Netanyahu’s government have been telling Israelis they’ll never give Palestinians their own state – and taking the world for mugs

You know how the Israeli government is meant to be in favour of allowing a Palestinian state? Read the quotes below and you’ll see that Netanyahu and every minister in his government have been saying the opposite to Israelis for years and taking the whole world for mugs.

(credit for finding all quotes except the first two goes to Rashid M, who quoted them in comments on this ABC news article)

'The uncertainties were swept aside on Friday afternoon, when the prime minister, for the first time in ages, gave a press conference on Day Four of Operation Protective Edge. He spoke only in Hebrew...He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank…The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Daniel Horovitz, Times of Israel 13^th July 2014 quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s press conference of 11^th July, which was conducted entirely in Hebrew
http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/

(Note that Netanyahu and most of his Likud party opposed removing the Israeli settlements from Gaza. Judea and Samaria is the biblical name used by all Israeli governments for the West Bank)

“I think we made a mistake with land for peace…The conflict is not about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s about the existence of a Jewish national home.”
Moshe Ya’alon, Israeli Defense Minister, 10^th June 2014
http://forward.com/articles/199771/israel-defense-minister-moshe-yaalon-says-no-land/

“I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel.” - Naftali Bennett, Israel's Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, January 2013.

“In this way, we will try, slowly but surely, to expand the circle of settlements, and to afterwards extend the roads that lead to them, and so forth. At the end of this process, the facts on the ground will be that whatever remains [of the occupied West Bank] will be merely marginal appendages…” - Yariv Levin, Coalition Chairman in the Knesset for Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud Party, January 2013.

"One thing must be clear: A Palestinian state is not the solution. The state of Israel made a harsh mistake when it created the impression that it is prepared to accept two states for two nations. ”- Uzi Landau, Israeli Minister for Tourism, May 2013.

“This is our land, and it’s our right to apply sovereignty over it. Regardless of the world’s opposition, it’s time to do in Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank] what we did in [occupied East] Jerusalem and the Golan.” - Ze'ev Elkin, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, July 2012.

“We are opposed to a Palestinian state... [Netanyahu's declaration of support for a Palestinian state at Bar-Ilan University was] a tactical speech for the rest of the world. ” - Tzipi Hotovely, Deputy Minister of Transportation, December 2012.

“The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. We oppose a two-state solution.” - Avi Wortzman, Deputy Minister of Education, February 2013.

“All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’. It is enough that we are hitting
exact targets and that we gave them advance warning. Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.” – Op-Ed by Moshe Feiglin, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party, July 15 2014.

How is this any different from Hamas spokespeople who repeatedly tell foreign journalists and politicians that they back a two state solution, while telling their own people that they will never give up an inch of the former Mandate of Palestine?

There is one way it’s different. Hamas don’t have even 1% of the military power to destroy Israel, but Israel has more than enough military power to make every Palestinian they don’t kill into a stateless refugee.

The  blockade on Gaza and refusal to negotiate with the entire elected Palestinian government – Hamas and Fatah – are about creating a never ending war with Hamas to distract the world’s attention from the fact that Israel doesn’t intend to ever give up an inch of the West Bank, ever allow Palestinians the same rights Israelis have.

How can any politician believe any longer that the Israeli government has any moral superiority over Palestinian groups’ leaders? Every government should be demanding that Israel provides Palestinians with either their own sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza, or else provides all Palestinians with full and equal citizenship in a single binational Jewish and Arab state.

 

There are neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s new government. It’s not representative of the whole country – and it should accept autonomy for Crimea and pledge not to join the EU or NATO to avoid civil war or war with Russia

Summary: Putin’s talk of Ukraine’s transitional government as being entirely made up of neo-nazis who target Russians is an exaggeration, but there’s some truth in it. Ukraine’s new government includes neo-nazis of the Svoboda party and is not representative of the whole country.

EU sanctions are impossible as the EU relies on Russia for gas imports. Arming and funding western Ukrainian groups to fight Russia and its allies would only tip Ukraine into a Bosnian or Chechnyan style civil war. Russia will not back down on this issue as Ukraine was used as a base by its enemies in both World Wars and Chechnya was used as a base by terrorist groups far more recently.

Ukraine’s government should settle for granting Crimea, with its Russian majority, autonomy – and guaranteeing Ukraine will not join the EU or NATO in order to avoid such a war – and the US and EU should encourage them to make these concessions.

Most of the western media talk as though President Putin’s characterisation of the Ukrainian transitional government as neo-nazis who threaten the lives of Russians in Ukraine is purely propaganda.

There is some truth in Putin’s claims though, despite his exaggerations, and despite him being an authoritarian hard line nationalist himself, as well as a frequent propagandist.

The violent neo-Nazis in key posts in the transitional Ukrainian government

Photo: Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Svoboda or 'Freedom' party, gives a Nazi salute

The largest party in the transitional government , the ‘Fatherland’ party, are not neo-nazis, despite their name. However the ‘National Socialist’ Svoboda (‘Freedom’) party, notorious for its anti-semitism and hatred of Russians and other minorities in Ukraine, has four ministries in the transitional government including Defence and Deputy Prime Minister (1) – (5).  

