenders".

Police forces across the country will also follow the example of the Met’s Police Central e-Crime Unit by recruiting “cyber specials”; internet experts will be encouraged to volunteer as special constables to help investigate online crime.

And exactly who will that 'wider group of offenders' consist of? People who don't don't hold the proper politically correct view of Islam, perhaps? People who have a differing view on Britons being disarmed, or who dislike the government's economic, immigration or foreign policies? People who have a dissenting view on Britain's participation in the EU? The possibilities are endless once this gets started.

And depend of some or all of these definitions of 'a wider group of offenders' to be instituted. Britain is fast approaching the status of a non-free country.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The UK's New Law: Internet Bans For Criminals And "A Wider Group Of Offenders"

The UK has a brand new law that enables police and courts to make use of what are called “cyber sanctions” to restrict access to the social networks and instant messaging services in cases of hacking, fraud and online bullying. Sex offenders and those convicted of 'harassment or anti-social behaviour' also can have their internet access restricted or terminated under the new law.

Officials are now looking into whether "cyber tag" technology could be used to monitor offenders and report to authorities if break their bail or sentence conditions by using the internet.

"The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office will consider and scope the development of a new way of enforcing these orders, using ‘cyber-tags’ which are triggered by the offender breaching the conditions that have been put on their internet use, and which will automatically inform the police or probation service," cyber security strategy said.

It added that if the regime is a success restrictions on internet use could be imposed on "a wider group of offenders".

Police forces across the country will also follow the example of the Met’s Police Central e-Crime Unit by recruiting “cyber specials”; internet experts will be encouraged to volunteer as special constables to help investigate online crime.

And exactly who will that 'wider group of offenders' consist of? People who don't don't hold the proper politically correct view of Islam, perhaps? People who have a differing view on Britons being disarmed, or who dislike the government's economic, immigration or foreign policies? People who have a dissenting view on Britain's participation in the EU? The possibilities are endless once this gets started.

And depend of some or all of these definitions of 'a wider group of offenders' to be instituted. Britain is fast approaching the status of a non-free country.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Drool Britania: How The UK Subverts Israel's Democracy

There was an interesting bill introduced in the Israeli Knesset this week that is long overdue. It would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 ( about $5,366 or £3,370 as I write this) to Israeli nongovernmental organizations per year. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis, and has Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s support.

According to the bill, "inciting activity undertaken by many organizations, under the cover of human rights work, has the goal of influencing political debates, and the character and the policies of the state of Israel."

In other words, Israel is finally passing legislation prohibiting foreign countries from unduly interfering in its domestic politics. And that's appropriate, since the massive donations from places like the UN and EU have gone almost exclusively to Israeli organizations on the political far Left that are well out of the mainstream, like the Meretz Party,B’Tselem, Breaking The Silence,Terrestrial Jerusalem, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha.And as we'll see,to 'Palestinian' groups that aren't focused on democracy or human rights in the areas they rule but on undermining Israel's very existence.

Britain's Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould undoubtedly got a message from London, because he was quick to react by saying that the bill 'would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.'

Ambassador Gould is obviously just doing his job, passing on the sentiments of Her Majesty's government. But it's worth turning this around and asking how the UK's deliberate subversion of Israel's democracy looks to Israel.

Makor Rishon, an Israeli paper, recently published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

And it's quite interesting reading. It shows that aside from Iraq, the British government gave a grand total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

The total during the same period given to Israel's far left organizations was much bigger, weighing in at over £600,000.Between 2003-4 and 2009-10, the UK gave a whopping total of nearly £3.8 million to NGOs in Israel. As NGO Monitor details, these groups are heavily involved in political activity against the Israeli government.

