Usaia disavows sharp criticism of Israeli PM
Jo Biddle, AFP, Oct 29 2014
WASHINGTON – Already turbulent Usrael ties hit new lows Wednesday as Washington scrambled to distance itself from scathing criticism of the Israeli prime minister as a coward out to save his political skin. Despite acknowledging some differences with Bibi, Obama administration officials lined up to take issue with a reported anonymous comment from within their ranks that described the Israeli leader as a “chickenshit.” There are issues “where we express concern, and there’s disagreement,” conceded State Dept spokeswoman Jen Psaki, but she insisted the Usrael relationship “remains strong.” Psaki told reporters:
Our security bonds have never been greater and the ties between our nations are unshakeable.
Her remarks came after an explosive online report in The Atlantic magazine (also below – RB) quoted an unnamed Obama administration official saying:
The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Plastelinans or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit. He’s got no guts.
As senior Usaian politicians called for an apology and an investigation into who had made the comments, Usaian officials said the remarks did not reflect the thoughts of Obama or his cabinet. National security spokesman Alistair Baskey hit back:
Certainly that’s not the administration’s view, and we think such comments are inappropriate and counter-productive.
Much has been made of the alleged frosty ties between the wily Bibi and Obama, but Baskey insisted the two men had “forged an effective partnership” and consult each other regularly. White House spokesman John Earnest was also at pains to stress that the anonymous comment did “not reflect the personal views of the president of Usaia.” The comments were just the latest in a war of words, which has seen Israeli officials unleash a series of insults against the Usaian administration, and in particular Jackass Kerry. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon was forced to apologize in January when he said Jackass seemed to have “incomprehensible obsession” with forging a peace deal. Jackass’ relentless quest to reach an Israeli-Plastelinan accord collapsed in April, in part after Israel unveiled more settlement plans barely hours after he met Bibi in Jayloomia. While Washington insists it remains focused on trying to reach a peace treaty, observers say there is little appetite on either side to get back on such a treacherous and emotional roller-coaster ride. Netanyahu reacted angrily to The Atlantic article, vowing:
I won’t make concessions that will endanger our country. Our ultimate interests, first and foremost security and the unity of Jayloomia, are not the top priority for those anonymous sources who attack us and me personally.
Seeking to smooth ruffled feathers with one of its most important allies, US National Security Advisor Susan Rice told a Washington forum:
The relationship is not in crisis. The relationship is actually fundamentally stronger in many respects than it’s ever been.
The two amigos also waded in, saying:
There is no excuse for Obama administration officials to insult the prime minister of Israel. That does nothing but harm to Usaia’s national security interests, and Obama must put an end to it immediately.
Psaki said however no official apology for The Atlantic article would be coming, though Jackass would speak with Bibi. This week, Usaian officials sharply criticized Israeli plans to build 1,000 new settlements in Arab east Jayloomia, calling such moves “incompatible” with Israel’s stated goal of pursuing peace talks. The Atlantic reported that Usaian frustration has boiled over to the point that it may consider withdrawing “diplomatic cover for Israel” at the UN. Psaki would not be drawn on what may happen in future UN discussions. But she highlighted that Israel has repeatedly said “they’d like to see a two-state solution,” and said:
Obviously, actions like the announcement of new settlements, are counter-productive to that, or contradictory, I should say.
The Crisis in Usrael Relations Is Officially Here
Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic Magazine, Oct 28 2014
The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Dept the most. This official said:
The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.
This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which Usraeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations, dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between Usrael, is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November mid-term elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the UN, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program. The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in particular, to the behavior of his cabinet. Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the Usaian sheeple should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jayloomia, that they believe have fatally undermined Jackass Kerry’s peace process. Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list. But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.” I thought I appreciated the implication of this description, but it turns out I didn’t have a full understanding. From time to time, current and former administration officials have described Netanyahu as a national leader who acts as though he is mayor of Jayloomia, which is to say, a no-vision small-timer who worries mainly about pleasing the hardest core of his political constituency. Obama, in interviews with me, has alluded to Netanyahu’s lack of political courage. Expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like, the official said:
The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Plastelinans or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not Rabin, he’s not Sharon, he’s certainly no Begin. He’s got no guts.