Svoboda also has 37 seats in parliament, which approved the Interim Prime Minister and President (6). It won only 10% of the vote nationally in the last elections, but over 40% in parts of Western Ukraine, with the party with the largest share of the vote in the East being the now overthrown President Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions (7).

Svoboda’s four ministries in the transitional government are clearly representative of its support in western Ukraine and a huge over-representation relative to its support in the country as a whole.

Svoboda members and some of its MPs still publicly celebrate the Ukrainian SS unit recruited by the Nazis during World War Two and the Ukrainian nationalist Stephen Bandera who allied with the Nazis (8) – (9).

The Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmitry Yarosh, former head of the paramilitary Ukrainian nationalist group Right Sector, whose members fought against Russian troops in Chechnya (10).

The opposition majority in the Ukrainian parliament voted after Yanukovych’s overthrow to revoke a law which allowed Ukraine’s regions to use official languages of minorities such as Russians, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Tatar along with the Ukrainian language. Ukrainian was to become the only language which could be given official status (11).

Interim President Arseniy Yatsenyuk reversed this ruling. His party Batkivshchyna, or “Fatherland”, is the largest in the transitional government and parliament and luckily it is not as extreme as its name would suggest. Yatsenyuk is Jewish and comes from a family of mixed Romanian and Ukrainian descent (12) – (14).

Svoboda and other ultra-nationalist protesters included many armed with baseball bats, iron pipes and a few guns who still patrol Kiev. Medieval style trebuchet catapults were also used to fire rocks, bricks and petrol bombs at riot police. The last were mostly reported as being amusing, but would be quite capable of killing (15) – (18).

This violence by ultra-right militias may have led to the use of snipers by the government, if those were government snipers (various unsubstantiated rumours include that they were Russians, mercenaries hired by the opposition, or mercenaries hired by the US), though it certainly didn’t justify it.

Why Ukraine should grant the Crimea autonomy and pledge not to join the EU or NATO – and why the US and EU should not try to persuade them to do otherwise

Photo: Ukrainian Russians in Kiev protest against war over Crimea, one sign calling for Putin to protect her by withdrawing his troops

The transitional government is overwhelmingly made up of parties which want to join the EU. Russian actions in Crimea have been sending a message that, as Russian spokespeople put it, this is a “red line” for Russia.

The Ukraine has a large Russian speaking minority, Russian military bases, is right on the border of Russia, historically a close ally of Russia – and an invasion route for the French in the 19^th century and the Germans in the First and Second World Wars.

More recently secessionist republics trying to leave the Russian federation, including Chechnya, were used as bases by terrorist groups for attacks inside Russia (though Russian military torture and massacres in wars against the secessionists contributed greatly to recruitment by these Islamist groups).

President Putin’s popularity in Russia is based on nationalism , restoring Russia’s pride after the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic collapse under Yeltsin’s experiments in an absolute free market that led to chaos. It’s also based on him being seen as a “strong” leader who will stand up to pressure from the US and its allies.

Putin is certainly no democrat, but its hard to believe that any other Russian government would have reacted any differently to a US backed revolution in one of its closest neighbours and allies which also contains strategically important naval bases. The threat to Russians in Ukraine only adds to this.

 If there had been a Russian backed revolution in Canada or Mexico, in which ultra-nationalists threatened US citizens, the US wouldn’t have responded any differently.

If the Ukrainian transitional government attempts to join the EU the likely result will be either civil war in Ukraine with the Russians and Americans each providing arms and training to their proxies there, or else a Russian invasion to install its own client government and prevent US-backed paramilitaries using it as a base, or both. This would not be good for the people of the Ukraine – not even the ones who survived it.

Nor would risking direct military intervention of the kind advocated by the right in the US be good for anyone. It is not wise to suggest potential escalation to World War Three between two nuclear armed powers.

Sanctions on Russia would have little downside for the US, which could afford to play geopolitics with Russia in this way, but western Europe gets much of its gas for heating and electricity from Russia. Germany, the largest country in the EU, gets 25% of its gas imports from Russia.

While the Ukrainian parliament is elected, the transitional government is not. Only after new elections will there be a fully legitimate government representative of all Ukrainians.

The US government has repeatedly condemned changes to the consitutions of Honduras under Zelaya and Venezuela under Chavez when carried out by democratic referenda and elected constitutional assemblies. This leaves it looking more than a bit hypocritical when condemning the Russian government’s criticism of the transitional Ukrainian government as being in breach of Ukraine’s constitution.

The Russian majority in the Crimea voting by referendum to leave Ukraine would no more be against international law than Kosovo’s Albanian majority voting to leave Yugoslavia by referendum. The US government opposes the first and backed the second purely in order to expand its own influence and reduce Russia’s. It has no democratic principle behind its positions.

Minorities in Crimea justifiably fear repression under a Russian nationalist client regime, but the fears of Russians in Crimea of being ruled over by a government including Svoboda are just as real.

Given the massively greater military power of Russia and Russia’s fear of Ukraine being used as a base for its enemies, as it was in both world wars, the best deal the Ukrainian government is likely to get is to give up the Crimea in return for staying in power itself while agreeing not the join the EU.

