Nakba detailed maps including Refugees statistics. /* Excerpt from a 1997 article putting to rest once and for all the #hasbara MYTH of the Palestinian leaving voluntarily following calls from R…
The USA keeps using North Korea as the bogey man, but the really dangerous bogey man is Israel. The International Community opened Pandora’s Box and now they have put the whole World in danger of a nuclear Armageddon.
By Alan Hart © (Source / 21.02.2016)
My headline is a response to recent comments made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a joint press conference in Berlin with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the decision of the Cameron government in the UK to make boycotting goods from “Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank” by publicly-funded bodies including local councils and universities a criminal offence.
Much to the delight of Netanyahu who has rejected a French initiative to convene a regional conference to try to get a peace process going, Merkel said,
View original post 1,320 more words
You only have to look at the USA’s support of Israel, who use illegal weapons and acts against the Palestinians. To realise the problems in the Middle-East, stem from USA interference. The USA, through Turkey, is pushing towards WWIII, by shooting down Russian aircraft.
U.S. President Obama’s central case against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad (and his central argument against Assad’s supporter Russia on that matter) is that Assad was behind the sarin gas attack in Ghouta Syria on 21 August 2013 — but it’s all a well-proven lie, as will be shown here.
President Obama said this to the UN on September 24th: “The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods.”
As I wrote in an article earlier in September, summing up the evidence on this (and you can click through all the way to the ultimate published sources here):
The great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7 October…
View original post 1,483 more words
The New York Times and New York Review of Books have published big important pieces describing Jewish terrorism in Israel and its occupied territories, but both pieces are romantic, and propose to save Zionism and Israel from this inherent element.
USA and Israel are the pariah states which should be before the International Court of Justice.
January 3, 2015i
You could not make it up.
“The one who needs to fear the International Criminal Court in The Hague is the Palestinian Authority, which has a unity government with Hamas, a terror organization like [the Islamic State group] which commits war crimes.” So says Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This certifiable crackpot, this bloody butcher who tops the world’s ‘most wanted’ list, was speaking after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas signed the Rome Statute, at long last joining Palestine to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Membership of the ICC could enable the Palestinians to file charges against Israel for war crimes.
Abbas’s move came after his disapointment when a UN Security Council Resolution calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza by late 2017 was blocked. Only eight…
View original post 815 more words
Is the USA preparing for another illegal invasion of another sovereign state in support of the illegal and rogue Israel? AIPAC is a massive pro-Israeli lobbyist group which is responsible for most of the conflict in the Middle East.
I wrote to a number of our North West MEPs about EU’s trade with Israel, and received in reply, what I consider patronising nonsense. That the only thing that matters is the economic benefits of trading with Israel and not the continuing criminal acts of the illegal Sate of Israel. As the article below, points out, the Israelis are still mislabelling produce, so they can sell it in the EU
Here is the response from Robert Sturdy MEP Conservative Spokesman,Vice-Chairman, International Trade Committee:
Thank you for your email regarding this subject. I have received a number of emails relating to this issue and have passed them onto my colleague Robert Sturdy who is the Vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee and Conservative Spokesman on the same subject, therefore he has a better understanding of these issues, his response is outlined below.
Jacqueline Foster MEP
MEP for North West England
Conservative Spokesman for Transport and Tourism
Response of Robert Sturdy MEP
Thank you for contacting me about the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA).
The EU-Israel CAA, until recently known as ACAA, is a technical framework agreement which aims at facilitating the elimination of technical barriers to trade in respect of certain industrial products, through the mutual recognition and harmonisation of technical standards. The CAA could be hugely beneficial to the EU as it could significantly reduce costs of imported pharmaceutical products into the EU and save time-to-market conditions (saving 1-3 years for every market product) for imported medicinal products both from Israel and the EU.
Although primarily an economic agreement, I think that it has the potential of not only bringing benefits to European consumers and importers of pharmaceutical products but also of helping to foster stability in the region by facilitating further harmonisation between EU and Israeli Law in the relevant areas.
From the perspectives of the Conservative members of the International Trade Committee (INTA), we believe that this particular agreement to be purely technical issue that should be judged on its trade merits alone. Furthermore it is simply a protocol to an already existing agreement between the EU and Israel.
However, this is not to say that the wider issues surrounding the Agreement are not valid. The Conservatives in the European are acutely aware of the ongoing situation in the Middle East and are supportive of peace efforts based on the Oslo Peace accords, the road map for peace and the quartet with a viable two state solution based roughly upon the 1967 borders, with land for peace exchanges taking place. Both sides need to realise their commitments to Human Rights and International Law. The EU can play a major role in bringing peace to the Middle East but it must be seen as fair and impartial. A similar agreement with the Palestinian Authority was agreed a number of months ago and I believe it would be hypocritical of the EU if it rejects this agreement.
Having said this, the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET), which has the experience and expertise to give this issue the attention it deserves, has provided an Opinion on the ramifications vis-à-vis the situation in the Middle East which was passed on to all INTA members. Both the AFET and INTA Committees decided to submit a question to the Commission in a bid to address some of their concerns with regards to this agreement. The Commission has offered concrete assurances that the agreement is in conformity with EU legal commitments.
With regards, to the production of goods in the Occupied Territories, the EU has been clear it will not accept products originating from the Israeli Occupied Territories. This is prohibited under Community law which means that products coming from places (city, village or industrial zone) brought under Israeli Administration since 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. This issue has been addressed in the INTA Committee in order to make sure that the CAA is in compliance with existing legislation.
The European Parliament voted in favour of the consent procedure concerning the additional protocol on conformity assessment on the 18th October 2012, with 379 votes in favour.
We will continue to correspond with civil society from both sides of the dispute and we will continue to monitor developments. Rest assured that the wider political situation, alongside the economic benefits, will not be ignored by the INTA Committee or by the Parliament at large.
Robert Sturdy MEP
MEP for East of England
Vice-Chairman of the International Trade committee
Student at Manchester Metropolitan University should continue there fight to have MMU cancel their contract with Veolia. Failing that, it is time students started boycotting Manchester Metropolitan University. Not only for their employment of Veolia but also because of the way they have treated the people of Hulme. John Brooks the vice-chancellor, conducted secret deals with Manchester City Council, to build a campus on Birley Fields. This is totally unacceptable behaviour from a Higher Education establishment which boast it serves the community. It does not, it even tells it’s students, even those live in hall of residence in Hulme, not to go into Hulme. They claim to be building a green campus when they have felled scores of trees and want to fell another 50. And their energy plant is to be powered by natural gas, a finite resource, imported and emits CO2. How is this green?
An interview with John Pilger, in CounterPunch, about the conflict in Palestine. How it is an American/Israeli attempt to exterminate the Palestinians.
It was announced on Friday, at the Support Gaza demonstration in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, that hackers were going to target Israel.