I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. He said:
It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.
This assessment represents a momentous shift in the way the Obama administration sees Netanyahu. In 2010, and again in 2012, administration officials were convinced that Netanyahu and his then-defense minister Ehud Barak were readying a strike on Iran. To be sure, the Obama administration used the threat of an Israeli strike in a calculated way to convince its allies and some of its adversaries to line up behind what turned out to be an effective sanctions regime. But the fear inside the White House of a preemptive attack, or preventative attack, to put it more accurately, was real and palpable, as was the fear of dissenters inside Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and at IDF headquarters. At CENTCOM HQ in Tampa, analysts kept careful track of weather patterns and of the waxing and waning moon over Iran, trying to predict the exact night of the coming Israeli attack. Today, there are few such fears. This second official said :
The feeling now is that Bibi’s bluffing. He’s not Begin at Osirak.
The belief that Netanyahu’s threat to strike is now an empty one has given Usaian officials room to breathe in their ongoing negotiations with Iran. You might think that this new understanding of Netanyahu as a hyper-cautious leader would make the administration somewhat grateful. Sober-minded Middle East leaders are not so easy to come by these days, after all. But on a number of other issues, Netanyahu does not seem sufficiently sober-minded. Another manifestation of his chicken-shittedness, in the view of Obama administration officials, is his near-pathological desire for career preservation. Netanyahu’s government has in recent days gone out of its way to (a) let the world know that it will quicken the pace of apartment-building in disputed areas of East Jayloomia, and (b) let everyone know of its contempt for the Obama administration and its understanding of the Middle East. Settlement expansion, and the insertion of right-wing Jewish settlers into Arab areas of East Jayloomia, are clear signals by Netanyahu to his political base, in advance of possible elections next year, that he is still with them, despite his rhetorical commitment to a two-state solution. The public criticism of Obama policies is simultaneously heartfelt, and also designed to mobilize the base. Just yesterday, Netanyahu criticized those who condemn Israeli expansion plans in East Jayloomia as “disconnected from reality.” This statement was clearly directed at the State Dept, whose spokeswoman Jen Psaki had earlier said:
If Israel wants to live in a peaceful society, they need to take steps that will reduce tensions. Moving forward with this sort of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace.
It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jayloomia is on the verge of exploding into a third intifada. It is true that Jews have a moral right (what is that? – RB) to live anywhere they want in Jayloomia, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously. Plastelinans believe, not without reason, that the goal of planting Jewish residents in all-Arab neighborhoods is not integration but domination, to make it as difficult as possible for a Plastelinan capital in East Jayloomia to ever emerge. Unlike Jackass Kerry, I don’t have any hope for the immediate creation of a Plastelinan state. It could be dangerous, at this chaotic moment in Middle East history, when the Arab-state system is in partial collapse, to create an Arab state on the West Bank that could easily succumb to extremism (that’s a remarkable criterion for judging the rights of nations, that they “could be dangerous” – RB). But I would also like to see Israel foster conditions on the West Bank and in East Jayloomia that would allow for the eventual birth of such a state (“but never jam today” – RB). This is what the Obama administration wants, and also what Europe wants, and also, by the way, what many Usraeli Jews want (but the ones who don’t want a Plastelinan state, not even “eventually”, actually run Usaia – RB), and this issue sits at the core of the disagreement between Washington and Jayloomia. Usrael, like all
close allies married couples, have disagreed from time to time on important issues. But I don’t remember such a period of sustained and mutual contempt. Much of the anger felt by Obama administration officials is rooted in the Netanyahu government’s periodic explosions of anti-Usaian condescension. Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, in particular, has publicly castigated the Obama administration as naive or worse on matters related to Usaian policy in the Middle East. Last week, senior officials including Jackass, who was labeled as “obsessive” and “messianic” by Ya’alon, and Susan Rice, the national security advisor, refused to meet with Ya’alon on his trip to Washington, and it’s hard to blame them. Jackass, the Usaian official most often targeted for criticism by right-wing Israeli politicians, is the only remaining figure of importance in the Obama administration who still believes that Netanyahu is capable of making bold compromises, which might explain why he’s been targeted. One of the more notable aspects of the current tension between Usrael is the unease felt by mainstream Usaian Jewish leaders about recent Israeli government behavior. Abe Foxman told me***:
The Israelis do not show sufficient appreciation for Usaia’s role in backing Israel, economically, militarily and politically.
