Sunday, February 15, 2015

Nuland attempts Kiev Version 2.0 in Skopje

Wayne MADSEN | 16.02.2015 | 00:00
After having initiated her well-planned Maidan Square uprising in Kiev in early 2014, triggering Europe’s worst conflict in Ukraine since the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, recently attempted a Kiev-style putsch in Macedonia aimed at overthrowing that nation’s democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. It is a hallmark of neoconservatives like Nuland and her arch-neoconservative husband, the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, to disregard democratic elections if their candidates fail to win election. Although Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Macedonian Prime Minister Gruevski were elected in free and fair elections, by all international metrics and norms, their governments were not as pro-NATO and pro-U.S. enough for the liking of Nuland and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) cabalists that surround her husband.
Nuland’s tactics differed somewhat in her Ukrainian and Macedonian campaigns. Her signature challah bread offerings to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Square took the form of unsolicited offerings to the Macedonian press suggesting that Gruevksi was wiretapping as many as 20,000 Macedonians and that a videotape proving it was secretly made by Macedonia’s George Soros-financed leader of the opposition, Zoran Zaev, in a meeting he had with Gruevski. 
Nuland has been charged by Macedonian intelligence with conspiring with Zaev of the Macedonian Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), the former Communist Party that has been thoroughly co-opted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Soros operative. Also charged in the attempted putsch against Gruevski is Radmila Sekerinska. Zaev and Sekerinska are said by Macedonian insiders to be nothing more than fronts for former Prime Minister and President Branko Crvenkovski who continues to head up the SDSM and accept large amounts of largesse from such CIA NGO laundry operations as the National Democratic Institute (NDI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House, and Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) to foment a themed revolution against Gruevksi's right-of-center VMRO-DPMNE government. 
Gruevksi, unlike many U.S.-installed and -influenced governments of the region has been reluctant to apply sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. That stance has earned the government in Skopje the enmity of the Obama administration and most notably, Nuland, whose rhetoric echoes leading neo-conservative war hawks such as Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. In fact, Nuland’s husband has the distinction of working as a foreign policy adviser for both McCain and presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
In response to Zaev's charge that Gruevski wiretapped 20,000 Macedonians, including taping phone calls between Zaev and his young daughter, the Macedonian government charged that it was Zaev and his associates, working with a foreign intelligence agency believed to be the CIA, to overthrow Gruevski's government. An obvious flight risk, Zaev was ordered to turn in his passport to the authorities. Others, in addition to Zaev, accused of working with the CIA to oust Gruevski include Zaev's associates Sonja Verusevska and Branko Palifrov, as well as the former director of the Office of Security and Counter-intelligence (DBK), Zoran Verusevski. Gruevski charged that Zaev threatened to disclose sensitive information about his government provided to the SDSM by the CIA, referred to as "the bomb" in the Macedonian media, unless Gruevski appointed a caretaker government that would lead to early parliamentary elections. Gruevski has called Zaev's gambit nothing more than blackmail pressure in order that a snap election be called. As far as pressuring the Gruevski government to resign and call early elections, Nuland resorted to the same gambit that was used in Kiev to oust Yanukovych.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reporter Michael Martens, who reported on the Macedonian coup plot, claimed in an interview with Macedonian television that his initial report on the wiretapping issue had been altered by certain parties inside Macedonia. Martens said that with a population of 2 million, to wiretap 20,000 people would have even far exceed the capabilities of the East German Stasi. In any event, Martens said the 20,000 figure was not true and that Macedonian media and politicians had misquoted him and his article. However, the truth has never been on the side of provocateurs like Nuland and her neoconservative cabal of plotters and disinformation specialists.
