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

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 21 januari 2017

John Pilger: Liberals created Trump

John Pilger: Liberals created Trump by pushing corrupt Clinton, but now act surprised

John Pilger: Liberals created Trump by pushing corrupt Clinton, but now act surprised
Award-winning journalist John Pilger says that Donald Trump’s election victory “could be seen from miles away,” and has blamed a union of political, financial and media figures for standing behind a “grotesque campaign” to elect the “corrupt” Hillary Clinton.
“The only people who are surprised are those who allowed it to happen – and I am speaking about the liberal class in the US,” Pilger told RT’s Afshin Rattansi during a lengthy interview on RT UK’s Going Underground.
“They told us that only the status quo – a corrupt, war-mongering candidates will be acceptable to the majority. We will have their hyperventilating, and their frustration, and their frenzied reaction for a long time. But, they’ve created Trump…”
He added that the shock surprise is similar to that which occurred after Brexit – “how dare these people vent their frustrations at the ballot box?”
The journalist believes that the arrogance was on display as far back as when Clinton was given a straight run to the nomination during her primaries, with her only real challenger, the outsider Bernie Sanders, treated with contempt.
“They corrupted a voting system, within the Democratic Party that ensured that another populist, Bernie Sanders – though I don’t think he would have beaten Trump – could not win, and instead the embodiment of the status quo, who has declared the whole world a battlefield was made out to be the ‘candidate of sanity’ or ‘the candidate for women.’”
Pilger criticized Clinton’s entourage, noting that she was backed not only by Wall Street heavyweights, but nearly all of the major arms manufacturers in the US, creating an unappealing image for a woman those at home and abroad already saw as a “warmonger.”
“Most of the world regards that kind of behavior from the most powerful country in the world as abhorrent, and she has been the personification of that,” said Pilger.
Pilger also said that US media, in which all but one national newspaper backed Clinton, acted as “anti-journalists,” looking to catch out and “demonize” Trump, without even attempting to weigh up his message.
“One of the most revealing things about the campaign has been the exposure of journalism as the extension of the same established power. They are not independent, they are echo chambers… And the most respected are the worst. The New York Times has become a sort of Cold War propaganda sheet,” said Pilger, who also criticized the tactic of blaming Russia and Julian Assange’s Wikileaks, for exposing genuine email communications related to Clinton.
Despite praising the President Elect for “articulating the frustrations of ordinary Americans very well,” Pilger remains cautious about the next four years.
“Whether Trump will be any better is unclear. He says he is anti-establishment, but he will come with his own establishment. I don’t believe for a moment that he is against the establishment of the US in a wider sense – indeed he is a product of it,” said Pilger. “The truth is, there was no one to vote for.”


‘Dissolution of NATO, military alliance with Russia’

‘Dissolution of NATO, military alliance with Russia’: German Left leader echoes Trump

‘Dissolution of NATO, military alliance with Russia’: German Left leader echoes Trump
A military security system, which would include Russia, should be set up instead of NATO, Sahra Wagenknecht, leader of the German Left party said in an interview, echoing Trump’s recent statements on NATO.
“NATO must be dissolved and replaced by a collective security system including Russia,” Wagenknecht told Germany’s Funke media group on Tuesday. NATO has received its fair share of criticism in the German media following US President-elect Donald Trump’s recent interview published by Bild, in which he called NATO an “obsolete”organization.
“I said a long time ago that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said on Sunday.
“We’re supposed to protect countries. But a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States.”
These words were supported by Wagenknecht, who added that his comments “mercilessly reveal the mistakes and failures of the [German] federal government.”
The interview has not gone unnoticed, as a spokesperson of German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that it was “read with interest”at the Chancellor’s office.
Meanwhile, NATO officials were rather “irritated” by Trump’s statements, according to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who talked to reporters after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Steinmeier said, however, that NATO is confident that the incoming US administration would keep to their country’s commitments to the alliance.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, vice president of the European parliament and member of the German party FDP, told Funke that Trump’s statements “remain vague and not so sound.”
The Left party is the largest opposition group in the German parliament, and has previously called for closer ties with Russia.
The comments come amid the amassing of US troops, tanks, and military equipment in Europe near Russia’s borders as part of a NATO operation called Atlantic Resolve. Following military exercises within the framework of the operation, the soldiers will be distributed among Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic countries, with a headquarters unit in Germany.

More Zionist Terror

Protests erupt in Gaza as electricity crisis deepens

In many areas, Palestinians received only three hours of electricity at a time, punctuated by 12-hour blackouts.

 |  | Human RightsGazaPalestineMiddle East
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
  • All Social
Gaza Strip - Anger is growing among Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip as the narrow coastal enclave's electricity crisis deepens. 
An estimated 10,000 Palestinians flooded the streets in Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza last week, after more than a week of lengthy power cuts. In many parts of Gaza, residents received only three hours of electricity at a time, punctuated by 12-hour blackouts. 
Protesters expressed anger at Israel's blockade, and at the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority and Hamas authorities in Gaza. Demanding a solution to the power cuts, some demonstrators clashed with security forces. 
Speaking to local media on Monday, Gaza's Interior Ministry spokesman Iyad al-Buzm said that protesters arrested for "creating chaos" had been released after an agreement between various political factions. 
Nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza have endured electricity shortages since Israel, with the help of Egypt, imposed a suffocating blockade on the territory a decade ago. 
The electricity crisis has been exacerbated since Israel's 51-day war on Gaza in 2014, during which the main power plant was targeted and damaged by Israeli forces. 
On Monday, Thafer Melhem, the deputy chief of the Gaza Power Authority, announced that the first part of a $12m donation from Qatar had reached the territory and would allow a return to eight-hour cuts after eight-hour intervals of electricity. 
The Palestinian Authority's prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, has also said that Turkey would donate 15 tonnes of fuel to the Gaza Strip, adding that an official agreement would be signed in the coming days. 

Pro-Israel ‘Infiltrators’ To Be Banned

Jewish Leaders Calls For Pro-Israel ‘Infiltrators’ To Be Banned From UK Campuses

Clashes between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian activists on university campuses have provoked concern among Jewish community leaders.
    • Google+
    A still from the proceedings of the Board of Deputies meeting showing Jerry Lewis (Board of Deputies)
    A still from the proceedings of the Board of Deputies meeting showing Jerry Lewis (Board of Deputies)
    (REPORT) — A Jewish rabbi has called for right-wing “infiltrators” on UK campuses to be banned, after an incident in at University College London in which a man attacked Islam as a “violent religion” at a pro-Palestine rally.
    Jerry Lewis, deputy for Hampstead Synagogue, spoke at a board meeting of the Jewish Board of Deputies (BoD) and condemned provocations against students by ostensibly pro-Israel organisations.

    “There are groups in our community who are coming to campuses who have got nothing to do with students, who are interfering with what’s going on at campus and putting our Jewish students at risk of their own safety and that must stop,” he said, in a statement to the BoD President Jonathan Arkush.
    “I am now going to ask the President to intervene with those groups – one of whom I know is funded from Israel and I was told while I was in Israel, they’re doing these things to make sure they can justify the funding they get from Israel. It’s an utter utter disgrace and we’ve got to support our students properly by making sure they are not put at risk any longer on any campus anywhere.”
    At the incident at UCL, which took place in October, Elliott Miller – national organiser for Student Rights, an offshoot of the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society – is seen shouting at supporters of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement during a demonstration agaisnt a speech by the former Israeli army officer Hen Mazzig.
    “You treat them like shit. You don’t respect women,” he is heard shouting. “You don’t respect gays … It’s a violent religion. It’s a violent religion.”
    Other UCL students testified to the pro-Palestinian activist site Electronic Intifada that they had been told to “go back to Syria” and “go back to Gaza” by pro-Israel activists.
    Some media outlets, however, characterised the pro-Palestinian activists as acting in a “aggressive and violent” manner.
    Lewis told the board meeting that pro-Israel groups participating in these counter-demonstrations had no place on the campus.
    “Of course I decry any attacks undertaken by Palestinian students on Jewish students,” he said, referring to the allegations against the pro-Palestinian activists.
    “But there was a provocation by infiltrators who’ve got nothing to do with campuses who should never have been on the campuses, allowed on the campuses and should be banned from campuses in future.”
    In response, Arkush suggested that he was not sure if Lewis’ remarks were “particularly helpful” and said the pro-Palestinian demonstrators had been “violent and intimidatory”. However, he added that he was “clear” that he was “not in favour of outside groups going on to campuses.”
    Student Rights later claimed that the pro-Palestinian activists had been “surrounded by assaults and racist chants” and had to be “escorted by the Metropolitan Police for our very physical safety.”

    The Student Rights organisation was established in June 2009 with the aim of, in its own words, “supporting equality, democracy and freedom from extremism on university campuses.”
    However, the organisation has been criticised by some as being “anti-Islam”. One former director, Raheem Kassam, later went on to work for the right-wing Breitbart news site and stood as a candidate for the leadership of the anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).
    Douglas Murray, associate director of Student Rights’ parent organisation the Henry Jackson Society, has also been criticised for making anti-Muslim remarks, including calling for “conditions for Muslims in Europe” to “be made harder across the board” and has suggested Europe is under threat from “Islamic fascism”.
    Also on the board of Student Rights is Robert Halfon, a Conservative MP who is known for frequently campaigning on pro-Israel issues in the House of Commons.
    Elliot Miller was contacted by Middle East Eye for comment, but had not responded at the time of publication. MEE also contacted the BoD but had also not received a response at the time of publication.
     Campus battlegrounds

    University campuses have long been a proxy battleground for the Israel-Palestine conflict with numerous student unions adding their support to the BDS campaign calling for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
    The election of Muslim woman Malia Bouttia, an outspoken pro-Palestinian activist, to the Presidency of the National Union of Students has further provoked controversy.
    Recent reports have indicated that some pro-Israeli officials have attempted to remove Bouttia from her position and have discussed how to do so with NUS activists.
    In undercover footage filmed by the Al-Jazeera Investigations Unit, the reporter is heard discussing how to oust Bouttia from her position as NUS president with NUS vice president Richard Brooks, after he is introduced to him by former Israeli embassy political officer Shai Masot.
    Brooks is heard to say that he was a key figure involved in attempts to remove Bouattia. He admits to organising a faction against Bouattia, telling the AJ reporter to “drop me a line whenever you want to have a conversation” if he wished to speak to any figures opposed to Bouattia.
    Jewish organisations and leaders have warned of a rise in anti-semitism on university campuses.
    Ruth Deech, Britain’s first higher education adjudicator and now a crossbench peer, told the Daily Telegraph in December that an atmosphere of hostility to Jewish students had become as such that there were “certain universities that you should avoid” mentioning the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and the University of Manchester in particular.
    However, her comments were criticised by the Union of Jewish Students who, while welcoming her recognition of the rise in anti-semitism on UK campuses, said her comments did not “fully portray the experiences of Jewish students” and warned they did a “disservice to the thousands who are able to freely express their Jewish identities in whichever way they choose.”

    Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim


    Britain wants to be Israel’s mother, again

    Israel/Palestine 
     on  4 Comments


    Yesterday, Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim published a notable article titled “Perfidious Albion and Israel-Palestine – British policy towards Palestine reveals a persistent pro-Israeli bias, from Lord Balfour to Theresa May”. In this impressive and wide-panoramic historical appraisal of a century, he calls the Balfour Declaration “a classic colonial document”, relates to current British policy on Israel and Palestine, and summates by saying that “today Israel controls 90 percent of mandatory Palestine and the Palestinians are still stateless. There are many reasons for the Nakba, the catastrophe that overwhelmed the Palestinian people. The treachery of Perfidious Albion was only one factor but not an insignificant one.”
    This reminded me of an exchange I had with him last year at the University of Lund (Sweden), just across the waters from Copenhagen where I live. Shlaim was lecturing together with Swedish Göran Rosenberg about Israel-Palestine. Shlaim had made a comment on the occupation of 1967 that had caught my interest. It was one word. Colonialism. That’s how he regarded it. When it was time for Q&A, I made use of the opportunity, and mentioned my view of 1948 vs 1967, saying that 1948 was also an occupation in very real terms (I’d written about that here), and asked him why, if he regards the 1967 occupation as a colonization, he would not also regard the 1948 establishment of Israel and the ensuing paradigm of occupation as colonialism. Which is to say, Israel has been a colonialist venture from the start.
    Shlaim paused for a short while, eyed a person in the audience, (who turned out to be his wife, I later learned), smiled, and said to me succinctly:
    “You know what? I agree with you.” He paused again and added: “15 years ago, I would not have said this”.
    He continued, qualifying that he still saw 1948 Israel as legitimate because it was recognized by the UN; but I got the answer I was interested in. It was not only interesting in regards to the colonialism issue but in terms of how Shlaim himself admits to have moved on the subject. The 15 years that he mentions as a point where he would not have said the same, take us back to 2001, just after he published his seminal book ‘The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World’.
    After the lecture, I was approached by a British lady. I did not know at the point that she was the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, who was British Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration, nor did I realize she was Avi Shlaim’s wife. We had a short discussion about my question, and Avi came over shortly after. He presented the lady, to my surprise, as his wife, and we had a conversation. Avi said, that the reason he was smiling to her when I had asked the question, was that she frequently asks him this question, also during lectures, and that they often discuss it.
    This is not a mere trivial question or matter. If Israel is a colonialist venture from the outset, then we are speaking about a century of colonization of Palestine, enabled and supported by British colonialist interests – even in modern times. As Shlaim’s admission to have moved intellectually on the subject reveals, this is not merely a question of reality – but rather of a perception of reality.
    It is relatively easy to understand the reality of the 1967 occupation as colonization. It bears all the stark hallmarks of racist colonialism, with its ethnic cleansing, exclusive settlements, theft of resources, Bantustanisation of the local population, separate roads, Apartheid rule and all the rest of it. The die-hard Zionists are perhaps struggling to clutch at the last morally exonerating straws, but they are few and weak. Some on the right do not even attempt to conceal the intents to colonize the rest of historical Palestine, they simply consider it a ‘return’. But the colonization of Palestine from the outset – that is, a Zionist colonization, that is a concept that has been far more difficult to contend with, particularly for Zionists and for the Holocaust-guilt ridden international community. After WW2, Colonisation was on decline and had lost popularity. Whilst early Zionists had discussed colonization of Palestine quite freely, it was becoming a term that should be put away, politically incorrect. Israel was to be painted not as a colonizer, but as a ‘Jewish State’ for a supposed ‘Jewish nation’ that was merely fighting for its existence, in self-defense, in a surrounding ‘hostile neighborhood’ of Arab states, including local Arabs.
    Classical colonization typically involves a mother state. In the 1967 occupation paradigm, it is relatively easy to see that Israel is the mother of the settlements. Whilst they are not on its territory and illegal under article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, Israel provides them with protection, infrastructure and legitimacy (if not immediately, mostly post-facto). But in the case of Israel as established in 1948 – who is the mother? Israel and its Zionist lobbying have always sought a surrogate/adoptive mother, in that Jews were not really a nation, and had no mother country to start out from. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is thus a central ‘adoption certificate’ for this ‘orphan nation’, as it were. In time, Israel found other ‘mothers’ to adopt it, and it should be rather clear that its mother today, and since late 1960’s, is USA. That ‘mother country’, which provides Israel with more than half of its global military aid, is Israel’s protector. Like a mother to a junkie adolescent, the mother provides the junkie with more money to buy more drugs (arms). The mother complains that the junkie doesn’t listen to reason, apparently not realizing that providing more does not cause the child to be more respectful of his patron – it only proves to it, that it can get whatever it wants and do whatever it wants. So the child roams the streets and shoots down Palestinians, because it seems to cost nothing. And what if the adolescent also possesses nuclear weapons and you know that they can blow up the Middle-East if they are upset? Let’s not upset little Israel.
    But USA is not the only country seeking to be Israel’s mother. Being Israel’s mother apparently offers political gain. Theresa May merely has to declare herself a “passionate friend” of Israel at the Conservative Friends of Israel annual business lunch (almost all Tories are members of CFI), call it a “thriving democracy”, a “beacon of tolerance”, “an engine of enterprise and an example to the rest of the world”…”a country where people of all religions and sexualities are free and equal in the eyes of the law” – and then you’re in. It’s ‘unbreakable’.
    May says that the Balfour Declaration “is one of the most important letters in history”, and that “it demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people. And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride”.
    And that pretty much says it all. This has been a century of Zionist colonialism over Palestine, with the willing and cynical collusion of the powers that be, at the cost of the Palestinians. And it’s about time we began realizing it.
    About Jonathan Ofir
    Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.
    Other posts by .
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/britain-israels-mother/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=72c6e4c1dc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-72c6e4c1dc-398536457&mc_cid=72c6e4c1dc&mc_eid=235463292b#sthash.CI3eQJV6.dpuf


    Paul Craig Roberts 250

    The Washington Post & New York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address

    The Washington Post & New York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address
    The Post and Times are beside themselves over President Trump’s forceful attack on the
    rapacious and immoral American Ruling Establishment for whom the two pretend newspapers are such faithful servants.