SparkCom

Israeli Fear Of Boycott

2010-02-13T07:48:00.003Z

Zionist think tank fears BDS campaign 'can constrain' Israeli military operations in the future

FRIDAY, 12 February 2010 17:57
‘Highly respected’ Israeli think tank says:

BDS campaign is ‘strategic threat’
Israel’s dependence on trade makes it vulnerable
BDS campaign ‘can constrain’ Israeli military operations
Israel is increasingly isolated
Our opponents have now publicly conceded what we already knew: in the aftermath of the latest massacres in Gaza, Israel is vulnerable to a sustained campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).

The Re’ut Institute exists to advise the Israeli Government. Described as "very influential and highly respected" by a spokesman for Foreign Minister Livni, the Re’ut Institute claims its “experts are of diverse political affiliations coming from all levels of government.” These experts have just sent a report to the Israeli Cabinet (on Feb 11th) which warns that military violence has failed to achieve its ends and has produced a dangerous world-wide revulsion at Israeli crimes:

We failed to achieve decisive successes in confrontations with both Hezbollah and Hamas…And in last year's Gaza operation, our superior military power was offset by an offensive on Israel's legitimacy that led to a significant setback in our international standing, and will constrain future Israeli military planning and operations as effectively as any Arab army could.

Despite their massacres of civilians in both Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009, Hezbollah repelled Israeli forces while Hamas, under impossible conditions, was not crushed but endured.

Since Israel lost world-wide in the battle for public support – “a significant setback in our international standing” – the Re’ut Institute report sees the BDS campaign as a threat in the years to come, which the Cabinet is advised to treat as a force as real as any military power:

And so, our politicians and military personnel are threatened with lawsuits and arrest when they travel abroad, campaigns to boycott our products gain traction, and our very existence is challenged in academic institutions and intellectual circles. The country is increasingly isolated.”

Able to kill Palestinians at will, the Israeli State is grappling with the limits of its power, and the power of world-wide civil society to respond effectively to its human rights violations. Israel, not even its US patrons, or its supporters inside South Africa, can get their cargoes unloaded at Durban Port against the determined solidarity of the Durban dockworkers with the people of Palestine. (Graduates of one successful anti-apartheid struggle understand the realities for Palestinians under racist domination.)

Israel is well aware that, as awareness grows of Israel’s state-enforced racial separation (often enforced by the JNF), the apartheid nature of the Zionist project is increasingly understood:

The risk posed is that such campaigns will create an equivalency between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that penetrates the mainstream of public and political consciousness. Given Israel's dependence on vigorous trade, as well as scientific, academic, and technological engagement with other countries, this movement towards isolating the country may pose a strategic threat.

There will be no simple equivalence, of course, with the South African version of apartheid since the Israeli version is so much more violent and dehumanising, indeed genocidal, but there is no doubt that Israeli elites, long accustomed to a strategic edge over the Palestinians as wide as their military gap, are floundering to cope with this developing situation of powerlessness in the face of an aroused world anger. Israeli sporting, cultural and educational ambassadors of the bulldozer State of Israel face constant opposition from human rights campaigners and opponents of ethnic cleansing.

Boycott is Israel’s Achilles Heel. Achilles, the hero of Greek antiquity, was invulnerable over virtually all his body since his mother, Thetis, had dipped him in the magical River Styx. She had had to hold on to him, though, by one heel and that single vulnerability allowed an arrow to fatally strike the heel. So it can be with Israel, with its Pentagon armour, EU economic lifeline, UN Security Council protection, nuclear weapons, and unstinting support from US, UK and other EU Governments.

Popular, democratic, non-violent boycott can indeed “pose a strategic threat” to those who rain white phosphorous on civilian areas of Gaza as part of their vile campaign of clearing Palestine of all Palestinians to make way for Jewish immigrants, colonisers, from around the world.

We can now redouble our efforts in the BDS campaign, safe in the knowledge that we are on the right track. Here is a partial list of successes for those in doubt.

The Boycott Israel Network (BIN) invites you to the second of their BDS weekends, a conference to be held in the English Midlands on Fri-Sun, 26th -28th March to plan the next stage in the BDS campaign: how to build on the Cairo Declaration and realise its practical goals here in the UK and elsewhere

Israel Rogue Racist State

2009-12-30T15:01:00.000Z

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion (1)

“for the sake of the land of Israel it is permissible to lie” Yitzac Shamir (2)

“ We enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities....we established an apartheid regime” Michael Ben-Yair, Israeli Attorney General 1993 to 1996 (3)

From 8% of British Mandated Palestine (Jewish owned settlements) at the time of UN resolution 181 in 1947 to summer 2006 whereby Israel controls 100% and colonises over 80% of the land of the Palestinian people. Israel has lied, cheated, bullied, and murdered its way into being. This has taken place in absolute violation of UN wishes and Chapter 6 resolutions. All Chapter 7 resolutions (binding and enforceable) have been vetoed by the USA often with UK support, for almost sixty years. These crimes against humanity continue today.

The tools for the expansion of the Israeli state are terrorism and military force. Victims include those killed and horribly injured in the King David Hotel bombing, the assassination of Lord Moyne, British Resident Minister and Count Brenadotte, UN Mediator. There was extensive ethnic cleansing of hundreds of Palestine villages. The Zionist's wanted room to live - lebensraum. By May 1948 when British forces abandoned Palestinian, Israeli military forces had captured the major cities and forced some 300,000 Arabs from their land. Some sources quote 700,00 by 1949. Since then war without end and an ever expanding state of Israel notably in 1967 when Israel invaded Jordan to control the water of the River Jordan and Lake Tiberias plus the Golan Heights.

Oslo, broken promises. Israel did the reverse of the promised” land for peace” agreement by expanding settlements by 90% on the West Bank, building roads and infrastructure in gross violation of the accord and UN resolutions. Now the new “Security Barrier” is encircling “Greater Israel” with borders of 315 Kils with an Iron Wall of 670 Kils cutting off farmers and communities from their land, from their water from their markets, and laying the foundation for the next expansion of Israel in a few years when it will attempt to incorporate the West Bank into the Jewish state.

In 2006 Israel is again violently attacking its neighbours terrorising them, cutting of water, imposing curfews and making it impossible for Palestinians and Lebanese to sustain their lives. The Israeli airforce is constantly breaking the sound barrier with its US fighter planes - the sonic booms making it impossible for the Palestinians and now the Lebanese to sleep.

Since its occupation of the Palestinian homeland from 1947, Israel has been backed by Britain and the government of the USA plus powerful Jewish communities world wide. Examples:- The US provides around $4 billion annual military support. The GB provided key elements to manufacture plutonium in 1958 thus allowing Israel to become a nuclear power. Israel has used this immensely powerful gift from GB to created a vast stockpile of WMD. In the nineties Germany provided three Dolphin class submarines. These are now fitted with US supplied nuclear armed cruise missiles making Israel the most formidable of expansionist powers with vast range of destructive potential.

The development of Israel, as opposed to every other world state, is openly racist. The law of the land provides 2nd class citizenship for the minority of Israeli Arabs that remained. Palestinian, Lebanese etc., in the latest occupied territories, have the status of “untermenschen” as the Nazis classified Slavs and Jews in WWII.

Now governments and news media point at Palestinians as the aggressors . John Pilger compares what’s happening now in Lebanon and Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto of 1941/2. Penned in with water and most means of human survival cut off, the Nazis bombed civilians indiscriminately. When Jews fought back the Nazis viciously punished the entire community. Was it wrong for the Jews not to go quietly into the dark night ? Now the Lebanese, and Palestinians are being collectively punished with the specific targeting of civilians. Have Arabs the right to fight for their lives or do they not count as fully human ?

Pilger quotes a BBC program where Maureen Lipman says without serious challenge, that “human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap actually.” This sounds how Nazi’s thought about Jews, Slavs, Gipsies. Is this why the BBC makes no attempt to put the repeated conflicts in context and to present a balanced view ?

This is the BBC, Royal Charter and all. The Glasgow University Media Group recently produced an extensive study revealing serious bias in reporting in Israel’s favour. Last year the BBC held an “independent” enquiry which accepted some bias yet still the most respected broadcaster continues to act as propagandist for the Zionist cause. The BBC is not alone. All main media from Fox News to Channel 4 are aligned to the big lie pumped out by Western governments and institutions. Observing the evil of Israel, media outlets follow the lead of Western governments and establishment institutions pretending to see no wrong, they sit with the three wise monkeys when not repeating Israeli, US and GB government spin.

1. May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978
2.Quoted in Ha’aretz. ref. Bad News from Israel page 84.
3. Ben Yair wrote this paragraph in Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. ref Bad news from Israel page 157
* John Pilger on [Holcaust Denial]

Day 14 – Gaza Update from PSC

2009-12-29T23:15:00.000Z

A Direct Appeal from Betty Hunter

There is less than 24 hours to go before the PSC ’s next national demonstration. From all the information we have been receiving in the office over the last week it is clear to us that tomorrow will see the largest ever demonstration in support of the people of Palestine. Local PSC groups across the country have been working tirelessly to make sure that the policies and principles of the PSC are seen and heard.

If you’ve yet to decide if you are coming, please do make every effort to be there. This is genuinely your opportunity to be part of a momentous movement and to show to the Israeli government that their barbarity will not go unchecked. It is an opportunity to make clear to Gordon Brown that the UK government must take direct economic and diplomatic action to halt the massacre in Gaza and, finally and equally important, to show the people of Gaza that they are not alone and that millions of people world wide support their legitimate right to a free and peaceful Palestinian state.

The demonstration will leave Speakers Corner, Hyde Park at 12.30 and then march to the Israeli Embassy, then on to a rally at Kensington Gardens . Please come along to the PSC stall to help us on the day, from 10:30am, if you can.