(That’s before even taking into account Russian fears of Ukraine being used as a base for terrorist attacks into Russia, as Chechnya was by Islamic militants).

Giving western Ukrainians the false impression that the EU will use economic sanctions on Russia (which Putin might well choose to endure to maintain his strong man image and which would hurt the EU more than Russia) to tip the balance, would be misleading them and doing them no favours.

Ditto for pretending that the US will fight World War Three for them.

Arming and funding groups that include neo-nazis and so reducing their country to a Bosnian or Chechnyan style war in the name of “freedom” would be even worse.

There is no freedom for anyone except the killers in a civil war – and no freedom even when it ends if one side are Russian ultra-nationalist extremists and the other side Ukrainian neo-nazis.

(1) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_Fatherland

(2) = Interfax Ukraine 27 Feb 2014 ‘Ukrainian parliament endorses new cabinet’,
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html

(3) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government#Composition

(4) = Channel 4 News (UK) 05 Mar 2014 ‘How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine's power vacuum’, http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

(5) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

(6) = Reuters 07 Mar 2014 ‘In Ukraine, nationalists gain influence - and scrutiny’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-far-right-insight-idUSBREA2618B20140307?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

(7) = The Nation 06 Mar 2014 ‘The Dark Side of the Ukraine Revolt’,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178716/dark-side-ukraine-revolt#

(8) = See (7) above

(9) = BBC News 07 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine's revolution and the far right’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26468720 (see third photo down and text above and below it)

(10) = See (4)

(11) = IB Times 09 Mar 2014 ‘Watch Your Tongue: Language Controversy One Of Fundamental Conflicts In Ukraine’, http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-your-tongue-language-controversy-one-fundamental-conflicts-ukraine-1559069

(12) = See (11)

(13) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk

(14) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_Fatherland

(15) = BBC Newsnight 01 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26394980

(16) = BBC News 01 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine: The far-right groups patrolling Kiev’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26398112

(17) = ABC News ‘The Kiev Protests Look Apocalyptic’,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/kiev-protests-starting-apocalyptic-22316896/image-pro-european-integration-protesters-build-catapult-throw-stones-22317002

(18) = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUvrKv0pHNY (BBC news report)

Why government can print money and give it to ordinary people and small companies without hyper-inflation ; private banks issuing money as debts is as much creating money out of nothing as printing it is; ALL money is created out of nothing ; ALL money and debt exist only as agreed ideas and can be created or destroyed or revalued any way we choose to as societies

The supposedly hard-headed and realistic analysis of our current situation is that we are doomed to higher taxes and cut services until we can pay off our debts; and that no action by government can change this fact. This is the version of reality that suits the people who caused the crisis – big banks, hedge funds, billionaire speculators. It also suits the big parties in government who get donations to party funds from them.

So the people who caused the problem get to keep on getting big bail-outs at taxpayers’ expense while being able to avoid paying most tax themselves through tax havens and multinational corporate structures.

We are not dealing with a hard unchangeable reality, but with the confused idea that money and debt exist anywhere but in our heads. Banks can and do create money out of nothing as debt simply by issuing a loan or mortgage. Governments can create it out of nothing by printing it or by issuing loans or grants. These are the two main ways it has come into circulation for at least a century. Similarly lenders can “write off” some or all of a debt and it instantly vanishes.

And, no, there is no way to limit the amount of money issued to the value of goods and services created because that value is also a subjective judgement based on incomplete information – which is why stock market valuations go up and down constantly and lead to economic booms and busts.

To limit the amount of money in circulation to the value of the gold reserves of the world was one past method of limiting the supply, but it was a completely arbitrary one and the gold standard contributed to causing the Great Depression by limiting the amount of new loans that could be made by banks or grants by government.

So there is no amount of money which will accurately reflect the value of the economy.

Money and debt are not unchangeable realities but shared ideas. How much of them exists and how much can be created and how it should be distributed are all things that we can change in any way we want to if we collectively decide to. Getting enough people to realise this is the only hard part.

It isn’t too complicated for the majority of people to understand, as the banking lobby want us to believe. it’s simple. As the late American economist J K Galbraith, who served under President Franklin D Roosevelt, wrote “The process by which money is created is so simple that the mind is repelled.”

Governments printing money and issuing it as grants, or zero interest loans or low interest loans is no different from private banks issuing it as loans or mortgages, other than that government can take into account aims in lending other than it’s own fairly short term profit. It can consider what investments are important to develop our economy and society, reduce poverty or reduce environmental damage over the long term.

The usual scare story you will hear at this point is that if we print money it will cause hyper-inflation. It could, if you printed an amazing amount of it, but in reality hyper-inflation has pretty much never happened unless a country is also under economic sanctions (e.g Zimbabwe) or under occupation and with a large part of it’s economic output going to other countries after defeat in a war (e.g Germany after World War I when France occupied the Rhur valley and all steel and coal from there went to France) (1).

Studies done by the IMF and cited by Chang show no fall in growth rate from inflation until it reaches at least 8% per year, while less conservative studies put the rate at 20% (2).

While inflation devalues money it also devalues any debt, as debt is denominated in money – so the higher inflation is the faster debt shrinks; and that is why banks and other lenders want low inflation. The British and American governments are heavily in the pockets of banks and hedge funds who are major donors to the party funds of all the main parties.

The Conservative party in the UK for instance, gets more than 50% of it’s donations to party funds from banks, hedge funds and other financial sector firms (3). The new head of the Bank of England, which sets the official interest rate and regulates other banks, is a former Goldman Sachs executive (4). All three main UK parties leaders welcomed his appointment enthusiastically.

Australian economics Professor Steve Keen has also shown that a major cause of the financial crisis is most money having been created as debt by private banks, with a recession resulting when the amount of debt issued is so great that the debtors can no longer repay it and the lenders will no longer issue new loans or forgive it, resulting in a crisis of confidence among both consumers and lenders. He suggests government printing money and giving it to debtors to pay off their debts (5). This would certainly solve the immediate crisis, but it wouldn’t stop the cycle starting all over again.

Only nationalised banks printing money and issuing it as grants and low or zero interest loans can do that. Of course it would still be unwise to issue infinite amounts of money without any checks on whether money issued as a loan or grant will increase government revenues or reduce it’s costs in future. So government controlled banks, after helping debtors pay off their debts and paying off it’s own debts by printing money, would have to ensure that some of it’s loans were issued to get a return, while others would be issued as grants for purposes other than getting a financial return, with the former funding the latter in the long term.

This is an idea which transcends the normal political divisions – there are even some Conservative MPs in the UK who are proposing something very similar.

I’m not sure that the Money Reform Party are right in suggesting that private banks issuing loans should be made illegal. That could have it’s own risks in making it impossible for businesses that don’t donate to party funds to get loans at reasonable rates , but we certainly need at least one government owned bank in each country creating money as loans and grants for government spending, for loans to small and medium sized businesses and to help people out of debt.

The reality is that we have plenty of options for paying off the debt and reducing poverty and inequality in our society, just not ones that these dominant players like. They would much prefer we sign up to the idea that it’s all unchangeable and that the hard reality is that we have to keep on issuing and distributing money primarily in ways that benefit them, even if it’s at huge cost to everyone else.

They have even got governments to legalise a ‘futures trade’ in food which allows them to basically bet that the price of a particular type of food will rise, before buying and stockpiling lots of it to ensure it does rise. This is at a cost of increased food prices which can mean hunger or death for people across the world, including in Haiti where for many years it has become common for parents to buy ‘mud cakes’ of clay and salt to fill their childrens’ bellies when they can’t afford actual food.

While things are not nearly that bad for most people in the developing world we continue to see poverty at levels where people must often choose between for instance eating or heating their home many days in winter; and governments are taking benefits away from the genuinely disabled and forcing the unemployed to work unpaid for big companies. Most of those who can get full time work are working harder and longer hours for the same or less pay. Millions can’t get work at all, or can only get part-time work when they want full-time.

The billionaires and the big firms (including many newspaper owners), along with the heads of the big parties they donate to the election funds of, have successfully redirected many peoples’ anger at the situation away from themselves – those with the actual power and money who are actually causing the problem – and onto public sector employees and benefits recipients – including the unemployed and the disabled.

Every time you are told that we just have to face up to the reality that we and our grandchildren will have to pay off our current debts and suffer for the actions of the banks, you are being lied to and fed the line those banks want you to believe. Don’t believe it – and tell others the truth.

(1) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, pages 51-62 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(2) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, page 55 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(3) = BBC news 09 Feb 2011 ‘More than half of Conservative donors 'from the City'’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049 (headline is inaccurate, should read ‘donations’ not ‘donors’)

(4) = Guardian 03 Dec 2012 ‘New Bank of England head will have too much power, warns insider’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/03/bank-england-head-power-new

(5) = Steve Keen (2011) ‘Debunking Economics – Revised and Expanded Edition’, Zed Books, London and New York

Story that Iranian government websites say kill all Jews and annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons based on word of one Iranian defector to US first published on birther websites

One of the latest rumours on Iran going round the internet and published by the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Mail, is that Iran’s supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini said it was time to kill all Jews, starting with Israel’s – and that Iran should use nuclear weapons to do this (1) – (2). Even the International Institute for Strategic Studies are reporting what may well be just a rumour spread by one Iranian exile, possibly for ulterior motives, as fact (3).

When challenged to provide evidence of this those spreading the rumour then claim that it wasn’t Khameini himself who said all this, but his “adviser” or “strategist”, Alireza Forghani, in an article published on several Iranian government websites.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports, by contrast, that Alireza Forghani is 'an independent blogger and computer engineer'(4).

It seems the original story about Forghani being an adviser to Khameini and making these statements on Iranian government websites comes from World Net Daily and The Daily Caller (5) – (6).

The Daily Caller and World Net Daily are purveyors of conspiracy theories including the birther one that Obama was born in Kenya(even when their supposed evidence is proven not to be evidence) and their sources on this include former advisers to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (7) – (9).

The source for all three sites on the Forghani articles is Reza Khalili, which is the alias used by an Iranian defector to the US and former CIA agent. He has also called for a US war of regime change in Iran. He could well have the same motives as Iraqi defectors had to make things up to encourage a war of regime change that could get them in control of the new government (10) – (12).

Many WMD stories on Iraq using Iraqi exiles as their sources – including the mobile weapons labs one, turned out to be entirely false.

So what we have is not Khameini, nor someone proven to be a close adviser to Khameini saying something, but that an Iranian blogger said something and the Iranian government didn't censor it. We have no idea even what exactly the original actually said, as despite it supposedly being all over the FARS and every other Iranian government website, there are no links to the original provided by anyone claiming any of this, despite Iranian government websites having english versions where anyone could read exactly what it said if links were provided)

The actual statements by Iranian military and political leaders talk about destroying the Israeli regime (i.e government), which is not a threat to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons (13).

One blogger claims to have got a translation of the Forghani article on the Alef website (which is not an Iranian government website, but is a website which backs and is not banned by Khameini’s government the way sites critical of the Iranian government usually are - with some bloggers even jailed). He says he asked for a translation from a Farsi speaking Iranian professor at the University of California, Muhammad Sahimi, who has lived in the US since 1978.  Sahimi says the article advocates “pre-emptive strikes” on Israel with longest ranged Shahab 3 missiles, but says nothing about killing all Jews, only referring to a duty of defensive Jihad to protect other Muslims. Sahimi does not mention any talk of Forghani proposing these attacks being nuclear – and says the Alef website says the views expressed in the article are the author’s, not the website’s

Sources

(1) = Washington Times 17 Jul 2012 ‘Ariz. sheriff says Obama birth certificate is fake’,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/17/ariz-sheriff-says-obama-birth-certificate-fake/

(2) = 'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack’, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097252/Kill-Jews-annihilate-Israel-Irans-supreme-leader-lays-legal-religious-justification-attack.html

(3) = International Institute for Strategic Studies 02 Aug 2012 ‘Potential Change in Iran’s Nuclear Fatwa?’, http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/potential-change-in-irans-nuclear-fatwa/

(4) = Haaretz 20 Mar 2012 ‘Wiesenthal Center raises funds 'against the Iranian threat'’, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/wiesenthal-center-raises-funds-against-the-iranian-threat-1.419627

(5) = WND 05 Feb 2012 ‘Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel’, http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

(6) = The Daily Caller 10 Jun 2012 ‘Islamic world must have nuclear weapons, says Iran’, http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/10/islamic-world-must-have-nuclear-weapons-says-iran/

(7) = The Daily Caller 28 April 2004 ‘Reminder: Before Obama ran for president, he falsely claimed to have been born in Kenya’,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/24/reminder-before-obama-ran-for-president-he-falsely-claimed-to-have-been-born-in-kenya/

(8) = WND 10 Sep 2012 ‘Israeli science website: Obama birth certificate forged : Award-winning, former Netanyahu adviser behind assessment’,
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/israeli-science-website-obama-birth-certificate-forged/

(9) = http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp ; 1991 booklet claiming Obama born in Hawaii an error by the person writing his biography for it

(10) = See (5) above

(11) = http://atimetobetray.com/

(12) = Washington Times 26 Oct 2011 ‘KAHLILI: Iran already has nuclear weapons’, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons/?page=all

(13) = FARS news agency (of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards) 20 May 2012 ‘Top Commander Reiterates Iran's Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel’,
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9102112759 ; ‘TEHRAN (FNA)- Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said threats and pressures cannot deter Iran from its revolutionary causes and ideals, and stressed that the Iranian nation will remain committed to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime of Israel to the end.’

The Houla massacre - no throats slit, uncertainty over whether government or rebel forces responsible and who victims were - many media reports wrongly assume all Syrian opposition claims are true

Media reports on the Houla massacre in Syria were previously quoting people who said they were survivors on all the victims being Sunnis killed by pro-Assad Alawite militia, with children having had their throats cut (1) - (2).

There clearly was a sickening massacre of civilians including children in Houla, but it turns out that few or none of the victims' throats may have been cut. It also seems that we don't know who the killers were, how some of the victims were killed, nor who many of the victims were.

I'm not saying all those who say they are survivors are definitely lying - some or all of them may be entirely truthful, but we simply don't know one way or the other.

As Media Lens has pointed out, Jon Williams, an editor at BBC World News, has written on the BBC website that :

"In the aftermath of the massacre at Houla last month, initial reports said some of the 49 children and 34 women killed had their throats cut. In Damascus, Western officials told me the subsequent investigation revealed none of those found dead had been killed in such a brutal manner. Moreover, while Syrian forces had shelled the area shortly before the massacre, the details of exactly who carried out the attacks, how and why were still unclear. Whatever the cause, officials fear the attack marks the beginning of the sectarian aspect of the conflict. " (3)

Another BBC reporter, Paul Danahar, adds that "There is a sense in Damascus shared by many diplomats, international officials and those opposed to President Assad that his regime may no longer have complete and direct day-to-day command and control of some of the militia groups being blamed for massacring civilians. ........

........Members of the international community in Damascus say that, contrary to initial reports, most of the people in Houla were killed by gunfire spraying the rooms, not by execution-style killings with a gun placed to the back of the head. Also people's throats were not cut, although one person did have an eye gouged out. " (4)

This has not made any headlines, though it should be making them to correct the inital reports (though I think it's pretty unlikely that Assad's regime has no control over pro-government militias - this seems like the same excuse Ariel Sharon tried to use when he let the Phalangist militias into Sabra and Shatila refugee camps to massacre Palestinian civilians)

As with the Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators story during the 1991 Iraq war and some of the claims made by Libyan rebels of atrocities by Gadaffi's forces turning out to be false (for instance handing out condoms to soldiers, orders to rape all women, anti-aircraft guns used on protesters) we should not be taking every claim made by anyone in the Syrian opposition as true - some may not be (5) - (6).

The German newspaper the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung has also reported some Syrian opposition sources saying the Houla massacre was committed by Sunni rebels with the victims being Alawites and Shia converts who used to be Sunnis, as well as a Sunni MP. (Many jihadist groups consider taking part in elections to by unIslamic and to be collaboration with the enemy.) The newspaper also says the opposition sources wish to remain anonymous because armed rebel groups have already killed opposition members who spoke out against an armed uprising (7).

The FAZ report says Houla is 90% Sunni - something that all reports, including those blaming government militias, agree on, though the FAZ report says Sunni rebels were the killers, able to carry out the killings of a minority in their own community, while other reports say Houla's residents were targeted because they were Sunnis and so are the rebels.

Which version is true is impossible to say in the middle of a civil war with both sides and all their foreign allies spreading their own propaganda - I am not saying that we can know for certain that Assad's militias weren't responsible either , but that is what every media report should be saying until full investigations can be carried out.

While Assad's military and militias who support him are likely to be guilty of many murders, rebels have killed civilians too.

Instead reports which later turn out to be almost competely false are being churned out and aiding calls to send in NATO troops to a potential third world war with Russia and China, or arm the rebels, who are committing atrocities of their own - including car bombings which have killed hundreds of civilians (8) - (9).

(1) = guardian.co.uk 28 May 2012 'Houla massacre survivor tells how his family were slaughtered', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/28/houla-massacre-survivor-boy-syria

(2) = Channel 4 News 30 May 2012 'The Searing Grief of Houla's survivors', http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/searing-grief-houlas-survivors/1739

(3) = BBC World News 07 Jun 2012 'Reporting conflict in Syria', http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html

(4) = BBC News 'New 'massacre' reported in Syria's Hama province', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18348201 (see right hand column headed 'Analysis' half way down the page)

(5) = Christian Science Monitor 06 Sep 2002 ‘When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

(6) = Independent 24 Jun 2011 'Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

(7) = Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany) 07 Jun 2012 'Abermals Massaker in Syrien', http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/neue-erkenntnisse-zu-getoeteten-von-hula-abermals-massaker-in-syrien-11776496.html ; for English translation see http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Faktuell%2Fpolitik%2Fneue-erkenntnisse-zu-getoeteten-von-hula-abermals-massaker-in-syrien-11776496.html

(8) = Human Rights Watch 20 Mar 2012 'Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses', http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/syria-armed-opposition-groups-committing-abuses

(9) = New York Times 10 May 2012 'Dozens Killed in Large Explosions in Syrian Capital', http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/world/middleeast/damascus-syria-explosions-intelligence-headquarters.html?pagewanted=all ; 'Twin suicide car bombs that targeted a notorious military intelligence compound shook the Syrian capital, Damascus, on Thursday, killing and wounding hundreds of people ...It was the largest such terrorist attack since the uprising began 14 months ago, with the Health Ministry putting the toll at 55 dead and nearly 400 wounded — civilians and soldiers. '

Independence for Scotland will be pointless if we destroy our country with incinerators, fracking, deregulation and government acting in the interests of billionaires and big firms who only want short term profits at everyone else's expense

Unfortunately I didn't get enough votes to be elected ( I got 246 first preference votes and 353 votes - about 6% of those cast , including 2nd and 3rd and 4th preferences before I was eliminated). Not bad on 3 weeks campaigning and a budget of £600. (I was standing as a candidate to be a councillor in the Clydesdale West ward of South Lanarkshire Council).

I'd like to thank everyone who voted for me and campaigned for me and everyone who took the time to talk to me while I was canvassing. I will pass on all the issues you raised to the four candidates who were elected Councillors for the ward - Eileen Logan (Labour) , Lynsey Hamilton (Labour), David Shearer (SNP) and Pat Lee (SNP).

I want to thank retiring SNP Councillor Ian Gray for leading opposition to the incinerator on the planning committee and all the other councillors who voted against it, plus the AGADI organisers and volunteers and objectors and the Lanarkshire Green Party who also continue to campaign hard against it.

Though I was against Conservative councillor Alex Allison's vote in favour of the incinerator and have little time for his party or it's policies, residents in Crossford told me he worked hard for them on other issues, before losing his seat in this ward in the recent election.

I'd also like to congratulate Independent candidate Ed Archer, who was elected a councillor in neighbouring Clydesdale North ward, centred on Lanark; and who is also opposed to the incinerator and to the wind farm at Cartland.