These groups are involved in pushing an agenda that has been rejected by the vast majority of Israeli voters and could almost be said to be suicidal. But the UK has so little respect for Israel's democracy that it funds them lavishly, along with the EU and other donors who could be said not to have Israel's best interests at heart.The UK itself belatedly recognized this by taking some of these groups ( Yesh Din, Ir Amim,and Gisha) off its funding list in the future while retaining others who in practice are only slightly more subtle about their agenda

And Britain's largess to 'Palestinian' groups in the Fatah-led 'Palestinian' Authority, received about 400,000 pounds. For those of you whom are math challenged, that's a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of undermining the Middle East's only democracy as opposed to creating new ones in the Arab World. The 'Palestinian' groups included Defence for Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS) and the Holy Land Trust, which are heavily involved in the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel.

Funding these Israeli and 'Palestinian' groups would be comparable to Britain funding Code Pink, ANSWER and The National Lawyer's Guild here in America or Israel funding Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades or the British National Party in the UK, except it's even worse because neither America or Britain is surrounded by genocidal enemies.

When you attempt to actively thwart the will of the citizens of a democracy, you show your utter contempt for them.It's not Israel that should be concerned about anything 'reflecting badly' but the UK.

This legislation is long overdue, and Britannia should hang its head in shame.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Drool Britania: How The UK Subverts Israel's Democracy

There was an interesting bill introduced in the Israeli Knesset this week that is long overdue. It would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 ( about $5,366 or £3,370 as I write this) to Israeli nongovernmental organizations per year. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis, and has Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s support.

According to the bill, "inciting activity undertaken by many organizations, under the cover of human rights work, has the goal of influencing political debates, and the character and the policies of the state of Israel."

In other words, Israel is finally passing legislation prohibiting foreign countries from unduly interfering in its domestic politics. And that's appropriate, since the massive donations from places like the UN and EU have gone almost exclusively to Israeli organizations on the political far Left that are well out of the mainstream, like the Meretz Party,B’Tselem, Breaking The Silence,Terrestrial Jerusalem, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha.And as we'll see,to 'Palestinian' groups that aren't focused on democracy or human rights in the areas they rule but on undermining Israel's very existence.

Britain's Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould undoubtedly got a message from London, because he was quick to react by saying that the bill 'would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.'

Ambassador Gould is obviously just doing his job, passing on the sentiments of Her Majesty's government. But it's worth turning this around and asking how the UK's deliberate subversion of Israel's democracy looks to Israel.

Makor Rishon, an Israeli paper, recently published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

And it's quite interesting reading. It shows that aside from Iraq, the British government gave a grand total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

The total during the same period given to Israel's far left organizations was much bigger, weighing in at over £600,000.Between 2003-4 and 2009-10, the UK gave a whopping total of nearly £3.8 million to NGOs in Israel. As NGO Monitor details, these groups are heavily involved in political activity against the Israeli government.

These groups are involved in pushing an agenda that has been rejected by the vast majority of Israeli voters and could almost be said to be suicidal. But the UK has so little respect for Israel's democracy that it funds them lavishly, along with the EU and other donors who could be said not to have Israel's best interests at heart.The UK itself belatedly recognized this by taking some of these groups ( Yesh Din, Ir Amim,and Gisha) off its funding list in the future while retaining others who in practice are only slightly more subtle about their agenda

And Britain's largess to 'Palestinian' groups in the Fatah-led 'Palestinian' Authority, received about 400,000 pounds. For those of you whom are math challenged, that's a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of undermining the Middle East's only democracy as opposed to creating new ones in the Arab World. The 'Palestinian' groups included Defence for Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS) and the Holy Land Trust, which are heavily involved in the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against Israel.

Funding these Israeli and 'Palestinian' groups would be comparable to Britain funding Code Pink, ANSWER and The National Lawyer's Guild here in America or Israel funding Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades or the British National Party in the UK, except it's even worse because neither America or Britain is surrounded by genocidal enemies.

When you attempt to actively thwart the will of the citizens of a democracy, you show your utter contempt for them.It's not Israel that should be concerned about anything 'reflecting badly' but the UK.

This legislation is long overdue, and Britannia should hang its head in shame.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The EU's Big Fat Greek Bailout

The EU leaders, led by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and France's President Nicholas Sarkozy have reached a deal for a second Greek bailout.