The unapologetic foul-mouthed Nuland met on the side of the 51st Munich Security Conference in Germany with Macedonian Foreign Minister Nikola Poposki and President Gjorge Ivanov to express her displeasure at Gruevski's insurrection charges against her friend Zaev and his SDSM co-conspirators. Earlier, Nuland had offered to mediate a long-standing dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the latter's use of the name Macedonia, which some Greeks consider to be a solely Greek name. Macedonian observers viewed Nuland's interest in the name dispute to be a trap that would enable a pro-U.S. government, along with the Zionist and global banker baggage that comes with any such «themed» coup d'etat, to seize power in Skopje. Nuland and her co-conspirators were hoping for a replay of Kiev in what can be termed «Kiev Version 2.0.»
Nuland and her co-conspirators in Skopje are alarmed over the speed at which the Macedonian security services rounded up the coup plotters. Macedonian police, in raids conducted in Skopje and Veles, seized five laptop computers, three desktop computers, 19 mobile phones, 100 CDs and DVDs, 17 hard disks, and 9 savings deposit books used by the coup plotters, including a number linked to Soros-financed NGOs. The bank accounts of the plotters reportedly were flush with healthy cash deposits from the CIA as the date of the planned coup approached.
The use of social media by the Soros/CIA coup plotters should come as no surprise. Social media served at the very core of the themed revolutions sponsored by the CIA and Soros twice in Ukraine (Orange Revolution and Euro-Maidan uprising), Jasmine Revolution (Tunisia), Lotus Revolution (Egypt), Rose Reviolution (Georgia), Tulip Revolution (Kyrgyszstan), and Green Revolution (Iran). In the case of Macedonia, there are clear indications that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Thomas Melia, responsible for DRL’s work in Europe, including Russia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa, conspired directly with Zaev to mount a coup against the Gruevski government. Melia is the former deputy director of Freedom House, a Cold War-era neoconservative bevvy of U.S. war hawks based in New York. Although founded in 1941 by such progressives as Eleanor Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche, journalist Dorothy Thompson, novelist Rex Stout (creator of Nero Wolfe), and Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie (who would be considered by today's Republicans in the U.S. as a stark-raving liberal), Freedom House has devolved into a neoconservative chatter source having employed as their board members in recent years such war hawk cretins as Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Adelman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Donald Rumsfeld, and Otto Reich. Freedom House has been caught red-handed funneling CIA money to opposition groups in Iran, Sudan, Russia, and China. In essence, Freedom House, like Soros's NGOs, serves as a conduit for CIA support for rebellious opposition forces in dozens of countries around the world, countries that now include Macedonia, as well as Hungary, Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and Cuba.
What occurred in Macedonia was a classic disinformation ploy to mire the democratically-elected government in a bogus political scandal. The ploy is directly from the CIA playbook and it is now being carried out against Presidents Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, and Michelle Bachelet of Chile. All face financial scandals cooked up by the CIA and its owned and operated media in the three nations. In Macedonia, the Soros-influenced media and Radio Free Europe are part of the operation.
Nuland’s vulgar language is only matched by the vulgarity of her backroom operations to unseat democratically-elected governments. «Nuland» should become a noun meaning disgraceful diplomatic conduct, in the same manner as the terms «quisling,» meaning «traitor» and derived from the actions of Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling, and «boycott,» meaning the cessation of all business with a targeted entity and made famous by Irish land agent Captain Charles Boycott, became part of the English language.

Netanyahu urges Europe’s Jews to move to Israel

News | 16.02.2015 | 01:23
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded to this weekend’s deadly synagogue shooting in Copenhagen by urging European Jews to emigrate to Israel.
Netanyahu’s invitation comes despite reassurances from his Danish counterpart Helle Thorning-Schmidt that Denmark’s Jews belong there and that everything would be done to protect them.
Warning that more anti-Semitic attacks like those in France and now Denmark are likely, the Israeli prime minister spoke out at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting:
“Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because 
they were Jews,” said Netanyahu.
“This wave of attacks is expected to continue, including murderous anti-Semitic attacks.
“Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country but we say to 
Jews, to our brothers and sisters: ‘Israel is your home’. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe.”
The cabinet later submitted a plan to encourage the absorption 
of Jews from France, Belgium and Ukraine, with immigration from other European countries to be discussed at a later date.
Under Israel’s Law of Return, anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent has a right of immigration to Israel and, once there, can receive Israeli citizenship automatically.

Kiev, West cast doubt on implementation of Minsk accords - Russia foreign ministry

News | 15.02.2015 | 00:02
TASS - Official Kiev and certain Western states, including the United States, have already cast doubt on implementation of concrete provisions of the Minsk agreements, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"We confirm our high mark given to the set of measures on implementation of Minsk agreements adopted on February 12," the ministry said. "Russia is ready to facilitate the implementation of these agreements."
"Along with this, it is of our deep concern that Ukraine’s official figures represented by Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin and certain Western states, in particular the United States, have actually associated themselves with the opinion of radical nationalists in Verkhovna Rada [Ukraine’s parliament] and have begun to distort contents of the Minsk agreements, casting doubt on implementation of concrete provisions of the document adopted by the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Russia feels disquieted at Ukrainian politicians’ statements while representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk are making public "their responsible attitude towards fulfilment of commitments undertaken by them," the statement says.
"We reiterate that the main message of Minsk agreements envisages that combat activities must be stopped, heavy weapons withdrawn and an actual constitutional reform launched in Ukraine," the Russian foreign ministry said.
Moscow calls on the sides in Ukraine conflict to strictly observe all the commitments.
"We expect that all the signatories of the Minsk document of February 12 along with the sides that supported the Minsk process - including Germany and France - will do their utmost for the reached agreements to be implemented without fail," it said.
On February 11, the Normandy Four summit - Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s Pyotr Poroshenko, France’s Francois Hollande and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel - lasted for the total of 16 hours in Minsk in various formats /in private and with other delegations/.
On February 12, members of the Trilateral Contact Group on the Ukrainian conflict settlement signed a four-page set of measures to implement the earlier Minsk agreements.
The document was signed by OSCE Special Representative Heidi Tagliavini, Ukraine’s second President Leonid Kuchma, Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov, as well as leaders of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR Aleksandr Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky.
The first point of the document sets condition for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire beginning from 00:00 hours (Kiev time) on February 15, 2015. The conflicting parties agreed on withdrawal of all heavy weapons.
The final document says that the Ukrainian troops are to be pulled back away from the current line of engagement, and the militias of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions - from the engagement line set by the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.
The package of measures contains a special item requiring "effective monitoring and verification of the ceasefire regimen and pullout of heavy armaments by the OSCE as of the first day of the pullback, with the use of all required technical means, including satellites, drones, radars and other systems."
A separate point of the document provides for release and exchange of all hostages and illegally held persons based on the "all for all" principle that should be completed after the weapons withdrawal - on the fifth day at the latest. The sides also agreed on restoring the Ukrainian side’s control over the state border throughout the conflict zone.
Another point of the document provides for withdrawal of all foreign armed groups and mercenaries from Ukraine’s territory under OSCE supervision; all illegal armed groups shall be disarmed.
The set of agreed measures envisages Ukraine’s constitutional reform with the country’s new constitution talking effect by late 2015. The key element of the new constitution will be power decentralisation and adoption of permanent legislation on a special status for certain districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in Ukraine’s south-east.
Combat actions between the Ukrainian military and militias of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) during Kiev’s punitive operation in the country’s east conducted since mid-April 2014 have claimed over 5,400 lives and nearly a million people had to flee their homes seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, mostly in Russia, according to the UN data.
Mediatory efforts of Russia and the OSCE yielded results on September 5, where talks between parties to the Ukrainian conflict were held in Belarusian capital city Minsk two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin had proposed his plan to settle the situation in eastern Ukraine.
Two weeks later, on September 20, the Contact Group adopted a memorandum on implementing a ceasefire. The nine-item document includes a ban on all weapons, pulling back heavy weapons from the line of engagement and setting up a buffer zone of 15 kilometres. It also entrusted OSCE with a task of controlling implementation of the agreements.
In late January, the situation deteriorated after a passenger bus en route from Ukraine’s Donetsk to Zlatoustovka came under shelling on January 13. Twelve civilians were killed and at least 16 wounded. Artillery shelling and bombing strikes at Donbass cities intensified and dozens of peaceful civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, were killed there.
On February 7, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande arrived in Kiev for talks with Poroshenko with the aim to settle the crisis. Next day, the European leaders arrived in Moscow for talks with Putin.
On Sunday, February 10, the ‘Normandy Four’ discussed most recent developments by phone and scheduled a meeting in Minsk for February 11.

The Putin-Did-It Conspiracy Theory

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 15.02.2015 | 13:28

A new truce agreement in Ukraine rekindles hope that the bloodshed can be reduced if not stopped, but Official Washington’s gross misunderstanding of the crisis, blaming everything on Russia’s President Putin, raises doubts and portends a potentially grave catastrophe, writes Robert Parry.
The original falsehood behind the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them against America either directly or by giving them to al-Qaeda. The opening lie about the Ukraine crisis was that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the conflict as part of some Hitlerian plan to conquer much of Europe.
Yet, while the Hussein-WMD claim was hard for the common citizen to assess because it was supposedly supported by U.S. intelligence information that was kept secret, the Putin-Ukraine lie collapses under the most cursory examination based simply of what’s publicly known and what makes sense.
President Barack Obama talks with President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation as they join other leaders en route to the APEC Family Photo at the International Convention Center in Beijing, China, Nov. 11, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Nevertheless, the New York Times – much as it did when it was falsely reporting breathlessly about “aluminum tubes” for Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons program – continues to promote U.S. government propaganda about Ukraine as fact and dismisses any rational assessment of the situation as crazy.
On Friday, the Times concluded its lead editorial with the assertion that: “What remains incontrovertible is that Ukraine is Mr. Putin’s war.” But the point is anything but “incontrovertible.” Indeed, the crisis was most certainly not instigated by Putin.
The actually “incontrovertible” facts about the Ukraine crisis are these: The destabilization of President Viktor Yanukovych’s elected government began in November 2013 when Yanukovych balked at a proposed association agreement promoted by the European Union. He sought more time after the sticker shock of learning from Kiev economic experts that the deal would cost Ukraine $160 billion in lost revenue by cutting trade with Russia.
It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported. Putin’s only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act.
Yanukovych’s decision to postpone action on the EU association prompted angry demonstrations in Kiev’s Maidan square, largely from western Ukrainians who were hoping for visa-free travel to the EU and other benefits from closer ties. Putin had no role in those protests – and it’s insane to think that he did.
In February 2014, the protests grew more and more violent as neo-Nazi and other militias organized in the western city of Lviv and these 100-man units known as “sotins” were dispatched daily to provide the muscle for the anti-Yanukovych uprising that was taking shape. It is frankly nutty to suggest that Putin was organizing these militias. [See’s “When Is a Putsch a Putsch.”]
Evidence of Coup Plotting
By contrast, there is substantial evidence that senior U.S. officials were pushing for a “regime change” in Kiev, including an intercepted phone call and various public statements.
In December 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations.” In early February, she discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine should be. “Yats is the guy,” she declared, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [See’s “Who’s Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?”]
The Maidan uprising gained momentum on Feb. 20, 2014, when snipers around the square opened fire on police and protesters touching off a violent clash that left scores of people dead, both police and protesters. After the sniper fire and a police retreat — carrying their wounded — the demonstrators surged forward and some police apparently reacted with return fire of their own.
But the growing evidence indicates that the initial sniper fire originated from locations controlled by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan’s neo-Nazi “self-defense” commandant Andriy Parubiy. Though the current Ukrainian government has dragged its feet on an investigation, independent field reports, including a new one from BBC, indicate that the snipers were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych government as was widely reported in the U.S. media a year ago.
The worsening violence led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European countries. He accepted reduced powers and agreed to early elections so he could be voted out of office. Yet, rather than permit that political settlement to go forward, neo-Nazis and other Maidan forces overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.
The U.S. State Department quickly deemed this coup regime “legitimate” and Nuland’s choice, Yatsenyuk, emerged as Prime Minister, with Parubiy put in charge of national security.
In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other extremists who executed the coup.
A Nutty Conspiracy Theory
But there is zero evidence that Putin engineered these events. There is no evidence that he got Merkel and the EU to overplay their hand; no evidence that he organized the neo-Nazi militias in Lviv; no evidence that he manipulated U.S. officials to manipulate the “regime change” behind the scenes; no evidence that he ordered the Maidan militants to attack.
Is the New York Times really suggesting that Putin pulled the strings on the likes of Merkel and Nuland, secretly organized neo-Nazi brigades, and ruthlessly deployed these thugs to Kiev to provoke violence and overthrow Yanukovych, all while pretending to try to save Yanukovych’s government – all so Putin could advance some dastardly plot to conquer Europe?
The Times often makes fun of “conspiracy theorists,” but the Times’ narrative is something that would make even the most dedicated “conspiracy theorist” blush. Yet, the Times not only asserts this crazy conspiracy theory but calls it “incontrovertible.”
Beyond the lack of evidence to support this conspiracy theory, there is no rational motive for Putin to have done what the Times claims that he did.
In the actual chronology of event, Putin was preoccupied with the Winter Olympics in Sochi when the Ukraine crisis took its turn for the worst a year ago. He was fearful that the Olympics would be marred by Chechen or other terrorism and thus was personally overseeing security.
Putin had spent some $40 billion on making the Olympics a glamorous show to introduce the new Russia to the world as a country ready to join the West. I’m told that he was very proud of Russia’s position in the G-8 and felt he had built a constructive relationship with President Barack Obama by helping him resolve crises in Syria and Iran in 2013.
The last thing Putin wanted to do was provoke a crisis in Ukraine. Nor is there any intelligence that he had designs on the Baltic States, as the conspiracy theory contends.
However, when a right-wing regime seized power in a violent coup in Ukraine on Russia’s border and then took provocative actions against Ukraine’s ethnic Russians, Putin responded to calls from Crimea – both from its parliament and a referendum – to take the peninsula back into Russia.
Putin also feared that the new powers in Kiev might give the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol to NATO with its nuclear-armed submarines. In other words, as much as the New York Times has bandied about claims of a Russian “invasion” of Crimea, the Crimeans requested Russia’s intervention and up to 25,000 Russian troops were already there in the agreement with Ukraine over the naval base.
Reactor, Not Instigator
But the key point is that Putin was reacting to the Ukraine crisis, not instigating it. As even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained to Der Spiegel, “The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.”
Kissinger added, “Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine.”
In this case, Kissinger is clearly right. It never made any sense for Putin to provoke the Ukraine crisis. Yet, that became the lie upon which the United States has built its increasingly aggressive policies over the past year, with politicians of all stripes now shouting that America must stand up to the madman Putin and “Russian aggression.”
This is a dangerous “group think” for a number of reasons, not the least the disturbing fact that both the United States and Russia have lots of nuclear weapons. On a less existential level, the “Putin-is-Hitler” analogy has prompted a major miscalculation on the right approach for the Obama administration to take vis a vis Putin.
As Harvard Professor Stephen M. Walt has noted, the most effective response to a crisis is different if a foreign leader is an aggressor on the march or if the leader feels cornered. The former calls for a “deterrence model,” i.e., a tough reaction. But a tough response in the latter case will only make the beleaguered leader more belligerent like a cornered animal, thus spinning the crisis into more dangerous territory under what’s known as the “spiral model.”
“When insecurity is the taproot of a state’s revisionist actions, making threats just makes the situation worse,” Walt wrote. “When the ‘spiral model’ applies, the proper response is a diplomatic process of accommodation and appeasement (yes, appeasement) to allay the insecure state’s concerns.” [See’s “‘Realists’ Warn Against Ukraine Escalation.”]
Perhaps the new ceasefire agreement in Minsk – spearheaded by German Chancellor Merkel – will finally help defuse the crisis, with the legitimate concerns of the various sides being taken into account rationally rather than letting the past year’s hysteria continue to control events.
But the Times’ editorial doesn’t give much reason for hope that America’s upside-down “group think” has righted itself in any meaningful way. In the mainstream media’s latest repeat of the Iraq-WMD fiasco, the Times and virtually every other major news outlet remain committed to a dangerous misreading of the facts about Ukraine.
And anyone who dares point out the real history of the crisis is immediately shouted down with the anti-intellectual riposte: “Putin apologist!” — just as in 2002-2003, when anyone who doubted the certainty about Iraq’s WMD was a “Saddam apologist.”
Robert Parry,

Ökologische und soziale Katastrophe macht Gaza unbewohnbar - UN Reveals Israel's Support for ISIS

 BIG Business Crime Control: Diese Worte sagen ALLES !      Annette Klepzigs Wochenumschau

  Ökologische und soziale Katastrophe macht Gaza unbewohnbar   Annette Groth ist Diplomsoziologin und Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestags. Sie ist 
menschenrechtspolitische Sprecherin der Fraktion Die Linke.  Wiebke Diehlstudierte Islamwissenschaften und ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin von Annette Groth.
Die im letzten Herbst von den Vereinten Nationen ernannte Untersuchungskommission, die einen Bericht über den letzten Gaza-Krieg vom Sommer 2014 und seine Auswirkungen erstellen soll, ist auch damit beauftragt worden, die durch den Krieg verursachten Umweltschäden im Gazastreifen zu untersuchen. Auf Bitte der Umweltbehörde Palästinas soll das Team vor Ort die langfristigen und gefährlichen, aus dem Angriff der israelischen Armee resultierenden Umweltprobleme erkunden, welche die ohnehin seit Jahrzehnten sich verschlimmernde Umweltkatastrophe in dem Gebiet massiv verschärft haben.   Der 51 Tage andauernde Krieg gegen den Gazastreifen vom Sommer 2014 wurde mit einer zuvor noch nie dagewesenen Massivität und Brutalität geführt....
 Schokry - Strässer.doc: Bericht aus GAZA v. Dr. Abed Schokry und der
Menschenrechtsbeauftragte der Bundesregierung Christoph Strässer.
.....Während den letzten Monaten haben mehrere Personen versucht, sich zu verbrennen….Aus Verzweiflung…. Aus Hoffnungslosigkeit… Aus Perspektivlosigkeit … Hat die Welt uns VERGESSEN?    Mit traurigen Grüßen,  Abed Schory... 

Philosoph Omri Boehm "Zionismus nicht vereinbar mit humanistischen Werten"

Der Philosoph Omri Boehm im Gespräch mit Natascha Freundel
Zwischen einem jüdischen und einem demokratischen Staat besteht ein Widerspruch - diese Ansicht vertritt der israelische Philosoph Omri Boehm. Denn um jüdisch zu sein, müsse man "jüdisches Blut" haben - und ein Staat könne keine liberale Demokratie sein, wenn er sich zugleich erlaubt, ethnisch nicht neutral zu sein, sagte er im DLF. 
....Freundel: Omri Boehm wurde 1979 in Haifa geboren und ist in der kleinen Ortschaft Gilon im Norden Israels aufgewachsen. Er ist ein israelischer Jude und deutscher Staatsangehöriger, mit einer - ich zitiere ihn - "bildungsdeutschen jüdischen Großmutter und einem traditionsverhafteten iranischen jüdischen Großvater". Omri Boehm hat in Tel Aviv studiert und in Yale promoviert, über "Kants Kritik an Spinoza". Er hat in Heidelberg und München gelebt und geforscht und er schreibt meinungsstarke Artikel, etwa in der israelischen Zeitung Haaretz oder hierzulande in der ZEIT, in denen er das politische Denken und Handeln Israels sehr heftig kritisiert. Und wir wollen mit Omri Boehm über sein Heimatland reden und über die deutsch-israelischen Beziehungen, die - auf diplomatischer Ebene - seit 50 Jahren bestehen. Zunächst aber möchte ich Sie fragen, Herr Boehm, welche familiären Beziehungen Sie zu Deutschland haben? Sie sprechen von Ihrer "bildungsdeutschen" Großmutter - woher stammte sie?    -     Boehm: Meine Großmutter stammte aus Breslau. Sie hat Breslau '39 verlassen, als sie 16 war oder so. Als ein Kind habe ich mit ihr natürlich kein Deutsch gesprochen. Und auch sehr wenig über Deutschland. Aber dann irgendwann als ich nach Berlin zum ersten Malgekommen bin, das war 2001, habe ich irgendwann verstanden, ach, Berlin ist sehr interessant, wir müssen meine Großmutter doch auch wieder nach Berlin bringen. Dann hat mein Vater sie nach Berlin gebracht, und zusammen waren wir hier für eine Woche. Das war sehr interessant und so haben wir angefangen, mehr über Deutschland und so zu sprechen....-

 Wenn die Regime-Changer ihre Hetze vortragen!  11. Februar 2015 | Evelyn Hecht-Galinski

Dann ist es in München. Alle Jahr wieder, wenn der Karneval nicht weit, dann tagen die vermeintlich Wichtigen, die Kriegerischen, die Möchtegerne und Thinktanks auf der diesmal 51. Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz. Die einmal 1962/63 unter dem Namen “Wehrkundetagung” gegründet wurde.  -    Passte nicht dieser Name viel besser? Denn ist der Zweck und Sinn dieser Konferenz nicht schlicht und einfach, uns das “Wehr”/Militär näher zu bringen? Aber Sicherheit, die alle Menschen anstreben, das hört sich natürlich gut an, also suggeriert “Sicherheitskonferenz”, dass alle 400 Teilnehmer und Staaten nur Sicherheit und Frieden wollen.  -   Aber ist nicht in Wahrheit nur ein Interesse vorrangig, das ich schon  unter anderem im letzten April in einem Kommentar beschrieb, nämlich die Ausgaben für Rüstungsgüter zu steigern? (NRhZ)  -  Wen wundert es also da noch, dass gerade die USA als größter Waffenlieferant der Welt ein besonderes Interesse daran haben, die Ukraine mit Waffen zu beliefern und den Konflikt militärisch zu lösen/dominieren? Mit der Konsequenz, unsere Verteidigungsausgaben auf 2% des Bruttosozialprodukts zu erhöhen!  -   Dazu fiel mir ein äußerst interessanter Artikel von Christine Elmer im Spiegel online vom 8. Februar auf. (Spiegel)   -   Auffallend dabei, dass sich seit letztem Jahrnochmals verstärkt die kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen, die “Terrorabwehr” und die Aggressivität der Machthaber vehement gesteigert haben. Alles Konflikte, die uns alle betreffen,....
 Casino-Republik.rtf: Von Uri Avnery
WER HERSCHT in Israel?  -   Natürlich der Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanjahu.  -  Falsch.  -   Der wirkliche Herrscher Israels ist ein Sheldon Adelson, 81, amerikanischer JudeKönig der Casinos, der als einer der zehn reichsten Personen klassifiziert wurde, der 37,2 Milliarden Dollar bei der letzten Zählung wert war. Doch wer zählt?  Außerdem besitzt er außer seinen Spielcasinos in Las Vegas, Pennsylvania, Macao und Singapur die US-Republikanische Parteiund seit kurzem auch beide Häuser des US-Kongresses.   -    Ihm gehört auch Benjamin Netanjahu.  -    ADELSONS VERBINDUNG mit Israel ist persönlich. In eine zufällig getroffene israelische Frau verliebte er sich....  ....fanatische Unterstützer Israels, eines rechten, supermacistischen, arroganten, gewalttätigen, expansionistischen, auf Annexion bedachtes, nicht kompromissbereiten, kolonialistischen Israels....