What does all this unhappiness mean for the near future? For one thing, it means that Netanyahu, who has preemptively “written off” the Obama administration, will almost certainly have a harder time than usual making his case against a potentially weak Iran nuclear deal, once he realizes that writing off the administration was an unwise thing to do. This also means that the post-November White House will be much less interested in defending Israel from hostile resolutions at the UN, where Israel is regularly scapegoated (for what? – RB). The Obama administration may be looking to make Israel pay direct costs for its settlement policies. Next year, Abu Mazen will quite possibly seek full UN recognition for Palestine. I imagine that Usaia will still try to block such a move in the UNSC, but it might do so by helping to craft a stridently anti-settlement resolution in its place. Such a resolution would isolate Israel from the international community. It would also be unsurprising, post-November, to see the Obama administration take a step Netanyahu is loath to see it take: a public, full lay-down of the administration’s vision for a two-state solution, including maps delineating Israel’s borders. These borders, to Netanyahu’s horror, would be based on 1967 lines, with significant West Bank settlement blocs attached to Israel in exchange for swapped land elsewhere. Such a lay-down would make explicit to Israel what Usaia expects of it. Netanyahu and the even more hawkish ministers around him seem to have decided that their short-term political futures rest on a platform that can be boiled down to this formula:
The whole world is against us. Only we can protect Israel from what’s coming.
For an Israeli public traumatized by Hamas violence and anti-Semitism (bogus threats which are historically the prototype for Usaia’s own bogus threats – RB), and by fear that the chaos and brutality of the Arab world (sic – RB) will one day sweep over them, this formula has its charms. But for Israel’s future as an ally of Usaia, this formula is a disaster.
*** Foxman just e-mailed me this statement:
The quote is accurate, but the context is wrong. I was referring to what troubles this administration about Israel, not what troubles leaders in the Usaian Jewish community.
Well, you shouldn’t have granted him the right of prior approval of the article, should you? – RB
Top Dem ‘shocked’ by ‘chickenshit’ remark
Peter Sullivan, The Hill, Oct 29 2014
Rep Eliot Engel, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, hit the Obama administration on Wednesday over an official calling the Israeli prime minister a “chickenshit.” Engel said in a statement:
I was shocked and disappointed on reading the comments in The Atlantic. I call upon the Administration to reassert the importance of the relationship between Usrael, and to reaffirm that the bonds between our two countries are unbreakable. I realize that
two allies such as Usraelmom & pop are not going to agree on everything, but I think it is counter-productive and unprofessional for Administration officials to air their dirty laundry in such a public way. I am getting tired of hearing about the leaks and denials. This ought to be the last time we hear of such talk because it is getting to a point where nobody believes the denials anymore.
The statement from Engel adds a Democratic voice to Speaker John Boehner’s criticism of the comments. Boehner called on Obama to “clean house” after the comments.
Senior GOP senators decry White House for insulting Netanyahu
Lazar Berman, Times of Israel, Oct 29 2014
Republican Usaian senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham lambasted the Obama administration over comments from an anonymous US official calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit.” The two amigos said in a statement released Wednesday:
We know that relations between allies can be strained at times. But there is no excuse for Obama administration officials to insult the prime minister of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, the way they did this week. Apparently the Obama administration does not believe it has enough problems on its hands dealing with Usaia’s enemies in the Middle East. It also wants to insult and alienate our allies. That does nothing but harm to Usaia’s national security interests, and Obama must put an end to it immediately.
Meanwhile, Democrats and administration officials rushed to distance themselves from the anti-Netanyahu remarks attributed to a senior administration official one day earlier, and argued against the conclusion that Usrael relations were in an unprecedented crisis. National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said, according to The Hill:
Certainly, that’s not the administration’s view, and we think such comments are inappropriate and counter-productive. Netanyahu and Obama have a forged an effective partnership, and consult closely and frequently, including earlier this month when the president hosted the prime minister in the Oval Office.