The deal involves a new €130 billion bailout of Greece by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (which means American taxpayers are going to take a bite of this particular sandwich), and acceptance by current Greek bond holders of fifty percent of face value and a increase in the EU's bailout fund to over €1 trillion.

As Chancellor Merkel announced with a straight face, the goal of all this manipulation is to get Greece's debt down to - wait for it - a mere 120% of the country's gross domestic product by 2020.

President Sarkozy announced that he would hit up the Chinese to see if they're willing to pony up any cash to help in supporting the fund.

A number of details remain deliberately vague, which was probably the intent to get some kind of consensus and just try to muddle through somehow.

For example, under the terms of the deal, Greece agreed to pay €15 billion back into the EU's bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility(EFSF). The money is supposed to come from additional revenues raised by a vast Greek privatization plan, which would see a lot of functions currently run by the government go into private management.Unfortunately, the international monitors have already reported that Greece isn't going to be able to come up with the €50 billion for the EFSF from privatization it already pledged earlier this year, and this new €15 billion is supposed to come on top of the money the Greeks have already been unable to pay back.

The most inadvertently hilarious quote on this particular item came from Yves Leterme, the Prime Minister of Belgium, a country not exactly noted for its sense of humor. When he was asked by reporters whether adding another €15 billion to Greece’s expected pay back to the bailout fund out of expected revenues from privatization was realistic when the Greeks couldn't come up with the €50 billion from privatization they'd already committed to, he replied: “This element was not a necessity for Belgium.”

Another interesting bit that promises future fireworks came from George Osbourne, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent of America's Secretary of the treasury.He's claiming that Britain (which is already in financial straits) won't pay into the bailout fund out of its its IMF contributions. Moreover, he doubled down and is insisting that the IMF's mandate doesn't allow any cash to go into the bailout fund. Since there's no other place the money can conceivably come from except perhaps the Chinese, this is another of those little details that looks like it's being left to work out later.

Another problem with all this has to do with the internal problems of Greece itself.The EU has apparently realized belatedly that the country is one of the most corrupt in Europe, has a poisonous investment climate, a government fully prepared to cook the books and and little besides tourism as a source of revenue. So Chancellor Merkel is demanded the EU put what she describe as 'monitoring' in place to try and make some kind of order out of this.

"There will be a reinforced monitoring regime in connection with the fulfillment of the Greek obligations," she said.

"That will be anchored in a memorandum of understanding. There will be a permanent presence there. It will be possible to monitor the measures taken by Greece. I think that this is better than when every three months a 'troika' travels there and back, a permanent system of supervision."

Viel glück damit, Madame ReichsKanzler.

If this all seems like simply kicking the can down the road, I couldn't agree more. And that's going to become even more obvious when further bailouts are needed for countries like Spain, Ireland and Portugal, among others.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The EU's Big Fat Greek Bailout

The EU leaders, led by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and France's President Nicholas Sarkozy have reached a deal for a second Greek bailout.

The deal involves a new €130 billion bailout of Greece by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (which means American taxpayers are going to take a bite of this particular sandwich), and acceptance by current Greek bond holders of fifty percent of face value and a increase in the EU's bailout fund to over €1 trillion.

As Chancellor Merkel announced with a straight face, the goal of all this manipulation is to get Greece's debt down to - wait for it - a mere 120% of the country's gross domestic product by 2020.

President Sarkozy announced that he would hit up the Chinese to see if they're willing to pony up any cash to help in supporting the fund.

A number of details remain deliberately vague, which was probably the intent to get some kind of consensus and just try to muddle through somehow.

For example, under the terms of the deal, Greece agreed to pay €15 billion back into the EU's bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility(EFSF). The money is supposed to come from additional revenues raised by a vast Greek privatization plan, which would see a lot of functions currently run by the government go into private management.Unfortunately, the international monitors have already reported that Greece isn't going to be able to come up with the €50 billion for the EFSF from privatization it already pledged earlier this year, and this new €15 billion is supposed to come on top of the money the Greeks have already been unable to pay back.