I will be among many people launching campaigns to demand to know why the SNP Scottish Government, led by Alec Salmond, are not using the huge powers they have over council decisions, through control of around 80% of councils' budgets, to get Dovesdale and other wasteful, expensive, toxic, incinerators closed down and replaced with recycling and anaerobic digestion plants - and ditto on stopping fracking and on opening old railway stations (including in Law, where many residents asked for this).

The Scottish Government have demanded a Council Tax freeze from local councils in return for granting them funding (unwisely in my view) and could use the same kind of pressure to get Dovesdale and other Incinerators closed.

They have stepped in to over-rule local council planning decisions on Donald Trump's white elephant golf course (built over an SSSI full of endangered species and also including attempts to force people out of their homes by bully-boy tactics).

Residents in Kilncadzow tell me the Scottish Government also granted appeals to allow wind farms to be built at Kilncadzow and Cartland within 500 metres of peoples' houses, after the local council for once listened to residents and refused planning applications in each case. (Like the residents i'm in favour of turbines sited correctly - but not that close to houses.)

So Salmond and the SNP Scottish Government will intervene to help billionaires and big firms do things that are wrong and harmful, but not to cut funding to South Lanarkshire Council until it closes a toxic, over-priced incinerator? If so what's the difference between them and the other big party leaders?

I love my country and it's people. Alec Salmond and the other big party leaders say they love them too (whether they define them as Scotland or Britain). If you love your country and it's people why would you expose them to over-priced, deadly, wasteful incinerators ; to fracking which will poison our fresh water supplies (an increasingly valuable commodity worldwide with shortages growing in much of the worldwide) and our air and people ; and why would you over-rule local residents and councillors to let arrogant, incompetent billionaires like Trump get their way?

If you really love your country Alec, prove it. Close down the incinerators. Stop the fracking. Open the old railway stations. Regulate the banks. Listen to the people, not to big firms and billionaires who only want short term profit for themselves.

I'll also campaign for independence for Scotland when the referendum comes - i'm all for it to keep us out of Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe more Falklands and Iran wars and financial crises caused by deregulation in which ordinary people die or suffer for the profits of arms and oil firms and banks, and the careers of politicians; plus getting rid of tax havens that impoverish the majority to avoid the wealthiest and big firms paying their share.

But independence will change nothing if we become an independent Scotland destroyed for it's people, because it's run for big business and billionaires' short term profits at the expense of suffering for the vast majority. That would be no better than being part of a UK which is being destroyed in the same way.

Independents, Greens and socialists may not have been able to beat the big parties yet, but by god, if you big party leaders are in office and keep behaving like you are now we'll point up your hypocrisy constantly enough in one campaign after another (at elections and between them) that you'll have to change to more decent policies or else risk losing to one of the other big parties- and then do the same to whichever big party is in next until we get decent policies from them or else win ourselves and bring decent policies in ourselves.

I'll leave the last word to Dougie Maclean.

The Conservative donor scandal shows why public funding of all candidates at elections would save taxpayers a fortune

I’m about to say that all candidates at elections should have their campaigns publicly funded and that we should make taking private political donations a criminal offence. This usually brings on the ‘not a penny more of my money for politicians and political parties’ response. I can understand why, but this response ignores the fact that by paying that money you would save 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much, because as long as parties can take private donations the super rich and big banks and companies will keep on being able to buy political influence with which to get themselves big government subsidies – which mean higher taxes or cut public services for taxpayers – and big tax breaks and toleration of tax havens – which mean the same.

When someone very wealthy or a big bank or company donates to a political party’s campaign funds they are usually making an investment. By funding a party for £50,000 or  £250,000 they may well end up getting subsidies or tax breaks of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, sometimes even billions – or deregulation of their industry which lets them make big profits in the short term at the cost of a crisis and recession in the long term, like the financial crisis and subsequent recession, caused by banks and hedge funds being able to lobby for deregulation with the aid of big donations.

A cap on private donations to political parties or to candidates’ campaign funds will leave lots of loopholes. Where it’s been done in the US the billionaires and big firms just split a big donation up among 10 or 100 or 1000 employees to get round the cap.

The only way to avoid loopholes and end the influence of big money on politics is to have a strictly limited level of public funding of all candidates in all elections – enough to get one single colour, double sided A4 election communication leaflet printed for every household in the constituency, ward or list area, plus enough to run a website and maybe petrol costs for canvassing.

One of the reasons the government hasn’t re-regulated the financial sector properly is that donations from banks and financial firms to the Conservatives have doubled since 2005 (according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism).

In addition we’d need a ban on elected officials and civil servants who are regulating an industry being employed by any company in that industry for say 5 to 10 years after leaving office – and similarly banning anyone employed in an industry regulated by a government body from being in any elected or government body involved in regulating that industry for the same period. This would eliminate the “revolving door syndrome” in which big companies buy influence with government by offering paid employment or cushy jobs to people in government who do them favours.

Then make it a criminal offence for any elected official or political party to accept any donations to their party or election campaign – and similarly a criminal offence to break the rules on ‘revolving doors’ between government and business.

That might all cost millions at each election, but would save between hundreds of millions and tens of billions between elections.

