De Mistura’s attempt to promote the document of five محاولة دي ميستورا لتعويم وثيقة الخمسة

 

فبراير 15, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The difference between the UN resolution 2254 about the political solution in Syria and the document of five drawn up by Washington and signed by France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan and in which Israel seems a secret partner, and Turkey a half partner is that the US resolution based on a bilateral; the unity and the sovereignty of Syria and it is interpreted in two ways. The first entrance to the political settlement is a unified government that sets new constitution and holds elections. While the second aspect is Syria is unified through its constitutional and central security institutions that ensure the privacies of its components under the constitution and security, and where there are no separated security and constitutional bodies in the demography in Syria. While the document of five calls for a reference under the UN supervision to administer the constitutional and the electoral file, which means to disrupt the working according to the Syrian constitution and ending the Syrian sovereignty, but this cannot be applied without putting Syria under the Chapter VII .because the document calls for a constitutional and security non-centralization of the areas and the components and thus to make Syria under targeting.

Sochi Conference was the start of the political path, it is based on the decisive victory over ISIS which Washington and its allies through a coalition claiming the fighting of ISIS disrupted and tried to sabotage it to prevent the victory of a Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance with the resistance forces. Knowing that the two pillars of the political path were the unity of Syria and its sovereignty and paving the way for those involved in the war on Syria to participate in the political solution according to the equation of ending the occupation and the separation, as Astana which paved for a similar way under the title of the war on terrorism. It seems clear that the compliance was missing and even negative from the targeted parties; Washington, Paris, Riyadh, and Ankara. On the contrary the alternatives expressed by those are represented in wars and raids launched by Washington for the sharing of Syria as an interpretation of its announced document under the name of the document of the five.

Moscow was keen on its position as a superpower to ensure the participation of the United Nations in Sochi and to get its legitimate cover, moreover, to ensure that there is no contradiction between the paths of Sochi and Geneva, but integration between them, and an attempt to present Sochi results as a reviving of Geneva path. The coming of De Mistura was astonishing despite the American-Saudi escalation with the participation of the parties of the document of five against the path and the conference, and the decision of their associated oppositions to boycott its work. But later it was revealed that the presence of De Mistura was not but an attempt to disable Sochi and to turn it into a platform to launch fire against the Syrian country and to show it as an obstacle in front of the political solution, through making Sochi results close to the document of five.

The formula of the constitutional affairs committee which was approved in Sochi to be in conformity with the UN resolution and the agreed path between Syria and Russia is supposed to be far from two things; the claim that it is an alternative party of the constitutional institutions of the country to draft a new constitution or to make adjustments on the ongoing constitution. The second thing is to make it a body under UN leadership and presidency, and the getting out of Syrian-Syrian equation which the UN contributes in encouraging it , because this means one thing, to proceed in the document of five by making Syria under the UN mandate and to consider it the Syrian constitutional institutions which the results of Sochi and Geneva debates must bypass by in order to be legal and then to be proposed for referendum. These are the two main differences between the UN resolution and Sochi on one hand, and the document of five on the other hand.

De Mistura tries to say that the confrontation between him and the Syrian position on what is called the constitutional committee, its formation, powers, and its presidency is an expression of a Syrian-Russian disrupt in order to ensure the Russian sponsorship of the trap he settled up, but he ignores that what was anticipated by Russia from Sochi has been achieved with the support of Syria, and what is presented now is allocated to Syria and its sovereign responsibility. If necessary, De Mistura will hear the appropriate Russian speech.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

محاولة دي ميستورا لتعويم وثيقة الخمسة

ناصر قنديل

– المسافة بين القرار الأممي 2254 الخاص بالحلّ السياسي في سورية وبين وثيقة الخمسة التي وضعتها واشنطن ووقعت عليها فرنسا وبريطانيا والسعودية والأردن، وتبدو «إسرائيل» شريكاً سرياً فيها، وتركيا نصف شريك فيها، أنّ القرار الأممي يقوم على ثنائية وحدة وسيادة سورية، ويترجم ذلك بآليتين، الأولى مدخل التسوية السياسية هو حكومة موحّدة تضع الدستور الجديد وتجري الانتخابات، والثانية أن لا أجسام دستورية وأمنية منفصلة لمكوّنات الجغرافيا والسكان في سورية، بل سورية موحّدة بمؤسسات دستورية وأمنية مركزية، تضمن الخصوصيات لمكوّناتها بما هو دون الدستور والأمن، أما وثيقة الخمسة فتدعو لمرجعية تحت الإشراف الأممي لإدارة الملف الدستوري والانتخابي، وما يعنيه من تعطيل العمل بالدستور السوري وإنهاء السيادة السورية، ولا يمكن تطبيقه من دون وضع سورية تحت الفصل السابع. وبالمقابل تدعو الوثيقة إلى لامركزية دستورية وأمنية للمناطق والمكوّنات، ما يجعل وحدة سورية في عين الاستهداف.

– مؤتمر سوتشي كان بداية مسار سياسي يرتكز على الانتصار الحاسم على داعش الذي لعبت واشنطن وحلفاؤها المجتمعون بتحالف يدّعي قتال داعش، دور الإعاقة والتخريب لمنع تحقيق النصر الذي يعود الفضل فيه لتحالف سوري روسي إيراني مع قوى المقاومة، وركيزتي هذا المسار السياسي، وحدة سورية وسيادتها، وفتح الباب للمتورطين في الحرب على سورية للشراكة في الحل السياسي وفق معادلة إنهاء الاحتلال والانفصال، بمثل ما فتحت أستانة باباً مشابهاً تحت عنوان الحرب على الإرهاب، وحيث يبدو واضحاً أن التجاوب كان معدوماً بل سلبياً من الأطراف المستهدفة، أي واشنطن وباريس والرياض وحتى أنقرة، والبدائل التي يسير بها هؤلاء تظهرها حروب وغارات تشنها وتغذيها واشنطن، لتكريس تقاسم سورية ترجمة لوثيقتها المعلنة باسم وثيقة الخمسة.

