Friday, January 30, 2009


The FT is reporting that at Davos yesterday Stephen Green of the HSBC, the ancestor of the bank that financed the opium trade, proposed a G20 style group to represent the interests of business.

What does this mean?

When you read the report it means that Green and the HSBC want to protect globalisation, and even increase the level of globalisation, as well as the level of global governance.

As the FT reports in "HSBC pushes for G20-style business grouping" at ;
”There isn’t enough focused dialogue between businesses and policymakers on an international scale,” Mr Green said in an interview at Davos. ”The world has got to a stage where you can’t solve these problems on a national basis.”

Mr Green also reiterated his concerns that banking bail-outs in Europe and the US could put further strains on the global financial system as politicians put pressure on financial institutions to concentrate their limited resources in their domestic markets.

”If capital ends up being encouraged to stay at home it’s a kind of backdoor protectionism, which nobody may have intended,” he said.

The British government welcomed HSBC’s initiative. Baroness Vadera, business minister, said: ”A co-ordinated response from global businesses to complement co-ordinated government responses demonstrates the need for a unified approach to tackling the current unprecedented economic climate.”

We read earlier this week our glorious Prime Minister's statements regarding the current financial crisis representing the dawn of "a new global order", a new global order that he could and should have stopped.

HSBC is the British bank which has the largest exposure to derivatives in the USA.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009


Highly recommend it. Perhaps it is a touch too melodramatic at times, and more time could have been spent on more historical details, such as an extension to Canaris, but it shows the fact that there were factions within Nazi Germany and that some people were taking very brave decisions and actions to save their country and people.

Stauffenberg was a member of the faction who saw what one of Hitler's ultimate purposes was; the total destruction of Germany. This faction attempted several times to negotiate terms of surrender with the Allies which would restore the German Monarchy and then Germany would turn its full force onto the Soviet Union and stop its invasion of Eastern Europe and expansion into China.

But no such agreement was made. Both Churchill and FDR rejected all suggestions, wanting instead "the utter destruction of Germany".


Because it wasn't part of the plan.

The plan was to empower Communism and to eventually create and populate Israel with Jews who during the previous centuries had resisted attempts to entice them into Palestine. If any such agreement had been reached there would have been no post-war Communist USSR and China creating nuclear tension, and no Israel now being used to start WW3.

Regarding Israel, as stated above there had been a number of attempts to entice Jews to Palestine, all rejected en masse by Jews. A number of these attempts had been instigated by the Rothschilds in the 19th Century. So after WW1, Hitler was created by the great family friends of the Rothschilds, the Warburgs. Warburgs sat on the boards of The Federal Reserve of the USA, IG Farben, the Reichsbank and had their own bank MM Warburg which advised the German government. A Warburg had also sent Lenin into Russia along with Rothschild relative Bethmann-Hollweg, who encouraged Austria to pursue a military solution to the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand which ultimately led to WW1 as arranged by Freemasonry.

For further details see my website The Conspiracy Explained.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009


So why as Chancellor and as Prime Minister did he not stop it, shout from the roof tops about it, write constantly in the FT etc, implement new and meaningful KPIs of the financial and banking system that would prove what he warned of?

He did no such thing.

Instead he voted for an unnecessary and bloody invasion of Iraq, sold our gold at rock bottom prices, etc.

And now he says we need a global solution to the global problem that he allowed to happen.


Because he knows he's next in line for a cushy directorship of the Bank of Murder and Fraud in The City of London and/or Wall Street, just like that grinning maniac Tony Blair, and couldn't give a rats fart about us.

It's them v us.

And Brown's with them.

He's about as Labour as Nathaniel Rothschild.

Monday, January 26, 2009


Staying silent on the recent slaughter in Gaza was a good indication of Obama's loyalty to Israeli butchery and violence.

And now Obama is engaging in a little butchery himself, but this time in Afghanistan (the most opium-rich region in the world).

What's the civilian body count with him occupying the White House for less than a week?

Within hours of becoming President-Elect he appointed the son of a Zionist terrorist as his Chief of Staff.

He appoints Hillary AIPAC-sucker Clinton as Secretary of State.

He appoints Dennis Ross as Special Envoy to Iran, when Ross is currently the Chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a think tank established in 2002 by the Jewish Agency (see ). The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute is an Israel-First organization which links to WIZO (Womens International Zionist Organization, founded by the wife of Chaim Weizmann), The American Jewish Committee (founded by Jacob Schiff), The Jewish Agency for Israel, AIPAC, and the ADL.

And he appoints rabid anti-Russia Richard "cleans toilets with his tongue" Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan (where the Obama body count is now accelerating).

It don't look good folks.

NB in the following report Karzai suggests that such wanton violence "is strengthening the terrorists." Well of course it is. The governments of the UK, USA and Israel need to provoke terrorist attacks for excuses for military adventures overseas and implementation of a police state at home!



Afghan president: U.S. forces killed 16 civilians
Thousands protest against government and United States over reports news services
updated 6:21 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai on Sunday condemned a U.S. operation he says killed 16 Afghan civilians, while thousands of villagers denounced the American military during an angry demonstration, Reuters reported.

Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans "is strengthening the terrorists."

The issue of civilian casualties is sensitive in Afghanistan and has eroded public support for Karzai's government and the foreign troops backing it. It has also caused a rift between Karzai and his Western allies more than seven years on since U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban's government.

Saturday, January 24, 2009


Please consider the evidence.

1. Gordon Brown attended the 1991 Bilderberg meeting and has not revealed what he or others attendees said, not revealed in public anyway but may have done so privately to certain individuals.

2. Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1997 and 2007, and has been Prime Minister to date since leaving that office.

3. It was recently reported that Brown said he did not see the recession and coming depression on the economic horizon, despite occupying the two most privileged positions in government.

These are the main points.

Further to these, please consider the following as supplementary and supporting evidence;

1. Gordon Brown sold off our gold at the wrong time and the wrong price for the United Kingdom, but at the time it was at the right time and right price for the global gold conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe at .

2. Gordon Brown was in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which led to the deaths of approximately 1 million civilians and Iraqi oil going to Western oil companies instead of the Iraqi people, as promised by his fellow Bilderberger and now erstwhile Special Peace envoy to the Middle East and employee of J P Morgan Chase (boo, hiss, get off), Tony "trust my creepy smile" Blair. He also voted against an inquiry into the Iraq War.

3. Gordon Brown has bailed out our untrustworthy, reckless and gambling banks with hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of pounds of taxpayers money without any investigation as to how the banks caused the financial crisis and why.

4. Despite bailing out the banks with hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers money, Gordon Brown can still find tens of billions of pounds for an ID Card system that will not work but will further the implementation of a police state.

5. No inquiry into the July 7th 2005 attacks on the London Transport Network, the largest terrorist attack on mainland Britain.

The list is endless.

Friday, January 23, 2009


appointing Richard Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan is asking for military trouble, probably with Russia.

Last August Holbrooke was allowed to publish his rants in The Bilderberg Washington Post accusing Russia of deliberately starting the mini-war with Georgia, wanting NATO to go in immediately and sort Russia out, i.e. possibly start a major war with a major nuclear power. Since then everyone but Holbrooke now agrees that Georgia started that war.

By appointing Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Obama has given the shadow government a prime opportunity to manipulate and misrepresent one of the most trickiest and potentially explosive situations on the planet. And there is only one man behind that decision; Zbigniew Brzezinski. And Brzezinski, like Holbrooke, wants war with Russia. And it was Brzezinski who manipulated the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The ultimate goal is war with Russia and China via Iran through Israel, and possiby in Africa with all its minerals and natural resources.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009


All that Brown and Darling are doing now with these bailouts is similar to giving a junkie more heroin.

The banks gambled...and lost.

They can't be trusted to look after the economy.

No more bailouts.

Reorganise the banking system so it looks after us, not the warmongering megalomaniacs currently telling their cronies to lobby for world government.