The most inadvertently hilarious quote on this particular item came from Yves Leterme, the Prime Minister of Belgium, a country not exactly noted for its sense of humor. When he was asked by reporters whether adding another €15 billion to Greece’s expected pay back to the bailout fund out of expected revenues from privatization was realistic when the Greeks couldn't come up with the €50 billion from privatization they'd already committed to, he replied: “This element was not a necessity for Belgium.”

Another interesting bit that promises future fireworks came from George Osbourne, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent of America's Secretary of the treasury.He's claiming that Britain (which is already in financial straits) won't pay into the bailout fund out of its its IMF contributions. Moreover, he doubled down and is insisting that the IMF's mandate doesn't allow any cash to go into the bailout fund. Since there's no other place the money can conceivably come from except perhaps the Chinese, this is another of those little details that looks like it's being left to work out later.

Another problem with all this has to do with the internal problems of Greece itself.The EU has apparently realized belatedly that the country is one of the most corrupt in Europe, has a poisonous investment climate, a government fully prepared to cook the books and and little besides tourism as a source of revenue. So Chancellor Merkel is demanded the EU put what she describe as 'monitoring' in place to try and make some kind of order out of this.

"There will be a reinforced monitoring regime in connection with the fulfillment of the Greek obligations," she said.

"That will be anchored in a memorandum of understanding. There will be a permanent presence there. It will be possible to monitor the measures taken by Greece. I think that this is better than when every three months a 'troika' travels there and back, a permanent system of supervision."

Viel glück damit, Madame ReichsKanzler.

If this all seems like simply kicking the can down the road, I couldn't agree more. And that's going to become even more obvious when further bailouts are needed for countries like Spain, Ireland and Portugal, among others.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Khaddaffi Dead : The Fall Of The Brother Leader

Libyan leader Moamad Khaddaffi was killed this morning, fighting to the last as his final stronghold in Sirte was taken by the rebels.He'd been in power for 44 years.

National Transitional Council (NTC) Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced the death at a news conference this morning in Tripoli.

Jibril said NTC forces were now pursuing Saif al-Islam, Col Khaddaffi's most prominent son, who fled Sirte in a convoy before Sirte fell. He's probably the last major Khaddaffi loyalist still at large.

Jibril also called for neighboring Algeria to turn over the members of KHaddaffi's family who fled there in August to revolutionary justice. Two of KHaddaffi's younger sons, his daughter and his wife are in the country.

"A new Libya is born today," Mahmoud Shammam, the chief spokesman of the Transitional National Council, said today in a statement. "This is the day of real liberation. We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems Allah has some other wish."

Apparently so.

British and French leaders hailed the of Khaddaffi's death and the preservation of those lucrative oil contracts they signed with the rebel forces.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the death a major step forward for the people of Libya and urged the pursuit of democratic reforms.

"The disappearance of Moamer Kadhaffi is a major step forward in the battle fought for more than eight months by the Libyan people to liberate themselves from the dictatorial and violent regime imposed on them for more than 40 years."

William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary said: "When the uprising began, we didn't know how long this would take. I think we feel vindicated all along as the country is now free to become a free and fair democracy. We are very pleased that with Khaddaffi has been removed. There is work to be now to stabilise Libya and bring together separate militias under the control of one governemnt. Once the liberation is declared then there's 30 days to form a transitional government. We should be on the optimistic side, but should not rule out further problems.

It could be a long job for the UK and our allies, but not so much a military job now. Tripoli is not Baghdad."

In other words, count on a lot more of your tax dollars going for nation building before the nature of Libya's new government is actually known.Actually, the odds on an Arab state being established in Libya that's actually free and democratic are incredibly long ones, but the oil will start flowing,which is all the British and French ever were concerned about in the first place.

After all, they didn't care a fig about 'democracy' when they were actively dealing with the Khaddaffi for the oil during his reign, and they were even able to happily ignore the Brother Leader's involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing. What they cared about was that black gold underneath Libya's sands.