War Crimes

More evidence is emerging of the callous and barbaric way the Israeli Government and the IDF are executing their war against the innocent people of Gaza . Two incidents clearly show that Israel is committing some of the worst war crimes ever to be inflicted on a national population.

An incident uncovered by the Intern ational Committee of the Red Cross in the town of Zeitoun in the east of Gaza shows the depravity of the IDF in their treatment of women, children and the injured.

Yesterday it came to light that the Israeli Defence Force had established a command position near some bombed houses. For four days they sat there while twenty people, several of them wounded, were forced to remain inside without water, food or medical treatment. But the most grotesque thing these twenty survivors of the IDF had to face was to be trapped in the ruins with the corpses of their dead relatives. Children were forced to lie side by side with their dead mothers. Husbands were forced to lie next to the rotting corpses of their dead wives.

So weak were the survivors after four days without food and water that when the Red Cross finally gained access to them they all had to carried out. For days the IDF refused to allow the Red Cross access – for days the IDF were aware of the plight of the women and children inside the building and for days they did nothing. By any standard, moral or legal, the actions of the IDF in Zeitoun are an affront to humanity.

Read more here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09redcross.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28554801/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819261.stm

And the normally sedate and reserved Red Cross are unable to control themselves with what is happening in Gaza

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-update-050109?opendocument

The depravity with which the Israeli Government is inflicting death on the people of Gaza reached a new low today as news began to leak out of yet another Israeli war crime in the town of Zeitoun .

According to the United Nations the events in a second shelter in the town represents ‘one of the gravest events since the beginning of the offensive.’

Eyewitness accounts obtained by the UN describe how, on the 4th January, the IDF rounded up 110 people, half of them children and moved them into a single story home. The IDF told the people they were being led to their safety.

Then 24 hours later the IDF bombed the shelter killing 30 people. According to the Red Cross and the UN, the IDF’s refusal to allow humanitarian access to the area for four days was because of this incident.

Following this incident the Red Cross issued a statement on the deaths of children killed by the Israeli Army in which they said that there had been a 250% increase in deaths to children since the ground invasion.

Read more by click these links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819492.stm

At the PSC we believe that these two examples among the hundreds of atrocities committed by the Israeli Government are clear evidence of the systematic abuse of international law by Israel and that, once independent monitors are able to gain access to Gaza , then the scale of the war crimes committed will become even clearer.

In the coming weeks PSC will be working with a number of legal experts and human rights lawyers to see how we can bring to justice those who committed these acts and, vitally, those who order these crimes against humanity

Avi Shlai

2009-12-28T22:06:00.000Z

How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe The Guardian, Wednesday 7 January 2009

Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions.

A wounded Palestinian policeman gestures while lying on the ground outside Hamas police headquarters following an Israeli air strike in Gaza City. Photograph: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza's prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.

Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.

Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.

The war unleashed by Israel on Gaza on 27 December was the culmination of a series of clashes and confrontations with the Hamas government. In a broader sense, however, it is a war between Israel and the Palestinian people, because the people had elected the party to power. The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel's terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

The timing of the war was determined by political expediency. A general election is scheduled for 10 February and, in the lead-up to the election, all the main contenders are looking for an opportunity to prove their toughness. The army top brass had been champing at the bit to deliver a crushing blow to Hamas in order to remove the stain left on their reputation by the failure of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006. Israel's cynical leaders could also count on apathy and impotence of the pro-western Arab regimes and on blind support from President Bush in the twilight of his term in the White House. Bush readily obliged by putting all the blame for the crisis on Hamas, vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and issuing Israel with a free pass to mount a ground invasion of Gaza.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted - a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath. The resort to brute military force is accompanied, as always, by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness. In Hebrew this is known as the syndrome of bokhim ve-yorim, "crying and shooting".

To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

The brutality of Israel's soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel's objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel's forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel's spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

A wide gap separates the reality of Israel's actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen. It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It di d so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel's objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers. And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel's insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash. After eight days of bombing, with a death toll of more than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis, the gung-ho cabinet ordered a land invasion of Gaza the consequences of which are incalculable.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

EBRIO

2009-12-28T09:45:00.001Z

[Home]

Exeter based resistance to Israeli outrages:

Up-date 12th July 2010.

Awaiting conformation regarding a non-violent direct action trainer from ISM with the idea of setting up a training evening, early October, just prior to street event in Exmouth to persuade Sue Boitoult, the proprietor, to reconsider her active promotion of Ahava products. The staff have told me that an active marketing programme is in play with "Ahava Promotion Days" which are being very successful in wining new customers for the stolen Dead Sea beauty products.

I have sent four e-mails and called three times at the shop but have yet to have a response from Ms Boitoult.

More communication to Sue Boitoul can only help in persuading her to respond.

Serenity

13 Exeter Rd, Exmouth, Devon, EX8 PN

01395 269159 serenitydirect@btconnect.com

Exeter PSC are going to leaflet at Serenity on Sat, July 24th I hope you will want to join us.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

EBRIO: First posted 2 June 2010

[Sent to core group EPSC & Friends of Palestine]This information is sent to further conversation with souls from Friends of Palestine [Exeter Uni] & Exeter PSC following some chatter about "on the street" boycott activity targeting West Bank products.

Product: Ahava

Possible Target: Serenity Exmouth

Date: I hope it comes in good time but a Saturday morning is best.

MUST SEE .... please this is what we need to emulate (if possible)

Code Pink Tel Aviv Hilton demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVfswIRylJY

Code Pink Boston demo (musical expression of political views)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ0-v-7OruE

An event of this type is quite possible and achievable in a highly constructive and strengthening way for souls braced against the next Israeli outrage. It offers the opportunity to censure open complicity in Israel's crimes and to publicise the outrage of Israel policy to the holiday makers and day trippers that will be packing Exmouth on Saturday mornings - well, depends on what season.

To find out more about:

The inspiring women's demonstration:

Code Pink.

Ahava:

http://www.stolenbeauty.org/ (Code Pink site)

If you have read this far - a big thanks - more info is on the blog notice board including the basic requirements to proceed SEE:

http://sparkcom.blogspot.com/2009/12/boycott.html

Boycott

2009-12-28T09:38:00.001Z

[Home]

Exeter based resistance to Israeli outrages

See initial intro mail [click]

Outline: Potential activity to tighten the meaning of "Boycott Israel"

Inspiration: Code Pink. Women centred positive direct action for a better world.

Sector: Beauty products sourced and sold on the inherent value of the minerals and organic materials only found in that location i.e. annexed land - stolen territory.

Target product: Ahava

http://www.stolenbeauty.org/ a Code Pink site - valuable info source

http://www.bigcampaign.org/ search for Ahava or do a

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm/ search

Complicit local promoters: (found so far)

Serenity. Exmouth beauty salon

http://www.serenity-beautywithin.co.uk/index.htm

Serenity is a small salon and Ahava only one of the beauty products marketed however they are actively promoting Ahava and hold events, sponsored by Ahava, devoted to marketing the products. These events are becoming increasingly popular and the products are wining new customers in Exmouth.

Beauty Time. Newton Abbot beauty salon

http://www.beauty-time.com/

Chi. Umberleigh beauty salon

http://www.chimindbodyandspirit.co.uk/

Rough outline of action & resources required

Saturday morning plea to the owners of Serinity in Exmouth to stop promoting and using Ahava products. The activity will be a very gently communication to the owners trying to win them to our way of understanding international law, human rights and justice. If you have seen Code Pink you will recognise the effect that a camera can capture.

A small successful demo could give some impetus for further action in Exeter itself and help build stronger links between those who are prepared to stand up to this outrageous rogue state. A minimum of ten folks are needed - more would be better. Ten folk formed as a body outside the shop to sing / chant / speak about Ahava (love in Hebrew) the occupied West Bank. Demo based on Code Pink actions / song sheet.

To give confidence and to anchor the gathering for folk new to this type of expression of opinion, a film crew will be in attendance to focus bouts of activity. To supplement this confidence building framework a Non Violent Direct Action workshop is recommended the evening prior to action. I'm seeking contact with a woman from the International Solidarity Movement who participated and supported Cambridge PSC with action in the local Tescos. She comes well recommended. Also local trainers are being sought to supplement this activity.

Afterwards there will be a EPSC garden social in central Exeter to refresh and discuss the action. It is envisioned that it should be possible to replay footage taken of the event.

Equipment / contributions needed:

Press co-ordinator

Leaflet design / production. A joint EPSC & FOP (Exeter Uni)

A supply of placards for supporters / Palestinian flags /

Table for literature / leaflets / petitions etc.

Humus / salad / etc. makers

Mud glorious mud - we cannot buy Ahava mud so we need a safe supply.

Sound system (maybe)

Ahava Exmouth

2009-12-28T09:30:00.023Z

[Exeter Boycott Activity] [Ahava Devon] [Boycott Index] [Home]

Info page on Serenity, the beauty salon in Exmouth that actively promotes Ahava - stolen Dead Sea beauty resources that Mother Earth & the UN recognise as Palestinian.

Street photos & address phone no. below:

STOP PRESS NEWS:

Saturday 24th July 12 o/c

A GATHERING

Following no response from the Serenity, Tony Davies, of Exeter PSC, is organising a gathering to express solidarity with the Palestinian people. Leaflets will urge serious consideration of the call from the rightful occupiers of the land for respect for International Law & Human Rights.

A BOYCOTT of Israeli West Bank products is demanded. Please let the proprietor, Sue Boitoult, understand your concern for justice and respect for human rights: Contact her at-

Serenity:

13 Exeter Rd, Exmouth, EX8 1PN

Tel 01395 269159

serenitydirect@btconnect.com

Please call John on 01363 866414 re car sharing or if you fancy a train journey with others to Exmouth. Life's more fun with two.