And above all, appoint a global Pecora-style commission to investigate and prosecute and jail the bankers, who knew what they were doing and why they were doing it.


And we can't guarantee that until we know exactly what happened, why it happened and who was behind it.

And as the crisis is global then so too must be the commission investigating.


For whatever reason The Independent has published another rant by that war criminal and plain nasty man, Henry Kissinger.

A few months ago our beloved Bilderberg Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested exactly the same as Kissinger, and for that matter Gideon Rachman of the FT, which can be summed up in the following catchy phrase;

global solutions for global problems.

Take the following questions, also addressed by Brown and Rachman;

Q: International Jihadi terrorism?
A: A world government with a global police force

Q: International climate change? (NB it's not global warming anymore it's the catch-all climate change)
A: A world government with powers to interfere in everybody's lives to reduce carbon emissions and carbon footprints (hence the push by Bilderberg's George Soros to legalize euthanasia)

Q: International financial crisis?
A: A world government with powers to regulate the global economy.

What Kissinger points out is amazing. He writes
"The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos."

Yes, it is 'a big coincidence' that
1. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is global
2. the credit crunch is global
3. climate change is global
are all occuring at the same time.

Hmm. Yes, 'a very big coincidence'.

What Kissinger, Brown, Rachman, and others to come, fail and will fail, deliberately, to point out is that the same people who brought us WW1 and WW2 are the same people who are creating the current panic in the first place.

Where does Islamic fundamentalist terrorism come from? Israel. Who created Israel? Rothschild.

Where does the credit crunch come from? Banks. Who controls the banking system? Rothschild.

Where did the man-made climate change theory come from? The Club of Rome. Who created the Club of Rome? Rothschild agents.

How can Rothschild have so much power? Because our corrupt MPs and members of Congress give them and their cronies the power to create trillions and trillions of pound sterling, US dollars, which are really paper or electronic currency but give them the power to buy real physical objects and people.

Kissinger is one such corrupt crony.

Anything he says should be dismissed as the ranting of a dangerous demented deluded geriatric with perverted visions of world government.


Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Not since JFK has there been such a reservoir of expectations

Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Related Articles

* The long search for Kennedy's successor
* So, how well do you know Barack?
* Obama's Inauguration Day poem
* Through the keyhole at the White House
* Obama's inauguration: A day for hope
* The new stars of Obama's West Wing
* Leading article: A morning of hope and goodwill in America
* The insider's guide to Obama's new Washington power map
* Obama meets the wounded soldiers
* The White House: A cardboard cutout
* Can Obama match Abe Lincoln's gold standard?
* Beg, borrow or steal a ticket for the ball
* Inauguration diary: Chicago pastor denounces the US media as 'haters'
* Obama Quiz: The answers

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go Web
Bookmark & Share

* Digg It
* Facebook
* Reddit

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77.

© 2009 Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Sunday, January 18, 2009


All of them.

One to change the light bulb while the rest of the vicious trigger-happy Zionist thugs murder well over a thousand impoverished, starving, thirsty, oppressed Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children, with arms given to them by the good ol' U S of A.


At first I thought that Robert Fisk, the respected journalist for The Independent, had hit one of the nails square on the head; when referring to the slaughter in Gaza you cannot refer to World War 2.

See “Robert Fisk’s World: When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it” at

Excellent comment, I thought.

But as I continued to read his comment I became a little disturbed, for Fisk was talking to pro-Palestinian groups only, and not to the vicious Zionists.
One of the main arguments that the vicious Zionists use to defend the vicious State of Israel is the Holocaust. The vicious Zionists claim that the only people who can be relied upon to defend Jews are Jews, and that because of the Holocaust they are permitted to do absolutely anything and commit any atrocity whatsoever to protect the Jews, and that includes murdering innocent children from 10,000 feet in a war plane supplied by the United States of America.

In The Times you can easily find David Aaronovitch and Daniel Finkelstein (and they’re not the only ones either) each using that very same argument to defend the slaughter in Gaza, which is that because of what Hitler (an Austrian) did to the Jews then the Jews have the right to do the same and worse to the Palestinians. I know that this is not very God-like and compassionate logic, but that is the way they, the Israeli Zionist Jews, are taught to think.

Fisk criticises the pro-Palestinian groups for using the analogy that Gaza is like a concentration camp. Fisk points out the bleeding obvious, that there are no furnaces or gas ovens for large scale cremation in Gaza, so Pro-Palestinian groups should just shut up, or be more accurate.

But why does Fisk not then criticize Israel for using the Holocaust to give Israel the right to bomb little children to bits?

Not once does Fisk criticize Israel for using the second world war.

I am curious and a little disturbed by that.

The most disturbing line from Fisk is this;
“No, the real reason why "Gaza-Genocide" is a dangerous parallel is because it is not true.”

No, Robert. What is going on in Gaza is genocide. It is not Nazi-scale genocide, but it is still genocide, and could well be described as ethnic cleansing.

In Gaza there are 1.5 million human beings compressed into 360 square Km. They have been blockaded since 2006 because in the eyes of the Israelis they voted for the wrong people. Their finances to which they were legally entitled to claim from Israel were illegally withheld by Israel. Their border crossings are controlled by Israel, and Israeli war planes fly over them at will. To allow vicious trigger-happy Zionist soldiers who have been brainwashed into thinking that all Gazans are worse than animals to enter into such a territory is asking for genocide. And we got it.

However, Fisk redeems himself a little but not much by arguing that prosecution for war crimes is desired, on both sides.

Thursday, January 15, 2009


It's all getting very boring and very predictable.

If there isn't another 9/11-style attack on the USA or Israel (this time to be blamed on Iran) then I'll be surprised, and it will be the one that Powell and Brzezinski and a few others have predicted with confidence.

Of course such an attack will
1. have been provoked,
2. allowed to happen,
just like all the rest.

The question is do the bedbug world order have the balls to go through with it, even though the military and intelligence communities across the world are much wiser and savvy about the true situation.



Osama bin Laden calls for new jihad over Israeli offensive in Gaza

Osama bin Laden has called for a new jihad over the Israeli offensive in Gaza, through an audio recording posted on Islamist websites in which he questioned America's stomach for the fight.

The authenticity of the recording could not be verified immediately, but it appeared to be a typically provocative message from the al-Qaeda leader, taunting the United States as it prepares to hand the presidential baton from George W Bush to Barack Obama.

Monday, January 12, 2009


The slaughter in Gaza is not a last resort, nor is it proportionate.

Last October during the ceasefire there was just one rocket fired from, and that cannot be proved to have come from Hamas. Israel did not ease the blockade to the level agreed. Haas offered to continue the ceasefire but refused.

Approaching one thousand deaths in Gaza, of whom somewhere between a quarter and a half were children, in just 17 days is incomparable to just sixteen deaths in Southern Israel in four years.

It is a war crime, pure and simple.

How they can claim to be God's chosen people and believe that the slaughter is justified is beyond me.


Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime

ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.

Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Ian Brownlie QC, Blackstone Chambers

Mark Muller QC, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales

Michael Mansfield QC and Joel Bennathan QC, Tooks Chambers

Sir Geoffrey Bindman, University College, London

Professor Richard Falk, Princeton University

Professor M Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University, Chicago

Professor Christine Chinkin, LSE

Professor John B Quigley, Ohio State University

Professor Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African Studies

Professor Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva

Professor Said Mahmoudi, Stockholm University

Professor Max du Plessis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban

Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College

Professor Joshua Castellino, Middlesex University

Professor Thomas Skouteris and Professor Michael Kagan, American University of Cairo

Professor Javaid Rehman, Brunel University

Daniel Machover, Chairman, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights

Dr Phoebe Okawa, Queen Mary University

John Strawson, University of East London

Dr Nisrine Abiad, British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Dr Michael Kearney, University of York

Dr Shane Darcy, National University of Ireland, Galway

Dr Michelle Burgis, University of St Andrews

Dr Niaz Shah, University of Hull

Liz Davies, Chair, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyer

Prof Michael Lynk, The University of Western Ontario

Steve Kamlish QC and Michael Topolski QC, Tooks Chambers


Isn't Israel such a shining example of liberty and democracy?


Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections
By The Associated Press

The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

The ruling, made by the body that oversees the elections, reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.

Knesset spokesman Giora Pordes said the election committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arab lawmakers have traveled to countries listed among Israel's staunchest enemies, including Lebanon and Syria.

The 37-member committee is composed of representatives from Israel's major political parties. The measure was proposed by two ultranationalist parties but received widespread support.

The decision does not affect Arab lawmakers in predominantly Jewish parties or the country's communist party, which has a mixed list of Arab and Jewish candidates. Roughly one-fifth of Israel's 7 million citizens are Arabs. Israeli Arabs enjoy full citizenship rights, but have suffered from discrimination and poverty for decades.

Arab lawmakers Ahmed Tibi and Jamal Zahalka, political rivals who head the two Arab blocs in the Knesset, joined together in condemning Monday's decision.

"It was a political trial led by a group of Fascists and racists who are willing to see the Knesset without Arabs and want to see the country without Arabs," said Tibi.

Together, the Arab lists hold seven of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

Tibi said he would appeal to the high court, while Zahalka said his party was still deciding how to proceed.

Pordes remarked that the last time a party was banned it was the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach Party, a list from the 1980s that advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.


I agree with this 100%. The UK needs its own version of a Pecora Commission.



I'd gladly donate my free time to the investigation if so required.



What A New Pecora Commission Must Do


by John Hoefle

January 12, 2009 (LPAC)--The crucial battle facing the United States is the need to re-establish its national sovereignty in the face of an all-out push by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal/Saudi empire to destroy the nation-state system in favor of a new global empire. It is in this context that Lyndon LaRouche has called for a new Pecora Commission.

The original Pecora Commission, an investigation into the financial machinations which led to the Great Depression, conducted by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee from 1932 to 1934, exposed the way in which a cabal of powerful bankers dominated the U.S. economy, and manipulated it to suit their own goals. The investigation was run by Ferdinand Pecora, a former prosecutor who hauled some of the most prominent bankers in the nation before the committee and revealed them to be, under their pompous, self-righteous veneer, a pack of self-serving, arrogant, and corrupt hyenas who had little regard for the interests of the nation and its people. In doing so, Pecora smashed the myth of public service the bankers and their publicists had so carefully crafted, and helped build the public support President Franklin Roosevelt required to force Congress to pass tough regulatory reforms.

The situation today is even worse than the one faced by FDR. Then, the U.S. still had a strong agro-industrial base and a citizenry which understood that infrastructure and production were the pillars upon which the economy stood. Today, those pillars have been severely weakened by deindustrialization and globalization, and our people blinded by the myth that economics is based upon finance. Rather than hauling the hyenas before Congress to demand answers, our Federal government is lavishing them with money, saving the banks while selling the nation down the river.

If this bailout continues, the United States will cease to exist as a sovereign nation, and become just another satrapy in the imperium. We will have abandoned the promise of the American Revolution, which lifted mankind to a new level of freedom and prosperity, and have fallen back into that against which we fought.

We must once again expose the nature of the financier parasites which infest our economy, so that our people will understand the need to cast them off. To that end, we need a new Pecora Commission.

- The Nature of Empire -

The most pernicious myth about the financial system is that it is basically honest, if corrupted here and there by a few bad apples. The truth is just the opposite: The system itself is corrupt--corruption is the way the empire works, and the empire is what runs the global financial system.

In a recent discussion with his staff, LaRouche stated that "an empire is not based on a nation. An empire is based on being atop of a number of nations. That's an empire. All other uses of the term `empire' are nonsensical. So now we're dealing with the British Empire, which is a Venetian empire, an Anglo-Dutch Liberal/Saudi empire, and these forces, which are the central political elements in there, coordinate all these banking forces.... The empire is this system.''

The operational center of this empire, as LaRouche has defined it, is the City of London, but the empire itself is stateless, with operations in every part of the world, in every financial and political center. LaRouche describes it as a slime-mold which constantly adapts to changes, creating new structures and shedding others to maintain its power.

"The essential slime-mold is the idea of money as having an intrinsic value, either by dictate or by approximation, by evolution. And that you run economies based on money,'' LaRouche said. "Thus, you set up the financial systems, and the financial system has always been the core of every empire from Babylon to the present time. That's the thing that has to be understood--you have to destroy the slime-mold."

- Get Serious -

After every financial crisis there are investigations and prosecutions of high-profile people, designed to persuade the population that the laws are being enforced and the crooks punished, when they are not. Such investigations tend to occur well after the fact, when the activity being investigated has ceased to be profitable, and often involve individuals who are prominent but not particularly important to the empire.

Perhaps the best example of the latter is the prosecution of Martha Stewart for insider trading, in the wake of the stock market crash of 2000. The case garnered huge publicity, allowed for much posturing on the part of regulators, but accomplished little else. It was a classic show trial.

Another good example is the case of Enron, the energy-trading scam which collapsed in 2001. A number of top Enron officials were sent to prison--and rightly so--but the overall investigation and prosecution into the activities of the company was run as a cover-up, to protect those who steered Enron from behind the scenes. This cover-up began with the initial revelations of trouble at the company, through a press campaign which effectively focused public attention on one area of the company's operations, and continued with a special internal company investigation of just that area; that investigation, in turn, became the basis for the Congressional hearings and the Federal prosecutions of company officials. The officials who went to jail were expendable, but so in fact was Enron, which had served much of its purpose.

What Enron really was, was a battering ram to force a deregulation of the electric-power industry, to allow for the creation of a spot-market pricing structure similar to the spot market in crude oil. Enron was largely steered in this imperial endeavor by two banks, Lazard and Rothschild, which had also played major roles in the creation of the oil spot market. Rothschild had a man on Enron's board at the time of the collapse, and one of the two men brought in to handle the company's internal investigation was a former Lazard banker, while the company itself was a long-time Lazard client. With the cover-up in place, the allegations of widespread bribery of public officials to grease the skids for deregulation and other crimes were never investigated, and the controllers of the operation walked away, leaving the insiders to twist in the wind.

Already, we see signs that a similar cover-up is in the works. Lists of targets are appearing in the press, along with sanitized exposé of "what really happened'' at places like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, all of which have the characteristic of blaming forces inside the companies, while hiding the way these companies were operating as creatures of the larger system. The puppets are being thrown to the wolves, while the puppetmasters are protected. If we are to save this nation, it is imperative that the puppetmasters also be exposed.

As LaRouche said, "You don't destroy the empire, by putting some of its members in jail. You destroy the empire, by putting the whole oligarchy in prison!''

- Targets -

One of the prime targets of the Pecora hearings was J.P. Morgan, both the man and the bank. Through its direct and interlocking directorships, Pecora said, Morgan had "incomparably the greatest reach of power in private hands in our entire history.'' The hearings revealed that Morgan maintained what it called "preferred lists'' of powerful men in finance, business, politics, and public life, to whom he would offer securities at less than market value and provide other favors. Morgan insisted that these were simple business transactions, for which he expected nothing in return!

The House of Morgan was, in truth, a British operation from its inception. It began life as George Peabody & Co., a bank founded in London in 1851 by American George Peabody. A few years later, another American, Junius S. Morgan, joined the firm, and upon Peabody's death the firm became J.S. Morgan & Co. Junius Morgan brought in his son, J. Pierpont Morgan, to head the New York office of J.S. Morgan, and the New York office became J.P. Morgan & Co. From its original role in helping the British gain control of American railroads, the Morgan bank became a leading force in the oligarchy's war against the American System, using the deep pockets of its imperial masters to become a powerhouse in not only finance but steel, automobiles, railroads, electricity generation, and other industries.