State Dept spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that Jackass Kerry would personally make it clear to Netanyahu that the comments do not reflect the view of the administration. Netanyahu said Wednesday in response to the report that he would not be deterred from “defending Israel” by personal attacks, and charged that the official who made the remarks doesn’t hold Jayloomia’s unity and security as a top priority. (well, why should he? He’s a Usaian official, not an Israeli one – RB). Netanyahu told the Knesset:
I was personally attacked purely because I defend Israel, and despite all the attacks against me, I will continue to defend our country. I will continue to defend the citizens of Israel. I respect and appreciate the deep ties with Usaia we’ve had since the establishment of the state. We’ve had arguments before, and we’ll have them again, but this will not come at the expense of the deep connection between our peoples and our countries.
Earlier in the day, Netanyahu’s fellow Likud party-members came to his defense. Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein said in his opening remarks to the Knesset Wednesday:
The unrestrained criticism against Israel and its leader quoted today from ‘officials’ in the White House crossed all lines. You can have disagreements, but in diplomatic relations, certainly among close allies, it is appropriate to maintain a respectful dialogue.
International Relations Minister Yuval Steinitz charged that insulting the prime minister was tantamount to insulting the Israeli people. Steinitz said in a statement:
The prime minister of Israel is not a private person. He represents the position of the democratic and sovereign State of Israel and its constant fear for its existence and security. (He represents its constant fear, how fascinating – RB). Therefore offensive comments toward him are insults against the State of Israel and its citizens.
Usaian airstrikes probably didn’t take out terror targets in Syria, officials say
Barbara Starr, Pamela Brown, CNN, Oct 30 2014
The Usaian intelligence community now believes two key terrorist operatives targeted by Usaia in the opening night of attacks in Syria are still alive and could be actively plotting, multiple officials tell CNN. The operatives are key members of Khorasan Group, the AQ affiliate entrenched in Syria that Usaia has declared poses a great risk to Usaian national security. One official with direct knowledge of the latest Usaian assessment said the working assumption now is that both Muhsin al-Fadhli, the leader of the group, and David Drugeon, a French Jihadi and key member who is believed to be a skilled bomb-maker, are alive. Usaia does not know with certainty if they are injured. An intelligence analyst with knowledge of the intelligence tells CNN “its 99.5% certain” they are alive. There had been scattered press reports about the fate of both men. But until now, Usaia had not indicated this strongly that it believes both men survived or left before a barrage of 47 Usaian Navy Tomahawk missiles on Sep 22 on several suspected Khorasan sites in Syria. Officials said news reports on Khorasan Group before the strikes may have had an impact on the effectiveness of striking the group. Drugeon is believed to be heavily involved in facilitating the movement of fighters back and forth from Euia, and in planning attacks in Euia. His name has not been widely disclosed by Usaia.
Like al-Fadhli and the rest of the Khorasan Group, officials say Drugeon has ties to the core AQ group in Pakistan and is believed to have come to Syria from Pakistan in the last two years. Officials said he is believed to be one of the key bomb-makers in the group and may have been actively involved with creating easily concealed bombs that led to increased security measures at overseas airports this past summer. Intelligence officials said it’s possible he may still be living in Syria. Usaia is tracking a number of AQ leaders believed to have moved into Syria, some having transited Iran to get there. AQAP’s master bomb-maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, is believed to have shared techniques and technology with Khorasan. One of the targets during the Usaian attack this fall was a bomb-making facility. Another official told CNN about a month ago there were communications intercepts suggesting the militants were discussing the possibility of al-Asiri traveling to Aleppo to offer direct assistance to Khorasan and Jabhat al-Nusra. Officials believe Asiri did not take the risk of traveling to Syria and would not do so because of the presence of Usaian reconnaissance and surveillance over Syria and the stepped-up airstrikes. It is not clear to what extent those intercepts were verified as representing Asiri’s views. Officials have said recently they believe the missile attacks against Khorasan did not destroy the group and that it still poses an imminent threat to Usaia because of its ability to make bombs that are not readily detected by airport screening technology. The recently retired director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, said the threat from the group is still significant. Olsen told CNN”s Jim Sciutto:
This group was in a position to train without any sort of interference, they were able to recruit operatives. We saw that they were looking to test explosives. So they were in the advanced stages of plotting. And again they had both intent and that capability that put them nearing an execution phase of an attack. I don’t think there’s any realistic likelihood that some limited airstrikes even just for a period of time will degrade that threat altogether. Those individuals, they’re hardened, seasoned veterans, and they’ve got an ability to operate pretty freely in Syria. So I think it’s unlikely that threat’s altogether been eliminated.
Usaia has not acknowledged striking against the Khorasan Group since that first night in September.
Plan B: Russia prepares the collapse of Ukraine
George Mirzayan, Expert.ru, Oct 29 2014
October 28, hosted a meeting of representatives of European Union countries, which discussed the question of the lifting of sanctions from Russia. According to its results, the EU did not appreciate the peacekeeping efforts of the Kremlin and concluded:
At present, there is no reason to change the EU restrictive measures against Russia.
The reason is quite simple: regular ceasefire violations, failure LDNR and Moscow to return to the Ukrainian border guards at a checkpoint along the border, the inability of Russia to cancel local elections in DND and LNR and failure of the governments of both republics to hold on to its territory elections to the Verkhovna Rada. As a result, the question of mitigation of sanctions was postponed to the spring, and the traditional summit Russia-EU (which was to be held in winter) was completely abolished. The decision of Brussels in General was not unexpected; still some time before the meeting, the sources reported that, contrary to the position of Italy, the same, a number of Eastern European countries are pushing for sanctions and will block their removal. And certainly he was not unexpected for the Kremlin is still with Milan negotiations, Russia realized that no constructive from the EU in the Ukrainian question is not to be expected, and that Europe is not a compromise with Moscow, and forcing Vladimir Putin to withdraw from their positions and interests. Therefore, Russia is aware of the unreality of his “plan A” on the federalization of Ukraine is gradually moving towards the implementation of the “plan B”: controlled process of disintegration of the Ukrainian project. So, Moscow has completely changed his attitude towards the elections of heads and deputies of the parliaments of the two republics of Donbass. If earlier, the Kremlin called for militias to withdraw from this procedure as “untimely”, now press Secretary Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov said:
The election is a decision made by the leadership of these republics. These elections will take place.
Moreover, Moscow lips of the Minister of foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, head of the presidential administration Sergei Ivanov and other officials made it clear that she not only will not interfere with elections in LDNR, but most likely recognize them. Russian officials make it clear that it is not necessary to make possible the recognition of some sensational conclusions. Moscow believes that the elections will only legitimisation already established in the Donbas power in the face of “spontaneously formed structures”, which, according to Sergei Lavrov, “are partners in the context of the Minsk agreements: participate in the contact group, together with the Kyiv authorities with the support of the representatives of Russia and the OSCE.” Meanwhile, the recognition is a very serious step. First of all, it will be the denunciation of the Minsk agreements and the entire peace plan in the Donbass, about anything at all levels warns Kiev. Press Secretary Poroshenko Jaroslav Tsigalko said:
These mock elections, which declared the so-called LDNR in early November, not only have nothing to do with Minsk Protocol of Sep 5 2014, but are grossly contrary to its letter and spirit. They jeopardize the entire peace process.
In fact, by agreeing to turn off LDNR of the Ukrainian legal framework, Moscow refuses key point underlying the current concept of the peaceful settlement of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Moreover, the recognition of the election results can be not only the first step towards official recognition or poly-recognition of DND and LNR, but also the beginning of a more active implementation of the Moscow project Novorossia. Naturally, not through direct Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and after the maximum weakening of the Kiev mode. For example, Russia has taken a strong position in the gas issue, demanding from Kiev to find funding sources of supply prior to their actual start. And now watching Kiev publicly urges Europe to give money, and Brussels отнекивается, pointing to bureaucratic procedures. Forcing Petro Poroshenko to accept losing from the point of view of rating decisions, Russia actually works to undermine its position in the country. Analysts are already predict the Ukrainian President challenging times and numerous attacks from his partners in the camp. So, expect a serious aggravation of relations between Poroshenko and Igor Kolomoisky, associated primarily with the scandal surrounding the election results in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kiev authorities merges and continues to drain the Region of the so-called “opposition” (meaning “Opposition block”, consisting of fragments of the Party of Regions). In Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk, Pavlograd continue to delay the counting of votes. There are numerous facts: voter bribery, fraud, photography newsletters on mobile phones. The office does NOT respond. The Prosecutor Fedyk (Roman Fedyk – the head of the Prosecutor’s office in Dnipropetrovsk region) just doesn’t pick up the phone. Deputy Kolomoisky Boris Filatov responds:
All our signals in AP us answer that we should not dramatize the situation. Why are they doing this, you ask? Because they think that they are just playing politics. So to say, “I’m afraid that the command of the Dnieper too intensified.”
Finally, Moscow is counting on the emergence of the new Ukrainian authorities serious image problems. Now the European media and think tanks negatively evaluate radical composition of the current Parliament. However, in the medium term, this criticism can be price volatility (присовокупиться) and scandal because of the publication of the results of the investigation of the fall of the Malaysian Boeing. The accident investigating authorities of the Netherlands not only included the version of the attack from the air among the two major versions of the tragedy (the second, of course, speaks of the use of AAMS), but also asked Russia data on the presence of the second plane near Boeing, which had already led the Russian military.
Statement of the MFA of Russia on the situation of implementation of the Minsk agreement on the settlement of the crisis in Ukraine and the conduct of elections in the South-East of the country
In connection with the ultimate requirements of Kiev and a number of Western capitals not to hold the Nov 2 elections in the territories self-proclaimed LDNR it is appropriate to recall the following. In accordance with the Minsk agreements reached in September between representatives of the President of Ukraine and of the militia of the South-East with the participation of representatives of Russia and the OSCE, the conduct of said election agreed in the period from Oct 19 to Nov 3. Links that signed on 16 October Porochenko law on the special order of the government in these areas was set as the date of the election on Dec 7, contradict the Minsk agreements. Date Dec 7 was included in the law arbitrarily, unilaterally, without any discussion with the militia. In addition, this law cannot be applied in practice, as it is not defined specific areas of his actions. This question is suspended until the adoption of other decisions of the Verkhovna Rada. In turn, such a decision cannot be made, because Kiev withdrew its signature from the document that establishes the coordinates of the line of separation between the Ukrainian security forces and militias. Doesn’t help the case and statement of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine about the denial signed by the President Pourochenko the law of Oct 16.
Minsk agreement are violated Kyiv and other issues. Bombings continue territories controlled by the militia, in violation of the truce. Not taken the promised Kiev acts on Amnesty, security guarantees negotiators from the militias. Do not run on the decentralisation of power, the continuation of the national dialogue. The Ukrainian authorities sabotage commitment to improve the humanitarian situation in the Donbass, besides putting artificial barriers to the delivery of humanitarian aid from Russia. Minsk agreement also suggest the adoption of a program of economic revival of Donbass. However, after the elections to the Verkhovna Rada, Kyiv policy began to talk about the fact that using the South-East of Ukraine will be only on those areas that will come under the control of the Ukrainian authorities, which directly contradicts the spirit and letter of the Minsk Protocol. Overall, the impression is that all the arguments of the partners against the Nov 2 elections aim to maximally delay their conduct, apparently in the expectation that with the onset of cold weather problems in the population of this region will increase, which will affect the attitudes and voter turnout. In this situation, the position of the militia on holding the elections on Nov 2 legitimate and fully complies with the agreed within the framework of the Minsk agreements temporary settings. In the South-East of Ukraine as soon as possible to create a full-fledged controls in order to begin to address the practical issues of livelihoods and the rule of law.