Location [Google Maps] type post code EX8 1PN or [Serenity map] See the Ahava products on display

Serenity: Left side shop of white building with oval name plate.

Looking south to shopping plaza. Serenity is on right, three shops before the yellow canopy.

Looking north. Serenity is on left, three shops past the yellow canopy.

Looking north. Serenity is in the region between the white apartment block [in distance] & church spire

John Pilger - Holocaust Denial

2009-12-26T16:03:00.000Z

The lying silence of those who know

By John Pilger

January 08, 2009 "Information Clearinghouse" -- -"When the truth is replaced by silence," the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, "the silence is a lie." It may appear the silence is broken on Gaza. The cocoons of murdered children, wrapped in green, together with boxes containing their dismembered parents and the cries of grief and rage of everyone in that death camp by the sea, can be viewed on al-Jazeera and YouTube, even glimpsed on the BBC. But Russia's incorrigible poet was not referring to the ephemeral we call news; he was asking why those who knew the why never spoke it and so denied it. Among the Anglo-American intelligentsia, this is especially striking. It is they who hold the keys to the great storehouses of knowledge: the historiographies and archives that lead us to the why.

They know that the horror now raining on Gaza has little to do with Hamas or, absurdly, "Israel's right to exist." They know the opposite to be true: that Palestine's right to exist was canceled 61 years ago and the expulsion and, if necessary, extinction of the indigenous people was planned and executed by the founders of Israel. They know, for example, that the infamous "Plan D" resulted in the murderous depopulation of 369 Palestinian towns and villages by the Haganah (Jewish army) and that massacre upon massacre of Palestinian civilians in such places as Deir Yassin, al-Dawayima, Eilaboun, Jish, Ramle and Lydda are referred to in official records as "ethnic cleansing." Arriving at a scene of this carnage, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, was asked by a general, Yigal Allon, "What shall we do with the Arabs?" Ben-Gurion, reported the Israeli historian Benny Morris, "made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said, ‘Expel them'. The order to expel an entire population "without attention to age" was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, a future prime minister promoted by the world's most efficient propaganda as a peacemaker. The terrible irony of this was addressed only in passing, such as when the Mapan Party co-leader Meir Ya'ari noted "how easily" Israel's leaders spoke of how it was "possible and permissible to take women, children and old men and to fill the roads with them because such is the imperative of strategy … who remembers who used this means against our people during the [Second World] war … we are appalled."

Every subsequent "war" Israel has waged has had the same objective: the expulsion of the native people and the theft of more and more land. The lie of David and Goliath, of perennial victim, reached its apogee in 1967 when the propaganda became a righteous fury that claimed the Arab states had struck first. Since then, mostly Jewish truth-tellers such as Avi Schlaim, Noam Chomsky, the late Tanya Reinhart, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, Yuri Avnery, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finklestein have dispatched this and other myths and revealed a state shorn of the humane traditions of Judaism, whose unrelenting militarism is the sum of an expansionist, lawless and racist ideology called zionism. "It seems," wrote the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe on 2 January, "that even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide in Gaza, are treated as desperate events, unconnected to anything that happened in the past and not associated with any ideology or system … Very much as the apartheid ideology explained the oppressive policies of the South African government, this ideology – in its most consensual and simplistic variety – has allowed all the Israeli governments in the past and the present to dehumanize the Palestinians wherever they are and strive to destroy them. The means altered from period to period, from location to location, as did the narrative covering up these atrocities. But there is a clear pattern [of genocide]."

In Gaza, the enforced starvation and denial of humanitarian aid, the piracy of life-giving resources such as fuel and water, the denial of medicines and treatment, the systematic destruction of infrastructure and the killing and maiming of the civilian population, 50 per cent of whom are children, meet the international standard of the Genocide Convention. "Is it an irresponsible overstatement," asked Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and international law authority at Princeton University, "to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not."

In describing a "holocaust-in-the making," Falk was alluding to the Nazis' establishment of Jewish ghettos in Poland. For one month in 1943, the captive Polish Jews led by Mordechaj Anielewiz fought off the German army and the SS, but their resistance was finally crushed and the Nazis exacted their final revenge. Falk is also a Jew. Today's holocaust-in-the-making, which began with Ben-Gurion's Plan D, is in its final stages. The difference today is that it is a joint US-Israeli project. The F-16 jet fighters, the 250-pound "smart" GBU-39 bombs supplied on the eve of the attack on Gaza, having been approved by a Congress dominated by the Democratic Party, plus the annual $2.4 billion in war-making "aid," give Washington de facto control. It beggars belief that President-elect Obama was not informed. Outspoken on Russia's war in Georgia and the terrorism in Mumbai, Obama's silence on Palestine marks his approval, which is to be expected, given his obsequiousness to the Tel Aviv regime and its lobbyists during the presidential campaign and his appointment of Zionists as his secretary of state, chief of staff and principal Middle East advisers. When Aretha Franklin sings "Think," her wonderful 1960s anthem to freedom, at Obama's inauguration on 21 January, I trust someone with the brave heart of Muntadar al-Zaidi, the shoe-thrower, will shout: "Gaza!"

The asymmetry of conquest and terror is clear. Plan D is now "Operation Cast Lead," which is the unfinished "Operation Justified Vengeance." The latter was launched by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 when, with Bush's approval, he used F-16s against Palestinian towns and villages for the first time. In the same year, the authoritative Jane's Foreign Report disclosed that the Blair government had given Israel the "green light" to attack the West Bank after it was shown Israel's secret designs for a bloodbath. It was typical of New Labor Party's enduring, cringing complicity in Palestine's agony. However, the 2001 Israeli plan, reported Jane's, needed the "trigger" of a suicide bombing which would cause "numerous deaths and injuries [because] the 'revenge' factor is crucial." This would "motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians." What alarmed Sharon and the author of the plan, General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was a secret agreement between Yasser Arafat and Hamas to ban suicide attacks. On 23 November, 2001, Israeli agents assassinated the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud, and got their "trigger"; the suicide attacks resumed in response to his killing.

Something uncannily similar happened on 5 November last, when Israeli special forces attacked Gaza, killing six people. Once again, they got their propaganda "trigger." A ceasefire initiated and sustained by the Hamas government – which had imprisoned its violators – was shattered by the Israeli attack and homemade rockets were fired into what used to be Palestine before its Arab occupants were "cleansed." The On 23 December, Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire, but Israel's charade was such that its all-out assault on Gaza had been planned six months earlier, according to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

Behind this sordid game is the "Dagan Plan," named after General Meir Dagan, who served with Sharon in his bloody invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Now head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organization, Dagan is the author of a "solution" that has seen the imprisonment of Palestinians behind a ghetto wall snaking across the West Bank and in Gaza, effectively a concentration camp. The establishment of a quisling government in Ramallah under Mohammed Abbas is Dagan's achievement, together with a hasbara (propaganda) campaign relayed through a mostly supine, if intimidated western media, notably in America, that says Hamas is a terrorist organization devoted to Israel's destruction and to "blame" for the massacres and siege of its own people over two generations, long before its creation. "We have never had it so good," said the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir in 2006. "The hasbara effort is a well-oiled machine." In fact, Hamas's real threat is its example as the Arab world's only democratically elected government, drawing its popularity from its resistance to the Palestinians' oppressor and tormentor. This was demonstrated when Hamas foiled a CIA coup in 2007, an event ordained in the western media as "Hamas's seizure of power." Likewise, Hamas is never described as a government, let alone democratic. Neither is its proposal of a ten-year truce as a historic recognition of the "reality" of Israel and support for a two-state solution with just one condition: that the Israelis obey international law and end their illegal occupation beyond the 1967 borders. As every annual vote in the UN General Assembly demonstrates, 99 per cent of humanity concurs. On 4 January, the president of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto, described the Israeli attack on Gaza as a "monstrosity."

When the monstrosity is done and the people of Gaza are even more stricken, the Dagan Plan foresees what Sharon called a "1948-style solution" – the destruction of all Palestinian leadership and authority followed by mass expulsions into smaller and smaller "cantonments" and perhaps finally into Jordan. This demolition of institutional and educational life in Gaza is designed to produce, wrote Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian exile in Britain, "a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed … Look to the Iraq of today: that is what [Sharon] had in store for us, and he has nearly achieved it."

Dr. Dahlia Wasfi is an American writer on Palestine. She has a Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic," she wrote on 31 December. "But I'm not talking about World War Two, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (the president of Iran) or Ashkenazi Jews. What I'm referring to is the holocaust we are all witnessing and responsible for in Gaza today and in Palestine over the past 60 years … Since Arabs are Semites, US-Israeli policy doesn't get more anti-Semitic than this." She quoted Rachel Corrie, the young American who went to Palestine to defend Palestinians and was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer. "I am in the midst of a genocide," wrote Corrie, "which I am also indirectly supporting and for which my government is largely responsible."

Reading the words of both, I am struck by the use of "responsibility." Breaking the lie of silence is not an esoteric abstraction but an urgent responsibility that falls to those with the privilege of a platform. With the BBC cowed, so too is much of journalism, merely allowing vigorous debate within unmovable invisible boundaries, ever fearful of the smear of anti-Semitism. The unreported news, meanwhile, is that the death toll in Gaza is the equivalent of 18,000 dead in Britain. Imagine, if you can.

Then there are the academics, the deans and teachers and researchers. Why are they silent as they watch a university bombed and hear the Association of University Teachers in Gaza plea for help? Are British universities now, as Terry Eagleton believes, no more than "intellectual Tescos, churning out a commodity known as graduates rather than greengroceries"?