In taking on Morgan, along with Kuhn Loeb, Chase, National City Bank, and others, Pecora was serving notice to the empire that, in the United States at least, its activities would be subject to the laws of the nation. Pecora's efforts were rewarded with the passage of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as Glass-Steagall, which founded the FDIC, and prohibited the mixing of commercial and investment banking. Glass-Steagall forced J.P. Morgan & Co. to break up into two separate companies, the commercial bank J.P. Morgan and the investment bank Morgan Stanley.

Glass-Steagall helped keep the bankers in check, until the 1980s, when its restrictions began to be eroded; by 1999, when the commercial bank-investment bank prohibition was repealed, it was already being ignored. Today, the top U.S. commercial banks are all part of financial conglomerates with heavy investment-banking and related speculative activity. Pulling the proper banking functions out of these monstrosities will require considerable effort.

The activities of Morgan Chase, as the leading British bank based in the U.S., should be at the top of the investigators' list, along with Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the American arms of Britain's HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Add to the list, the activities of those investment banks turned bank holding companies, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and their departed brethren Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch.

Special attention should also be paid to the activities of Lazard and Rothschild, with their long histories of subversion. Though much smaller than the giants, these two banks are in many ways far more powerful, and played a critical role in the creation and steering of the speculative bubble. Lazard's longtime banker Felix Rohatyn has made a career of aiding the empire's takeover of the United States, and virtually everything he's touched should be examined. Rohatyn's board positions and merger deals provide a road map to guide investigators.

Other targets of a new Pecora-style investigation should include the hedge funds and private equity funds, the derivatives trade, and the "structured finance'' instruments--the collateralized debt obligations and such--which have proved such a disaster. How did these operations come into being, who protected them, and why did the regulatory and ratings systems fail so spectacularly?

Among the hedge funds, special attention should be given to the activities, political as well as financial, of George Soros, the Rothschild-connected drug-pusher whose specialty is undermining nations through political and financial warfare. Pulling the Soros thread will do much to expose how our nation has been destroyed.

The relationship between the illegal drug trade and the financial system should be thoroughly investigated. It is widely known that the dope trade would choke on its own cash were not a significant portion of the international banking system devoted to laundering drug money. And here the list of suspects reads like a Who's Who of International Finance. Who's laundering the money? In whose pockets does it wind up, and what do they do with it?

We know that drugs and the drug money have played major roles in the imperial assault on the nation-state. Shutting down the drug trade is a necessary part of defending our sovereignty. A new Pecora Commission could easily pay for itself out of the illegal drug profits that could be confiscated as a result of such investigations.

Then, there is the way in which the oil markets have been rigged via the spot market, which created a huge pool of dollars in Europe, which the empire also used to fund its assault on our nation, and the concept of nation-states in general. This petrodollar market has allowed the empire to not only flood the U.S. with speculative money, but also to exert considerable control over the dollar itself. We must protect ourselves from this predatory apparatus.

An included aspect of this, perhaps better left to law enforcement agencies, should be a thorough investigation into the British-Saudi arms-for-oil deals, the slush funds spawned in those deals, and the role of British arms company BAE Systems.

Just as the original Pecora Commission paved the way for reform by showing the American people the nature of the financial system which triggered the Great Depression, a new Pecora Commission must show the public how the empire foisted deregulation and globalization upon the nation, with the collusion of a corrupted political class. It must show that the so-called "free market'' system is actually a corrupt looting operation which has bankrupted our nation and our people; that the highly touted "financial innovation'' was a fraud; and that only a return to the American System of sovereign credit, regulation, infrastructure, and production can lead us out of this new Dark Age. It won't solve all our problems, but it is a necessary step in the right direction.

Sunday, January 11, 2009


What does that scoreline suggest?

What about this one?

Israel 854 Gaza 13 (with 10 Israeli own goals in the form of IDF soldiers, although the 3 Israeli civilians could also be described as own goals because last October during the ceasefire there was only one rocket fired from Gaza and no Israeli deaths).

More importantly, which scoreline is the most important to you?

Saturday, January 10, 2009


Well of course they did.

The current slaughter in Gaza is part of Operation Justified Vengeance, which itself is part of a much longer term plan to blow up the Middle East.



Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December

by Gareth Porter

Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel cease-fire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

The proposal to renew the cease-fire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

The Hamas officials insisted that Israel not be allowed to close or reduce commercial traffic through border crossings for political purposes, as it had done during the six-month lull, according to the source. They asked Suleiman, who had served as mediator between Israel and Hamas in negotiating the original six-month Gaza cease-fire last spring, to "put pressure" on Israel to take that the cease-fire proposal seriously.

Suleiman said he could not pressure Israel but could only make the suggestion to Israeli officials. It could not be learned, however, whether Israel explicitly rejected the Hamas proposal or simply refused to respond to Egypt.

The readiness of Hamas to return to the cease-fire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Center, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the cease-fire that had been in effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza."

Pastor said he passed Meshal's statement on to a "senior official" in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) the day after the meeting with Meshal. According to Pastor, the Israeli official said he would get back to him, but did not.

"There was an alternative to the military approach to stopping the rockets," said Pastor. He added that Israel is unlikely to have an effective cease-fire in Gaza unless it agrees to lift the siege.

The Israeli embassy in Washington declined to comment Thursday on whether there had been any discussion of a cease-fire proposal from Hamas in mid-December that would have stopped the rocket firing.

Abu Omar, a spokesman for Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Syria, told CBS News Wednesday that Hamas could only accept the cease-fire plan now being proposed by France and Egypt, which guarantees an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza as soon as hostilities on both sides were halted. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel would only support the proposal if it also included measures to prevent Hamas from re-arming.

The interest of Hamas in a cease-fire agreement that would actually open the border crossings was acknowledged at a Dec. 21 Israeli cabinet meeting – five days before the beginning of the Israeli military offensive – by Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet. "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce," Diskin was quoted by YNet News agency as saying.

Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza – its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy – even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.

The cease-fire agreement that went into effect June 19, 2008, required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.

In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, the agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and "allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza" within 13 days after the beginning of the cease-fire.

Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas.

The Israelis opened the access points only partially, and in late July Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declared that the border crossings should remain closed until Hamas agreed to the release of Gilad Shalit, an IDF soldier abducted by Hamas in June 2006. The Hamas representative in Lebanon, Usam Hamdan, told the ICG in late December that the flow of goods and fuel into Gaza had been only 15 percent of its basic needs.

Despite Israel's refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC), an NGO close to the Israeli intelligence community.

In the first days after the cease-fire took effect, Islamic Jihad fired nine rockets and a few mortar rounds in retaliation for Israeli assassinations of their members in the West Bank. In August another eight rockets were fired by various groups, according to IDF data cited in the report. But it shows that only one rocket was launched from Gaza in September and one in October.

The report recalls that Hamas "tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement" on other Palestinian groups, taking "a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement," including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the cease-fire.

On Nov. 4 – just when the cease-fire was most effective – the IDF carried out an attack against a house in Gaza in which six members of Hamas' military wing were killed, including two commanders, and several more were wounded. The IDF explanation for the operation was that it had received intelligence that a tunnel was being dug near the Israeli security fence for the purpose of abducting Israeli soldiers.

Hamas officials asserted, however, that the tunnel was being dug for defensive purposes, not to capture IDF personnel, according to Pastor, and one IDF official confirmed that fact to him.

After that Israeli attack, the cease-fire completely fell apart, as Hamas began openly firing rockets into Israel, the IDF continued to carry out military operations inside Gaza, and the border crossings were "closed most of the time," according to the ITIC account.

Israel cited the firing of 190 rockets over six weeks as the justification for its massive attack on Gaza.

(Inter Press Service)

Friday, January 09, 2009


It seems more than coincidental that just a few days after Craig Murray told us that he was informed that the British mission to the UN was blocking moves for a ceasefire that last night the UN voted for a UN resolution drafted by the British calling for a ceasefire, although unsurprisingly the USA abstained.


Speaking to the Financial Times Tony Blair, who created the FSA, admits that the light-touch approach taken by the whole regulatory system for The City was inadequate. But it's not clear that if Blair knew of the problems he would have stopped them anyway.



In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Blair implicitly accepted that the light-touch regulatory system instigated by his government for financial services had proved inadequate. “The point is to learn and learn the right lesson,” Mr Blair said. “This was a credit bubble and a product of a particular way of running the financial system and that has to change and change dramatically and fundamentally.

“And it is changing. It is not a problem of the whole free enterprise system.”

Challenged on Labour’s failure to impose more stringent controls before the credit and banking crisis, Mr Blair said the government would have acted if the regulators had warned of the extent of the problems. But he suggested that in the absence of such warnings, the boom meant tough statutory regulation was virtually impossible in political terms.

“Supposing a few years back I had said or Gordon [Brown] had said ‘we are going to impose these big new capitalisation requirements on banks’, people would have said you are mad. You are going to destroy the City of London. If you had tried making major changes to the regulatory system a few years ago when things were going extremely well you would have a big political problem,” said Mr Blair.


From one of my favourite films, Do The Right Thing by Spike Lee. The character Radio Raheem wears knuckledusters on both fists, the left spells HATE and the right spells LOVE. He is talking to the central character of the film Mookie, played by Lee.

I just copped them. Let me tell
you the story of Right-Hand--Left-
Hand--the tale of Good and Evil.

I'm listening.


He thrusts up his left hand.

It was with this hand that Brother
Cain iced his brother. LOVE!

He thrusts up his right hand.

See these fingers, they lead
straight to the soul of man. The
right hand. The hand of LOVE!

Mookie is buggin'.

The story of Life is this...
STATIC! One hand is always fighting
the other. Left Hand Hate is
kicking much ass and it looks like
Right Hand Love is finished. Hold
up. Stop the presses! Love is
coming back, yes, it's Love. Love
has won. Left Hand Hate KO'ed by

Mookie doesn't know what to say, so he doesn't say anything.

Brother, Mookie, if I love you I
love you, but if I hate you...

I understand.


Jerry Lewis has been on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning. Lewis is London correspondent for Israel Radio, and was the Zionist voice of the Israel v Gaza argument on BBC Radio 5 Live debate on Victoria Derbyshire on Monday. Lewis, like Daniel Finkelstein in The Times, is using the Holocaust as an excuse for the slaughter in Gaza. Lewis, like David Aaronovitch also of The Times, denies the analogy that Israelis in Gaza are the new Nazis in the Polish ghetto. And Lewis, like Finkelstein, claims to feel sympathy for those being slaughtered, particularly the children.

Never again! Lewis cried.

Never again!

Never again, as it is happening right now in Gaza, again, and again, and again...

Can you put tens of Gazan civilians in a house and then blow it up just because the Nazis (created by the Rothschilds and Warburgs for the purpose) did it to Jews 70 years ago?!

No you cannot. That is evil, selfish logic, and precisely the kind of evil, selfish logic the Warburgs and Rothschilds want to provoke.

Lewis, like Finkelstein, also uses the Holocaust to claim that because nobody defended the Jews against the Nazis then the Jews must defend themselves. The Israelis have created the very monsters they are defending themselves against!!

It really is absurd, ridiculous and plain daft.

Lewis, like Finkelstein and Aaronovitch, should carefully study the Warburgs and Rothschilds, self-proclaimed Kings of the Jews.

Never again? Lewis, like Finkelstein and Aaronovitch, say yes, because it's different when Zionists conduct ethnic cleansing and genocide. And they wonder why so many hate them?

As a MUFC fan the following has been adapted from the Glazier take-over, and is intended to help make the distinction between Jews and Zionists;

Love Jews. Hate Zionists.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009


Ukraine and Georgia have recently both been targets for NATO expansion, suffering colour revolutions financed by Soros and Berezovsky.

Last August Georgia tried to provoke a larger scale war with tie-muncher's mad invasion of South Ossetia on the opening day of the Olympic Games.

Now it seems Ukraine is being advised by a Soros-owned group Blackstone which until July had Lord Jacob Rothschild as a director.

This is just another attempt to rile Russia and paint it as the cruel and heartless aggressor.

The following facts suggest otherwise.

And in case you've forgotten who Soros was, he made a billion by screwing our currency...causing Berezovsky to fall in love with him for it, describing the financial rape as "top-notch!".



Soros-Advised Ukrainian Government Cuts Gas To Freezing Europe
Increase Decrease

January 7, 2009 (LPAC) -- An economic and humanitarian emergency began to take shape across southern Europe today, after government-run Naftohaz of Ukraine cut the flow of Russian natural gas in three pipelines across Ukrainian territory, which supply Russian Gazprom's customers in Turkey, the Balkans, and other European countries. Some affected parts of Eastern Europe are in the grip of a deep cold wave, with temperatures as low as minus 20 degrees C (minus 4 degrees F).

The dispute between Naftohaz and Gazprom escalated Jan. 1 when Gazprom stopped supplying Ukraine itself with gas, for lack of a contract, and it has been complicated by faction fights between the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister. But the outstanding feature of the situation is that the Ukrainian government, which today left southern Europe freezing, is being advised on financial and economic policy by megaspeculator and ex-Nazi George Soros, during this same period. The Soros factor betrays the natural gas crisis as orchestrated from London.

British geopolitical strategy outlets, including the London Economist weekly, have repeatedly trumpeted their hopes for a Russia-Ukraine showdown to force all Eurasia onto the agenda of a new empire, run through the EU and NATO.

As of October, Russian and Ukrainian Prime Ministers Vladimir Putin and Yulia Tymoshenko had agreed on an outline for renewal of the Naftohaz-Gazprom contracts, based on a below-market price for the gas, no increase in the transit fees charged by Ukraine for Russian gas going to Europe, and payment in full of Ukraine's gas bills for 2008. Then Ukraine's main exports, steel and chemicals, collapsed. Its currency tumbled. Ukraine turned to the International Monetary Fund for a $16.5 billion loan in October, which the Economist Intelligence Unit stresses was chiefly for servicing the foreign debt of Ukrainian banks. As a term of that loan, Ukrainian sources report, the government agreed to hire the Soros-owned Blackstone Group as a consultant. Prime Minister Tymoshenko admits meeting with Soros in December.

As of Dec. 31, Gazprom reported receiving no payment for the Naftohaz arrears. The Russian side then dropped the offer of a below-market price and proposed $450/thousand cubic meters for 2009. Naftohaz was demanding an above-normal $2/thousand cubic meter transit fee for the gas Gazprom ships to Europe. Kiev broke off the talks on New Year's Eve. Gazprom cut the supply of gas for Ukraine itself, continuing to send the "transit gas" for Europe. Several days later, Gazprom accused Ukraine of diverting up to 65.3 million cubic meters, and reduced its total supply to the pipeline network accordingly, by about 15%. Last night, Ukraine retaliated by cutting Europe off.

Bulgaria, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Greece received no Russian gas via Ukraine today. The flow to the Czech Republic dropped by 75%, to Poland by 85%, to Austria by 90%, and to France by 70%. Slovakia, losing 70% of its supplies, discussed declaring a state of emergency, RIA Novosti reported. Bulgaria scrambled to prepare restart of a nuclear plant, shut down when it joined the EU three years ago. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, at a press conference today in Moscow, said Gazprom has boosted the supply of gas through the Blue Stream pipeline across the Black Sea to Turkey, and through the Yamal-Europe pipeline from northern Siberia through Belarus and Poland, as well as purchasing gas on the spot market and drawing down reserve pools it owns in Europe, in an attempt to meet its obligations.

This evening Prime Minister Putin jumped into the situation, meeting with Miller and the head of Russia's Customs Service (which had handed Gazprom a citation for shipping "contraband" -- gas without a contract -- to Ukraine). Putin, who had been phoned by the leaders of Bulgaria and Romania, ordered Miller to take all the Gazprom-Naftohaz contracts with him to show EU officials when he goes to Brussels for talks on the crisis tomorrow.