– كانت موسكو حريصة من موقعها كدولة عظمى لضمان مشاركة الأمم المتحدة في سوتشي ونيل غطائها الشرعي، وتأكيد أن لا تضارب بين مساري سوتشي وجنيف بل تكامل بينهما، والسعي لتقديم نتائج سوتشي كوجبة منشطة لمسار جنيف توضع بين أيدي دي ميستورا، وكان لافتاً أن يأتي دي ميستورا، رغم التصعيد الأميركي السعودي بالتشارك مع أطراف وثيقة الخمسة على المسار والمؤتمر، وقرار المعارضات المرتبطة بهم مقاطعة أعماله، ليظهر لاحقاً أن حضور دي ميستورا ليس إلا محاولة لتفخيخ سوتشي وتحويله منصة لإطلاق النار على الدولة السورية وتصويرها معرقلاً للحل السياسي، عبر تحويل نتائج سوتشي إلى عكس أهدافه، وجعلها أقرب لوثيقة الخمسة.

– صيغة عمل لجنة مناقشة الشؤون الدستورية التي أقرّت في سوتشي، كي تنسجم مع القرار الأممي والمسار المتفق عليه بين سورية وروسيا، يفترض أن تكون بعيدة عن أمرين بوضوح، الأول ادعاء أنها جهة بديلة عن مؤسسات الدولة الدستورية لطرح وصياغة دستور جديد، أو إدخال تعديلات على الدستور النافذ والثاني جعلها هيئة بقيادة ورئاسة أمميتين، والخروج من معادلة حوار سوري سوري تسهم الأمم المتحدة بتشجيعه، لأن الادعاءين المذكورين يعنيان شيئاً واحداً، هو السير بوثيقة الخمسة، بجعل سورية تحت الانتداب الأممي، واعتبار المؤسسات الدستورية السورية التي يفترض لنتائج مشاورات سوتشي وجنيف أن تمر عبرها ليصير لها القوة القانونية، وتتم عبر طرحها على الاستفتاء، وهذان هما الفارقان العميقان بين القرار الأممي وسوتشي في سياقه، من جهة ووثيقة الخمسة من جهة مقابلة.

– يحاول دي ميستورا أن يقول إن المواجهة بينه وبين الموقف السوري حول ماهية اللجنة المسمّاة دستورية وطريقة تشكيلها وصلاحياتها ورئاستها، هي تعبير عن خلاف روسي سوري، ليؤمن تغطية روسية للمصيدة التي أعدّها، لكنه يتجاهل أن ما تريده روسيا من سوتشي قد تحقّق لها، بدعم من سورية وتأييدها، وأن ما هو مطروح الآن يخص سورية ومسؤوليتها السيادية، وعند الضرورة سيسمع دي ميستورا الكلام الروسي المناسب.

Related Videos

Advertisements

Jaafari: Main Task of US-led Coalition Is to Support Terrorists in Syria

February 15, 2018

Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari

Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations lashed out at the United States, stressing that the main task of the US-led coalition is to offer support terrorists.

During a UN Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in Syria, Jaafari reaffirmed Syria’s commitment to the final statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

The Syrian envoy stressed meanwhile that the Syrian people are the only ones to determine the future of their country.

He said that the US presence in Syria violates the UNSC Resolution No. 2254 which provides for preserving Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, not to mention the 2nd article of the UN Charter which stipulates for respecting sovereign equality of all UN members, mutual non-use of military force, and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.

Jaafari regretted that the UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, in his briefing, has overlooked the presence of US and Turkish forces on the Syrian territory, noting that there is no provision in the UN Charter that justifies intervention in any state’s internal affairs.

Jaafari said that 29 resolutions on Syria have been adopted by the UN Security Council and all of them stress all parties’ commitment to the Syrian State’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in accordance with the UN Charter and its principles.

“We have the right to question the actions taken by the UN Security Council to guarantee these objectives set by the founders in order to achieve peace, security and stability in the world,” Jaafari told the council.

He noted that Syria is not the first victim of some UNSC member states’ violation of the UN Charter and the international law, but the suffering of Syria came as a result of the deliberate blindness to previous violations committed over decades.

Source: SANA

Related Videos

Related Articles

Living in an Orwellian Tyranny

February 09, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

kosher_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former aide, was accused of using an  antisemitic slur in his article on Brexit. He co-authored a  Telegraph report titled,  George Soros, the man who ‘broke the Bank of England’, backing secret plot to thwart Brexit.

Not only did Timothy not criticise Soros as a Jew, he didn’t even refer to him as a Jew. But it seems the fact that Soros is a Jew was enough to censure Timothy as an ‘antisemite.’ It took no more.

Stephen Bush wrote in The New Statesman , “The reason that many find the Telegraph’s treatment so disturbing is that Soros, who is Jewish, has been at the centre of a series of anti-Semitic conspiracies by the increasingly authoritarian governments in Poland, Hungary and Turkey.” It is mildly amusing that  the banal Stephen Bush can’t see that he himself employs an authoritarian manner of thought. Unless guilt by association has become Britain’s press’ MO, the fact that some regimes not approved of by Bush or The New Statesman decided to cleanse themselves of Soros’ infiltration has  little relevance to Timothy or his argument.

Bush adds that “Timothy was the author of that ‘citizens of nowhere’ speech only adds to feeling among many that the original speech was a coded way of talking about “rootless cosmopolitans”; aka the Jewish people.” This passage describes a  kosherly coded minefield that we can not possibly navigate unless Bush and The New Statesman provide us with the complete  newspeak lexicon.

Stephen Pollard, editor of the JC, a funny looking character who routinely squirts freedom of speech advocacy articles, explained in a tweet why Timothy is anti-Semitic. “Telegraph story is disturbing because of the use of the idea it’s a ‘secret plot.’ Soros is incredibly open about what he does. Say it’s wrong; fine. But idea it’s a secret plot is exactly the line being used in Hungary and elsewhere precisely because he is Jewish.”

I  agree with Pollard that there are no Jewish conspiracies and secret plots. Jews organisations and individuals tend to do it all in the open. In the open AIPAC dominates American foreign policy. In the open the Conservative Friends of Israel do the same on this side of the pond. In the open Zionist organisations smear  the British Labour Party and its leadership. In the open Daniel Janner QC, the son of alleged sex predator Lord Greville Janner, insists that he be allowed to question “fantasists” who accused his father  of abuse. Finally, in the open Stephen Pollard himself describes Timothy’s legitimate argument as ‘disturbing’ because the latter refers to Soros’ ‘secret plot.’  So I wonder, would Pollard be less disturbed if The Telegraph’s title read: “George Soros,  The Man who ‘broke the Bank of England’ is now thwarting Brexit.” ?

Their message for fellow journalists, commentators, academics and the rest of the Brits is clear: Jews are somehow beyond criticism. Any attempt to look into the actions of the Jewish lobby, finance, politics, Zionism and individuals will necessary lead to some severe consequences such as accusations of anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. But ask yourself, if Soros were gay, would Timothy’s criticism be castigated as homophobic?  Were Soros a woman, would Timothy’s reference to a ‘secret plot’  make him a ‘male chauvinist pig’ or an ordinary misogynist? And what if Soros were Black? Would an accusation that he was thwarting  Brexit in a clandestine manner  lead us to assume that Timothy is a  ‘white supremacist’? We know the answers to these questions.  It seems it is the fact that Soros is Jewish that leads to the ludicrous accusation that Timothy is an ‘antisemite’ who is engaged in ‘racially charged’ rhetoric as decided  by The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush.

Britain is now an Orwellian Tyranny and, as in 1984, we have our Emmanuel Goldsteins — controlled opposition apparatuses set to dominate the dissent. As we see freedom of speech evaporating, it is Stephen Pollard who takes care of the so-called ‘opposition’ that advocates  freedom of speech. Similarly, it is Jewish Voice for Labour , a racially oriented Jews only body, that is set to ‘break up’ any Zionist monopoly. We also have Free Speech on Israel, again a Jewish body, that was  formed to dominate the boundaries of the discourse on anti Zionism.   The mission is clear. ‘In the open,’ Jewish organisations and individuals are set to dominate both poles of any debate that is relevant to Jewish existence.

It is frightening to witness how quickly Britain surrendered its precious liberal values of openness and freedom. It is even more frightening to watch the vast approval granted the growing tyrannical conditions. It is fascinating that Orwell predicted it all. As I argue in my recent book Being in Time, Orwell saw it coming.  He located 1984 in Britain, he identified the Left as a potentially tyrannical realm. He illustrated the deceptive role played by Emmanuel Goldstein. The only question that remains open is whether Britain can save itself and reinstate its values or whether it is doomed.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

IMPERIALISM ON TRIAL: WRITERS AND ACTIVISTS CONVENE IN DERRY, IRELAND

In Gaza

Last week I had the honour of joining a number of incredible writers and orators in Derry, Ireland, in a panel, “Imperialism on Trial”. The five speakers were: John Wight, writer and host of Hard Facts; the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford; author, journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark; former MP and host of Sputnik Orbiting the WorldGeorge Galloway; and myself.

Organized by Derry resident Gregory Sharkey, the panelists addressed a wide range of issues. As one of the speakers, author Neil Clark, wrote:

“Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed around the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies.

The full panel is online from RT’s livestream recording:

John Wight‘s talk was a poetic, searing condemnation of Imperialism and the corporate media, with literary and historical references included (much like Syria’s highly-educated Ambassador to the UN does in his speeches before the buffoons ala Haley, Power…).

His speech, fittingly, begins with a respectful acknowledgement of Resistance forces in Syria and around the world fighting against genocidal Imperialist forces. Excerpts include:

“Imperialism has run like a broken thread throughout human history, but so has Resistance to Imperialism. In this regard, I’d like to take a moment to pay tribute to the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, in short, all those whose efforts in combating this genocidal project of a latter day Khmer Rouge has prevented Syria from being pushed into an abyss in which its minorities—people who can trace their presence in that part of the world back over a millenia and more—would have been gone, extirpated, annihilated.

Everybody on this panel tonight has felt the lash of the mainstream media. They call us ‘cranks’, they call us ‘stooges’, they call us “Putin’s puppets’, they call us ‘Assadists’. But yet, why do they attack us if we’re so marginal, why take the time to attack what we do? It’s because we ask the question ‘why’….”

Peter Ford spoke with the conviction of a man with years of experience in Syria, with firsthand knowledge of that country and others in the region. Noting that “Imperialism did not end when the colonies became free”, Ford said (excerpts):

“We now have a new, more insidious, but more powerful form of Imperialism. And this Imperialism hides behind words. As an ex-diplomat, I’m very sensitive to the clever use of words, they are so manipulative. The new Imperialism hides behind expressions like “protecting our allies”. When we went to war in Iraq, we were protecting the Saudis, the Israelis…these are our allies. Another term the new Imperialists hide behind to extend their hegemony is “defeating terrorism”. That’s a more recent one.

Another one they love is “defending human rights”, and this applies to the Left as much as to the Right, or “humanitarianism”. This is liberal interventionalism, and we on the Left have to be particularly alert to this one. This is the new version of carrying the white man’s burden. In each case, we are intervening militarily, or certainly using some sort of coercive diplomacy. We’re intervening in less-developed parts of the world which are not able, by and large, to strike back.

Britain is a prominent member of the grandly called “Global Coalition to eliminate ISIS”, and there are about 50 countries which are members of this coalition but it’s by no means the global. It excludes Russia, which has done more against ISIS than any individual member of the global coalition. It excludes China and many, many other countries, but they like to pretend that it’s global. They tell us that the purpose is to eradicate ISIS. Well, ISIS has virtually been eradicated for the last three months, but the coalition goes on. And indeed, just two weeks ago an American general told us that the coalition was there to stay in northern Syria because their job was to stop ISIS coming back. Well that’s an open-ended promise isn’t it that could go on forever.”

Neil Clark, likewise spoke truth on many issues covered up or distorted by corporate media. Excerpts:

Libya in 2009 had the highest Human Development Index in Africa. Today it basically it is a hellhole run by various militias….The ultimate ignominy, the testament to the intervention launched by Sarkozy and Cameron & co, is the re-emergence of slave markets in Libya again. In fact, it’s a common pattern: every country where we’ve had these Western us-led interventions, the situation for ordinary people in those countries has actually worsened not got better.

We saw another classic example in Ukraine in 2014, a very similar scenario: the the US and its allies were supporting protesters against the government, and those protesters were led by the far right—by genuine far-right—people. …We’re talking about genuine ultra-nationalist borderline neo-nazis or bona fide neo-nazis at the forefront of these anti-government demonstrations. …We had a basic regime change in Ukraine against a democratically-elected government there.

I think they ought to be very aware of the language we use, …and one thing we ought to be careful of is this word “regime” because this is a very key term that’s used. …You don’t hear it about the US or Israel, you hear it about Syria, you hear it about Iran. It’s compulsory to say the Iranian “regime” not the Iranian government or the Syrian government.

We have spent billions billions of pounds on these illegal wars, billions of pounds on these interventions. …There’s nothing more important for us to do thanto change British foreign policy to have a British foreign policy based on respect for the sovereignty of countries around the world, a peaceful foreign policy, a non-interventionist foreign policy…”

George Galloway‘s speech was a detailed, animated, history lesson of Imperialist crimes, threats and lies, past and present. Excerpts:

“When I was born, the guns had only just stopped firing, from the British and American annihilation of the people of Korea. You heard the quotes from Eva, from Curtis Le May. ‘We burned down every town and village in North Korea,’ he said. ‘We killed 20% of the population of Korea. We threatened to launch thermo-nuclear warfare against them.’

We killed 1 million Chinese who had entered Korea to stop the advance of the British and American war machine, because they knew if they had conquered the north of Korea they would continued over the border to try to destroy the Chinese revolution.

And we wonder why North Korea is paranoid? Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Our people may have forgotten the Korean war. The Korean people never did forget it. 

They seek to induce us into a state of panic that something must be done about North Korea maybe having one nuclear rocket that can reach the United States, when the United States has 1000s of nuclear weapons that can reach and incinerate North Korea or anywhere else in the world.

How is it that the United States is somehow qualified to possess a nuclear arsenal that could end life on this planet for millennia to come, but other people, to defend themselves, may not produce one?”

My own talk at the Imperialism on Trial panel (also here) focused on media lies and war propaganda around Syria, and on the Imperialists’ fear-mongering rhetoric around, and blatant calls for the genocide of, Korea’s north, with reminders that the US and allies already destroyed the DPRK in the ’50s.

I also addressed the criminal sanctions on the DPRK, and some of the sensationalist stories put forth on the DPRK, sometimes even emanating from Washington. While I mentioned some of my August 2017 visit to the DPRK, I would here defer to the expertise of writers like historian Bruce Cumings, who wrote:

“The demonization of North Korea transcends party lines, drawing on a host of subliminal racist and Orientalist imagery; no one is willing to accept that North Koreans may have valid reasons for not accepting the American definition of reality.”

Researcher and writer Stephen Gowans offers a starkly different (aka factual) look at Korea’s north than that spewed by MSM hacks and politicians with no regard for the 25 million people at risk of annihilation thanks to American Exceptionalism. International criminal lawyer and writer Christopher Black also has vast knowledge about the DPRK, and has himself visited the country some years ago. Professor Tim Anderson wrote this article highlighting aspects of our August 2017 visit.

The bottom line, though, as Ajamu Baraka stated in our January 2018 interview:

“The US should not feel that it has the moral and political right to intervene, to determine who should be the head of any state, what kind of system they should organize. Those are questions and issues that should be left up to the people of any nation state on the planet. …No matter what the argument may be made by US authorities regarding the character of any state, we believe that allowing for those kinds of arguments to be used as a justification for intervention or waging war is morally unacceptable and politically has to be resisted.

Links Related to Syria Content:

-Sharmine Narwani’s “How narratives killed the Syrian people

-Sharmine Narwani’s “Syria: The Hidden Massacre

-on media lies and myths on Syria: Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria

-Writing of the late Father Frans van der Lugt on armed protesters

-Interview with Father Daniel in Syria: “There Never Was a Popular Uprising in Syria”

Homs: “We wanted to protect our house”

“Freedom”: Homs resident speaks of the early days of the “crisis” (June 2014)

Syria Dispatch: Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign ‘Revolution’

Vanessa Beeley videos, including testimonies of Syrians from eastern areas of Aleppo after liberation of the city.

-Mass Starvation & other anti-Syria propaganda:

The Children of Kafarya and Foua are Crying in the Dark

-Omran Daqneesh (the Boy in the Ambulance):

-White Helmets (al-Qaeda’s rescuers):

-Israel’s Use Of White Phosphorous on Palestinian Civilians:

 

Holocaust Memorial Day Blunders

January 29, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

b3574df2-03fe-11e8-b181-443655c1d2b1_1280x720_155306.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power is a dangerous zone. It is a dialectic domain: the more powerful Jewish politics, lobbying and institutions are, the more this power is noticeable, exposed, criticized and occasionally resented. The same applies to the Holocaust and the industry attached to it. The more the Holocaust is injected into our blood vessels, the more questions that are raised regarding the primacy of Jewish suffering and the shoahs inflicted by Israel and Zio-cons (Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.). The more they want us to remember the more we wonder why Jewish history, like the Jewish present, is such volatile territory.

The Holocaust Remembrance weekend didn’t go very well this year. On Friday, one day ahead of the holy day, the lower house of the Polish parliament passed a bill imposing a prison sentence for the use of phrases such as “Polish death camps” in reference to the Nazi camps in occupied Poland during WWII.

Israelis were totally upset. PM Netanyahu announced on Saturday,  “I strongly oppose it (the bill). One cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied.” One may wonder why the Israelis want to charge Poland as a ‘perpetrator of the Holocaust.’ After all, Poland was occupied during the war. It was a prime sufferer of Nazi occupation and on a deeper level, where, exactly, is the “denial”?

“This is a shameful disregard of the truth,” said Israel’s Education and Diaspora Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett. “It is a historic fact that many Poles aided in the murder of Jews, handed them in, abused them, and even killed Jews during and after the Holocaust.” This may be the case, but it has nothing to do with the Polish bill. Furthermore, the record shows that no one helped European Jews more than the Poles. According the Yad Vashem’s ‘Righteous Amongst the Nations’ statistics, Poland was actually the leading nation in terms of saving Jews.

Yad Vashem sided with the Poles rather than the Israeli politicians. The Israeli Holocaust institute declared over the weekend that  “There is no doubt that the term ‘Polish death camps’ is a historical misrepresentation.”

The Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki didn’t seem to be too bothered by Bibi either. He tweeted that “Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a Polish name, and Arbeit Macht Frei is not a Polish phrase.”

But the story is not over for the Holocaust Memorial Day. The ultra Zionist Jewish Chronicle reported on Friday that all the main political party leaders released statements in advance of the Holy Day.

The JC states, “all three were general in tone, in acknowledgement of the fact that while the Nazis’ campaign of mass murder centred on European Jews, many other minorities, including gypsies, homosexuals and communists were also killed and buried in mass graves.”  Apparently, “neither the Prime Minister nor the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable made specific mention of Jews in their HMD statements. However opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn’s was singled out for excoriation on social media after it became apparent that the veteran left-winger had failed to mention Jews or antisemitism in his message.”

The JC seems to hold the view that the holocaust is a Jews only territory. Apparently, it should be observed universally but should apply only to Jews. Here is my daily advice to Zionist decision makers and Hasbara merchants;  maybe insisting upon an international holocaust memorial day is not a very clever move as long as your Jewish State keeps millions of Palestinians behind separation walls and barbed wires in open air prisons. If you want people to express their empathy with Jewish suffering make sure you don’t perpetrate disasters yourself.

Meanwhile it has been revealed that Jeremy Corbyn actually ticked all the Jewish sensitive spots in his text publish by the Holocaust Memorial Day brochure. Zionists seem to go out of their to appease the unruly revolutionary Labour leader. Look at this sweaty regret from JC editor Stephen Pollard.

sp.png

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

The Presidents Club – Here Comes the Israeli Connection

January 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Two out of the three Presidents Club’s trusties are intrinsically associated with Israeli charities!

Two out of the three Presidents Club’s trusties are intrinsically associated with Israeli charities!

Britain is outraged and disgusted by the revelations regarding the Presidents Club annual charity dinner. The appalling gathering and its organisers were denounced by every media outlet and political body.

Madison Marriage, the Financial Times reporter who worked at the event, said she and “numerous other hostesses” were groped at the event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UZ2h8A1-0c

She said that the 130 hostesses were told to wear “skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels and also that they could drink alcohol while working.”

On the face of it, British media seems to do its job, it empathically covers the story of some of the hostesses, it covers the unfolding political outrage, but there is one thing British media works hard to conceal.  A quick look at the Presidents Club’s official  charity commission’s web page reveals that two out of the three trustees of the charity are  intrinsically associated with Israel. Mr David Robert Meller is a trustee  for the Tel Aviv Universiity charity as well as The British Friends Of The Jaffa Institute.  Mr Harvey Soning is connected with Youth Aliyah – Child Rescue, he is also a trustee of  The Jewish Community Secondary School Trust.

What is the exact affiliation between Meller, Soning and Israel is hard for me to determine, but the fact that British press kept these obvious facts under the carpet is impossible to deny. You ask yourself why? I better admit that I am way more concerned about the state of British press than the gross misconduct of a few disgusting millionaires.

Here is a little task for your imagination. You should ask yourself who or what kind of body could benefit from such a mix of a lot of rich and powerful men, dozens of stunning hostess and a lot of booze.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

Update: Seemingly the Jewish Chronicle was just slightly ahead of me, reporting that Presidents Club’s trustee Harvey Soning resigned from The Jewish Community Secondary School Trust following the current outrage. To read more:   https://www.thejc.com

Update 2: “Jewish organisations have expressed their revulsion after being caught up in the exposure of sexual harassment at a high-profile annual fundraising event from which many have received donations.” https://www.thejc.com/

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 16.39.56.png

Update 3The Telegraph– “Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is demanding to know why one of the party’s biggest fundraisers felt it appropriate to attend the all-male fundraising event where young women were groped and sexually harassed. Officials from the party have launched an investigation into the affair and are set to question Lord Mendelsohn over his decision to take partin the Presidents club charity fundraising dinner…A Labour Party source said: ‘Jeremy was disgusted to read the reports about this event and is extremely concerned by any connection that anyone in Labour had to it. We are looking into it.'”

How #Brexit Was Engineered by Foreign Billionaires to Bring About Economic Chaos – for Profit

Source

By Graham Vanbergen,

This article first appeared on GR in October 2017.

In this truly alarming story I connect three significant articles to show that Brexit, far from being the result of representative democracy, is in fact a campaign of covert intervention by foreign billionaires to bring about economic chaos in Britain in order create the circumstances for making huge profits. This is not the stuff of mere conspiracy theories. Clear evidence has emerged that Brexit was engineered and is already proving to be a catastrophe, as confirmed by the mainstream media frenzy over Theresa May’s political mis-management of the greatest post-war challenge of our time. In part-one (by left leaning, The Guardian newspaper) we see how Brexit really came about and who influenced it. In part-two (by centre newspaper The Independent) we see how opaque and deceptive think tanks have heavily influenced Brexit and in part-three (by right leaning EUReferendum) we see that economic chaos is being planned in a post-Brexit era, who is involved and why. These articles identify the actors behind the current attack on Britain and what has happened to date so far. At the end, the reader should get a sense of the impending disaster being constructed by the super-rich against the people of Britain purely for profit. Just as oil speculators pushed up global energy prices to $145 a barrel just prior to the financial crash in what was termed the London Loophole, and then profited from short bets on the way down – Britain is being set up for a fall where those with big money will ultimately clean up.

PART ONE: Carole Cadwalladr from The Guardian wrote a searing piece last May on what really happened in Britain’s EU referendum vote. Her first sentence led the reader into a 7,000 word setting of foreign actors and corporations intent on usurping democracy in Britain. “A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum.” The article entitled “The Great British Brexit Robbery: How Our Democracy Was Highjacked” is now the subject of a bitter legal battle between the accused; Cambridge Analytica LLC and SCL Elections Limited and The Guardian newspaper. Several amendments to the article have been made since the original publication in a climate of legal threats. The stakes are very high just for reporting it.

Source: The Guardian

The article went deeply into how technology and data was illegally used in Britain’s EU referendum voting process. One former employee of the main company involved, Cambridge Analytica, confirmed that they were using psychological operations – the same methods the military use to effect mass sentiment change. It’s what they mean by winning ‘hearts and minds’. “We were just doing it to win elections in the kind of developing countries that don’t have many rules.” Except they were doing it in Britain, and at a historical moment for its future.

As the reader continues, names like Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, Facebook, Google, MI5 and other vested interests such as hedge funds and banks litter the story.

It is clear from Cadwalladr’s investigation that British democracy was subverted through a covert, far-reaching plan of coordination enabled by US billionaires and she shows how Britain is in the midst of a massive land grab for power by them. These determined individuals bypassed Britain’s electoral laws and swung the margins in favour to Brexit. She also highlights some political activities much closer to home – note the involvement of the DUP, now the balance of power in Theresa May’s government.

Vote Leave (the official Leave campaign) chose to spend £3.9m, more than half its official £7m campaign budget. As did three other affiliated Leave campaigns: BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the Democratic Unionist party (DUP), spending a further £757,750. “Coordination” between campaigns is prohibited under UK electoral law, unless campaign expenditure is declared, jointly. It wasn’t”.

The story gets darker as it accuses the British military-industrial complex, old-school Tories, a former parliamentary under-secretary of State for Defence procurement, director of Marconi Defence Systems, and David Cameron’s pro-Brexit former trade envoy – of involvement. Allegations are made that the head of psychological operations for British forces in Afghanistan are in on the game. One alarmingly frank quote says: “SCL/Cambridge Analytica was not some startup created by a couple of guys with a MacBook. It’s effectively part of the British defence establishment” using “military strategies on a civilian population.

Data, algorithms, micro-ads, emotional manipulation, voter engagement/disengagement, and psyops strategies are just some of the buzz words in use to ensure enough votes go the right way. These strategies are all connected to names such as the aforementioned Cambridge Analytica, but also Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, AggregateIQ, Leave.EU, Vote Leave, Nigel Farage, the DUP and big financial donors.

We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying situation.”

David Miller, a professor of sociology at Bath University and an authority in psyops and propaganda, says it is “an extraordinary scandal that this should be anywhere near a democracy. It should be clear to voters where information is coming from, and if it’s not transparent or open where it’s coming from, it raises the question of whether we are actually living in a democracy or not.”

This all conjures up the characteristics of a great novel, a story that helped to bring about the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century. In the end, the article concludes that  “we, the British people, were played.”

This conclusion is best described by Cadwalladre’s final words.

This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy. Paid for by US billionaires. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent. This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.”

Unfortunately, Cadwalladr’s article is not a work of fiction or theory. And if you think that is depressing – that foreign billionaires can usurp Britain’s democracy at will, then it does in fact, get much worse, because obviously there must be reasons why so much time, effort and money has gone into such a dangerous high stakes game in the first place.

PART-TWO – In February 2016, The Independent newspaper published an article about the role of think tanks and Brexit entitled: “EU referendum: Think-tanks conducting ‘independent’ research to support Brexit have close links to Vote Leave.”

Matthew Elliott, political strategist, lobbyists, one time director of right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance, CEO of Vote Leave organisations

Their conclusions revealed that there was a network of right-wing organisations whose staff, board members and even offices were linked to one of the main Leave campaigns, in fact, Vote Leave.

Dr David Green, the chief executive of think tank Civitas, and Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), are both listed as supporters of Economists for Britain, a group that was run by Matthew Elliott, who was chief executive of the Leave Campaign (all names you will read about in Part-Three).

Elliot is described as a ‘political strategist and lobbyist’ who was also co-founder of right-wing The Taxpayers Alliance, was campaign director for the successful NOtoAV campaign in the 2011, which left the UK as one of very few modern democracies left with its archaic First-Past-The-Post electoral systems. Elliot was the subject of a lengthy Guardian investigation who described TPA as a right-wing lobby group with close links to the Conservative party. Vote Leave ultimately garnered the support of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove for the Brexit campaign.

Mark Littlewood, the director general of the IEA, was on the editorial board of “Change or Go” – Business for Britain’s 1,000-page “bible” on the case for Brexit.

The multimillionaire hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze is a trustee of IEA, and is also on the advisory council of Business for Britain. He has also been linked to Vote Leave.

Vote Leave used reports generated by these think tanks to heavily promote the case for Brexit.

Both Civitas and the IEA insisted that their work was entirely independent of the Brexit campaigns and their organisation reflected a wide range of views.

Daniel Bentley, editorial director at Civitas, said:

Civitas is an independent think-tank which conducts its research without fear or favour. We have no formal links with either Vote Leave or Business for Britain. There is absolutely no evidence, nor can it be reasonably deduced, that Civitas’s work is anything less than robust and accurate. Those claiming otherwise are committed pro-EU campaigners, who self-evidently have an agenda to undermine evidence which conflicts with their position.”

At his point it should be noted that both Civitas and the IEA have been identified by Transparify (who rate the financial transparency of major think tanks), as being ‘highly opaque’ about how they are funded and who by. Transparify went on say the following:

A closer look at the highly opaque institutions on our list confirmed our hypothesis that think tanks that hide their donors usually have something to hide. For example, according to research compiled by TobaccoTactics, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Institute for Economic Affairs have all previously received undisclosed funding from tobacco companies, and all have produced research that was then used to lobby against stronger anti-smoking regulations. We found that the Adam Smith Institute has created a structure so opaque that it concealed not only who gave money, but also who took it, leaving us unable to determine where close to one million pounds given by American donors had ended up. Meanwhile, Policy Exchange has previously used evidence that appears to have been fabricated; the resulting report led to fake news headlines in several media outlets that had naively trusted “research” conducted by an opaque think tank.”

All of these names you will read about in part three.

The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by the Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein. In the book, Klein argues that neoliberal free market policies (as advocated by the economist Milton Friedman) have risen to prominence in some developed countries because of a deliberate strategy of “shock therapy”. This centers on the exploitation of national crises to push through controversial policies while citizens are too emotionally and physically distracted by disasters or upheavals to mount an effective resistance.

PART THREE: By adding part one of this story to part two, you will start to gather that all these actors are connected one way or another. Part three identifies yet more actors whose end game is to bring about economic chaos in Britain, one which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, designed to significantly profit from a hard Brexit. “Here, a comparison could be made with Hong Kong, where a similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit, where many traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many assets under-priced.

In other words – Brexit has been engineered to bring about economic chaos for no other reason than making huge profits. Read on…

EUReferendum writes: Currently making something of an impact in the Brexit debate is an operation calling itself the Legatum Institute, based in fashionable W1 with the address of 11 Charles Street.

The Foundation is registered with Company House as a company limited by guarantee. But, according to the 2015 accounts (submitted to the Charity Commissioners in October 2016), the bulk of its income comes from the Legatum Foundation Limited, a company registered in Bermuda.

The Bermuda company in turn is controlled by the Institute’s parent undertakings. The ultimate parent undertaking is the Legatum Partnership LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in Jersey., all of which are offshore tax havens.

The Institute itself is part of the Legatum Group, set up in 2006 by the multi-billionaire New Zealand born Christopher Chandler, formerly president of Sovereign Asset Management.

In the 2015 report to the Charity Commissioners, senior management personnel of the Legatum Institute were listed as Anne Applebaum, Giles Dilnot, Alexandra Mousavizadeh, former newspaper columnist Christina Odone and Shanker Singham, the latter acting as chairman of the Institute’s Special Trade Commission, fronting most of the Brexit propaganda.

Applebaum is firmly on the political right, having been an adjunct fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. She has an extensive career as a journalist, working for the Washington Post, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and the Economist. She was deputy editor of the Spectator and political editor for the Evening Standard. However, she resigned from the Legatum Institute in 2016, having disagreed with the director over the Institute’s support for Brexit. She now works for the LSE. If Applebaum was described as ‘politically right’ – one can only imagine where Legatum stands.

Currently top of the hierarchy is Philippa Stroud, CEO of the Institute. Previously. She used to be Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), a right-wing think tank that she co-founded with Iain Duncan Smith in 2004. Prior to the CSJ, she was also Special Adviser to Iain Duncan Smith MP (then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) from 2010-15. Another of the Legatum Institute directors is Toby Baxendale. He is also on its board of trustees. As to other interests, he was director, alongside co-director Steve Baker, of the now defunct Leadsom4Leader, a limited company set up to support Andrea Leadsom’s Conservative Party leadership bid.

Baxendale is also co-founder, again with Steve Baker, of the Cobden Centre, a free market libertarian think tank that influenced Margaret Thatcher). He also set up the Hayek Visiting Fellowship at the London School of Economics and has been a significant donor to the Conservative Party.

A senior fellow of the Cobden Centre is Professor Kevin Dowd, who is also an honorary fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Dowd is a professor of finance and economics at Durham University and a member of the lobby group, Economists for Free Trade and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute – an American right-wing think located just down the road to the Whitehouse in Washington DC that is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. The brothers allegedly spent nearly $900 million dollars trying to influence the outcome of the last presidential race that saw Donald Trump move into the Whitehouse.

The links with the Cobden Centre bring us to Matthew Elliott, who just happens to be a senior fellow of the Legatum Institute (and you thought he was chief executive of the Leave Campaign!). Elliott, founder of the aforementioned Taxpayers Alliance and one-time director of Vote Leave, sits with another Legatum senior fellow Tim Montgomerie, founding editor of Conservative Home and former Times columnist. At the Cobden Centre, he sits on the Advisory Board with Sam Bowman, research director of the Adam Smith Institute (categorised by Transparify as almost the most ‘highly deceptive’ think tank in Britain), Ewen Stewart – a managing board member of the Freedom Association (right-wing pressure group) – and Douglas Carswell.

Yet another senior fellow Legatum Institute is Danny Kruger, former chief speechwriter to David Cameron, chief leader writer at The Daily Telegraph, and director of research at the Centre for Policy Studies (categorized as highly opaque/deceptive think tank by Transparify).

Listed as a Legatum fellow, along with many others, one also finds Graeme Leach, founder and chief economist of Macronomics, a macroeconomic, geopolitical and future megatrends research consultancy he launched in 2016. He is a visiting professor of economic policy, a member of the IEA Shadow Monetary Policy Committee and has a weekly column in the City AM newspaper. Between 1997 and 2013 he worked as Chief Economist and Director of Policy at the Institute of Directors (IoD), where he was also a main board director.

A trustee of Legatum is Richard Briance, the Chairman of PMB Capital Limited, a newly formed merchant banking business and former Chief Executive of Edmond de Rothschild Ltd. Before that, he had been Managing Director of Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd, Vice-Chairman at UBS Ltd and Chief Executive of West Merchant Bank Ltd.

In terms of his other political activities, Briance was a Non-Executive Director at Oxford Analytica from 1999-2010 and he has been a trustee of Policy Exchange, the think tank (categorised as ‘opaque’ by Transparify) created in 2002 by Michael Gove, now environment minister, Nicholas Boles and Francis Maude.

One of the key figures in the Policy Exchange was Lord (James) O’Shaughnessy, formerly Deputy Director. He then worked for the Prime Minister, David Cameron, as his Director of Policy between 2010 and 2011 and for three years (2007-2010) worked in the Conservative Party as Director of Policy and Research. He has now become a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute.

Another network is created with the use of Sian Hansen as chair the Institute’s development committee. Formerly managing director of the Policy Exchange, she went on to become executive director of the Legatum Institute”.

She is also also holds non-executive directorships with JP Morgan Income and Capital Trust PLC, Pacific Assets Trust and EBF International (Shanghai) Ltd.

In October 2016, The Legatum Institute sponsored a report called The Road to Brexit. The foreword was by Iain Duncan Smith, Philippa Stroud’s former boss. Also writing for the report were the MPs John Redwood, Peter Lilley, Owen Paterson and Bernard Jenkin – leading members of the “Ultras”.

As well as Shanker Singham, there were two other authors, Sheila Lawlor and James Arnell. Lawlor directs the economic, education, constitutional and social policy programmes of think tank Politeia  who advocates the abolition of the NHS –  while Arnell is a partner as Charterhouse, displaying ultra right-wing views on Brexit.

The picture one gets of Legatum, therefore, is of an exceptionally well-endowed think-tank with fingers in many pies and strongly networked with other think-tanks and the media. With offshore finance, though, this is redolent of foreign interference in UK politics.

The greatest concern, though, comes from reading the Legatum website. Having invested heavily in Russia and developing countries, the business speciality is moving into markets at times of crisis where assets are mispriced.

EUReferendum continues: With an eye for emerging trends and undervalued assets, it invested heavily in the telecommunications sector in Brazil, just after the country emerged from hyperinflation. It describes its own “investment heritage” in navigating through choppy markets, following the great financial crisis.

The company takes great pride in its investments in Hong Kong real estate, a market which investors had fled after the signing of the Sino-British Accord, an agreement that promised to give Hong Kong back to the Chinese government. It saw assets mispriced, and noted that “opportunities arise in times of crisis”.

This is a business style which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, which would benefit significantly from a hard Brexit. Here, a comparison could be made with Hong Kong, where a similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit, where many traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many assets under-priced.

Looking also for opportunities arising from deregulation and further privatisation – especially in the NHS, with Legatum having considerable healthcare interests – hard Brexit presents multiple opportunities. This, after all, is a business that openly states that it “finds value where disruptive transitions create unique opportunities“.

In this, the Legatum Institute seems to be paving the way for its “parent undertakings”, engineering a “disruptive transition” for Brexit, then to reap the profits from chaos. Its task is assisted by useful fools and fellow travellers on the Tory right. What we have often characterised as incompetence, therefore, may be more sinister. There is money to be made out of a hard Brexit.

Finally, there are others who agree that Brexit on its own is one thing but what is actually happening is something quite different.

Tax Justice Network, (one of the most transparent think tanks in Britain) are very concerned:

It was never quite made clear who would be the major beneficiaries of Brexit. One thing was certain at the time: it wouldn’t be ordinary people. Instead, power is being consolidated by the same old political and economic elites and the state is becoming more, not less, beholden to big business and its demands. These are the real consequences of Brexit.”

It is also becoming clear with this strategy, that a right-wing Tory Brexit will end with huge deregulation. This will be sold to the general public as freedom from the red tape of an EU bureaucracy that Britain escaped, not the public protections put in place over decades to ensure civil society thrives. But as George Monbiot opines;  

Ripping down such public protections means freedom for billionaires and corporations from the constraints of democracy. This is what Brexit is all about. The freedom we were promised is the freedom of the very rich to exploit us.”

EUReferedum states in its overall aims for a post-Brexit Britain that:

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy.

On its current trajectory, Brexit is not going to deliver any of those noble outcomes, unless of course, you happen to be a foreign billionaire with significant interests in the game.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.

 

%d bloggers like this: