• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 12 december 2015

Vluchtelingenstroom 39


The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings (houding. svh) in the real world -- and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end -- is being destroyed.
Hannah Arendt. Truth and Politics. The Portable Hannah Arendt. 1967

Het is door juist het 'consistent en volledig vervangen van leugens voor de feitelijke waarheid' dat de Israel, een staat die de Palestijnse bevolking al sinds 1947 terroriseert, en in de buurlanden voortdurend het internationaal recht blijft schenden, vandaag de dag onderdeel is van de NAVO 'as part of the alliance’s counter-terrorism effort.' De langdurige Europese en Noord-Amerikaanse steun aan de zionistische terreur is één van de belangrijkste oorzaken dat de rest van de wereld geen enkel geloof hecht aan westerse beweringen dat de NAVO mensenrechten en democratie beschermt. Alleen het Westen gelooft in zijn eigen mythes, daarbuiten zijn de slachtoffers van het neoliberale kapitalistische geweld allang door schade en schande wijs geworden. De in Chicago gevestigde journalist Rick Rozoff van Stop Nato schreef daarover op de website GlobalResearch van 17 januari 2010 het volgende: 

A feature in the Wall Street Journal a few days after Arad’s article appeared, 'NATO, Israel Draw Closer,' quoted Arad (voormalig adviseur buitenlandse politiek van premier Netanyahu. svh) as asserting: 'The only thing worse than Israel being a member of NATO may be Israel not being a member of NATO.' It also mentioned another prime mover in fostering the Israel-NATO nexus, one on the U.S. (and European) end. 'Ronald Asmus, a senior State Department official during the Clinton administration who is credited by Mr. Arad with being an "intellectual godfather" of closer NATO-Israel links, says arguments against membership remind him of the initial opposition to NATO enlargement to former Soviet bloc states or the alliance assuming its first missions beyond Europe.'

The German Marshall Fund of the United States website provides this background information on Asmus:

'Dr. Asmus is currently Executive Director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Center and responsible for Strategic Planning at the German Marshall Fund of the US.

[He was] Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs from 1997-2000 and has been a senior analyst and fellow at Radio Free Europe, RAND and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has been a pioneering voice in the debate over post-Cold War European security and NATO’s transformation. He has published widely and is the author of Opening Nato’s Door.

'For his ideas and diplomatic accomplishments, he has been decorated by the U.S. Department of State as well as the governments of Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.'

The Washington Post published his article 'Contain Iran: Admit Israel to NATO' on February 21, 2006 which contained these recommendations:

'The best way to provide Israel with that additional security is to upgrade its relationship with the collective defense arm of the West: NATO. Whether that upgraded relationship culminates in membership for Israel or simply a much closer strategic and operational defense relationship can be debated.

Several leading Europeans have called for NATO to embrace Israel, but this debate will not get serious until the United States, Israel’s main ally, puts its weight behind the idea. The time has come to do so.'

Earlier in the month he co-authored a lengthy piece called 'Does Israel Belong In the EU and NATO?' with Bruce P. Jackson. Jackson was the founder and head of the U.S. Committee on NATO/Expand NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq set up four months before the invasion of the nation and is on the Board of Directors of the Project for the New American Century. Asmus and Jackson wrote that 'what some Israeli strategic thinkers are starting to discuss –- and what we are addressing here –- is… an upgraded strategic relationship between Israel and EuroAtlantic institutions like NATO and the EU that would lead to increasingly closer ties and could include eventual membership.'

Amnesty International accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza. Amnesty International has accused Israel of displaying a 'shocking disregard' for civilian lives in Gaza during its 50-day military offensive in the Palestinian territory. Hieronder: IDF sniper shirt: 'The smaller, the harder' more difficult to kill a small child (a smaller target) than an adult.

The third leg of the Israel-NATO integration stool is Ivo Daalder, until recently Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and now the new U.S. administration’s ambassador to NATO where he has a free hand to implement his projects.

In the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, he and co-author James Goldgeier, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an article called 'Global NATO' which included this excerpt:

'With little fanfare –- and even less notice –- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has gone global.'

What Daalder had in mind had been adumbrated (aangekondigd. svh) two years earlier when he wrote 'We need an Alliance of Democratic States. This organization would unite nations with entrenched democratic traditions, such as the United States and Canada; the European Union countries; Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia; India and Israel; Botswana and Costa Rica.'