The big parties will be opposed to this, because it would eliminate their funding advantage over small parties and independent (non party) candidates.

We can expect that the Conservative donations for access scandal will lead them to suggest a ‘reform’ which would benefit them – one putting a maximum cap on donations from organisations, but not from individuals, aiming to reduce trade union funding to the Labour party while maintaining their own donations from big banks, hedge funds and some of the very wealthy.

Labour and the Conservatives and Lib Dems will all keep suggesting greater transparency – making large donations known to the public through the register of members’ interests. That would be an improvement, but wouldn’t eliminate big money’s influence on politics, it would just make it better known.

Citigroup aren’t fit to give advice on banking never mind energy policy

One of the main critics of government investment in renewable energy in Scotland – the Citigroup investment bank – failed to predict the financial crisis, was one of the four banks most involved in and hardest hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis – and invests heavily in tar sands, oil and coal (1). Given it’s inability to know what it should invest in itself in it’s own area of expertise – banking – why should anyone accept Citigroup as experts in an entirely separate area – energy policy?

The New York Times website reports that Citigroup required not one but three government bail-outs in the US, totalling $45 billion. The US Securities and Exchanges commission also charged Citigroup with telling investors it had invested only $13 billion in subprime mortgages, when the real figure was $50 billion (2).

This makes me less inclined to take their advice on anything. These are bankers who can’t run a bank and lie to investors, offering advice (with likely ulterior motives) on energy policy – something they have no expertise in.

Their other ulterior motive is likely to be their own heavy investment in coal, oil and tar sands compared to a relatively tiny stake in renewable. The Rainforest Action Network found that in 2010 Citigroup invested $34 billion in the former and less than 2% of that amount in renewables , including heavy investments in tar sand projects in Canada (3).

It could well be that some of the investment banks who are writing reports praising the Scottish government’s renewable energy targets also have ulterior motives (perhaps having invested in renewable themselves) and wanting to promote them as a result.

There are other more reputable groups criticising the Scottish government’s renewable energy target of 100% by 2020 as being unrealistic and likely to increase fuel poverty – like the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - but I still wouldn’t trust a company with a record like Citigroup’s to advise me on picking my nose never mind on energy policy.

(1) = CNN 15 Oct 2007 ‘Citi profits tumble as execs scramble’, http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/15/news/companies/citigroup_earnings/index.htm , ‘Citigroup is among a handful of banks that have been hard hit by this summer's subprime mortgage crisis. Three other banks - JPMorgan Chase (Charts, Fortune 500), Washington Mutual (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500) - are scheduled to report quarterly results this week.’

(2) = NYT.com Business 19 Oct 2011 > Companies > Citigroup Inc, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/citigroup_inc/index.html

(3) = Dirty Oil Sands blog 11 Mar 2011 ‘Citi needs an intervention’ By Brant Olson | Rainforest Action Network, http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/article/citi_needs_an_intervention

(4) = Institution of Mechanical Engineers ‘Scottish Energy 2020? A target too far?’,http://www.imeche.org/Scottish-Energy-2020?WT.mc_id=HP_110661

Demanding the truth about the Megrahi case, Lockerbie and the Iranian Airbus shot down by the USS Vincennes

Abdel-basset al Megrahi is almost certainly not the Lockerbie bomber. The real question is not why he was released but how his sham of a trial ever resulted in a conviction - and who was actually behind the Lockerbie bombing - not to mention why

There has been a lot of self-righteous talk from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic recently about “demanding the truth” about whether BP used it’s influence to get Megrahi released.

This is either based on ignorance of the facts or else is extremely hypocritical given the utter silence of most of the people involved on the truth about the Lockerbie bombing and Megrahi’s trial, which was a politically influenced sham from the start, in which key witnesses were bribed and coached in and advance and evidence was tampered with.

That’s before getting to the issue of the very likely links between a US warship (the USS Vincennes) shooting down a plane full of hundreds of Iranian civilians in the Persian Gulf, all of them killed, just like the civilians killed in the Lockerbie bombing, less than a year before Lockerbie.

Some people at this point claim the Vincennes shooting down the Iranian Airbus was an accident. It may well be that the Vincennes’ crew wrongly thought the Airbus was an Iranian military plane. It’s also the case that they had un-necessarily crossed into Iranian waters to deliberately provoke a fight with Iranian ships though – and that the captain of the Vincennes was negligent in using his radar incorrectly.

The families of the Iranian civilians killed in this incident have never had any apology. The crew all got service medals.

This definitely does not make the murder of hundreds of other civilians in the Lockerbie bombing right or justified – anything but – but it does make the more myopic demands for “the truth” about Megrahi’s release ring very hollow.

I’ve already made longer posts with relevant sources and quotes on this in the past so i’ll just link to them rather than repeat myself any more – they’re here and here.

The focus on BP alone is also pretty hypocritical as plenty of American oil firms were back in Libya before BP was.

So President Obama can claim to be "surprised, disappointed and angry" about Megrahi's release and Prime Minister David Cameron can claim it was wrong to release "this mass murderer", but both either need to study Megrahi's trial and all the political manipulation of it - along with the link to the Iranian Airbus shot down by a US warships - or else they're being a lot less than honest.