The British and French only dumped Khaddaffi during the initial surge of the rebellion, when it looked like he was finished, and their response was to abandon Khaddaffi and rush to sign new oil deals with the rebels. When Khaddaffi rallied and pushed the rebels back to their final stronghold in Benghazi, the Brits and the French realized that they were going to be left out in the cold. And that's when NATO suddenly became involved and western military action against Khaddaffi's forces was launched to turn the tide.

I remind you of this not to defend Khaddaffi, but to give you a little realistic perspective on the matter, so no one's disappointed when the West pours billions into a Libyan rathole only to have it turn out as something different than 'free and democratic'. If the West's leaders were really all that fired up about freedom of democracy, they would have put Khaddaffi in the jar a long time ago.

All the pious nonsense about 'establishing freedom and democracy' or 'protecting the rights of the Libyan people' needs to be seen as exactly that. This was nineteenth century imperialism writ large, and it was always about the oil.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Khaddaffi Dead : The Fall Of The Brother Leader

Libyan leader Moamad Khaddaffi was killed this morning, fighting to the last as his final stronghold in Sirte was taken by the rebels.He'd been in power for 44 years.

National Transitional Council (NTC) Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced the death at a news conference this morning in Tripoli.

Jibril said NTC forces were now pursuing Saif al-Islam, Col Khaddaffi's most prominent son, who fled Sirte in a convoy before Sirte fell. He's probably the last major Khaddaffi loyalist still at large.

Jibril also called for neighboring Algeria to turn over the members of KHaddaffi's family who fled there in August to revolutionary justice. Two of KHaddaffi's younger sons, his daughter and his wife are in the country.

"A new Libya is born today," Mahmoud Shammam, the chief spokesman of the Transitional National Council, said today in a statement. "This is the day of real liberation. We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems Allah has some other wish."

Apparently so.

British and French leaders hailed the of Khaddaffi's death and the preservation of those lucrative oil contracts they signed with the rebel forces.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the death a major step forward for the people of Libya and urged the pursuit of democratic reforms.

"The disappearance of Moamer Kadhaffi is a major step forward in the battle fought for more than eight months by the Libyan people to liberate themselves from the dictatorial and violent regime imposed on them for more than 40 years."

William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary said: "When the uprising began, we didn't know how long this would take. I think we feel vindicated all along as the country is now free to become a free and fair democracy. We are very pleased that with Khaddaffi has been removed. There is work to be now to stabilise Libya and bring together separate militias under the control of one governemnt. Once the liberation is declared then there's 30 days to form a transitional government. We should be on the optimistic side, but should not rule out further problems.

It could be a long job for the UK and our allies, but not so much a military job now. Tripoli is not Baghdad."

In other words, count on a lot more of your tax dollars going for nation building before the nature of Libya's new government is actually known.Actually, the odds on an Arab state being established in Libya that's actually free and democratic are incredibly long ones, but the oil will start flowing,which is all the British and French ever were concerned about in the first place.

After all, they didn't care a fig about 'democracy' when they were actively dealing with the Khaddaffi for the oil during his reign, and they were even able to happily ignore the Brother Leader's involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing. What they cared about was that black gold underneath Libya's sands.



The British and French only dumped Khaddaffi during the initial surge of the rebellion, when it looked like he was finished, and their response was to abandon Khaddaffi and rush to sign new oil deals with the rebels. When Khaddaffi rallied and pushed the rebels back to their final stronghold in Benghazi, the Brits and the French realized that they were going to be left out in the cold. And that's when NATO suddenly became involved and western military action against Khaddaffi's forces was launched to turn the tide.

I remind you of this not to defend Khaddaffi, but to give you a little realistic perspective on the matter, so no one's disappointed when the West pours billions into a Libyan rathole only to have it turn out as something different than 'free and democratic'. If the West's leaders were really all that fired up about freedom of democracy, they would have put Khaddaffi in the jar a long time ago.

All the pious nonsense about 'establishing freedom and democracy' or 'protecting the rights of the Libyan people' needs to be seen as exactly that. This was nineteenth century imperialism writ large, and it was always about the oil.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!