NATO will be the framework for a new U.S.-led global order with the United Nations reduced to a mere handmaiden and cleanup service.

In March of 2006 James Jones, then military chief of the Pentagon’s European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and now U.S. National Security Adviser, commented on another advance in NATO-Israeli military integration, the first deployment of NATO AWACS to Israel for a military exercise 'apparently as a signal to Iran':

'We’ve had NATO AWACS deployed to do some demonstrations in Israel, and we do have an active dialogue with the Israeli defense force in terms of interoperability, and particularly as it regards the security of the Mediterranean basin at sea.'

In May eight NATO warships docked in the Israeli port city of Haifa 'which the military said was an indication of strengthening ties between Israel and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation' preparatory to the Israeli Navy 'tak[ing] part for the first time in a NATO naval exercise in the Black Sea in June….' That month the Israeli navy missile ship Achi Eilat left Haifa with its NATO counterparts to join in Operation Mako, 'a ten-country joint training exercise in the Black Sea led by NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue countries.' The war games also included ships from 'Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Albania, Algeria, Georgia, the United Arab Emirates and others.' The event marked 'the first time that an operational unit of the IDF will fully participate with NATO in a military-like operation.' (By way of follow-up, on January 11, 2010 Focus News Agency in Bulgaria revealed that the Israeli Air Force plans to use bases in that country for training exercises.)

NATO reported on the exercises, especially in reference to the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, that 'over 2000 personnel and some 25 ships from NATO and Partner countries are rehearsing joint operations at sea in and around Constanta, Romania' where the U.S. and NATO have subsequently acquired a strategic military base. Nine NATO countries are taking part (Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom), four Partner countries (Albania, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Georgia) as well as two Mediterranean Dialogue countries (Algeria and Israel).

In addition, for the first time, the exercise is being observed by a country from NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative – the United Arab Emirates.

The purpose of the exercise [is] to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. Israel was invited to participate in the exercise as a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue.'

In the same month the Israeli Defense Ministry acknowledged that 'In a move intended to further bolster ties between Israel and NATO, the IDF is putting search-and-rescue forces on standby so they can be immediately dispatched to participate in NATO global operations.'

In addition, it was announced that 'Israel might also be willing to send field hospitals to NATO peacekeeping forces stationed around the world' and 'The IDF has also decided to dispatch a high-ranking navy officer to Naples in the coming months, where he will participate in NATO’s… Operation Active Endeavor.'

Toward the end of June a U.S. Congressional committee 'unanimously approved a resolution that calls for enhancing Israel’s relationship with NATO.'

The resolution recommends upgrading Israel’s affiliation to a "leading member of NATO’s Individual Cooperation Program," a promotion the bill says ultimately will lead to Israel’s full membership in the alliance.' 

The Individual Cooperation Program was a provision made available to Mediterranean Dialogue members within the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. On October 16, 2006 NATO and Israel concluded an Individual Cooperation Program agreement.

'Israel and NATO have approved a long-term plan for cooperation in 27 different areas' and 'Israel is the first non-European country, and the first in the Middle East to cooperate with NATO and reach a bilateral agreement with the organization.'

Indeed, it is the only country (excepting Iceland) outside of Europe that is included in the U.S. European Command’s area of responsibility. (As neighboring Egypt is the only African nation not in Africa Command.) The rest of the Middle East, like Egypt, is covered by Central Command. For NATO’s purposes Israel –- like the South Caucasus states of Armenia and Georgia if not Azerbaijan –- is for all intents a European nation.

As the country’s minister of foreign affairs Tzipi Livni said at the NATO’s Transformation, the Mediterranean Dialogue, and NATO-Israel Relations seminar in Herzliya on October 24, 2006, 'The alliance between NATO and Israel is only natural… Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision…[T]hreats, aimed at Israel and the western-valued moderate community, position Israel more then ever before on the Euro-Atlantic side. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life.' 

The two-day conference was organized by the Atlantic Forum of Israel and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division and occurred only two months after the end of Israel’s second Lebanon war, which displaced 900,000 Lebanese, a quarter of the nation’s population.

Delivering her address at the meeting, Livni acknowledged 'it is… no secret that Israel preferred the involvement of the forces of NATO in Lebanon… In meeting these strategic threats, NATO is most essential.' She also said 'Israel will be glad to cooperate and participate in positive NATO regional and local initiatives, among them: the Mediterranean Dialogue; the like minded global partnership; and the inclusion of Israel in the PFP (Partnership For Peace) NATO program.'

NATO was represented by Deputy Secretary General Alessandro Minuto Rizzo, whose keynote address included:

'We have recently agreed [upon] an individual cooperation programme –- or ICP. This programme is the first of its kind in the Mediterranean Dialogue… Just a few weeks ago, an exchange of letters between NATO and Israel set the stage for an Israeli contribution to Active Endeavour… This will be the first contribution from a Mediterranean Dialogue nation and represents another truly significant step forward for both NATO and Israel.

The posting of an Israeli Liaison Officer to the NATO Command in Naples is a further indication of the vitality of our cooperation, as was the demonstration of a NATO AWACS plane in Israel. And, last but not least, over the course of this year, Israel has participated in two major NATO/PfP military exercises in Romania and Ukraine.'

A retired Israeli intelligence officer told an American news agency that the Individual Cooperation Program with NATO 'allows for 2,000 joint activities –- thrice the volume open to the countries involved in the Mediterranean Dialogue.'

The previously mentioned Oded Eran, Israel’s representative at NATO headquarters, alluding to the Alliance’s military assistance clause, was quoted by the same source as saying that what had been achieved was 'a multilateral umbrella… We don’t necessarily need article 5. The very fact we’re members of such an organization gives… a sort of guarantee.'

By the end of 2006 Israel-NATO military integration had proceeded to the stage that:

The Jewish state was granted a partnership agreement with the Western military bloc more advanced than any accorded any other nation outside of Europe.
The nation’s foreign minister publicly called for her country’s inclusion in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which has recently successfully groomed twelve other states for full membership in the bloc.

Calls were being made in the West and Israel alike for the latter’s full membership in NATO.

Extending Article 5 protection, hitherto limited to full member states, to Israel was being advocated with the inescapable implication that a coalition of most of the world’s most powerful military nations, led by the self-designated world’s sole military superpower, would retaliate against Iran if it responded to an Israeli first strike attack. As the U.S. stations hundreds of nuclear warheads at NATO bases in Europe, including in Iran’s neighbor Turkey, invoking NATO’s war clause could provoke a nuclear conflagration.
The nation was being promoted as the linchpin of a new Global NATO as now U.S. ambassador to the Alliance Ivo Daalder openly proclaimed it.

In 2007 a Russian analyst warned of the consequences of the above developments:

'By admitting Israel Washington plans to use the alliance as an instrument for exerting pressure on Arab states and strengthening its position in the Middle East… Washington has no plans to restrict the expansion only by admitting Israel. The alliance desires to attract India, Japan, Australia and Singapore…. The continuation of NATO expansion is undoubtedly an alarming and dangerous idea that could split the world into groups of countries that oppose each other… According to the NATO Charter, an attack on a member state is considered as an aggression against all the members of the alliance [and] any conflict of Israel with its neighbors could become a source of a large-scale regional conflict that could turn into a global war.'

Undeterred by such grave considerations, even the threat of world war, Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv continued their joint military collaboration.

In April of 2007 six NATO warships –- from Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey –- docked in the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat 'for joint drills with the navy’s Red Sea Task Force.' NATO had in effect extended its comprehensive Mediterranean Sea naval surveillance and interdiction operation, Active Endeavor, to the Red Sea and would later establish a permanent presence in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.

'Six NATO frigates commanded by a Turkish admiral arrived…in Haifa for a joint drill with Israeli Navy missile boats.

Israel has been shoring up ties recently with NATO as part of preparations for any future showdown with Iran.'


Palestijnse baby die door een scherpschutter van het Israelische leger werd vermoord. 

