This is the 1000th post on deLiberation. It has been eight and a half months since deLiberation first stumbled to its faltering feet on the 1st January 2012. Since that time we have grown and grown.
We now have 64 authors, 319 subscribers, 17 Contributors, & 3 editors. We would like to send out a big thanks to everyone who has helped and supported us through this time. But as well as 1000 posts we have had 13,562 comments (as of date of this article). That for me is one of the things that makes deLiberation distinct from other news sites - our feedback and the community of readers that frequent deLiberation. We salute you all.
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be critical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.
(Found in Old Saint Paul’s Church, Baltimore; dated 1692)
And now one from me yout.
Lee Perry – I Am A Madman – (Battle Of Armagideon)
Open letter to the IAF pilots chosen to strike Iran urges them to refuse order
Along the Narrow Path delimited in our times by file transfer protocols and similar informatics’ terms, one may find unlikely allies from time to time, even among Israel’s secular left wing and IDF generals. Two days ago, I published Will the IDF Attack Iran Following an Order from Netanyahu? and met some skepticism from the international community. After all, the idea of IDF soldiers refusing orders looks preposterous from outside; from inside it is as trivial as a morning cup of black coffee in an IDF bunker. It is as petty a topic as the amount of sugar added to that coffee; simply, senior officers often compromise with the “refuseniks” so that the shame won’t be published.
On August 17, 2012, Israeli Channel Seven published that what it called “people from the left wing” (this channel practically belongs to extremist West Bank settlers) sent an open letter to the IAF reserve pilots chosen to strike Iran, urging them to refuse the order. This is not so far from the more probable refusal scenario I had described the day before. Subsequently, Channel Seven expanded on the issue of the war with Iran in an interview with Brigadier General (reserve) Amatzia Hen, who after saying that the abovementioned “people from the left wing” aim to destroy democracy, dropped a bombshell in the already badly battered Israel. His message was simple: the IDF Home Front Command is not prepared for such a war; Israel will be badly hit.
The timing of the interview was not random. Following the recent upheavals in Netanyahu’s government, the Home Front Minister was replaced. Matan Vilnai is out, Avi Dichter is in. The latter is a former Shin Beth Chief turned Knesset Member for Kadima; he is best known for his attempt to legislate the racist Israel and the Jewish Fatherland Law. The interview cannot be considered as a free one. IDF officers must get an approval for such an event; in such sensitive cases, the approval must be given by the Minister of Defense himself. It is unlikely that Ehud Barak would have given such an approval without asking what the general was planning to say on the issue of a war with Iran. Similarly, it is unlikely that the general would utter an opinion contrary to the one of his boss without getting previous approval from Barak. In other words, the army made its position public, explaining to the new minister what it is expected from him. The message was intriguing.
General Hen claimed that nothing has been done to fix the coordination problems found in the Home Front Ministry during the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the 2009 Cast Lead Operation in Gaza. In both occasions severe problems were detected; most of them were related to communications. Different parts of this large body spoke different operational languages. Police and firefighters cannot properly communicate among them; the same is true for communications among these and the different military involved in the ministry’s activities. He claimed this was the main lesson learned by the Americans in Vietnam; and that the successful results of this army in Iraq were the result of the implementation of a coordinating body led by a general. In the interview, the general called for the creation of a parallel body in the IDF, and actually issued a warning to the new minister, claiming that he will be the main culprit of a future committee set up to investigate Israel’s failure in an upcoming war with Iran. This is a quite strong statement. He strengthened it by bringing out the most recent failure of the Home Front Command, the 2010 Carmel Fire (see satellite picture above).
On December 2, 2010, a forest fire begun on Mount Carmel, which is partially occupied by the City of Haifa in Northern Israel. It burned for four days, and cost the lives of 44 people, most of them Israel Prison Service’s officer cadets, who had attempted to approach the nearby Damun Prison in order to evacuate the prisoners. Many buildings were destroyed and extensive parts of Mount Carmel were on fire. The event is defined as the country’s deadliest single peacetime event. It is notorious for another fact: Israel couldn’t deal with it.
The Israel Fire and Rescue Services, volunteer firefighters, Israel Police, and the IDF all worked to extinguish the fire, to no avail. The fire was contained only after Greece, Cyprus and Turkey sent firefighting aircraft. The situation was so dire, that Netanyahu asked (and got) help from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Norway, and Russia; however their equipment arrived after the event was over. Other countries also offered help. It was a single fire, which didn’t hit any industrial, commercial, or residential center, and Israel couldn’t deal with it. General Hen said that this colossal failure proves that nothing has been learned from previous failures of the Home Front Command and that in the case of a war with Iran, a disaster awaits Israel. Imagine the mayhem if all the industrial areas of the county would be set ablaze! In an earlier interview, Matan Vilani, the leaving Home Front Minister, had already warned that the war with Iran will have many fronts.
Brigadier General Hen is not very young, as a reserve officer with such a high rank he must be close to retirement age. We can safely assume that he is neither innocent nor a lamb. He sent a very specific message not only to the new minister, but also to the people as well. After all, Channel Seven lacks the coziness of an IDF bunker; everybody listens to them. The message he sent was clear: a war with Iran will cost dear. Coming from a general this fortifies the evaluation made in Will the IDF Attack Iran Following an Order from Netanyahu?; the loyalty of the IDF may not be given automatically to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Under the current geopolitical circumstances, this may be Israel’s only chance to survive.
The slow formation of an international order
- Maximilien de Béthune, Duke of Sully (1559-1641)
The negotiations lasted four years (1644-1648). Ultimately, they enshrined the principle of equality in negotiations between all parties in conflict, whether Catholic or Protestant, republican or monarchical.
The Treaty of Westphalia laid down four fundamental principles:
1. The absolute sovereignty of the nation-state, and the fundamental right to political self-determination.
2. Legal equality between nation-states. The smallest state is, therefore, equal to the largest, regardless of its weakness or its strength, its wealth or poverty.
3. Compliance with treaties, and the emergence of binding international law.
4. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.
Certainly these general principles do not determine an absolute sovereignty, but there never was such a thing. However they did delegitimize any action likely to abolish the sovereignty of a state.
Political philosophers have all supported these projects. Rousseau strongly called for the constitution of a single state contract involving all European countries. Kant published Towards Perpetual Peace in 1875. For him, peace was a legal construct that required the codification of a general law applicable to all States. Bentham, the English utilitarian, stigmatized secret diplomacy in that it placed itself above the law. He also called for creating an international public opinion able to force governments to comply with international resolutions and submit to arbitration.
The creation of international regulatory institutions
It was with this objective in mind that the League of Nations (LoN) was founded after the First World War. It emerged as a mere manifestation of the dominant power relations serving the victors. Its moral values were relative. Thus, despite its stated goal of resolving disputes between nations by arbitration rather than war, it declared itself competent to supervise underdeveloped peoples or politically, economically or administratively colonized peoples pending their own self-determination. This naturally led to the legitimization of mandates. In assuming this position, the League of Nations embodied the colonial reality.The artificiality of this organization was revealed when it found itself unable to cope with serious international events like the conquest of Manchuria by Japan, that of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and the annexation of Corfu (Greece) by Italy, etc..
The ideology of globalization was thus embodied in the UN which, upon its creation, claimed to establish a system of collective security for all, including States that were not members. In reality, the UN isn’t any more a contractual society of equals than the League was, but rather a reflection of momentary power relations in favour of the victors of the day.
That said, the whole world bowed to the will of the UN.
- The United Nations Security Council
This structuring of roles was evident in the functioning of the UN whether with respect to applications for membership or for the treatment of conflicts, as was seen with regard to Palestine, Korea, the nationalization of Iranian oil, the Suez Canal crisis, the Israeli occupation, Lebanon etc..
The UN was created by proclaiming “faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, to create the necessary conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”. However, the veto system has deprived other nations of the right to be involved equally.
Ultimately, international institutions have always shown the balance of power far from any idea of justice in the philosophical or moral senses.
The Security Council is a global directory (a continuation of the one installed by Metternich). It reserves the ability to impose resolutions only by the Allied victors of World War II, not by those who seek peace.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was crucial to change the international system.
The reshaping of international relations by the U.S.
- Tony Blair sets out his doctrine (Chicago, April 22, 1999)
The notion of resistance, after the French Resistance to Nazi occupation, was de-legitimized in favour of a requirement for conflict resolution through negotiation, independently of the inalienable rights of the parties. Similarly, the concept of terrorism – never defined in international law – was used to de-legitimize any armed group in conflict with a State, whatever the causes of this conflict.
Repealing the laws of war, Washington has revived the days of “targeted assassinations” abandoned after the Vietnam war and practiced by Israel for over a decade. According to their lawyers, these are not strictly speaking “assassinations”, but “murders in self-defence”, even though there is no need to protect oneself, nor any relation between the threat and the reaction, nor proportionality in the response.