Then there are the writers. In the dark year of 1939, the Third Writers' Congress was held at Carnegie Hall in New York and the likes of Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein sent messages and spoke up to ensure the lie of silence was broken. By one account, 3,500 jammed the auditorium and a thousand were turned away. Today, this mighty voice of realism and morality is said to be obsolete; the literary review pages affect an ironic hauteur of irrelevance; false symbolism is all. As for the readers, their moral and political imagination is to be pacified, not primed. The anti-Muslim Martin Amis expressed this well in Visiting Mrs. Nabokov: "The dominance of the self is not a flaw, it is an evolutionary characteristic; it is just how things are."

If that is how things are, we are diminished as a civilized society. For what happens in Gaza is the defining moment of our time, which either grants the impunity of war criminals the immunity of our silence, while we contort our own intellect and morality, or gives us the power to speak out. For the moment I prefer my own memory of Gaza: of the people's courage and resistance and their "luminous humanity," as Karma Nabulsi put it. On my last trip there, I was rewarded with a spectacle of Palestinian flags fluttering in unlikely places. It was dusk and children had done this. No one told them to do it. They made flagpoles out of sticks tied together, and a few of them climbed on to a wall and held the flag between them, some silently, others crying out. They do this every day when they know foreigners are leaving, believing the world will not forget them.

Veolia in Lambeth

2009-12-25T14:07:00.000Z

Update May 2008.

Some attention drawn to the Veolia saga.

In November the Dutch ASN Bank ended its relationship with Veolia.
SEE: ASN letter to Veolia http://electronicintifada.net

The European Jews for a Just Peace voiced their disagreement with Veolia on the issue and French activists protested at Veolia's shareholders meeting this year.

HOWEVER: The French arm of Veolia is to invest $1 billion in Israel
developing "environmental" water projects. SEE: http://www.export.gov.il

The tramline collaboration continues. Israel continues to kill any that stand in their way, including international press personnel.
SEE: Reuters cameraman killed by Israeli tank - direct fire
ALSO: Scotsman : deliberately targeted

Disturbingly "Veolia Environmental" is successfully getting its name know world wide as a nice trustworthy and friendly corporation. It's magazines are to found in the premises of many local and international "green" organisations. It is insidiously selling itself as a worthy and responsible environmental champion.

BELOW: info posted autumn 2006 but still relevant to understanding Veolia.

Lambeth Council waste disposal contact awarded to VEOLIA a corporation collaborating with Israel in the ethnic cleansing and settlement of the West Bank

The first three web sites give all round info about Veolia. Citizen.org has interesting reports on Veolia re corruption and breach of contract. The other sites on Israel and Middle East in general. Note at bottom is from correspondence with Lambeth Cllrs suggesting why the issue should be considered important.

http://stopthewall.org/factsheets/1047.shtml

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5723.shtml

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/veolia

http://www.jerusalemites.org/zionism/index.htm

http://www.robert-fisk.com/home_page.htm

http://www.palestinecampaign.org/default.asp

Dear Cllr

Line In The Sand

Some say the line in the sand is the same one that Pastor Neimoler referred to in the 30’s. I haven’t found a convincing argument against that assertion both in relation to Israel and to US and British government policy both at home and abroad.

This time, incredibly, the nation of Jewish tribes, that suffered significantly under the jack boot of Nazism, have occupied another peoples land and have been subjecting them to a slow genocide for 60 years.

Dealing with Veolia sanctifies, endorses and supports Zionism and enables Israel to continue its military campaign to win, by force of arms, lands that Zionists and some Orthodox followers see as the historic lands of the Israelites. That includes the West Bank and Gaza and a lot more land currently parts of present day Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

Regarding apartheid, you will be aware I'm sure of Lambeth's history of anti-racism and links with the struggle against apartheid. These were "lines in the sand" that former Lambeth authorities attempted, quite publicly, not to cross in the 70' 80's etc.

These are difficult questions especially for councilors that have a legal responsibility to a set process in local government.

I hope you will find the enclosed helpful in learning more about the issue and deciding what is a "right, just and honest" response to the take over of Cleanaway by Veloia.

Yours Sincerely John Yates

Liverpool Questions to candidates

2009-12-12T15:20:00.006Z

Thanks to [Liverpool Friends of Palestine] for the questionnaire below
To all European Parliamentary Election Candidates

This questionnaire has been sent to you from a number of organisations which call for a

just peace in Palestine and Israel.

Your answers and an analysis of them will be sent to the following groups for dissemination to their members and networks: Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, CND, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Muslim Associations, War on Want, national Justice and Peace networks, Trade Unions, Women to Women for Peace, Friends of Sabeel, Pax Christi , Amos Trust, Christian Aid and British Universities.

Please answer the following questions, by ticking Yes or No and add comments if you feel the need at the end of the questionnaire or on a separate sheet.

1. Do you agree that:

a. Britain and the EU as liberal democracies should always respect and adhere

to international laws and human rights law

b. Britain and the EU are bound by international law, which requires that the

Geneva Conventions are upheld and applied consistently

Yes No

2. Are you aware that under international law:

a. Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories is illegal

(UN Security Council Resolution 242 and others)

b. Israeli settlements and the transfer of Israeli population into the Palestinian

Occupied Territories are illegal. (1979 UN Security Council Resolutions

446 and numerous others, Hague Regulations, Article 49 of Fourth Geneva

Convention, Ruling of the International Court of Justice 2004)

c. The Separation Wall on Palestinian land is illegal. (ICJ 2004)

Yes No

3. Do you agree that:

a. The blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and is therefore

illegal

b. The indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza was illegal as it contravenes the

Geneva Conventions, as does the targeting of medics and hospitals,

attacking civilians and wanton destruction of property (Fourth Geneva

Convention 1949, the first additional protocol to the Geneva Convention of

1977, and the Hague Regulations of 1907 that regulate means and methods

of warfare)

c. Under the above conventions, the use of white phosphorous bombs and

DIME in densely populated areas is illegal

Yes No

4. If elected / re-elected, will you support the demand for an independent

international inquiry on war crimes and crimes against humanity of which Israel

stands accused by human rights NGOs since the December 2008-Jan 2009 war?

Yes No

5. Do you recognise that:

a. Britain and the EU are guilty of reneging on their declared principles in

disregarding UN Resolutions, Article 2 (concerning shared values) and

Article 83 (prohibiting importing settlement goods into the EU) of the Israel-

EU Association Agreement, and Article2 of the Barcelona Agreement

(concerning respect for human rights).

b. Britain and the EU are practising double standards in their Middle East

policy by applying sanctions and/or war threats to some Arab or Muslim

countries for violations of international laws and human rights laws, but

giving favourable trading rights and selling arms and arms components to

Israel

Yes No

6. If elected / re-elected are you prepared to:

a. Condemn the Israeli occupation and theft of Palestinian land, demolition of

Palestinian homes, destruction of Palestinian farm land, the construction of

the Separation Wall on Palestinian Land and the construction of Settlements

and infrastructure for Jews only

b. Condemn Israeli extra-judicial killings of Palestinians and the arbitrary

detention of over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

c. Back those condemnations (until Israel complies with international laws) and

human rights laws by calling for:

i) sanctions on Israel

ii) the suspension of the EU-Israel Trade Association Agreement

iii) the suspension of all arms trading, including arms components, with

Israel

iv) an inquiry on discrimination against Palestinians living in Israel

including Jerusalem

v) an inquiry into the situation of political prisoners and the lengthy

arbitrary administrative detention of many of them including elected

Parliamentarians.

d. Request that from now on, every agreement between the EU and Israel

clearly states:

i) that implementation will depend on observance of international law

which will be monitored by a special human rights committee set up

specifically for the purpose

ii) the refusal of any legitimisation of the settlements or any links with

them and the demand for their dismantling

Yes No

7. Do you agree that:

a. Under international law, pre-emptive strikes are illegal

b. An Israeli attack on Iran would be illegal, will cause much further instability

in the Middle East, is likely to increase international terrorism and is therefore

not in the interest of Britain, the West and the wider world

Yes No

8. Will you pledge to oppose an invasion of Iran?

Yes No

Liverpool EU Law

2009-12-12T15:12:00.000Z

Europe must obey the law – suspend the EU Israel Trade Agreement

This is a briefing to be used in the run-up to the European elections in June 2009. Liverpool Friends of Palestine have also prepared a questionnaire which can be used by branches and sent to European candidates - please could you send copies of any responses you receive to them: their website is http://www.liverpoolfriendsofpalestine.co.uk

Trade with Israel has increased. In 2007 the total amount traded between Europe and Israel exceeded 25 billion Euros. Trade with the EU last year was worth 3 billion Euros in exports. HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn1#_ftn1" [1] As Israel’s main trade partner, the EU has enormous economic leverage and is in a unique position to influence Israel.

The EU-Israel Association Agreement (EUIAA) gives Israel preferential treatment in its relationships with EU countries in a wide range of areas such as trade, agriculture, technology, scientific research, security, education, culture. Since 2000 it has promoted strong trade, business and cultural ties between Israel and the EU. Today, 30% of Israel’s exports go to the EU under a preferential trade tariff, subsidised by the EU taxpayer.

EU-Israel relations consist of three elements - political dialogue, trade relations and integration into the European Community. The current agreement is due to expire in April 2009.

On 4 December, a vote was postponed in the European Parliament concerning Israel’s participation in community programmes. Whilst MEPs have limited influence on the upgrade process, the European Parliament will vote on the trade sections of the agreement.

Israel must obey its humanitarian obligations

Israel is benefiting from the EUIAA, despite its gross breaches of Article 2 of this agreement, which states: ‘Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement’. This condition has never been enforced.