Al deze voorbeelden verraden de ware doelstellingen van het westerse militaire bondgenootschap. De NAVO is er niet om mensenrechten te beschermen, of om democratie te verspreiden, zoals het claimt, maar om de westerse grondstoffen en markten te beschermen tegen de toenemende concurrentie. Inder daad, vijf eeuwen lang 'The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence,' zoals de Amerikaanse neoconservatieve politieke wetenschapper Samuel Huntington in zijn fameuze boek The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) stelt. Huntington wijst er voorts op dat  'Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.' In een wereld van ruim 7 miljard mensen, waarvan de helft ternauwernood weet te overleven, en opkomende machten zoals de BRIC-landen de westerse hegemonie bedreigen, zal de westerse overheersing onder aanvoering van Washington en Wall Street onvermijdelijk  op desastreuze oorlogen uitlopen. Blanke mainstream-opiniemakers, opgegroeid in een christelijke cultuur, gaan er blind vanuit dat 'ons' militair overwicht het Westen 't recht geeft om overal ter wereld 'onze'neoliberale ideologie af te dwingen. 

Uit decennia lange directe ervaring met ideologische journalisten als Henk Hofland, Geert Mak, Hubert Smeets, etcetera weet ik dat zij weigeren echt te beseffen dat er wereldwijd een omslag gaande is en dat Europa een fundamenteel andere koers zal moeten varen, wil het tenminste overleven. 'Wij,' dat wil zeggen: de blanke, christelijke, bejaarde mannen, mijn generatiegenoten dus, zullen goedschiks dan wel kwaadschiks moeten leren dat hun gecorrumpeerde wereldje, vol zelfgenoegzaam en betweterig gekwaak, onhoudbaar is geworden. Zij zouden er goed aan doen boeken te lezen van de goed geïnformeerde cosmopolitische intellectuelen uit wiens werk ik het afgelopen decennium op mijn weblog uitgebreid heb geciteerd. Het provincialisme van de polderpers is levensgevaarlijk geworden, hun hypocrisie is ondraaglijk geworden. Dat zij de NAVO-propaganda voor zoete koek slikken is tot daaraan toe, maar ervan uitgaan dat de slachtoffers van 'onze' militaire terreur nog eens vijf eeuwen lang dit lijdzaam zullen tolereren, getuigt slechts van autistische dwaasheid. Met een klein beetje empathie zouden ze zich in de positie kunnen verplaatsen van bijvoorbeeld de slachtoffers van de 'Joodse staat,' zoals het zichzelf zo graag noemt. Dat Israel nu een nauwe band met de NAVO heeft, demonstreert tegenover de wereld hoe huichelachtig de geclaimde doeleinden in werkelijkheid zijn:

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several members is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defence, which is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

So far, Article 5 has been invoked once - in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.


'This will be the first contribution from a Mediterranean Dialogue nation and represents another truly significant step forward for both NATO and Israel.'

Gezien de permanente Israelische schendingen van het internationaal recht, de mensenrechten en de democratische rechten van ook de Palestijnse burgerbevolking binnen Israel zelf, zouden mijn collega's er goed aan doen de volgende vragen te stellen, aan zichzelf en aan hun politici rond dat pleintje in Den Haag:

  1. Waarom zou een Israelische functionaris verklaren:  
We have no doubt that Israel will gain immensely from closer ties with NATO, and we also believe that Israel has much to offer NATO in return.

2. Waarom zou een Israelische diplomaat verklaren:

Israel is also seeking to receive an upgraded status following the conclusion of the Strategic Concept review that will enable Israeli officials to participate in top NATO forums…

3. Waarom zou het goed geïnformeerde Jane’s Defence Weekly melden dat

Whereas Israel’s geopolitical location could offer an 'external base' for the defence of the West, NATO’s military and economic status could provide added security and economic benefits for the host state. In a rapidly changing strategic environment, Israeli policy makers are recognising definite advantages, especially in security affairs, in developing closer ties with NATO. The present Israeli government’s enthusiasm for this project can be seen in an ambitious set of proposals submitted to the Alliance,' which included 'joint military training [and] future joint development of weapons systems.'

4. Waarom kon kritiekloos het volgende gebeuren:

In July of 2005 Israeli ground troops participated in a NATO military exercise for the first time, a 22-nation training mission in Ukraine that lasted for two and a half weeks. 'The drill dealt mainly with antiterrorism combat and low-intensity conflict, but it also symbolized an increasing participation of Israeli forces in NATO.'

5. Waarom kon de Israelische kolonel Alon Friedman tegelijkertijd opmerkend dat 

'There have been senior commanders who have gone to NATO events as well as consultants, but never combatants like this.' The Jerusalem Post reported that 'Friedman said he was not privy to the diplomatic moves to get the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] more involved in NATO, but he understood the initiative came from NATO.'

6. Waarom heeft de polderpers geen vraagteken gezet bij het volgende:

Israel consented, and announced its willingness to participate in Operation Active Endeavor, which is being conducted in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the alliance’s counter-terrorism effort.

7. Israel terroriseert de Palestijnse bevolking al sinds 1947 toen het met de grootschalige etnische zuivering van het Britse mandaatgebied Palestina begon. Desondanks werd bekend dat:

On October 16, 2006 NATO and Israel concluded an Individual Cooperation Program agreement. 

Dit voltrok zich een maand nadat de Israelische oorlogsmisdaden in Libanon waren gestaakt, waarbij volgens Amnesty International de Israelische strijdkrachten white phosphorus shellshadden ingezet, en volgens Human Rights Watch Israel had verzuimd 'the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets,' terwijl de zionistische ook nog eens ook nog eens massaal 'unreliable cluster bombshad ingezet:

both too close to civilians areas –- suggesting that they may have deliberately targeted civilians. UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said Israel's response violated international humanitarian law… He also called Israel's use of over 100,000 cluster bombs 'immoral.' According to Egeland, 90% of such bombs were launched by Israel in the last 3 days of combat, when it was known that a UN resolution was on its way.

Amnesty International identified the destruction of entire civilian neighborhoods and villages by Israeli forces, attacks on bridges with no apparent strategic value, and attacks on infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,and questioned whether the 'military advantage anticipated from destroying' civilian infrastructure had been 'measured against the likely effect on civilians.' They also stated that the Israeli actions suggested a 'policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population.'

An AI spokesperson, Kate Gilmore, said that '[t]he pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was ''collateral damage'' simply not credible.' 'The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy,' Gilmore said.

A 6 September 2007 Human Rights Watch report found that most of the civilian deaths in Lebanon resulted from 'indiscriminate Israeli airstrikes,' and found that Israeli aircraft targeted vehicles carrying fleeing civilians. In a statement issued before the report's release, the human rights organization said there was no basis to the Israeli government's claim that civilian casualties resulted from Hezbollah guerrillas using civilians as shields. Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch executive director, said there were only 'rare' cases of Hezbollah operating in civilian villages. 'To the contrary, once the war started, most Hizbollah(sic) military officials and even many political officials left the villages,' he said. 'Most Hizbollah(sic) military activity was conducted from prepared positions outside Lebanese villages in the hills and valleys around.'

Het collectief straffen van burgers met disproportioneel geweld, dat in strijd is met de Geneefse Conventies, is een bewuste tactiek van Israel, zoals de kwaliteitskrant Haaretz op 10 oktober 2008 berichtte. De huidige stafchef van de Israelische Strijdkrachten, Gadi Eisenkot, lichtte deze terreur als volgt toe:

'What happened in the Beirut suburb of Dahiya in 2006 will happen in every village from which shots are fired in the direction of Israel,' Eisenkot said to journalists from Yedioth Ahronoth. 'We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.'

Hence, in two short sentences, one of the Israel Defense Force's senior commanders stated, with the world as his witness, his intention to violate the two central tenets of the international laws of war: the principle of distinction, which states that every time military force is used, it is imperative to differentiate enemy combatants from enemy civilians, and that attacks may be directed only at the former; and the proportionality principle, which states that even in attacks against enemy combatants, disproportional use of power is prohibited. 

It is important to understand this: The international legal definition of an illegal military attack is one directed at civilians, or one that involves a disproportional use of force. It was as if Eisenkot, then, was standing on a hilltop, declaring his intention to commit war crimes, yelling to passersby, 'My intentions are biggest of all!'

Upholding international law is not a privilege or a choice. It does not bend and shift depending on the complexities of regional geopolitics. Israel, as an active and essential member of the global community, relying on support and friendship from nations worldwide, has a responsibility and obligation to uphold the highest international standards of conduct...

In case you're still thinking that we misunderstood the commander, that he meant something different, he then elaborated: 'If there is firing [by Israel] into Shi'ite villages in Lebanon, that is the plan, aggressive shooting... the possibility of harming the population is the only means for restraining [Hassan] Nasrallah.'

Straight and to the point. Without the usual lip service of 'IDF expresses condolences,' or 'in every war civilians are harmed.' Eisenkot, contender on the new reality show 'War Criminal Idol,' was giving us a rare peek into the true goals behind the pulling of the trigger, goals usually clouded by a fog of operational and legal secrets. And these intentions are simple and clear, like the strategy of a terror organization: 'to harm civilians until we achieve political goals.'

Usually people hide their criminal intentions, because of the binding legal risk and moral embarrassment exposing them could cause. This is why the confessions of the street thief in the documentary were so interesting. This is why many thought that the film was a fraud. In Eisenkot's case, the situation is apparently simpler. He is not afraid and not ashamed. 


Chef-Staf van de Israelische strijdkrachten Gadi Eisenkot met rechts premier Netanyahu. Eisenkot voorstander van Israelische terreur tegen Palestijnse vrouwen en kinderen als collectieve bestraffing. De NAVO werkt nauw met deze terrorist samen.


Kortom, het gepland toepassen van oorlogsmisdaden, het bewust plegen van terrorisme als officiële Israelische militaire tactiek,  is geen enkele reden geweest voor de NAVO om Israel niet te integreren in het militaire bondgenootschap. Dit feit is belangrijk te onthouden, gezien de verklaring van de voormalige Israelische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Tzipi Livni, dat

Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision… [T]hreats, aimed at Israel and the western-valued moderate community, position Israel more then ever before on the Euro-Atlantic side. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life.

Livni acknowledged 'it is… no secret that Israel preferred the involvement of the forces of NATO in Lebanon… In meeting these strategic threats, NATO is most essential.' She also said 'Israel will be glad to cooperate and participate in positive NATO regional and local initiatives, among them: the Mediterranean Dialogue; the like minded global partnership; and the inclusion of Israel in the PFP (Partnership For Peace) NATO program.'

Delivering her address at the meeting, Livni acknowledged 'it is… no secret that Israel preferred the involvement of the forces of NATO in Lebanon… In meeting these strategic threats, NATO is most essential.' She also said 'Israel will be glad to cooperate and participate in positive NATO regional and local initiatives, among them: the Mediterranean Dialogue; the like minded global partnership; and the inclusion of Israel in the PFP (Partnership For Peace) NATO program.'

De NAVO-steun van het Israelisch terrorisme in buurstaten is van doorslaggevend belang voor extremistische zionisten, immers:

Oded Eran, Israel’s representative at NATO headquarters, alluding to the Alliance’s military assistance clause, was quoted by the same source as saying that what had been achieved was 'a multilateral umbrella… We don’t necessarily need article 5. The very fact we’re members of such an organization gives… a sort of guarantee.'

Hoewel de consequenties van de NAVO-steun aan de Israelische terreur ook door de Europese Unie van Geert Mak's 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' kritiekloos worden geaccepteerd, waarschuwde in 2007 een Russische waarnemer dat:

'By admitting Israel Washington plans to use the alliance as an instrument for exerting pressure on Arab states and strengthening its position in the Middle East… Washington has no plans to restrict the expansion only by admitting Israel. The alliance desires to attract India, Japan, Australia and Singapore…. The continuation of NATO expansion is undoubtedly an alarming and dangerous idea that could split the world into groups of countries that oppose each other… According to the NATO Charter, an attack on a member state is considered as an aggression against all the members of the alliance [and] any conflict of Israel with its neighbors could become a source of a large-scale regional conflict that could turn into a global war.'

Maar dit laatste nemen de westerse volksvertegenwoordigers en natuurlijk de NAVO-bureaucratie op de koop toe. Terrorisme is door de hele geschiedenis heen de basis bij uitstek geweest van de westerse macht. Zonder terreur was het nooit schatrijk geworden. Straks mag de NAVO Israel's desastreuze oorlogen voeren. En de westerse burgers  blijven muisstil tot ze straks een hoge prijs moeten betalen voor het terrorisme dat alders in hun naam wordt gepleegd. Volgende keer meer. 

Foto hieronder: Prime minister Netanyahu with ISIS fighter injured in Syria




Britain's Slaughtering Role in the World

Illegal Slaughter: Cameron’s Bombings of Syria, Equals Blair’s Iraq War Crimes

 36 
  5  0 
 
  73
Cameron UK
“Russia bombing Syria will lead to further radicalization and increased terrorism”. Prime Minister David Cameron, 4th October 2015.
How desperately Prime Minister Cameron has been yearning to bomb the Syrian Arab Republic.
In August 2013 when his aim was defeated in Parliament by a 285-272 vote, his vision of the UK joining US-led strikes bit the dust. His dreams of illegally joining the bigger bully and bombing an historic nation of just 22.85 million people (2013 figures) three and a half thousand kilometers away, posing no threat to Britain, was thwarted.
The US threw a conciliatory bone to the snarling Cameron and according to the BBC (1): “would ‘continue to consult’ with the UK, ‘one of our closest allies and friends.’
France said (that) the UK’s vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
After the vote … Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and ‘the government will act accordingly.’
Chancellor George Osborne whined on BBC Radio 4′s flagship “Today” programme that: “there would now be “national soul searching about our role in the world “, adding: “I hope this doesn’t become a moment when we turn our back on all of the world’s problems.
Translation: “Inconsequential politicians on small island only feel like real men when sending off their depleted air force to blow modest populations far away to bits.”
The then Defence Secretary Philip Hammond: “ … told BBC’s Newsnight programme that he and the Prime Minister were “disappointed” with the result, saying it would harm Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington. Ah ha, that tail wagging, panting, lap dog “special relationship” again, for which no body part licking, no crawling on all fours, no humiliation, no deviation of international law is too much.
The excuse for the 2013 rush to annihilate was accusations that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in March and August of that year, a claim subsequently comprehensively dismissed by detailed UN investigations (2.)
Cameron’s excuse for attack had all the validity of Tony Blair’s fantasy Iraq weapons of mass destruction, but of course he regards Blair as a trusted advisor. Judgement, it might be argued, as Blair’s, is not one of Cameron’s strong attributes.
Then came the Friday 13th November tragedies in Paris and by 2nd December Cameron’s parliamentary press gangs managed to threaten and arm twist through a vote to attack Syria in an action of shame which will surely haunt him as Blair is haunted by Iraq.
As the bombs fell, on 6th December, Cameron celebrated the anniversary of his his tenth year as Leader of the Conservative Party with his very own military action, Libya’s tragedy forgotten and belonging to yesterday. That, as Blair’s Iraq, it is entirely illegal (3) apparently bothers the former PR man not a whit.
As the Parliamentary debate was taking place, before the vote, it was reported that RAF reconnaissance ‘planes had already taken off for Syria from Scotland – of whose fifty nine parliamentarians, fifty seven voted against the attack. Cameron thumbed his arrogant nose to near and far.
Apart from the illegality, did it even cross Cameron’s mind, or did he care, that using the Paris attack not only defied law, it defied reason. To repeat again, the attackers were French and Belgian born, of North African extraction, with no Syrian connections apart from that some of them had been there joining the organ eating, head chopping, people incinerating terrorists. Syria is the victim, not the perpetrator, deserving aid and protection, not cowardly retribution from 30,000 feet.
After the vote, pro-killing MPs reportedly went straight into the Commons bar to celebrate with tax payer subsidized booze. Warned that the main doors in to Parliament had been closed due to anti-war protesters outside, one woman MP apparently shouted gleefully “It’s a lock in.” How lightly mass murder is taken in the Palace of Westminster.
Chancellor George Osborne: “eschewed the celebratory drinks … and joined a carol service in nearby St. Margaret’s Church – in aid of a charity for child amputees. You couldn’t make it up”, wrote a ballistic friend.
Within a week Osborne was in the US addressing the Council on Foreign Relations stating that with the air strikes Britain had “got it’s mojo back” and stood with the United States to “reassert Western values.”
It was he said “a real source of pride” to have the authority for air strikes in Syria.
“Britain has got its mojo back and we are going to be with you as we reassert Western values, confident that our best days lie ahead.”
Britain was prepared to play a “bigger role”, he vowed.
“Mojo” according to varying dictionaries means “a quality that attracts people to you, makes you successful and full of energy”, denotes “influence” and “sex appeal.” The man needs help.
Immediately after the vote during a visit to RAF Akrotiri, the British base in Cyprus from which the airborne killers will take off to drop their human being incinerating ordnance, UK Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, told military personnel that their mission had the backing of “both the government and the people of Britain.” He lied.
A recent ITV poll showed 89.32 % of British people against bombing. Governmental “mojo” has clearly passed them by.
Pro bombing MPs though, it seems, are anything but warrior material. When angry emails arrived from their constituents condemning the bombing, the heavyweight Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson (pro bombing) complained of “bullying” saying stronger social media policy was needed to prevent such correspondence.
Anti war campaigners had also sent graphic photographs of dead Syrian children to MPs to persuade them not to vote for creating more mutilated little souls. This, the warmongers said, was “intimidation.”
One pro-war parliamentarian said the messages led him to have concerns for the health of his pregnant wife. Beyond pathetic, try being the husband of a pregnant wife, or the wife, in Syria with Britain’s bombs incinerating your neighbourhood.
Another MP was so keen to become a member of the “bullied” club, she was found to have added a death threat to herself at the end of a justifiably angry email from a member of the public. Her attempt to was speedily uncovered. The desire to tarnish those repelled by illegally murdering others is seemingly becoming common currency in the Cameron Reichstag.
A majority of British politicians, prepared to drop bombs on people, blow their children, parents, relatives, villages, towns, homes to bits and are cowed by a few words. As for “bullied”, try being under a bomb Mr Watson, one of the bombs you voted for. “Bullying” doesn’t come bigger than that.
Upset at being sent pictures of dead babies? Imagine being a mother or father holding the shredded remains of theirs. Courtesy the RAF.
Have they any idea of the reality of their “mojo” moment? People tearing at the tons of rubble that was a home, trying to dig friends, beloveds out with bare, bleeding hands?
Further reality is the demented, terrified howls of the dogs who hear the ‘planes long before the human ear can, the swathes of birds that drop from the sky from the fear and vibration, their bodies carpeting the ground, the cats that go mad with fear, rushing from a loving home, never to be seen again. And the children that become mute in their terror, losing the ability to speak for weeks, sometimes months and even years.
Yet David Cameron allegedly called Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and those who voted against this shameful act of terror: “terrorist sympathisers”, reportedly telling a meeting of a Parliamentary Committee before the vote: “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.” (5)
This presumably was juvenile pay back time for Corbyn having stated correctly that: “Cameron’s approach is bomb first, talk later. But instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria what’s needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.”
Cameron also received widespread derision, including from Conservative Parliamentarian Julian Lewis, Chairman of the influential Defence Select Committee, for his claims that there were 70,000 “moderate” fighters on the ground ready to take on ISIS after British bombing.
One government source compared the claim to Tony Blair’s fantasy that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction on the West “in 45 minutes.” Lewis commented: “Instead of having ‘dodgy dossiers’, we now have bogus battalions of moderate fighters.” (6) Another commentator referred unkindly to Cameron’s “70,000 fantasy friends.”
Perhaps the best encapsulation of anger and desperation came from author Michel Faber, who sent his latest book to Cameron (7.)
In searing sarcasm, he wrote in an accompanying letter that he realized: “a book cannot compete with a bomb in its ability to cause death and misery, but each of us must make whatever small contribution we can, and I figure that if you drop my novel from a plane, it might hit a Syrian on the head … With luck, we might even kill a child: their skulls are quite soft.”
He explained:
“I just felt so heartsick, despondent and exasperated that the human race, and particularly the benighted political arm of the human race, has learned nothing in 10,000 years, 100,000 years, however long we’ve been waging wars, and clearly the likes of Cameron are not interested in what individuals have to say.”
He speaks for the despairing 89.32% who hang their heads in shame. He speaks for those of us who simply cannot find the words.
Notes
  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
  2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
  3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-uk-parliaments-decision-to-bomb-syria-is-illegal/5493200
  4. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14129765.Osborne__UK_has__got_its_mojo_back__with_air_strikes/?ref=twtrec
  5. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser
  6. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/04/so-david-camerons-70000-syrian-forces-claim-really-is-dodgy?CMP=share_btn
  7. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/07/michel-faber-donates-book-of-strange-things-to-syria-cameron