Humanitarian intervention, or responsibility to protect, has been placed above the sovereignty of states.
Finally, the notion of rogue states has emerged.
They do not respect international law and constitute a permanent threat to their neighbours.
They support terrorism.
They hate the United States and its democratic principles.A decade after the disappearance of the USSR, the U.S. launched its remodelling of international relations. Concerning the Middle East, the neoconservative philosopher Bernard Lewis and his disciple, Fouad Ajami, set out the main objectives: to put an end to Arab nationalism by striking at the tyrannical regimes that have cemented their tribal, sectarian, and religious mosaics.
The destruction and dismemberment of the states of this region would lead to “constructive chaos”, an uncontrollable situation in which any social cohesion dissolves and where man is returned to the brute state. These societies then return to a pre-national, or even pre-historical condition from which spring ethnically homogeneous microstates that are, by necessity, dependent on the United States. A leading Straussian, Richard Perle, assured that the wars in Iraq and Lebanon would be followed by others in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and would culminate triumphantly in Egypt.
3. In the period from 2006 to today, the unipolar system has given way to a non-polar world. Power is widely dispersed. China, EU, India, Russia and the United States alone account for over half of the inhabitants of the world, they hold 75% of global GDP and account for 80% of world military spending. This fact justifies to some extent a multipolar functioning because of persistent competition between these poles.
Two basic mechanisms have supported the non-polar world:
A number of financial flows have found their way outside legal channels and without the knowledge of governments. This suggests that globalization weakens the influence of major powers.
These flows have been widely used by the oil states to secretly fund non-state actors.
Therefore, in a non-polar world, being the strongest state in the world does not guarantee the monopoly of force. All kinds of groups or individuals can accumulate influence.
According to Professor Hedley Bull, international relations have always been a mixture of order and chaos. According to his theory, the non-polar system left to itself becomes more complex. And that’s what has happened.
In 2011, the exacerbation of tensions over Libya showed that the non-polar system was no longer viable. Two competing orientations have emerged.
The first is US centred. It aims to build a new world order corresponding to Washington’s strategy. It involves the abolition of state sovereignty as established since the Peace of Westphalia and its replacement by foreign interference rhetorically justified as humanitarian intervention, in reality a Trojan horse for the “American Way of Life”.
Clearly, control of resources, including renewable energy, is the ideal gateway to the creation of a new system, whose emergence has been blocked since 1991.It is also clear that control of gas and transportation routes is at the centre of the conflict over Syria. Undoubtedly, the polarization of the powers on this topic goes beyond internal causes, and surpasses the issue of access to warm waters, or the logistical interests of the Russian naval base in Tartus.
The energy imperative
For Cheney, energy demand is growing faster than supply, which ultimately leads to a shortage. Maintaining U.S. dominance thus depends primarily on control of the remaining reserves of oil and gas. In addition, more generally, if current international relations are structured by the geopolitics of oil, it is the supply of a state that determines its rise or his fall. Hence his four-point plan: Encourage, whatever the cost, any local production by vassals in order to reduce the dependency of the United States vis-à-vis unfriendly suppliers and increase Washington’s freedom of action.
Control oil exports from the Arab Gulf states, not to monopolize them, but to use them as leverage against both clients and other suppliers.
Control shipping lanes in Asia, that is to say, the supply lines of China and Japan not only in oil but also in raw materials.
Encourage the diversification of energy sources used in Europe in order to reduce European dependence vis-à-vis Russian gas and the political influence thereby derived by Moscow.
The implementation of these traditional geopolitical goals has led the U.S. to strengthen its naval presence in the Asia-Pacific, and to enter into a network of military alliances with Japan, India and Australia; always with a view to containing China.
Washington has always regarded Russia as a geopolitical competitor. The US exploited every opportunity to reduce Moscow’s power and influence. It particularly feared the increasing dependence of Western Europe on Russian natural gas, which could affect its ability to oppose movements in Eastern Europe and Russia in the Caucasus.
To offer an alternative, Washington has pushed the Europeans to source in the basin of the Caspian Sea by building new pipelines through Georgia and Turkey. The idea was to bypass Russia, with the help of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, thus avoiding the use of Gazprom pipelines. Hence the idea of Nabucco.
To enhance the energy independence of his country, Barack Obama has suddenly turned into a nationalist autarkist. He has encouraged the exploitation of oil and gas in the western hemisphere, regardless of the dangers of drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the coast of Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, and regardless of techniques used, such as hydraulic fracking.
In March 2011, Washington increased its imports from Brazil to wean itself off oil from the Middle East.