The Communist Party of Ukraine, a large group in the Supreme Rada, today called for an emergency session on the gas crisis and growing tension with Russia. Economist Natalia Vitrenko, chairman of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, issued a statement Jan. 3, calling Ukraine's negotiating posture a "dirty political attack" on Russia. She noted that the government took Ukraine into the World Trade Organization (WTO) last May, with a pledge to move to world market prices; furthermore, since Nov. 1 Naftohaz is charging its domestic customers $320/thousand cubic meters, or nearly 60% more than the $201 it was offering to pay Gazprom in 2009. Has George Soros advised the Ukrainian authorities how to spend the difference?


Aren't those bloody Zionist Israelis so kind?

Hundreds of dead civilians.

Thousands more injured.

Many under rubble.

And now the kind Israelis are allowing a 3 hour ceasefire a day to allow in aid.

As Confucius said, when shooting fish in a barrel it's more fun if the fish are alive.


This is getting outrageous!

A few days ago John Bolton proposed a three state solution, with no Palestine.

Now Daniel Pipes in The Jerusalem Post has proposed something very similar.

Note how Pipes refers to "the Palestinian Problem", as if the Palestinians are the problem.



Jan 6, 2009 22:29 | Updated Jan 6, 2009 22:47
Solving the 'Palestinian problem'

Israel's war against Hamas brings up the old quandary: What to do about the Palestinians? Western states, including Israel, need to set goals to figure out their policy toward the West Bank and Gaza.

Let's first review what we know does not and cannot work:

• Israeli control. Neither side wishes to continue the situation that began in 1967, when the IDF took control of a population that is religiously, culturally, economically and politically different and hostile.

• A Palestinian state. The 1993 Oslo Accords began this process but a toxic brew of anarchy, ideological extremism, anti-Semitism, jihadism and warlordism led to complete Palestinian failure.

• A binational state: Given the two populations' strong mutual antipathy, the prospect of a combined Israel-Palestine (what Muammar Gaddafi calls "Israstine") is as absurd as it seems.

Excluding these three prospects leaves only one practical approach, which worked tolerably well in the period 1948-67: Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule, with Amman ruling the West Bank and Cairo running Gaza.

TO BE sure, this back-to-the-future approach inspires little enthusiasm. Not only was Jordanian-Egyptian rule undistinguished, but resurrecting this arrangement will frustrate Palestinian impulses, be they nationalist or Islamist. Further, Cairo never wanted Gaza and has vehemently rejected its return. Accordingly, one academic analyst dismisses this idea as "an elusive fantasy that can only obscure real and difficult choices."

It is not. The failures of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and the "peace process," has prompted rethinking in Amman and Jerusalem. Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor's Ilene Prusher found already in 2007 that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation "seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the Jordan River." The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the West Bank in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return. Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari documented for Middle East Quarterly in 2006 how the PA's "failure to assert control and become a politically viable entity has caused Amman to reconsider whether a hands-off strategy toward the West Bank is in its best interests."

Israeli officialdom has also shown itself open to this idea, occasionally calling for Jordanian troops to enter the West Bank.

Despairing of self-rule, some Palestinians welcome the Jordanian option. An unnamed senior PA official told Diker and Inbari that a form of federation or confederation with Jordan offers "the only reasonable, stable, long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

Hanna Seniora opined that "the current weakened prospects for a two-state solution forces us to revisit the possibility of a confederation with Jordan." The New York Times's Hassan Fattah quotes a Palestinian in Jordan: "Everything has been ruined for us - we've been fighting for 60 years and nothing is left. It would be better if Jordan ran things in Palestine, if King Abdullah could take control of the West Bank."

NOR IS this just talk: Diker and Inbari report that back-channel PA-Jordan negotiations in 2003-04 "resulted in an agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members," to the West Bank.

And while Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak announced a year ago that "Gaza is not part of Egypt, nor will it ever be," his is hardly the last word. First, Mubarak notwithstanding, Egyptians overwhelmingly want a strong tie to Gaza; Hamas concurs; and Israeli leaders sometimes agree. So the basis for an overhaul in policy exists.

Secondly, Gaza is arguably more a part of Egypt than of "Palestine." During most of the Islamic period, it was either controlled by Cairo or part of Egypt administratively. Gazan colloquial Arabic is identical to what Egyptians living in Sinai speak. Economically, Gaza has most connections to Egypt. Hamas itself derives from the Muslim Brethren, an Egyptian organization.

Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians?

Thirdly, Jerusalem could out-maneuver Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all water, electricity, food, medicine and other trade, and accepts enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo would have to take responsibility for Gaza. Among other advantages, this would make it accountable for Gazan security, finally putting an end to the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar assaults.

The Jordan-Egypt option quickens no pulses, but that may be its value. It offers a uniquely sober way to solve the "Palestinian problem."

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009



I donated £100 to the David Icke Legal Defence Fund when I first heard of his case.

I'm happy to have financed in a small way a victory for truth and bravery.


On the 22nd July 1946 Jewish terrorists blew up The King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

They dressed as local Arabs.

They planted bombs in milk churns.

They killed 91 people, many of whom were British.

The King David Hotel was being used by the ruling British authorities as a HQ.

This terrorist attack was celebrated in 2006 by The Menachim Begin Centre, named after Menachim Begin who ran the operation and later became Prime Minister of Israel, and was attended by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Why the fuck are we supporting these trigger-happy murdering senseless Zionist thugs?

The answer lies in Bilderberg.

Gordon Brown : Bilderberg 1991.
Tony "AWOL" Blair : Bilderberg 1993, 1998, JP Morgan Chase, AWOL Special Peace Envoy to the Middle East(!?)


Who are the latest terrorists to be blown away?

10 kids?!

In a UN school?!

Trigger-happy Zionist thugs! (defend that one, Aaronovitch)

If they're not killing children they're killing they're own!

Just one rocket will mean victory for Hamas.

How much has Operation Cast Lead cost?

During the ceasefire just one rocket, repeat just one rocket, was fired from Gaza last October, and nobody died. How many rockets have been fired since Operation Cast Lead started? How many Israelis have died?

Absolutely totally senseless murdering Zionist thugs!!

The money for Cast Lead would have been better spent on building Gazan infrastructure, not destroying it.


Last week Aaronovitch wrote a harsh piece that we should not fill ourselves with false grievance for the deaths of innocent Palestinians.

Today Aaronovitch has written that we should be accurate about history. He has a dig at George Galloway, Brian Eno, Ken Livingstone, who all compare Gaza to a Polish Ghetto controlled by the Nazis. Aaronovitch’s point is that the scale is incomparable, both in terms of number of deaths and the manner of the deaths.

This is true.

But that is as far as Aaronovitch’s history goes.

It does not go back to the attempts of total weirdo Sabbatai Zevi to take Palestine from the Ottomans.

It does not go back to the Rothschild/Montefiore attempts to colonize Palestine in the 19th Century.

It does not go back to the deliberate creation of Hitler and the Nazi state by the Warburgs, close family friends of the Rothschilds, and the transfer agreement between the Zionists and the Nazis.

It does not go back to the Jewish immigration that was received by the Palestinians with mass riots and anger, a sign of things to come which manifested on 9/11.

And it definitely does not go back to how the Balfour Declaration has been torn up and ignored by the Zionists ( and I’m still waiting for a comment, Tzipi).

What we are seeing in Gaza is the next stage of ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

We see it in John Bolton’s public call for a three state solution without any Palestine whatsoever!

They don’t want any Palestinians in Israel whatsoever. It's obvious. They've illegally walled off the West Bank. Now they're invading Gaza.


Hamas or Hannas, they're not black and white
Good and bad, victim and murderer, Jew or Palestinian or Nazi sympathiser... we can't afford our simplistic arguments
David Aaronovitch

For months - years even - the historical twinning that some campaigners have chosen for the situation in Gaza has been with the Warsaw ghetto. There'll probably be a sign up soon, because in the past week Ken Livingstone, the activist-musician Brian Eno and George Galloway have all made the comparison.

“Gaza is a ghetto,” said Mr Livingstone, "in exactly the same way that the Warsaw Ghetto was, and people are trapped in it”; while Eno predicted: “They [the Israelis] will continue to create a Warsaw Ghetto in the Middle East.” The less-restrained Mr Galloway pronounced: “Those murdering them [the occupants of Gaza] are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1942.”

Busy people sometimes hurry their reading. Mr Galloway, for example, may only have skimmed the day-by-day reports made by SS Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop on the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. On the third day of the operation Stroop tells how “large numbers of Jews - entire families - already on fire, jumped from the windows. We made sure that these, as well as the other Jews, were liquidated immediately.”

Stroop's operation was made necessary because the inhabitants of the ghetto took up what few arms they had, having already seen more than half their number transported to extermination camps - a figure which, if translated into Gaza terms, would mean the deliberate killing of 500,000 Palestinians.

A year earlier in this place that was, pace Livingstone, “exactly” a ghetto in the same way as Gaza, the death rate from starvation and disease was more than 4,000 a month - the equivalent of 12,000 in the Gazan “ghetto”. On these grounds alone, never mind any others (rockets, Hamas, etc), we may conclude that Gaza 2009 and Warsaw 1943 have very little in common.

So why the philistine insistence on this particular match? Partly, I imagine, so that the matcher can mention the “irony” of Jews supposedly doing to others what the Nazis “did to them” - as if there weren't a thousand other closer, but far less narratively satisfying, comparisons.

But this ahistorical hyperbole is also the product of a kind of binary thinking, the belief that there can only be two kinds of anything, and two possible responses: there's the good and the bad; there's the victim and the murderer. The only way Jews can shed their unique victim status is if they take on the mantle of the worst kind of murderer, the mantle of Stroop. The only way we can think about the Holocaust (or subsequent little holocausts) is that those who carried it out are so unlike us that they are beyond comprehension.

Strangely this thought did not begin for me with events in Gaza, but in the reactions to a piece of cinema released here last week. Ten years ago I read a book by a German author, Bernhard Schlink, called The Reader, which told the story of a young German boy who, in 1958, falls for an older woman. She becomes his first lover, but then disappears from his life. A few years later, as a law student he sees the same woman - Hanna - on trial for crimes committed as a guard at a concentration camp during the war. Gradually he realises that the key to much of her behaviour, exciting and appalling, lies in something as banal as her shame at her own illiteracy.

The film version, starring Kate Winslet, directed by Stephen Daldry and with a screenplay by David Hare, has met with a surprisingly vigorous dusting-up from some of the Anglophone world's finest film critics. The objections to style or cinematography vary, but those to moral purpose are very similar. “Outrageously,” said the New York Times reviewer, “Hanna is a victim too, because she took the guard job only to hide her illiteracy, as if illiteracy were an excuse for barbarism.”

Anthony Lane, of The New Yorker, more languidly complained that the audience is “encouraged to muse upon the cultural shortcomings, or improvements, in the life of an ageing member of the SS. This is not an issue that most of us feel the need to worry about.”

As an assertion, it seems to me, this is more or less completely wrong. But I'll come to that in a minute, after having said that I think neither the book nor the film deserve such castigation. On the contrary. Neither invite you to think that Hanna is a good person or a victim, indeed she is rather animalistic, manipulative and lacking in imagination. And neither excuses barbarism in any way. But the story suggests that, if you didn't know your lover was once a concentration camp guard, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell.

Wilfully, almost, the critics have missed the point. One of the most important exchanges takes place in the courtroom. Hanna, who joined the SS as a guard in 1943, is being interrogated by the judge about how selections were made in her work camp for those who would be sent to the gas chambers. She answers matter-of-factly that each of the six guards selected ten women every month. The judge is horrified. “So what would you have done?” she asks, genuinely bemused.

In an interview Daldry talked about how the real trials were reported in the German press in the 1960s. Those in the dock had been depicted as “obviously monsters, sadists, mad people, criminally insane. They must be because only the criminally insane could have been involved in this.” He was talking about the binary, evading thought. Schlink, Daldry and Hare are about challenging this evasion.

So when Hanna asks “What would you have done?” the answer is, how far back shall we go? When 13.75 million German voters put their cross against the overtly Jew-hating National Socialist list in July 1932, didn't they make themselves complicit in the events that ended up with Hanna's choice? Or, to put it another way, couldn't people that you might fall in love with, be capable - depending on the circumstances, created by millions of others - of doing terrible things? That's the question the New Yorker critic so disdains.

It has always seemed to me that the most awful question raised by the Holocaust is not about victimhood, but about being the perpetrator, and how that declension can take place. And in that context I want to ask Brian Eno, whether he has ever - in a recording break - watched Hamas TV and thought to compare it to the propaganda, much earlier, of those who later gave the Hannas their jobs?


The following strongly supports the existence of Operation Justified Vengeance, the long term plan to divide-and-conquer the Palestinian Occupied Territories, with Hamas controlling Gaza.

It describes how control of Gaza was guided into the hands of Hamas by none other than the Bush administration.

And the commander of al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is quoted as saying,
"We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves [the Bush administration's] overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise."

Hence mass murderer Bush's public support for the Israeli slaughter.



Bush Plan Eliminated Obstacle to Gaza Assault

by Gareth Porter

Until mid-2007, there was a serious political obstacle to a massive conventional war by Israel against Hamas in Gaza: the fact that Hamas had won free and fair elections for the Palestinian parliament and was still the leading faction in a fully legitimate government.

But the George W. Bush administration helped Israel eliminate that obstacle by deliberately provoking Hamas to seize power in Gaza. That plan was aimed at getting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the democratically elected Hamas government – something Bush had tried unsuccessfully to do for many months.

Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Palestinian parliament in the January 2006 elections, and the following month, the Palestinian Legislative Council voted for a new government under Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. The Bush administration immediately began to use its control over the "Quartet" (the U.S., European Union, United Nations, and Russia) to try to reverse the results of the election.

The Quartet responded to the Hamas victory by demanding that Hamas renounce all armed resistance to Israel and even "disarm" before a political solution was reached. That was in effect a demand that Israel be allowed to use its military and economic controls over the West Bank and Gaza to impose its own unilateral solution on the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration and the Europeans cut off all financing for the Palestinian government, while Israel refused to hand over to the Palestinian authorities the VAT and customs duties it collected on behalf of the Palestinians under the Paris Protocol signed with the PLO as part of the Oslo Accords.

When Abbas continued to resist U.S. demands for an end to the elected government, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told him at the United Nations in September 2006 that they would not accept a Palestinian government with Hamas participation.

Then Rice was dispatched to Ramallah in early October 2006 to tighten the screws on the Palestinian president. She demanded a commitment from Abbas to dissolve the Haniyeh government within two weeks, then accepted his promise to do so within four weeks, according to a later U.S. State Department memorandum published in Vanity Fair magazine.

There was one problem, however, with the U.S. demand: under Article 45 of the Palestinian Authority's "Basic Law," Abbas could fire the prime minister, but he could not appoint a new one who did not represent the majority party in the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Abbas failed to act on the dissolution promise, so the Bush administration gave him a memo demanding that Hamas be given a "clear choice, with a clear deadline" to accept or reject "a new government that meets the Quartet principles." The memo, published in part last January in Vanity Fair, said that if Hamas refused that demand, "you should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government explicitly committed to that platform."

It further demanded that Abbas "strengthen his team" by bringing in "credible figures of strong standing in the international community." That was a reference to the longtime director of Fatah's paramilitary forces, Muhammad Dahlan, who had long been regarded as the candidate of the Bush administration and its allies. In April 2003, Yasser Arafat had been under pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to name Dahlan as head of Palestinian security.

In late 2006, Rice got Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to agree to provide covert military training and money to equip a major increase in Dahlan's militia.

But there was another element of the Bush administration plan. It encouraged Dahlan to carry out attacks against the Hamas security and political infrastructure in Gaza, which were well-known to be far stronger than that of Abbas' Fatah faction. In a later interview with Vanity Fair, Dahlan admitted that he had carried out "very clever warfare" against Hamas in Gaza for many months.

Other sources said that Dahlan's militia was carrying out torture and kidnappings of Hamas security personnel.

Alvaro de Soto, then UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, wrote in his confidential "End of Mission Report" that the U.S. "clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas." He recalled that the "U.S. envoy" to a Feb. 2, 2007, meeting of the Quartet in Washington had twice declared "how much I like this violence," because "it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas."

That U.S. envoy was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Bush administration seemed to want Hamas to know about its plan to help Fatah use force against the Hamas organization in Gaza. A Jan. 5, 2007, Reuters story datelined Jerusalem revealed an internal U.S. document showing that the United States had pledged $86 million to "strengthen and reform elements of the Palestinian security sector controlled by the PA presidency" and "dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza."

When Abbas negotiated a new agreement with Hamas in Mecca in February 2007 on a Palestinian unity government, the Bush administration responded by drafting a secret "action plan for the Palestinian presidency" which threatened that the "international community" would "no longer deal exclusively with the presidency" if it did not go along with U.S. demands, and that "[m]any countries in the EU and the G8" would "start looking for more credible interlocutors on the Palestinian side who can deliver on key issues of security and governance."

The plan, dated March 2, 2007, called for Abbas to "start taking necessary action against groups undermining the cease-fire with the goal of ensuring all armed groups within Palestine security institutions in stages (between 2007 and 2008)." It promised to help Abbas to "impose necessary order on the Palestinian street" through "superiority" of Fatah forces over Hamas, after which there would be new elections in autumn 2007.

Again that U.S. plan was not kept secret but was leaked in April 2007 by the Jordanian newspaper Al-Majd. That could only have happened if Jordanian intelligence services, which cooperative very closely with the United States, made the decision to leak it to the press.

Then, on June 7, 2007, the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz revealed that Israel had been asked to authorize the shipment of dozens of Egyptian armored cars, hundreds of rockets, and thousands of hand grenades for the Fatah security forces.

The leaked plans for a military buildup were an open invitation to Hamas to take preemptive action. The day after the Ha'aretz story, Hamas launched a campaign that eliminated the Fatah security presence in Gaza in five days.

The day after the complete defeat of Dahlan's forces in Gaza, Abbas dissolved the Haniyeh unity government and named his own prime minister, in violation of the Palestinian charter.

The rout of Dahlan's forces was a predictable consequence of the Bush administration's policy. As the commander of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Khalid Jaberi, told Vanity Fair's David Rose, "We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves [the Bush administration's] overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise."

But the Bush administration had not only accomplished its goal of eliminating a Hamas-dominated government; it had also set up a new argument that could later be used to justify an all-out Israeli offensive in Gaza: that Hamas had mounted an "illegal coup" in Gaza. That was the term that Rice used on Jan. 2 in justifying the Israeli operations against Gaza.

(Inter Press Service)


Gideon Rachman, the now notorious pro-world government Bilderberger at the FT, has conceded that just one rocket from Gaza means victory for Hamas.

Rachman, surprisingly, talks some sense this time, perhaps because there is very little history involved in his analysis. This leads me to think that if Rachman did learn some real, hard, true history instead of the spoon-fed history from Cambridge then he may come to the same conclusion that more and more are coming to every day; there is a global conspiracy to create a world government of microchipped people.



Israel’s self-defeating Gaza offensive

By Gideon Rachman

Published: January 5 2009 19:04 | Last updated: January 5 2009 19:04

By sending ground troops into the Gaza Strip, Israel has crossed a line that brings it perilously close to strategic failure.

Just as with the Lebanon war of 2006, an air bombardment has failed to stop rocket fire into Israel – and has been followed by a ground invasion. The Israeli government says it has learnt the lessons of its stalemated war with Hizbollah, the Lebanese militia. Gaza is more hospitable terrain than southern Lebanon; Hamas is militarily weaker than Hizbollah; Israel is better prepared and is using new tactics.

Maybe so. But what are Israel’s strategic needs? The first is the protection of Israeli citizens; the second is the re-establishment of Israel’s deterrent power; the third is the preservation of international support; and the fourth some prospect of durable peace. Each one of these objectives is now in peril.

By sending the army into Gaza, Israel has probably ensured it will lose many more lives than the four killed by Hamas rockets in the year before the conflict started. It is, of course, the job of the military to take casualties to protect civilians. But Israel’s is a citizen army. The point has not been lost on the Israeli public. A poll taken early in the conflict found more than 70 per cent support for bombing Gaza – but just 20 per cent support for a ground invasion.

The Israeli government may feel that the loss of life, on both sides, is justified if it can stop the rockets and restore the deterrent power that was damaged in Lebanon. But this is a gamble that could easily backfire. As Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, put it a couple of days ago: “Let’s say we unilaterally stopped and four days from now a barrage fell on Ashkelon ... Do you understand the consequences for Israeli deterrence?” But that means that a battered Hamas just has to find a way to keep firing rockets into Israel to claim some sort of victory. And even if Israel succeeds in stopping the rockets for now, any future regional enemy now knows how best to taunt Israel and delight its enemies: rockets.

Then, there is international opinion. In the early stages of the campaign, Israel got a relatively easy ride. Among western governments there was widespread acceptance of the argument that no state can tolerate regular assaults of the sort that peppered southern Israel. And Hamas has few friends among Arab governments.

But international sympathy is predictably crumbling away as the death toll mounts. Arguments about what is a “proportional” response to Hamas’s rockets seem legalistic, next to the simple fact that more than 500 Palestinians have died so far, compared with five Israelis. The European Union is now demanding a ceasefire. Arab governments are responding to outrage at home.

Israel has so far been able to rely on the usual rock-solid support from the US government. But even that could eventually change. A recent opinion poll showed that Democratic party voters were opposed to the Israeli attack on Gaza by a margin of 22 per cent. It is not inevitable that Barack Obama, president-elect, will reflect the views of the rank and file of his party. But neither is it inevitable that he will ignore them.

Then there are the Palestinians – who will still be Israel’s neighbours after the bloodletting has stopped. Israeli official rhetoric suggests that the government hopes a massive attack on Gaza will turn the population against Hamas. But violence against Israelis has always made public opinion there more hawkish. Why should the Palestinians be any different? In their more reflective moments, even senior Israeli politicians recognise that more killing is likely further to radicalise the Palestinians. A columnist in Haaretz, a liberal Israeli paper, recalled this week that Ehud Barak, the defence minister, who is masterminding the attack on Gaza, once told him that if he were a Palestinian “I would join a terror organisation”.

The Israelis sometimes suggest that their ultimate goal is in fact to displace Hamas, which still refuses to recognise Israel, rather than simply to stop the rockets. But any new Palestinian government that rode to power on the back of Israeli tanks would be maimed from the start.

The Israeli government may acknowledge the force of some of these objections. But its response is that it had no alternative. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that forced Israel’s hand.

In fact, there was an alternative that was never tried: relax the blockade of Gaza in return for a renewal of the ceasefire that ran out in December. Israel appears to have done the opposite. In November the blockade became harsher, putting serious pressure on the supply of food and fuel into Gaza.

Ending the blockade of Gaza in return for a ceasefire remains the best option – for both humanitarian and strategic reasons.

But the longer the bloodshed goes on, the more both sides in the conflict will be sucked into a logic of revenge and retaliation. The last time that I visited the Israeli occupied territories, I got chatting to a Palestinian. He was a secular, educated man who had worked in the US, so I was astonished when he told me that he would vote for Hamas. Why, I asked.

“Because every day, the Israelis find a different way to say ‘fuck you’,” he told me. “By voting for Hamas, I’m saying ‘fuck you back’.” I laughed at the time. But – stripped of all the diplomatic and strategic rationales – that seems like a good summary of the tragic and self-defeating logic that lies behind the fighting in Gaza.

Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog

More Columns at

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009