The upgrading of the EUAAI - December 2008 and its implications following Gaza

On 24 April, EU commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner implied that the planned upgrade of relations with Israel would not be implemented at this stage, saying ‘Too much remains unclear at this current point in time. And we expect indeed a clear commitment from the new government to pursue the negotiations with the Palestinians’. But the Czech Republic currently holds the rotating EU presidency, and Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek has said ‘We will work so that the voices in Europe calling to slow down or freeze the promotion of relations to Israel won't get what they're after.’

Last year the EU agreed to upgrade relations at the EU-Israel Association Council. The upgrade would allow Israel to participate in more EU programmes (education, environment, research, energy, culture, home affairs etc) and to take part in meetings of some Council working groups. In December 2008 the Council of Ministers (the 26 EU foreign ministers) voted to support the upgrade, ignoring the fact that Israel is breaching an “essential element” of the agreement (i.e. Article 2). The upgrade will be spelled out in the new EU-Israel Action Plan, currently being drafted. The EU-Israel Association Council is scheduled to endorse the new Action Plan on 18 May.

Write to your MEP now, and your local MEP candidates. If you are not sure who your current MEP is, visit HYPERLINK "http://www.writetothem.com/" www.writetothem.com. The list of candidates will be on HYPERLINK "http://www.europarl.org.uk/" www.europarl.org.uk from 8 May.

Israel’s siege on Gaza: MEPs must support opening all crossing points to and from Gaza, and ensure that Israel faces accountability for the continued humanitarian disaster resulting from its illegal blockade

The European Parliament voted in February 2009 for “an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, in compliance with the Agreement on Movement and Access of 15 November 2005, for the immediate and sustainable reopening of the crossing points for people and goods”.

Israel’s blockade on Gaza is a violation of the European agreement on access and movement (AMA) signed by the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the European Union, which has never been implemented.

Louis Michel, European Commissioner responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid – said about Israel’s prevention of aid reaching civilians in Gaza during Israel’s war on 4 January 2009:

‘Blocking access to people who are suffering and dying is also a breach of humanitarian law. I call on the Israeli authorities to respect their international obligations and ensure a "humanitarian space" for the delivery of vital relief.’ HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/2&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en" http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/2&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Michel also issued a statement calling on the Israeli Government ‘to guarantee the free and secure movement of UNRWA staff and assistance in the Gaza Strip.’

HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/37&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en" http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/37&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The current EU-Israel Action plan claims to promote ‘International development co-operation, humanitarian aid and networking to allow rapid reaction for disaster relief and other emergency situations that may arise worldwide.’ Israel’s war on Gaza clearly negates this.

The association agreement must be suspended until Israel abides by international law

The current EU Israel Action plan states Israel and the EU will ‘strive to intensify …shared responsibility in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.’

Israel flouts international humanitarian law on a number of points. The international court of justice ruling on the Apartheid Wall states that ‘states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation’.

Precedents exist for a suspension:

On 18 January 1990, the European Parliament asked for the partial freeze of scientific cooperation with Israel until the total and lasting reopening of Palestinian schools and universities, after they had been unilaterally closed by the Israeli authorities. Then, the European Commission, having the power to decide the suspension of the study and the implementation of every new project of scientific cooperation, applied the sanction asked by the European Parliament.

These pressures led to the reopening of schools and universities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The European Parliament has, in the past, showed its opposition to the Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. On 10 April 2002, Parliament adopted the resolution B5-0194/02 COMPR in which Parliament asked the Council of Ministers and the European Commission to suspend the agreement, because of the actions of the Israeli army during the second Intifada. The current situation requires strong action from the European Union.

The EU-Israel association accord must not be upgraded

On 16 June 2008, the European Ministers of Foreign Affairs decided to upgrade EU/Israel relations. They launched negotiations to replace the current Action Plan. Israel would change its status of partner to the status of privileged partner.

A meeting of Foreign Ministers on 8 December 2008 confirmed the decision to upgrade EU/Israel relations. The French presidency’s goal was, through this process, to “have more influence on Israel to improve the situation on the ground” HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn2#_ftn2" [2]. On 14 January 2009, following the attack on Gaza, the EU declared a “break” in its rapprochement with Israel, but the negotiation process continued.

On 4 December 2008, members of the European Parliament decided, faced with the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip and after strong pressure from their constituents, to postpone a vote on Israel’s participation in the European Community programs

The war on Gaza, and the increase in settlements, checkpoints and the destruction of Palestinian homes show that Israel is not influenced by the EU’s favourable relations. Upgrading the association accord in order to have ‘more influence on Israel in order to improve the situation on the ground’ would not have any positive effect. Upgrading EU/Israel relations would appear to be a reward for the illegality of the Israeli policy and a confirmation of Israel’s impunity.

The EU must demand reparations for the infrastructures, financed by the EU, that were destroyed by Israel.

The Israeli attack on Gaza destroyed EU-financed infrastructure projects across the Strip, including the Palestinian Authority’s headquarters which were totally destroyed. Denmark announced that three clinics it financed had been bombed HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn3#_ftn3" [3].

It is estimated that ‘between 2001 and 2007, the total amount of infrastructure projects financed by the EU and the member states in the Palestinian Territories that have been destroyed or damaged by the Israeli army reached 43 974 653 Euros HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn4#_ftn4" [4].’ In 2002 the Israeli army destroyed EU-funded Gaza airport and Gaza’s power plant (destroyed again in 2007). This damage totalled 20 million Euros.

The EU is the Palestinian Authority’s main donor. Infrastructure construction in the Palestinian Territories financed by the EU must be linked to making Israel accountable, and bearing the cost of its destruction.

The EU must act to bring Israel to account for war crimes

The current EU Israel Action Plan states the need to “Promote co-operation on issues such as fight against impunity of authors of genocide, war crimes and any other crime against humanity”

During the Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip, 1,440 Palestinians were killed, including 431 children and 114 women. 5,380 Palestinians were injured, including 1,872 children and 795 women. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn5#_ftn5" [5] estimates 82% of those killed were civilians. Final reports show the destruction of 4,100 homes, 1,765 hectares of agricultural land, 560 farms, and 1,095 water tanks and wells. In addition, 17,000 houses and buildings were damaged. 53 UNRWA buildings were damaged or destroyed. HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn6#_ftn6" [6]

European Union Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (2005) on war crimes: “States must…ensure that alleged perpetrators are brought before their own domestic courts or handed over for trial by the courts of another State or by an international criminal tribunal, such as the International Criminal Court”

The Fourth Geneva Convention, article 147, considers it a “grave breach” to engage in “wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health […] extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and want”. “Grave breaches” to the Convention are considered “war crimes”.

Members of the EU that are signatories to the fourth Geneva Convention are obliged to prosecute those alleged to have committed, or ordered such violations.

UN General Secretary M. Ban Ki Moon declared during that those responsible for the attacks on UN buildings in Gaza should be held accountable and demanded a “full investigation” through proper judiciary systems. The EU members among the Security Council must ensure that this mission fulfils its objectives and that its conclusions will be applied. Moreover, they must call the UN General Assembly to set up an Ad Hoc Tribunal and bring to trial those responsible for violations of international law.

The EU must support a dialogue with all elected representatives of the Palestinian people, including Hamas

Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian parliamentary seats in January 2006. Israel and the international community neither recognized the government formed in February 2006 nor the Palestinian national unity government formed in February 2007. In March 2009 the necessity for Palestinian national unity was (re)affirmed by several foreign governments.

From Jimmy Carter to Robert Malley (former Bill Clinton’s advisor on the Middle East), the necessity of a political dialogue with Hamas is clearly affirmed. Fourteen former peace negotiators (among which a Nobel prize winner, former Foreign Affairs ministries (including Israeli Shlomo Ben-Ami), a former member of the Palestinian delegation to the peace process…) called for an end to the boycott of Hamas and for direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn7#_ftn7" [7].

Israel’s refusal to consider recognise Hamas as elected representatives of the Palestinians is similar to their approach to previous Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat, whom Ariel Sharon called “insignificant”. For 20 years, Israel and the United States refused to speak with the PLO, accusing it of terrorism and of not recognizing the Israeli state.

In December 2001, the EU added “Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem (terrorist wing of Hamas)” to its list of terrorists and terrorist groups. In September 2003 they reviewed the list to include Hamas globally. In theory the European Council must revise the list every six months.

The European Parliament as well as several human rights associations have questioned the procedure because of “its lack of transparency, the absence of guarantees for the defence party, its democratic or judicial mechanism control shortage”. “To list one entity is indeed the result of a strictly political decision by European governments, on the basis of confidential information” HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn8#_ftn8" [8] (the EU used the presence of Hamas on its list to justify both judicially and politically the suspension of its direct aid to the PNA following the victory of Hamas to the legislative elections).

There is a lack of precise criteria in the procedure to withdraw an organisation from the EU list for which a general consensus between the member states is needed. But the “political nature” of that list means that a “political” action is possible from the EU to withdraw Hamas from the list.

Member states should stop selling arms to Israel.

European weapons or weapons made with European components are used by Israel to launch indiscriminate attacks against Palestinian civilians. In December 2008, the European Council of Ministers adopted a Code of Conduct (a legally binding instrument) on Arms Transfers regarding technology and military equipment exports to third country.

Under Criterion 2 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, Member States are supposed to “deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression” or “be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law” HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn9#_ftn9" [9].

The code of conduct “governs the application of a responsible policy which aims in particular to prevent exported arms from being used for internal repression or international aggression or contributing to regional instability. With the adoption of this Code of Conduct as a common position, all the EU member states are engaging themselves to respect the Code and to ensure that their legislation granted its respect” HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn10#_ftn10" [10].

Amnesty International reports that, according to the EU's 2008 report on arms export licences, 18 EU Member States authorized a total of 1,018 such licenses to Israel worth €199,409,348.

In its February 2009 report, Amnesty International HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn11#_ftn11" [11] underlines the illegal use of Israeli arms against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip in December 2008. Britain supplies arms components that are believed to have been used during the recent war. The recent review announced by the British government into military exports to Israel shows the importance of continued lobbying on these issues. HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn12#_ftn12" [12]

The withdrawal of illegal Israeli settlements must be made a condition of the trade agreement

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [and] have been established in breach of international law." International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

Under EU law all agreements with third countries must be interpreted and applied in accordance with international law. A safeguard clause will be necessary to prevent Israel's application of the benefits of cooperation to settlement entities.

There are currently 121 Israeli settlements and 102 outposts built illegally in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, inhabited by around 480,000 Israeli settlers. Construction of settlements has almost doubled since the Annapolis summit in November 2007, where the Israeli government commitment to the peace process.

Israeli authorities plan, in the next few years, to construct a further 73,000 housing units, including 5,700 in East Jerusalem HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn13#_ftn13" [13]. This would double the number of Israeli settlers.

The Middle East Quartet – A Progress Report, produced by Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children and CAFOD, in September 2008 said, “The continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, authorised by the Israeli government on occupied Palestinian territory breaks both Israel’s roadmap obligations and international law and defies UN Security Council Resolution 242. Palestinian and international confidence in the Government of Israel’s commitment to peace or the peace process is significantly undermined by this approach.”

Israeli customs label goods as Israeli which in fact come from settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The practice of this preferential treatment is illegal. Thus, Israel blatantly violates the territorial field of the agreement (article 83) and the principle of the rule of origin (protocol 4). HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftn14#_ftn14" [14] Violations of law and, in consequence, the violation of several elements of this accord by Israel, is the judicial basis for the suspension of the agreement.

More details: www.palestinecampaign.org

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref1#_ftnref1" [1] HYPERLINK "http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113402.pdf" http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113402.pdf

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref2#_ftnref2" [2] Former French Secretary of State Pierre Jouyet

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref3#_ftnref3" [3] L’Europe lasse de financer la reconstruction palestienne – Le Figaro – 16/01/09

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref4#_ftnref4" [4] Third Annual Review on Human Rights in EU-Israel Relations” – REMDH – June 2007

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref5#_ftnref5" [5] NGO based in Gaza Strip, FIDH member

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref6#_ftnref6" [6] Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Coordination Board of Humanitarian Affairs of United nations in the Occupied Territories, UNRWA, Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, Palestinian Farmers Union, Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref7#_ftnref7" [7] HYPERLINK "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref8#_ftnref8" [8] A strictly political decision by the European governements - François Dubuisson – Université Libre de Bruxelles - Pour la Palestine n°50

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref9#_ftnref9" [9] HYPERLINK "http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/sanctions/codeofconduct.pdf" http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/cfsp/sanctions/codeofconduct.pdf

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref10#_ftnref10" [10]Arms control : The EU finally equips itself with a legally binding instrument – « Control Arms » - Platform - 09/12/0

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref11#_ftnref11" [11] Fuelling conflict: Foreign arms supplies to Israel - Amnesty International

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref12#_ftnref12" [12] HYPERLINK "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/22/israel-gaza-military-exports" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/22/israel-gaza-military-exports

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref13#_ftnref13" [13]. Ministry of Housing’s Plans for the West Bank – Peace Now – March 2009

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "_ftnref14#_ftnref14" [14] The EU must insure that products form Israeli settlements are excluded form the preferential agreement EU-Israel. The EU Council and the European Commission clearly indicated that the preferential importation of products made in the settlements is a violation of the community law. They have also condemned as a violation of the association agreement the fact that Israel certifies its products as eligible for the preferential treatment.

HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62&Content_ID=616" \l "#" HYPERLINK "http://www.palestinecampaign.org/?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=62" back to listings

Sept 11th - FIVE YEARS ON

2006-08-30T17:44:00.000+01:00

If I was paranoid - A starting point for discussion

I’d believe the claims of a new paradigm for “the ruling class”. No longer a social/economic strata, as defined by Marx & Lenin etc. now more an association of the most aggressive and wealthy owners of the US Military Industrial/Oil/Wall St/ Complex, allied to organised drugs gangs and the tireless seekers of state power - “our political leaders”. Real power seems to reside in a much tighter knit group than ever before. They seek always to extend their power and dominance no matter what the cost in lives or harm to our world. In the dangerous age of peak oil, global warming, and galloping environmental despoliation, modern capitalism morphs into corporatism.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power”: Mussolini

Events of September 11th

Sept. 11 was the cornerstone of a plot to justify a new chapter in US military and economic expansionism. There is a massive amount of evidence showing that hierarchies in government, the military industrial complex, oil industry and Wall Street backed the creation of a world-wide web of “Islamic terrorism”. They aided and abetted those that attacked the Pentagon and the WTC and caused the absolute total failure of US Air Defence Forces for more than three hours. Responsibility for the actual collapse of the three steel framed buildings is, as yet, unproven.

9/11 Commission Report

The official investigation into the demolition of the towers and building 7 is a whitewash. Key witnesses were not called. Forensic evidence is not investigated nor is US complicity with Islamic extremists. It is clear that the impact of the planes and fires were not the cause of the collapse. These are the only steel framed buildings ever to collapse into a pile of 10 metre section steel beams and microscopic dust clouds due to fire or earthquake.

The report on the Pentagon is a mass of contradictory evidence with not one single piece of the Boeing 757 revealed, just a small hole through three wings (six reinforced walls) of the building. Damage similar to what an armour piercing cruise missile might leave.
See: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html

COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS Sept 11th 2001

Basic science

I believe the basic science inherent in the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 is the key to unlocking the minds of millions to the mountain of verifiable evidence of criminal intrigue by the overlords of our fragile world. This seems essential if there is to be any hope of changing the course set towards an extremely damaged and terrorised world that maybe just a generation away.

The official story

The official story is that the towers collapsed because fire weakened steel supports causing a floor to collapse: the force of this floor collapsing, with the weight of the upper floors falling symmetrically onto the one below, causing every one of the 47 enormous steel uprights at the core and 240 perimeter columns to “gave way” at exactly the same moment in time, floor by floor, leading to the progressive, symmetrical collapse of the towers, virtually into their own footprint

Galileo’s theory on free fall

Galileo’s theory is a basis of modern science and is an absolute. The theory would indicate a free fall collapse time of approximately 12 seconds which is about the time the towers took to fall from video and seismic evidence. This time takes no account of any resistance from floor to floor as the core and exterior columns were said to “buckle and give way” progressively due to the pancaking of the floors.

See: Stephen Jones Professor of physics BYU http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Twin towers construction

A new design at the time, now common practice on tall towers, there is an immensely strong core with stairs and lift/service shafts with smaller, more numerous, external columns allowing open plan office space.

* The 47 core columns were 52 inches by 22 inches at their base. Fabricated in long lengths of 5 inch thick steel, in the lower sections they had steel slabs running through their centres making them almost solid. They reduced to columns measuring 32 inches by 16 inches of 4 inch thick steel as the towers height increased. The cores were cross braced with a lattice of steel beams. The floors in the core were structurally independent of the office floors which were connected to the 240 exterior columns of 14 inch wide steel box columns. These were fabricated in 2.5 inch thick steel at the base, reducing to .25 inch thick steel at the top floors.

Damage and collapse

* The video clips of the South Tower (hit around the 80th of 110 floors) show the 30 floors above the impact zone falling at an angle in one piece i.e. the 30 floor unit with 47 enormous core steel uprights and 240 external uprights, along with integrated concrete and steel floors plus structural window framing, started their decent at an angle to perpendicular of approximate 15%. Within a couple of video frames this separate 30 floor section, of steel and concrete, had turned to dust as it followed the symmetrical collapse of the lower floors.

* The North Tower (hit around the 95th floor) collapse started from the very top, with the radio mast being the first part of the entire tower to start dropping. This means the centre core gave way first.

* Each tower collapsed in around 12 seconds. The enormous pyroclastic cloud that enveloped each tower as it collapsed concealed the exact moment the structure became a pile of microscopic particles and 10 metre steel beams.

* In photos of the devastation there were virtually no large slabs of concrete or recognisable bits of stair case, washroom furniture, chairs, tables, carpet, light fittings etc. With the exception of the 10 metre steel beams, the towers and most of their contents were pulverised to microscopic powder. There has been reports that some computer hard drives were salvaged and information about insider trading activity recovered.

* The rubble at Ground Zero consisted of pieces of the steel structure and light aluminium cladding, unrecognisable bits of metal, pieces of paper and dust the consistency similar to baking powder. This pulverised powder covered the city. The number of people with medical problems linked to the WTC dust cloud surpasses 15000. The dust contained lead from 50 000 computers, radioactive materials from smoke alarms, toxic metals from light fitting along with powered asbestos and concrete.

* During the clear up there were many reports of “molten” steel being uncovered days after the collapse. A phenomena never explained.

* Of those killed on the day only around 1500 have been identified from the almost 20 000 “remains” (bits of human bodies) recovered. Less than 300 intact bodies were found. As with everything else, (except the 10 metre steel sections) the people were “vaporised” as the medical examiner put it and may never be identified. It takes 2 hours at around 1500 degrees F to cremate a body.

Steel, glass and kerosine

The fundamental laws of physics concerning the temperatures at which kerosine and office furniture burn and steel melts (or “snaps” into 10 metre lengths) or glass breaks, are challenged by the official 9.11 Commission Report. There is a mountain of verifiable witness statements and film evidence as to the limited degree of fire in the buildings. Examine the glass facing on the towers, mainly perfectly intact until the collapse. In this area we are told the heat was so intense it caused the steel columns to “give way”. Voice recordings have been released from Fire Chief Palmer who reached the impact area around the 78th floor of the South Tower just prior to collapse. Minor fires are reported. The steel skeleton, no matter how exposed, could not have been heated to damaging temperatures by the post impact fires.

See: photos/video at http://www.911research.wtc7.net/index.html

9/11 Commission Report

The official investigation into the demolition of the towers and building 7 is a whitewash. Key witnesses were not called. Forensic evidence is not investigated nor is US complicity with Islamic extremists. It is clear that the impact of the planes and fires were not the cause of the collapse. These are the only steel framed buildings ever to collapse into a pile of 10 metre section steel beams and microscopic dust clouds due to fire or earthquake. The collapse of Building 7 is unexplained in the original 911 report.

New Science ?

There is a desperate need for socially responsible journalists to explain how fundamental laws of physics have changed with the events of September 11th. A mountain of questions from eminent professional observers remain unanswered. Innumerable statements from relevant parties have not been addressed including one from the lead structural engineer of the construction of the towers; quoted in The Bridge Vol. 32 No.1 Spring 2002

“The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me
. . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone.”
Leslie E. Robertson.

Leslie E. Robertson is a director of design at Leslie E. Robertson Ass.
NOTE: He is not publicly critical of the Commission Report.

The above info is taken from various web sites or books by those with a deeper well of knowledge than me. (See list below) If Leslie Robertson does not understand the science it would appear to be time for others to apply their professional skills and knowledge to the task.

Psycho ops - Engineering compliance

Above all considerations, in the dangerous age of a terrorist “war without end”, peak oil, global warming, and galloping environmental despoliation, as modern capitalism morphs into corporatism - the crucial issue that needs addressing is the mass brainwashing of tens of millions of people who saw the towers collapse in about 12 seconds, who have accepted the Pentagon and Flight 93 story line and now remain hypnotised and silent even after the revelations of spin and lies over WMD and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. (In between we’ve had Anthrax, Patriot 1 and 2, Guantanamo, corporate corruption in the rape of Iraqi linked to the White House, and a manipulated civil war in Iraq on the pattern taught at School of the Americas in the 80’s to El Salvadorian, Chilean, Bolivian etc. death squads)

Amongst the millions that watched events unfold are physicists, mathematicians, engineers, architects, journalists and many others educated to grasp Galileo’s theory of free fall and with comprehension of the strength of steel, concrete and glass - knowing how these materials behave in the real world. And yet, from the establishment media and scientific communities a virtual deafening silence. The establishment media have presented the managed message from the White House to extraordinary effect.

I’m just an ordinary citizen concerned for justice and future generations.
I’m not a scientist. I’m simply seeking a common sense explanation where there has been none not even from the lead structural engineers for the towers.

“Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act”
Albert Einstein

Reference to critiques of the official story line with photos, video, witness statements etc. etc.
See:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk
http://911readingroom.org/bib/index.html
(See rh panel: Remembrance /Oral histories)
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/
www.reopen911.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html

Read for starters:
War on Truth. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. Arris Books.
Crossing the Rubicon. M Rupert. New Society Publishers
Forbidden Truth. J-C Brisard & G Dasquie. Nation Books
911 Commission Report - omissions and distortions. Dr David R Griffin
New Pearl Harbour. Dr David R Griffin

Ron Paul. End of $ Hegemony

2006-06-26T11:57:00.000+01:00

HOME

The End of Dollar Hegemony by Hon. Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one’s actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules-- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

“Dollar Diplomacy,” a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft’s aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of “Dollar Diplomacy.” The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere “appearance” that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government “obligation” to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the “gunboat” diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the “dollar diplomacy” of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn’t too long before dollar “diplomacy” became dollar “hegemony” in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world’s gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar was said to be “as good as gold,” and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to—all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability.

Eventually they will fail. Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it’s dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

15 February 2006

If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.

Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the author or source URL are credited. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please go to http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/mission.htm

Source URL: http://www.mecfilms.com/universe

National Post CCC

2006-02-09T09:14:00.001Z

The Deniers -- Part I
Statistics needed

Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.

The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?

The series

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.

Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "[I]f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

THE CV OF A DENIER

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.

Climate Change

2006-02-09T08:52:00.000Z

National Post Canada
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII

MEDIA CONTACTS

2005-11-07T18:20:00.000Z

CONTACT ADDRESSES
Newspapers/magazines/TV/Radio/Political representatives/Web sites

A list of contacts to stimulate and ease the task of questioning, commenting and criticising those in positions of power. You can copy and paste the addresses into your e-mail or browser’s address window and directly to a letter. Once you have your letter it’s easy to write to a variety of people simply by changing the names. A little personal reference can go a long way and there are links to TV presenters and journalists background information. A short hand written letter may be ten times as powerful as a long e-mailed “article”.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. i.e. ten dissidents asking the same question of the same person are likely to make a greater impression than ten individual letters to different targets.

To further of this simple idea I intend using the http://pledgebank.com site to develop my own letter writing therapy. I’ll write a letter on a current topic, referenced to comments by wiser minds than mine on the same topic. I’ll set-out my target recipients seeking like minds in a focused lobbying of those with power. Any ideas from viewers of this site are welcome.

I have focused on newspaper and broadcast media corporations. Others consider our elected representatives to be perhaps more receptive or more powerful. See: http://www.writetothem.com for a comprehensive contact system for your elected representatives.

THE INDEPENDENT
191 Marsh Wall
London E14

Staff writers
Simon Kelner, Editor
s.kelner@independent.co.uk

Tristan Davies, Editor Independent on Sunday
t.davies@independent.co.uk

Andrew Buncombe, Washington correspondent
a.buncombe@independent.co.uk

Leonard Doyle, Foreign editor
l.doyle@independent.co.uk

Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent
r.fisk@independent.co.uk

Andrew Grice, Political editor
a.grice@independent.co.uk

Johann Hari, Columnist
j.hari@independent.co.uk

THE GUARDIAN
119 Farringdon Rd
London EC1 Tel 0207 278 2332

The Guardian's letters page http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/
e-mail: letters@guardian.co.uk Make 'Letter to the Editor' your subject line

For specific complaints about articles contact the Guardian's readers' editor: Ian Mayes c/o The Guardian, e-mail: reader@guardian.co.uk Tel+44 (0)20 7713 4736 between 11am and 5pm Monday to Friday Fax: 020-7239 9997

For general queries, complaints and questions e-mail: userhelp@guardian.co.uk

Alan Rusbridger, Editor
alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Georgina Henry, Deputy editor
ghenry@guardian.co.uk

Paul Johnson, Deputy editor, News
paul.johnson@guardian.co.uk

Claire Armitstead, Literary editor
claire.armistead@guardian.co.uk

Ian Black, European editor
ian.black@guardian.co.uk

Madeleine Bunting, Leader writer
madeleine.bunting@guardian.co.uk

John Carvel, Social affairs editor
j.carvel@guardian.co.uk

Larry Elliott, Economics editor
larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk

Jonathan Freedland, Policy editor
j.freedland@guardian.co.uk

David Gow, Industrial editor
david.gow@guardian.co.uk

Ian Katz, Features editor
i.katz@guardian.co.uk

Ewen Macaskill, Diplomatic editor
e.macaskill@guardian.co.uk

Ian Mayes, Readers' editor
reader@guardian.co.uk

Richard Norton-Taylor, Security editor
r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk

Tim Radford, Science editor
t.radford@guardian.co.uk

Michael White, Political editor
michael.white@guardian.co.uk

Will Woodward, Education editor
w.woodward@guardian.co.uk

David Aaronovitch, Columnist
david.aaronovitch@guardian.co.uk

THE OBSERVER
5th Floor
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER Tel 020 7713 4656 Mon-Fri or fax 020 7713 4279?

The Observer's letters page http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/
e-mail: letters@observer.co.uk Make 'Letter to the Editor' your subject line

For specific complaints about articles contact the Observer's Readers' Editor: Stephen Pritchard e-mail: reader@observer.co.uk
www.observer.co.uk/readerseditor Tel: 020 7713 4656

Write to: Readers' Editor
The Observer
3-7 Herbal Hill
London EC1R 3EJ

Staff writers

Roger Alton, Editor
roger.alton@observer.co.uk

Peter Beaumont, Foreign affairs editor
peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk

Robert McCrum, Literary editor
robert.mccrum@observer.co.uk

Andrew Rawnsley, Associate politics editor
a.rawnsley@observer.co.uk

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
1 Virgina St
London E1

New Statesman
52 Grosvenor Gardens ( 3rd floor )
London SW1W 0AU, UK Tel 020 7881 5663
www.newstatesman.com

Email: kathryn@newstatesman.co.uk Online Manager Kathryn Corrick

TELEVISION

BBC 1 NEWS & CURRENT AFFAIRS
You can write personally to all BBC presenters care of Artists’ Mail
(Name of Celebrity)
(Name of Programme)
Artists’ Mail
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ

General complaints to the BBC can be submitted via:
BBC Programme Complaints Unit: www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Fraser Steel, Head of the BBC Programme Complaints Unit
fraser.steel.01@bbc.co.uk

You can write with your comments on any programme shown on any BBC TV channel or about anything the BBC does to:

BBC Information
PO Box 1922
Glasgow
G2 3WT
Tel: 0870 010 0222
Minicom: 0870 010 0212
Ceefax: Page 695
Web: www.bbc.co.uk/info
(you can submit comments online via their comments form)

You can also send your comments to the BBC's Points of View
Email: pov@bbc.co.uk or post your comment on their message board.

If you've a serious complaint to make like an invasion of privacy, inaccuracy of injustice then contact the BBC's Programmes Complaints Unit. You have to put it in writing and send it to:

Fraser Steel
Broadcasting House
London
W1A 1AA

The BBC publishes a monthly summary report of viewers' comments and complaints.

Staff:

Helen Boaden, Director of BBC news helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Peter Horrocks, Head of BBC TV News peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk

Richard Sambrook, Director of the World Service and Global News
richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk

Andrew Marr, Political Editor
andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk

Malcolm Balen, Senior Editorial Adviser
(Middle East)
malcolm.balen@bbc.co.uk

Kevin Bakhurst, Editor, Ten O'Clock News, BBC1
kevin.bakhurst@bbc.co.uk

Mark Popescu, Editor, BBC News 24
mark.popescu@bbc.co.uk

Peter Barron, Editor, Newsnight, BBC 2
peter.barron@bbc.co.uk

Pete Clifton, Editor, News Online
pete.clifton@bbc.co.uk

James Reynolds, Correspondent
james.reynolds@bbc.co.uk

John Sweeney, Correspondent
john.sweeney@bbc.co.uk

Mike Wooldridge, World Affairs Correspondent
mike.wooldridge@bbc.co.uk

PANORAMA
BBC Panorama
Room 1118,
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS Tel 0208 752 7017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

Editor: Mike Robinson
Deputy Editors: Andrew Bell and Frank Simmonds

e-mail: panorama@bbc.co.uk

To make a comment about a specific programme, visit the web site and select the viewer comments form or e-mail direct.

NEWSNIGHT
BBC Newsnight
Room G680
Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

Visit web site to email comment

THE POLITICS SHOW BBC 1 Sunday at 12 midday
4 Millbank
London SW1P 3JQ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/2698553.stm

e-mail: politicsshow@bbc.co.uk
Also see e-mail comment form at bottom of Politics Show web page.

When on air, you can text on 07786 20 20 03 (text messages are at your standard rate)

BREAKFAST ON BBC1
Breakfast
Room 1605, News Centre
BBC Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ 08707 878787 7.30am to midnight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/default.stm

e-mail breakfasttv@bbc.co.uk
Forward Planning team:breakfastplanning@bbc.co.uk

Contact us page for e-mail http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/1818774.stm

When on air, you can text on 07736 100 100.

BBC 1 TEN O’CLOCK NEWS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/ten/default.stm
Kevin Bakhurst, Editor, Ten O'Clock News, BBC1
kevin.bakhurst@bbc.co.uk

Contact us page for e-mail
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/ten/2655215.stm

ITV

For general enquiries contact the ITV Duty Office between 9.30am to 6.00pm, Mon-Fri at:
ITV Network Centre
200 Gray's Inn Road
London WC1X 8HF
Tel: 020 7843 8215 / 8320 / 8321
Fax: 020 7843 8158
Web: www.itv.co.uk

Alternatively, contact your local ITV company. For contact details go to the ITV website at www.itv.co.uk and click on the 'Regions'

ITN

David Mannion, Editor, ITV News & ITV News Channel
david.mannion@itn.co.uk

Jonathan Munro, Head of news gathering
jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk

Jim Gray, Editor, Channel 4 News
jim.gray@itn.co.uk

Jon Snow, Presenter, Channel 4 News
jon.snow@itn.co.uk

John Irvine, Asia correspondent
john.irvine@itn.co.uk

Robert Moore, Washington Correspondent
robert.moore@itn.co.uk

Bill Neely, International news editor
bill.neely@itn.co.uk

CHANNEL FOUR (NEWS)
200 Grays Inn Rd
London WC1 8XZ 0207 833 3000
http://www.channel4.com/

Have Your Say:

e-mail form at:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/T/thinktv/form.html

webcam form at:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/T/thinktv/haveyoursay.html

CHANNEL FOUR TV (PROGRAMMES)

You can write with your comments on any programme shown on any Channel 4 channel or about anything that Channel 4 does by contacting Viewers Enquiries at:

Channel 4 Television
124 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2TX
el: 020 7306 8333
Fax: 020 7306 8347
Web: www.channel4.com

They are open 24 hours a day, staffed from 9am - 9pm weekdays. 10am - 9pm Saturdays and 10am - 6pm on Sundays. Outside these hours, you can leave your message on Channel 4's answerphone.

CHANNEL FIVE TV
22 Long Acre
London WC2 Tel 0845 7050505

Duty Office 9.00am — 9.00pm, Mon-Fri and 10.30am — 7.00pm at weekends:
Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd
22 Long Acre
London WC2E 9LY Tel: 0845 705 0505
Web: www.channel5.co.uk and click on '5 info'.

BSkyB

If you want to make a comment or complaint on anything by BSkyB then contact:
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc
6 Centaurs Business Park
Grant Way Isleworth
Middlesex TW7 5QD Tel: 0870 240 3000
Web: www.sky.com

e-mail: via feedback form

OFCOM

If you're not satisfied with complaining to the broadcaster, then try the regulator. Ofcom which handles complaints about programmes on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and digital, satellite and cable TV. Contact:

Ofcom Contact Centre
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA
Tel: 020 7981 3040
or 0845 456 3000
Web: www.ofcom.org.uk

The ITC publishes monthly bulletins of viewers Programme and Advertising and complaints and their adjudications at: www.ofcom.org.uk and click on 'find a document'

RADIO

BBC RADIO
Portland Place
London W1A 1AA

TODAY BBC R4

John Humphrys, Presenter, Today Programme, Radio 4
john.Humphrys@bbc.co.uk

Sarah Montague, Presenter, Today Programme, Radio 4
sarah.montague@bbc.co.uk

James Naughtie, Presenter, Today Programme, Radio 4
james.naughtie@bbc.co.uk

PM Letters
BBC News Centre
London W12 3RJ

Letter line: pm@bbc.co.uk

LBC (London News Radio)
200 Grays Inn Rd
London WC1 8XZ

Phone In number: 0207 412 1152

CAPITAL RADIO
30 Leicester Square
London WC2 0207 833 3000
BBC

WEB SITES

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

http.indymedia

http://medialens

http://writetothem.com

GENERAL

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_watson_012703_hamas.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm

ISSUES

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

http://911review.com/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk British truth campaign

http://cryptome.org/shayler-gaddafi.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/israel_to_kill_on_us_allies_soil.htm

http://houseofbush.com/index.php

Dissident's Lament

2005-09-05T15:29:00.000+01:00

END OF HISTORY
Having decided to quit “fighting against” in favour of “building for” a better tomorrow - came the 7/7 bombings - then PM Blair’s statements that it is our British way of life, our values, that have so inflamed deranged religious fanatics into attacking our society. Nothing more, history has played no part according to PM Blair.

WAR IS PEACE
I’m a white middle age/class Englishman, unclear about “our values”. However, supporting right wing religious extremists in N America and the invasion of resource rich regions to exploit finite oil reserves for profligate waste and thus creation of global warming doesn’t fit with my values. I see Blair as Emperor with no clothes. All around are the myopic fawners, the ever so moral and superior commentators and observers who fear to criticise for their own self interest. War is peace? and black is white?

WESTERN FREEDOMS
The message on some streets and in many academic circles is that there is a very different reality and it does involve history. The “Arab Street” is calling for justice and an end to Western interference. Contrary to what PM Blair spins, Bin Laden states that Muslim outrage is about western policies that impinge on the lives of Muslims. Bin Laden says if it were just “ western freedoms” then “why don’t we strike Sweden” ?

DISSIDENTS SYNONYMOUS
I am now adding my bit to the muffled voices calling, in effect, for a Truth Commission on Grand Britannia for our meddling and intrigue in the Middle East, now and in the distant past. I know “collectively we are stronger” but I’m beaten by “democratic” committee structures of protest, where many seem to seek the issues that divide rather than unite. A Monty Python “Life of Brian” scenario. Happily the internet now offers a compromise. It enhances the possibilities for co-operation on specific issues where we can dissent individually as part of a collective effort - and no meetings.

COMMUNICATE
My hope is that in following some of the links you maybe be inspired to join the growing numbers of souls with conscience that want to scream out “NOT IN MY NAME”. With an issue in mind you can either communicate with elected power or media power or other contacts of influence. See Links. It may not be revolution tomorrow but we know the world does not have to be like this. They say “It is necessary only for the good to do nothing for evil to triumph”. Adding your voice to those seeking change increases the weight of opposition by one. When one and one make a million we’ll see that day come round. This is my contribution.

Spark: glowing or glittering particle, active & vivid -
ready to cause explosion yet easily extinguished.
Communications: imparting, conveying.

I’ll try to be a useful messenger.

Yours in peace

John Yates Sept 5th 2005

Unreported World View

2000-06-27T19:48:00.000+01:00

HOME

By doubting we come to inquiry;
through inquiry we perceive truth ... Peter Abelard

It is said that knowledge is power. Sharing that knowledge, once one has decided what is relevant, has to be the first step towards righting wrongs revealed by inquiry. I’m committed to work at that basic level, on issues from money, 911, peak oil, climate change, oligarchy to Colombia, Lebanon, Iraq etc. etc. believing all issues to be inter linked and resolvable once a critical mass of humanity recognises that only a few people run this planet and they do so for their own self interest, primarily to remain in power.

The June G8 Campaigners said “Another World is Possible”. I agree but would add that this one is changing fast and “Another World” could be as predicted by the multitude of “prophets of doom”.

If you stick with the UnreportedWorld screenings you should find yourself questioning orthodox history and maybe much more. There are some very interesting documentaries “out there” presenting challenging views on what’s happening in our world and why. I’m keen to hear what people think about the issues exposed. After screenings I will endeavour to allow space for everyone to have a say no matter how quiet or reflective they wish to be. It’s not obligatory to “have the answer”. Personally, I’ve no axe to grind or political affiliation to proselytise, just snatches of illuminating digital information that might spark a thought to find out more i.e. the films I show, plus an interest in how our society is evolving i.e. the feed back I get from you.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace ... Jimi Hendrix