In fact, Washington has continued to ensure U.S. control of vital sea lanes that extend from the Straits of Hormuz to the South China Sea and has built a network of bases and alliances that encircle China-the emerging global power-in the form of an arc stretching from Japan to South Korea, Australia, Vietnam and the Philippines in the South East, then India, in the Southwest. All this is crowned by an agreement with Australia to build a military facility in Darwin on the north coast near the South China Sea.
Washington is trying to include India in a coalition of regional countries hostile to China to wrest New Delhi from the grasp of BRICS, a strategy of encircling China which is of very serious concern in Beijing.
Regarding the Mediterranean, the essential is found in Syria. The deposit discovered at Qara may reach 400,000 cubic meters per day, which will make the country the fourth largest producer in the region, after Iran, Iraq and Qatar.The transportation of gas from the Zagros Belt (Iran) to Europe must pass through Iraq and Syria. This has completely upset American projects and has consolidated Russian projects (Nord Stream and South Stream). Syrian gas has escaped Washington which must now fall back on Lebanese gas.The war goes on …
I have been following the Pussy riot story for some time and have done some digging. Its is pretty clear that America is sponsoring a myriad of organizations via NGO’s to try to undermine and destabilise Russia.
Specifically GOLOS, which in turn funds numerous organisations within Russia including Pussy Riot. In my article Russian Spring cancelled NYET to NGO’s I examined new legislation that Russia has just introduced to curb the influence of foreign NGO’s in Russia.
My observations seem to indicate to me that by using LGBT and Feminist groups they (USA & co) are seeking to sow dissent internally and externally against Russia. Already this week we have seen Madonna take up the “Pussy Riot case” and try to imply that it is somehow a human rights issue….
Great post I’m copying and pasting from a commenter at WSJ discussion board. Pretty much lays out what this group is all about. Connected to Soros.
by Thomas Webb
1. They were masked when they invaded the church, with bare arms because they knew the church prohibits that in its buildings, they lifted their legs as in a sexual act, etc. Does ANYONE here know what they were, ahem, “protesting” in the church? Here is the text they read:
Holy s**t, s**t, Lord’s s**t!
Holy s**t, s**t, Lord’s s**t!
St. Maria, Virgin, become a feminist…
Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
B*tch, you better believe in God
So much for the lies about them “pleading to the Virgin Mary” etc.
They insulted and offended churchgoers this way, so they broke the law against hooliganism. The same kind of laws exist in all countries, and most U.S. states. In Britain, if you insult someone’s religious belief or race, you go to jail. Same kind of law. (In Britain the max penalty is 14 years, in Russia only five.) It would be illegal in France, in Poland, in Germany, in most of the United States, etc.
What if skinheads occupied a synagogue in the U.S. and shouted the same kind of insults, but against Judaism? What would the media say?
2. Pu**y Riot is not a “band” as Western media call it. It is a left-wing extremist group. They have held no concerts or recordings, they have never written a song. But yes, beginning in November 2011 they have included some “music” in their defacings and attacks, so thus they are called a “band”.
Tolokonnikova, one of the women, has written a manifesto where she praises Karl Marx, Feuerbach, and various communists.
“Pu**y Riot” is an outgrowth from the organization “Voina”, which means War in Russian. They have open connections to the U.S. government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy. For example, Oksana Chelysheva, one of the leaders, is also “Deputy Executive Director” of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, a strange pro-extremist outfit which is funded by the NED. Chelysheva also has other extensive US government ties through her leadership roles in other NED and George Soros-funded outfits like the Finnish-Russian Civic Forum and the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum.
3. They openly admit that their acts are criminal. For example, aside from the “Holy s**t, s**t” masked shouting in the church, Voina/Pu**y Riot have also done the following:
–Attacked “capitalist” McDonald’s staff by throwing live cats at them. An attack against innocent people, but also an act of animal cruelty.
–Overturned police cars, once with a police officer inside
–Stolen a frozen chicken in a store and, in the store, inserted it in the vagina of one of the group’s members
–Firebombed property with petrol bombs
–Staged full penetration sex at a museum
[link to plucer.livejournal.com]
–Staged a hanging of an immigrant and a homosexual in a supermarket
–Publicly spilled large living cockroaches on the stomach of a pregnant member of the group (Tolokonnikova again)
They have therefore violated public decency laws many times. Russian authorities have been far more tolerant with this left-wing extremist groups’ crimes than most Western countries would have been.