Efforts to resolve the situation around the South-East of Ukraine are taken in extremely complex and contradictory conditions. The main thing now is to do everything to maintain a fragile truce, economic and humanitarian recovery of the region, making sustainable political dialogue. Attempts to artificially and ultimate to isolate from the whole complex of interrelated Minsk agreements one aspect, the date of local elections to make it a kind of criterion of “conduct” of the parties can undermine the entire peace process, turning him into a hostage to geopolitical ambitions. It is possible that those who put forward such an ultimatum, would like to destroy the Minsk agreement, as it was destroyed the Agreement of Feb 21, and get an excuse to return to attempt a military solution to the conflict in the South-East of Ukraine. The Russian side urged not to allow such developments and to encourage the elections to Nov 2, step further normalization of the situation and a comprehensive settlement of the domestic crisis. We remind you that before the Minsk process leaders LDNR publicly expressed their negotiating position, in which, in particular, it is emphasized that the conduct in these territories free elections on the principles of national self-government will pave the way for collaboration in the preservation of a unified economic, cultural and political space of Ukraine. Russia will help to ensure that elected leaders of the South-East have confirmed this line. Expected concrete actions for conscientious performance of the Minsk agreement and the Ukrainian authorities and their Western partners and the OSCE. Today there is a chance to use election Nov 2, not for reckless and unjustified discharge of confrontation, and to translate the situation in a constructive direction mutually respectful dialogue, compromise, based on the balance of the legitimate interests of all Ukrainian parties like this and require signed in the framework of the Minsk process documents.
I haven’t explained this for a long time, but my real veteran readers already know my views about this. I had another blog before Niqnaq, called Naqniq, which just unaccountably disappeared one day, but it was exactly like this one. I haven’t changed. I have been saying the same things for twelve years. It’s almost impossible to find things on my blog, unless you know what you’re looking for, and use the right search terms. There is no tagging system to guide you to the relevant old posts, or even more so, to the relevant old comments, which are where a lot of the best stuff is. It can’t be helped, now. But every now and then, it seems worthwhile to explain a few of the absolute basics, all over again. In this case, it is because I want Lara to understand that my heart is really in the right place, that I am not “the enemy” as she puts it. I just have an exceptionally cynical and bitter theory as to how things really work, which takes some getting used to.
We don’t really know much about the origins of Christianity, but I think we can assume that initially it was a lot like the basic Islam which is presented in the Qur’an. That is, the story goes something like this. First of all, we have “the Jews”. Bear in mind that when I use these sort of national designations, I am actually talking about the elite, the very top statum, the rulers of “the Jews”, not about the people at large. Judaism is an exceptionally authoritarian religion: it is geared to the needs of a small and really, absolutely ruthless elite, which uses the ordinary Jews, the “little Jews” so to speak, as pawns. It is quite prepared to sacrifice them en masse, in pursuit of its elite goal of world power, and from time to time it does so. But the promise it holds out to all of them is, one day we, “the Jews”, shall rule the world, the entire world. Our God has promised us this. Providing we are all obedient to him, which means in practice, providing all you little Jews are obedient to us, the elite. No matter if we use you as pawns, and from time to time hurl you all into a process of mass destruction, etcetera. In the end, we shall win. All of us. This is the sort of ambiguous promise that all established, institutionalised religions hold out, because they are all first and foremost geared to the needs of the elite. This is how a religion survives, and institutionalises itself. It may start out as a rebellious, idealistic movement against the elite, but in order to survive it must institutionalise itself, by entering into an alliance with the elite, by adapting its teaching and practice so that first and foremost it serves the elite, which in turn will protect it, and very concretely, will fund it.
So far, for all religions. I mean, this is equally true for Zen Buddhism, or whatever. But the Jewish religion is really exceptionally subtle, in the way it develops its alliance with the Jewish elite, because the elite itself is unlike that of other nations. Throughout their entire recorded (or mythologised) history, the Jews have only survived by making themselves indispensible to the imperial rulers of the day. The Bible itself is a record of their earliest successes and failures in this respect. The (relatively brief) periods when the Jews actually had a territorial nation, with kings and princes ruling actual physical territory like the kings and princes of other nations, are really exceptional. The vast majority of the time, the Jews are not ruling an actual physical country, but a sort of invisible country, a country of the mind. And this is how they do it. Building on their experience of international trading, as a people optimally perched at the most strategic position to control the entire volume of trade between Europe and Asia (and to some extent, even between these two continents and Africa), the Jews have practiced the art of financial power. International and even more, intercontinental trade requires the development of advanced means of exchange, ultimately, promissory notes, which serve as a sort of super-currency. Once there are outposts of Jewish traders spread across the entire known world, from England to India, these traders can corner the whole process of global trade, because they are absolutely honest in their dealings with one another. When a Jewish trader in England makes out a note of indebtedness in favour of a Jewish trader in India, the latter knows that that note will be honoured: sooner or later, the Jewish trader in England will pay it off in full, with a consignment of English goods of equal value to the goods he is requesting from his Indian counterpart. So the latter will send the goods requested on credit to his English counterpart, without any hesitation. This is a fantastic moral achievement, unique in the ancient world. And of course, all this trade is conducted on behalf of the kings and princes who commission the trade, be they in England, India, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia or whatever. So the Jewish merchants gradually become bankers to the kings and princes, throughout the ancient world. Because they can be trusted.
Naturally, this sort of power has its downside. Not only the kings and princes, but the ‘middle classes’ as we would put it now, and the common peoples too, throughout the world, cannot quite understand or accept the justice of this invisible power. Why should our king, our prince, be “in the clutches of Jewish finance”, “the power behind the throne”, and so forth? Indebtedness is an invisible force which accumulates very rapidly, and before long, the kings and princes are absolutely enslaved within a web of debt which only the Jewish financiers themselves known how to control. The ordinary Jews are often the very first to pay the price for this. A “little Jew”, quietly running a family farm in Mesopotamia or wherever, suddenly finds himself on the receiving end of a vicious pogrom (to use the Russian term, because there isn’t a better one). There is nothing he can do about it. The “big Jews”, so to say, the financial elite, have enslaved the country that the “little Jew” lives in, in a web of global or international debt, and they have told the local ruler in Mesopotamia or wherever it is that he had better increase his taxation of his peasants, because he is heavily in debt, and if he doesn’t pay his interest charges, he will be deprived of international trade altogether. This very modern-sounding process has been going on for two or three thousand years, with “the Jews” at the centre of it, even before they received the relatively modern name “Jews”, even when they were still known as Hebrews, or Israelites.
So, it’s a pretty vicious process, and the peoples of the world don’t like it. But there is no doubt that the “big Jews” exercise a really overwhelming influence at the various courts of the kings and princes of the other nations, throughout the world. And there are rebellions, not infrequently. The “big Jews” have to figure out a release valve for this, so that the nations can let off steam periodically without blowing up the entire system. And thus, we get the other religions, initially “protest religions”, to coin a phrase: first Christianity, and later Islam. These religions recognise the primacy of the Jewish religion, they are built on its foundations, but they claim to supercede it. They tell the story of how “the Jews” initially had a contract with God, that they should rule the world as long as they obeyed Him; but then, they say “the Jews” started to disobey Him, and in the end, he abandoned them, so they are not “the Chosen People” any more. We are. God has transferred this commission to rule the world, from them to us. And all this they tell in completely Jewish terms, because the materials for it are right there, ready-made, in the Jewish Bible. The whole story of how “the Jews” disobey their God, and he at least threatens to withdraw His protection from them and choose another nation to replace them, is already there, told several times over, in the Jewish Bible. It’s a very clever, very honest, very sophisticated document.
“The Jews”, that is to say the big Jews, the elite, the very, very rich global traders and bankers scattered across the world who now control all the kings and princes, by granting or withholding credit at their will, can cope with this. It is a pressure release valve. It always brings the rebellious nations back under Jewish control in the end, even if it does involve the occasional nasty pogrom. Extreme wealth usually guarantees protection even from the nastiest of these pogroms. It’s the “little Jews” who suffer. And they know, these “little Jews”, that there is nothing they can do about it. The web of global debt and Jewish control isn’t going anywhere. It’s here to stay, and eventually “the Jews” shall rule the world, quite literally and out in the open, no longer hiding “behind the thrones”, exercising their occult, financial power behind the scenes. One day, “we” shall triumph, absolutely. And the kings and princes of the world shall be our servants, literally. That day seems to be fast approaching. Once the nation-state of “the Jews” is re-established, as it has been, then surely the culmination of the whole three-thousand year odyssey is at hand. It must be worth enduring the waves of global unpopularity, if this fantastic goal is finally in sight.