Note: the Cathedral was destroyed by the Soviet communists in 1931. It was rebuilt in 1991 through private donations from millions of Russian Orthodox believers, at a time of extreme poverty. These Orthodox believers had been persecuted for decades by the Pu**y Riot org’s ideological brethren. Thousands of priests had been killed. Believers were harrassed for generations. The rebuilt Cathedral therefore has immense value, and it was this value the “Pu**y Riot” group wanted to attack.
Following these events, al-Nahda once again ignored the grievances of those protesting, this time claiming that rival party Nidaa Tunis was behind the protests. Indeed, a spokesperson from the ruling Islamist movement went so far as to claim that Nidaa Tunis, created in June of this year by former interim prime minister Beji Essebsi, represented the political arm of Ben Ali’s defunct Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) party and that they had “proof that some figures within the region known to be close to Nidaa Tunis sided with criminals, thieves and alcohol vendors to spread anarchy in Sidi Bouzid”. Despite President Moncef Marzouki’s efforts to quell the the growing tension in the region, the general strike went ahead on Tuesday with over 1,000 protesters assembling outside the court house.
“People in public life are not always as clear as they should be about where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie.” – Nolan Committee
“Who will own Mitt Romney if he is elected?” asks Philip Giraldi (‘Foreign money for Mitt?’ ) after Romney’s trip to Israel to raise campaign funds. The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1966, he explains, prohibits the involvement of foreigners in funding election campaigns.
Another question is this: how do politicians think they can get away with it? Does fighting an election with foreign cash never strike them as dangerous, utterly immoral and downright wrong?
So what to do? The solution is actually very simple and, as it happens, ready-made. You introduce easy-to-remember ground rules, assuming you can find a government honest enough and courageous enough to implement and enforce them.
You don’t even have to invent them. A suitable set of rules already exists. It’s called the Seven Principles of Public Life.
Back in 1994, after the British government was rocked by the “cash for questions” scandal and rising anger among the public about the conduct of some politicians, the then prime minister John Major set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life headed by a judge, Lord Nolan.
People in public life are not always as clear as they should be about where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. This we regard as the principal reason for public disquiet. It calls for urgent remedial action,”
said the Nolan Committee. What they produced was a set of ground rules that even the dumbest politicians could understand – The Seven Principles of Public Life…
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
These easy-to-remember principles apply to all aspects of public life and to all who serve the public in any way, in any country.
They underpin our MPs’ Code of Conduct, which states that in carrying out their parliamentary and public duties Members are expected to observe those Seven Principles and they will be taken into account when investigating any allegations of breaches of the Code.
Members are also required to
base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.”
No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House, and the acceptance of a bribe, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any business of the House is contrary to the law of Parliament.
Furthermore, Members must “conscientiously” register their interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Seven Principles neatly represent people’s expectations of the way their public servants should behave. Sadly the reality is still very different, mainly because they are not enforced.
The Standards Committee’s remit does not include investigating individual allegations of misconduct. And the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is supposed to investigates allegations against individual MPs but only seems interested in expenses-fiddling,
So nothing much has changed. MPs are still at liberty to act in the interest of a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, and to let foreign influence cloud their judgement, even though such conduct is clearly at odds with the second Principle, namely Integrity.
The various Friends of Israel organisations still flourish at the heart of government, waving the flag of the Zionist regime and going to great lengths to influence those in power at Westminster, even flying them to Israel to have their heads filled with Zionist propaganda. A good many, it seems, reach positions of power with FoI help, and it is said that membership is an essential stepping stone to promotion. 80 percent of the Conservative MPs are believed to be signed-up members, and the Conservative Friends of Israel has become the largest affiliated group in the party.
Senior Conservatives try to justify this un-British state of affairs by insisting that Israel is
a force for good in the world”
in the battle for the values that we stand for – for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.
Of course, the British people should not have to tolerate dual allegiance in their Parliament and Government, since it obviously puts national security at risk.
Mitt Romney and many others in Congress would have their work cut out trying to comply with these simple and obvious rules.
Over here, we are asking the same questions as Philip Giraldi. Who owns prime minister David Cameron, a self-proclaimed Zionist who has pledged undying support – in OUR name – for the toxic state of Israel?
Who owns foreign secretary William Hague, who rattles his sabre at Iran at every opportunity and loves ratcheting up sanctions designed to cripple Iran’ economy and impoverish its people, and who has been a loyal Friend of Israel since his schooldays?
And why aren’t the Seven Principles, especially numbers Two and Seven, rigorously enforced?
Answers on a postcard please…
17 August 2012
Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk.