global race war looms

Italy Rejects Two More NGO Migrant Ships; Merkel Scrambles To Keep Job As German Lawmakers Revolt
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Jun 18 2018

Italy demanded on Saturday that the Netherlands recall two NGO-operated migrant transport ships flying the Dutch flag, after Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini warned that they would not be allowed to dock in Italian ports. The ships are currently sitting off the coast of Libya. Salvini said in a Friday post on Facebook:

They should know that Italy no longer wants to be an accomplice in the business of illegal immigration and therefore they will have to aim for other, non-Italian, ports.

The blocked NGO ships come on the heels of Italy’s refusal to take in a boat full of 629 shipwrecked migrants picked up off the coast of Libya, a move ushered in by the Italian government’s new populist coalition headed by Salvini. tweeted Salvini on Sunday:

We are finished being doormats.

After Salvini’s comments, one of the Dutch-flagged NGOs, Mission Lifeline, tweeted in German:

When fascists promote us…

to which Salvini fired back over Twitter:

Insults and threats will not stop us.

Italy Foreign Affairs Minister Enzo Moavero Milanesi told Corriere della Sera:

The issue of migrants is epic and Europe has remained detached for years about it, having inappropriate procedures in place before this issue became so severe.

On Saturday, France agreed to accept some of the 629 migrants from 26 countries rescued by the MV Aquarius following an international spat between Macron and Italy which led to Spain agreeing to take them in. After Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini refused to accept the NGO vessel packed with shipwrecked immigrants, Macron said that Italy was “playing politics” with the migrants, and that the Italian government had displayed “cynicism and irresponsibility.” Per the BBC:

Mr Macron’s spokesman Benjamin Griveaux quoted President Macron as saying: “In cases of distress, those with the nearest coastline have a responsibility to respond. There is a degree of cynicism and irresponsibility in the Italian government’s behaviour.”

Rome wasn’t having any of Macron’s rhetoric, as Italian PM Guiseppe Conte shot back, accusing Macron of being hypocritical, cynical and rigid. Conte’s office said:

The statements around the Aquarius affair that come from France are surprising and show a serious lack of knowledge about what is really happening. Italy can not accept hypocritical lessons from countries that have always preferred to turn their backs when it comes to immigration.

And after several days of discussions, Madrid announced on Saturday that it had accepted France’s offer to take in some of the 630 shipwrecked migrants. With a populist wave sweeping Europe and several European nations such as Austria preparing for strict and aggressive measures against unchecked migration, Merkel finds herself hanging by a thread after a lawmaker from her own party said she could be out by the end of next week during an appearance on BBC World at One (via Express). The Chancellor is at odds with her conservative Bavarian allies – the Christian Social Union (CSU), who share power with Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU). As Bloomberg reports, the executive of the Bavarian party, an ally in Merkel’s government, will pass a resolution Monday approving rebel Interior Minister Horst Seehofer’s plan to turn away more refugees at Germany’s borders, the Bild Zeitung reported, citing party aides. Merkel has been given a two-week deadline to gain the support of EU partners or Seehofer will execute the order unilaterally, according to Bild. The two-week ultimatum, if true, would mark an irreparable rift between the Chancellor and the party’s Chairman Horst Seehofer, according to Social Democrat lawmaker Ingrid Arndt-Brauer told Bloomberg:

Such an ultimatum would be outrageous and not to be tolerated! You cannot do that with the chancellor! Relations between Merkel and Seehofer would seem beyond repair!

On Friday, the CSU, had announced the end of its alliance with Merkel’s CDU, though that report was quickly denied. Seehofer told Bild am Sonntag:

No one in the CSU has an interest in bringing down the chancellor, to break up the CDU/CSU parliamentary alliance or to blow up the coalition. We want a solution for sending back refugees at our borders.

While the German public’s anger over Merkel’s “open door” policy has been simmering for years, the instability within the ruling coalition, which features a decades-old political alliance between the CDU and CSU, intensified when Merkel decided over the weekend to veto a plan by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer aimed at controlling and reducing illegal migration. The minister’s refusal to back down has already shattered an uneasy truce between conservative backers and opponents of her liberal asylum policy. Merkel’s troubles within Germany notwithstanding, Paris and Berlin appear to be close to an agreement on eurozone reform after months of infighting and division, according to French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire. Never forget, Gaddafi wanted a scant €5b/yr to keep North African migrants out of Europe. Alas, Hillary Clinton and the French were hell-bent on taking him out.

“We came, we saw, he died,” and then Europe was destroyed by unchecked migration.

“Can’t Work With That Woman Anymore”: Merkel Handed A Two-Week Ultimatum On Her “D-Day”
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Jun 18 2018

Horst Seehofer and Angela Merkel. Photo: DPA

Adding insult to injury, one day after Germany’s historic loss to Mexico (which resulted in a man-made earthquake), Europe’s most important country is facing the “Destiny Day” to a political crisis like no other in its recent history. Handeslblatt writes this morning:

For almost 13 years as chancellor,Angela Merkel managed to outmaneuver all rivals, schemers and plotters. But her time could finally be up.

Two of her Christian Demagog predecessors, Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard, fell from power not after losing the electorate, but after losing the support of their own parliamentary bloc. That may now be Merkel’s fate, too. Today, the top brass of her party, the CDU, and its Bavarian frenemies, the CSU, are meeting separately in Berlin and Munich to agree on a common course about the coming days and weeks, however chances of a deal appear increasingly remote. According to Handelsblatt, Horst Seehofer, the CSU’s boss, federal interior minister and perennial Merkel gadfly, told one newspaper that he “can’t work with that woman anymore.” The issue is, as it has been since the crisis of 2015, refugees. If Seehofer, acting as interior minister, really starts turning back asylum seekers at the border, this will count as open insubordination to Merkel. She would have to fire him. That would probably lead to a break between the CDU and CSU, which would cost their governing coalition with the Social Democrats its parliamentary majority. Merkel would step down or be forced out. Which is why, on Sunday Germany’s Bild said that Monday is “destiny day for Angela Merkel. For the government.” As we discussed previously, Seehofer has been one of the fiercest critics of Merkel’s liberal stance that allowed a million asylum seekers into Germany since 2015. Heading into Monday, the interior minister wanted to turn away at the border new arrivals who have previously been registered in another EU country, often their first port of call, Italy or Greece, a proposal which however is a non-starter with both Italy and Greece. But Merkel is firmly opposed, warning that it would leave countries at the EU’s geographic southern periphery alone to deal with the migrant influx. Instead, she wants to find a common European solution at the Jun 28-29 EU summit. It is hardly a secret that popular misgivings over the massive migrant influx have given populist and anti-immigration forces a boost across several European nations, including Italy and Austria where far-right parties are now sharing power. In Germany, voters handed Merkel her poorest score in September’s elections while giving seats for the first time to the far-right anti-Islam AfD. The latest poll released this morning did not help: a Forsa poll commissioned by RTL and ntv, showed that in the wake of the refugee debate, German CDU/CSU lost 4% points, as voter support for CDU/CSU slipped to 30%, the lowest since the federal elections.

  • CSU in Bavaria falls to 36%
  • Coalition partner SPD down 2 ppts to 16%
  • AfD at 15%
  • Greens at 14%; FDP at 10%; Left party at 9%; Other parties in total 6%

Several high profile crimes by migrants, including the 2016 Christmas market attack by a failed Tunisian asylum seeker as well as the recent rape-murder of a teenage girl allegedly by an Iraqi, have also helped to fuel anger. The case of a German teenager who was believed to have been stabbed to death in a supermarket by her Afghan asylum seeker boyfriend is due to be heard in court on Monday. With an eye on October’s Bavaria state election, the CSU is anxious to assure voters that it has a roadmap to curb the migrant influx. As such, Seehofer’s “masterplan” on immigration was meant to be the showpiece of the CSU’s tough stance against new arrivals. But the interior minister was forced to cancel a planned presentation of his vision after Merkel disagreed with his proposal to turn some asylum seekers away at the borders, sparking last week’s dramatic escalation of discord within the conservative bloc. For all the noise, the CSU knows that there is more at stake. On Sunday, Seehofer struck a more conciliatory tone when he told Bild:

It is not in the CSU’s interest to topple the chancellor, to dissolve the CDU-CSU union, or to break up the coalition. We just want to finally have a sustainable solution to send refugees back to the borders.

Which brings us to Monday, when Seehofer’s CSU met on Monday to decide which course to take. As the Local de reported, he had the nuclear option of seeking approval to shut Germany’s borders immediately in defiance of Merkel, or the less aggressive choice of giving her an ultimatum of two weeks to sort out a deal with other EU nations. Signalling that he is leaning towards the latter option, Seehofer wrote in a column in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that “it is essential that the EU summit takes a decision at the end of June. “The situation is serious but still solvable,” he wrote. Of course, whichever option he chooses, the ball will land in Merkel’s court. Then, moments ago, DPA reported that Seehofer indeed gave Merkel a two week ultimatum until the end of June to agree Europe-wide migration rules. After the deadline, if Merkel is unable to get EU countries to approve a solution within the deadline, comprehensive refusals of migrants at borders will begin, which will ultimately begin a chain reaction which will likely end will the collapse of Merkel’s government, and the end of her political career. To be sure, having been given a two-week ultimatum, Merkel now faces the Herculean challenge of persuading EU governments to sign up to a common plan on the migrants. Good luck with that: central and eastern EU nations such as Hungary and Poland have either refused outright or resisted taking in refugees under an EU quota system that has essentially floundered. A populist-far right government in place in Italy, as well as the conservative-far right in power in neighbouring Austria, have also taken an uncompromising stance on immigration. Meanwhile, despite howls of protests from aid groups and even the UN, Rome has banned rescue vessels carrying migrants from docking. What are the next immediate catalysts? Merkel’s talks on Monday evening with Italian PM Conte could prove crucial, if she is to have any chance of finding concordance in Brussels. Then, on Tuesday, Merkel will meet with Macron. Berlin is also reportedly preparing to call a meeting between Merkel and the leaders of several EU frontline nations in the migrant crisis ahead of the Brussels summit. Underlining the unenviable task ahead for Merkel, Die Welt said:

It would be almost a miracle if she emerges a winner from the next EU summit.

Which is why, one month from today, Germany may be faced with a summer of discontent: not only does it now look increasingly unlikely that the German team will not play in the July 15 World Cup final (if its game against Mexico was any indication of what to expect), but it is increasingly likely that Angela Merkel will be absent at the final game as well. In other news, we can’t wait until this latest European scandal resulting from Merkel’s own “progressive” politics and liberal vision, in no small part influenced by George Soros and his Open Society ideals, is blamed on Putin too.

The EU melting pot is melting down
Niall Ferguson, Sunday Times (UK), Jun 17 2018

110 years ago, the British author Israel Zangwill completed his play The Melting Pot. First staged in Washington in Oct 1908, where it was enthusiastically applauded by President Theodore Roosevelt, it celebrates Pindostan as a giant crucible fusing together “Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, black and yellow, Jew and Gentile” to form a single people. The play’s hero, a Jewish immigrant from Russia like Zangwill’s father, declares:

East and West, and North and South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent and the cross … Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God.

It is rather hard to imagine a similar play being written about the EU in the early 21st century. Or rather you could easily imagine a very different one. In it, the influx of migrants from all over the world would have precisely the opposite effect to the one envisioned by Zangwill. Far from leading to fusion, Europe’s migration crisis is leading to fission. The play might be called The Meltdown Pot. Increasingly, I believe that the issue of migration will be seen by future historians as the fatal solvent of the EU. In their accounts Brexit will appear as merely an early symptom of the crisis. Their argument will be that a massive Völkerwanderung overwhelmed the project for European integration, exposing the weakness of the EU as an institution and driving voters back to national politics for solutions. Let us begin with the scale of the influx. In 2016 alone an estimated 2.4m migrants came to the 28 EU member states from non-EU countries, taking the total foreign-born population of the union up to 36.9m, more than 7% of the total. This may be just the beginning. According to the economists Gordon Hanson and Craig McIntosh:

(We expect) the number of African-born first-generation migrants aged 15 to 64 outside sub-Saharan Africa to grow from 4.6m to 13.4m between 2010 and 2050.

The great majority of these will surely head to Europe. The problem is intractable. Continental Europe’s population is ageing and shrinking, but European labour markets have a poor record when it comes to integrating unskilled migrants. Moreover, a large proportion of Europe’s immigrants are Muslims. Liberals insist that is should be possible for Christians and Muslims to coexist peacefully in a secular, post-Christian Europe. In practice the combination of historically rooted suspicions and modern divergences in attitudes, notably on the status and role of women, is making assimilation difficult. Compare the situation of Moroccans in Belgium with that of Mexicans in California if you don’t believe me.

Finally, there is a practical problem. Europe’s southern border is almost impossible to defend against flotillas of migrants, unless Europe’s leaders are prepared to let many people drown. Politically, the migration problem looks likely to be fatal to that loose alliance between moderate social democrats and moderate conservatives/Christian democrats on which the past 70 years of European integration has been based. European centrists are deeply confused about immigration. Many, especially on the centre-left, want to have both open borders and welfare states. But the evidence suggests that it is hard to be Denmark with a multicultural society. The lack of social solidarity makes high levels of taxation and redistribution unsustainable. In Italy we see one possible future: the populists of the left (the Five Star Movement) and the populists of the right (the League) have joined forces to form a government. Their coalition is going to focus on two things: entrenching old welfare norms (it plans to undo a recent pension reform) and excluding migrants. Last week, to much popular applause, the interior minister, Matteo Salvini, turned away a boat carrying 629 migrants rescued from the sea off Libya. The Aquarius is now en route to Spain, whose new minority Socialist government has offered to accept its human cargo.

Where else can the populists come to power? They are already in government in some way in six EU member states: Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Poland. But across the EU there are a total of 11 populist parties with popular support of 20% or more, implying that the number of populist governments could roughly double. It’s just that few countries can match Italy for political flexibility. Imagine, if you can, the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) sitting down with the German leftists (Die Linke) for sausages and beer in Berlin. Impossible. As a result, as Germans found after their last election, there is in fact no alternative but for the old grand coalition of centre-right and centre-left to limp onwards. Limp is the word. Last week the chancellor, Angela Merkel, collided with Horst Seehofer, her interior minister, who wants to turn away from Germany’s borders any migrants already registered in other EU states. Under the EU’s Dublin regulation, the country where an immigrant first arrives is in theory responsible for his or her asylum application. But in practice migrants can shop around for the most favourable destination, thanks to the Schengen system of borderless travel that Germany belongs to. In Merkel’s eyes, Germany cannot opt out of Schengen without risking the collapse of the entire system of free movement. Her hope is she can cobble together some kind of pan-European package on immigration at the EU summit in Brussels at the end of this month. But it is not yet clear that her Bavarian Christian Social Union coalition partner (which Seehofer leads) can go along with this. The CSU has state elections approaching in October and fears losses to the AfD precisely on the immigration issue.

In any case, the chances of a coherent pan-European migration strategy seem remote. National borders look like a simpler solution. I used to be sceptical of the argument that Brexit was about leaving a sinking ship. I am now reassessing my view. Even as the impossibility of reconciling Tory remainers and Brexiteers becomes an existential threat to Theresa May, events in Europe are moving in directions that seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. In his upcoming book on Pindo immigration, my brilliant friend Reihan Salam, himself the son of Bangladeshi immigrants, makes a bold argument: Pindostan must either restrict immigration or risk civil war as rising inequality and racial tension combine. I hope Salam is right that the Pindo melting-pot can somehow be salvaged. But I have no such hope for Europe. No one who has spent any time in Germany since Merkel’s great gamble of 2015-16 can honestly believe that a melting pot is in the making there. Anyone who visits Italy today can see that the policies of the past decade, austerity plus open borders, have produced a political meltdown. Fusion may still be an option for Pindostan. For Europe, I fear, the future is one of fission, a process potentially so explosive that it may relegate Brexit to the footnotes of future history.

colonel cassad vs philip cross

The struggle for narrative
Colonel Cassad, Jun 18 2018

About censorship in Wikipedia, and the struggle for narrative. The author of the article British diplomat Craig Murray, who not long ago was brightly lit in the British press exposing the fake assassination attempt on Skripal.

Wikipedia – psychological operation of the establishment
If you do not live in a cave, tucked into both of your ear with your fingers, you may have noticed that in our days creates a lot of noise about the Russian propaganda and disinformation. Telling the media now openly say that governments need to conduct an “information war” against Russia, and headers containing this kind of phrase appear almost daily. Here is one published today: “the border Guards detained a Russian citizen for the “information war” against Poland,” about a woman who should be expelled from this country on the grounds that she “was engaged in the consolidation of Pro-Russian groups in Poland to counter the Polish state policy on historical issues and replace it with the Russian narrative” in order to “destabilize the Polish society and politics.” Here is one published yesterday: “the Marines got a new leader in the information war,” about the appointment of major the USA to a new leadership position created to “better compete in the world of the XXI century.” Here the day before yesterday, about how the Swedish security service and the Agency for the protection of citizens in emergency situations:

As Sweden is preparing for the information war before the General election, increasing efforts to prevent misinformation during election campaigns.

The idea that Pindostan & its vassals are fighting against Russia’s “hybrid war,” by which they usually mean hacking and disinformation campaign, allowed such deep roots in think tanks, the Faschingstein elites and the intelligence and defense community that it is often served positively, as a fact, the stenographers of the media, who are immersed in these groups and are with them in close relations. The notion that these things represent a real threat to the public is perceived as something taken for granted to such an extent that they rarely even bother to attempt to explain to its audience why we should be so concerned about this new threat, and what actually makes her a threat initially. To put it mildly, that is really weird. Usually when the establishment is preparing the new official villain, they clearly outline why we should be afraid of him. Marijuana will give us Kosyakova Madness and ruin our community. The terrorists will come to the place where we live and kill us because they hate our freedoms. Saddam Hussein has WMDs which can be used to carry out another 9/11. Kim Jong-Un could destroy Hawaii with a nuclear strike at any moment. In a new panic “Russian hybrid war,” we can hear nothing. The idea that the Russians are trying to impose on Westerners the wrong political views, serves as if these political views are an inherent, internal threat by themselves. The closest to what they ever adjusted their explanations to us about what makes “Russian disinformation” so dangerous is that it leads us to “a loss of confidence in our agencies,” like the distrust of the CIA or the State Dept is somehow detrimental and is not the most logical position any man can have to these historically unreliable institutions. In addition, we are never given a concrete explanation as to why “misinformation of Russia” is so dangerous that we need our government to save us from it.

The reason we do not give a direct answer as to why we want our institutions have fought the information war in our name, instead of to allow us to distinguish fact from fiction as adults, is because that response is disgusting. As we discussed last time, the only real power in this world is the ability to control the prevailing narrative about what is happening. The only reason why the government acts the way it works, money works the way they work, and the power is where it is because everyone agreed to pretend that it is. In fact, the government, money and power: it’s all artificial, conceptual design, and society can decide to change them whenever you want.The only reason it hasn’t happened yet in our deeply dysfunctional society, is that the plutocrats who govern us, yet successfully control the narrative. Whoever controls the narrative rules the world. It has always been. In many societies throughout history, the man who formed an Alliance with the largest, the coolest group of armed thugs can take control of the narrative, killing people until a narrative is not replaced by a “This man is now our leader; whatever he said must perform.” In modern Western society these leaders less conspicuous, and the narrative is controlled propaganda. Propaganda is what causes Pindos to continue to take things like fake two-party system, growing social inequality, money for drugs, spent on bombs aimed at foreigners in a ridiculous immoral wars, and a government that at the same time constantly expanding secret privileges for himself and constantly trim the right to privacy of its citizens. It makes people recognize that the dollar is worth what it’s worth, that private property works the way it works is that people on Capitol hill set the rules and that with the police you have to behave a certain way, or he can kill you legally. And therein lies the answer to the question. You are protected from “misinformation” by a compassionate government which is deeply concerned that you believe erroneous beliefs, the establishment herding you back to the official narrative, realizing that the loss of control over the narrative means loss of power. It has nothing to do with Russia, and it is irrelevant to the truth.We are talking about power and about the unexpected challenges existing power structures encountered in connection with the newfound opportunity for the public to interact and share information about what is happening in the world.

Until recently, I was watching very carefully the differences between Wikipedia and popular anti-imperialist activists such as John Pilger, George Galloway, Craig Murray, Neil Clark, Media Lens, Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson. Wikipedia has always been biased in favor of mainstreaming narratives CNN / CIA, but until recently I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that it was due to something other than the fact that Wikipedia is a crowdsourcing project, and most people believe friendly establishment narrative.Everything changed when I read an article by Craig Murrayhere. I’m interested in in the first place, when I draw your attention here. Article and this one, which caused it to Five Filters, of course, is read as a whole https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ because of their content mouth drops open. Briefly, there is an account, which for many years have made changes to the Wikipedia article, under the name of Philip Cross. During the last five years the owner of this account did not take a single day off: no Saturdays, no Sundays, no holidays, no nothing. According to his journal he works for so many hours, keeping very strict schedule during the day, as allegedly unpaid volunteer. This is quite strange, but the fact that this account undoubtedly focuses subversive intentions on the anti-imperialist activists, questioning the narrative of the establishment and the fact that his aggressive behavior is protected by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that there is some serious shit.

“Philip Cross”, whoever or whatever he was, completely in love with продажную Блэровскую военную шлюху Oliver Kamm that Cross called reputable not less than twelve times in the article about analyzing the media the duo known as Media Lens. The cross has a special hatred for the British politician and broadcaster George Galloway, who opposed the invasion of Iraq as aggressive as Oliver Kamm welcomed him, and whose article in Wikipedia, Cross made a stunning 1800 edits. Despite the overwhelming evidence of intentional wrecking of constant editing, and explicit recognition of the bias of the Twitter account associated with Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales is clearly to the extreme and defended the legitimacy of the account, ignoring the evidence. Wales wrote the Twitter user, who was interested in a dispute the other day:

Or, maybe you’re wrong. Show me the edits or any evidence. The whole claim looks absolutely ridiculous.

A completely non-irritated Wales wrote in another answer:

Of course… You really are very far from the actual facts. You could start with even one tiny scrap of some evidence, not just suck out the charges from the finger. But you won’t because … trolls

Wales wrote on Twitter in another answer:

You clearly Have very little idea how it works. If your worldview is formed by idiotic conspiracy sites, you will find it hard to understand reality.

As stated in the articles of Murray and Five Filters, evidence – in abundance. Five Filters shows “diffy” (edit) black and white, showing a clear bias account of Philip Cross, a very skewed view clearly and undeniably documented, and yet Wales defiantly denies and ridicules any suggestion that this could be something suspicious. This most likely means that Wales plays on the same side, which is the account of Philip Cross. That probably means that the whole site is involved in some sort of psychological operation conducted by someone who benefits from retention of the dominant narrative on the side of the establishment. The report of the research center Pew 2016 it is shown that Wikipedia has about 18 billion monthly page views. Billion with a “b”. Recently YouTube announced here that it will show the text from Wikipedia articles on videos about the conspiracy theories, to help “curb fake news.” Just a website is extremely important in the war for control over the narrative about what is happening in the world. Just his leadership fighting on one side of this war, the support of the Western oligarchs and intelligence services. How many other accounts like Philip Cross is in the Wikipedia? Always whether the site functioned as a psychological operation of the establishment, designed to manipulate public perception of existing power structures, or did it start later? I don’t know. Now all I know is that it’s very useful to intelligence agencies, speculators making money on the war and the plutocrats of the Western Empire, the direction is clearly and certainly promoted the website and its founder, tells us that this is nothing. He’s lying. Keep an eye on him.
 

today’s war movie

Aleppo: Earthquake
Colonel Cassad, Jun 18 2018

aleppo-battle

A huge documentary on Anna-News dedicated to the battle for Aleppo. The authors did show masshtabnost the Central battle of the largest war of the XXI century and how it drove on the fate of this ancient city and its inhabitants, which some managed to repeatedly bury, in surrendering the city to the militants. But the city survived. This film reveals the events of the last terrible period of life of the people and the city of Aleppo. The chaos of war, crossed with a human fate and destruction of the historical heritage of world culture. With the beginning of the tragic events of the Syrian city of Aleppo was considered a safe haven, where even the opposition rallies were held only on Fridays. Jul 19 2012 in the city’s history has another record: the beginning of the armed conflict. Regular bus driver, a Palestinian refugee was caught by surprise by the war. At that time all the inhabitants of the city faced the choice of which side they stand. Then still nobody could assume that they will have 4 years of bloody chaos. In 2013, the armed opposition was one step away from a complete takeover of the city.But the city still stood, and he was destined again to raise the government flag in Dec 2016. The fate of the characters oddly have been woven into the history of the city, and it is through their many stories, becomes visible to the whole tragedy of the war-ravaged city.

al bukamal

Syria state media says, Pindostan denies, bombs on Syrian positions
Reuters, Jun 18 2018

BEIRUT – Syrian state media, citing a military source, reported on Monday that Pindo coalition aircraft had bombed “one of our military positions” in eastern Syria, leading to deaths and injuries, but CENTCOM denied carrying out strikes in the area. The strike took place in al-Harra southeast of al-Bukamal, Syrian state media said. There were no immediate details on casualties. A commander in the military alliance backing Assad also told Reuters that drones, “probably Pindo,” had bombed positions of Iraqi factions between al-Bukamal and al-Tanf and Syrian military positions. a CENTCOM spox told Reuters:

No member of the Pindo coalition carried out strikes near al-Bukamal.

The Kurds are (supposedly) fighting Daesh northeast of al-Bukamal. The Syrian army drove Daesh from al-Bukamal and its environs last year, but they have since staged attacks in the area. Pindo forces are also based in Tanf, southwest of al-Bukamal in the Syrian desert near the borders of Iraq and Jordan. Last week, Assad said he regarded Pindostan as an occupying power in Syria and that the position of his state was to “support any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces, regardless of their nationality.”

Pindo coalition attacks a military position in the countryside of al-Boukamal
Ghossoun, SANA, Jun 18 2018

Deir ez-Zor – The Pindo coalition attacked one of the SAA’s positions in the southeast countryside of Deir Ezzor, leaving casualties. A military source said in a statement to SANA that the Pindo-led coalition on Sunday targeted one of our military positions in the town of al-Hiri, southeast of al-Boukamal city, leaving a number of martyrs and wounding other people. The new aggression comes three days after that the SAA liberated an area extending from the road of Haqel al-Wared (field of roses), al-M’aezleh and al-Tammah, to Ibn Muwain’e with 40 km-long axis and combed an area estimated at 2000 sq km in al-Mayadin, western Badiya. The coalition has been targeting the military positions in a desperate attempt to raise the collapsed morale of the terrorist organizations due to the achievements of the SAA. The field reports confirm that Faschingstein provides Daesh with various kinds of support to prevent its collapse and invest it to keep its forces illegally in the Syrian territory and steal the economic resources in the eastern region through its mercenaries of terrorist groups. Since it was illegally formed in 2014 under the pretext of combating terrorism, the Pindo coalition has been conducting airstrikes against what it claims are Daesh targets without any authorization from the Syrian government or a UNSC mandate, committing dozens of massacres in Raqqa and the villages of Deir ez-Zor and Hasaka.

Pindostan Attack Syrian Army Position, Death Toll Rises to 40
21st Century Wire, Jun 18 2018

Once again, Pindostan appears to be baiting the SAA and Russia into a shooting war, and it wouldn’t be the first time. Back on Sep 17 2016, the Pindo Coalition led airstrikes near the Deir ez-Zor Airport in eastern Syria lasting one hour and killing between 90 and 106 SAA soldiers and wounded 110 more. Pindostan claimed they were aiming at a Daesh target, but in reality that Pindo strike allowed Daesh to move in from the surrounding hills and retake a key position which they held for another year. In total there have been at least 12 such attacks by Pindostan against Syria, and if confirmed, this latest incident will no doubt escalate tensions between the two countries, and is sure to raise further concerns from Syria’s strategic partners about the continued illegal Pindo occupation in Syria.

Death toll from alleged Pindo attack on SAA positions rises to 40
Leith Aboufadel, Al-Masdar News, Jun 18 2018, 15:00 local time

BEIRUT – A Syrian military source in Damascus informed Al-Masdar News this afternoon that the death toll from the alleged Pindo attack on the army’s positions in al-Bukamal’s countryside has risen significantly. According to the source, at least 40 soldiers from the SAA and Iraqi paramilitary forces were killed as a result of these airstrikes. The source said the majority of the dead were SAA soldiers that were deployed to the al-Harri front to protect against any potential Daesh assault. Furthermore, the source said the Syrian military believes the attack was carried out by the Pindo Coalition due to the location from where the aircraft came from in eastern Syria. In response to these allegations, the Pentagon has denied carrying out this deadly attack in eastern Syria. This is the second time in three weeks that the SAA has accused the Pindo Coalition of bombing their troops in southeast Syria. The SAA has not responded to the attack and will not likely attack the Pindo-backed forces in the region, as this would only escalate the situation and lead to violent confrontation. Furthermore, it is not necessarily clear that the Pindo Coalition carried out the attack, a some pro-government activists have accused Israel’s IAF of carrying out the airstrikes. Al-Bukamal is a long distance from the Israeli border, but it would be a viable target for their military, given the large presence of Iranian-backed forces near the Iraqi-Syrian border. Israel has also never attacked the Syrian military this far from their border, so if they were behind this, this would be the first time they have every bombed the Deir ez-Zor Governorate. Netanyahu did vow to attack the Iranian-backed forces anywhere inside Syria during his weekly cabinet meeting. This is a threat that he and Liberman have made on several occasions in the past.

Airstrike on al-Hurra
Colonel Cassad, Jun 18 2018

During the night, Pindostan launched air strikes on the positions of Hezbollah and SAA in the Eastern province of Deir ez-Zor (between Abu-Kemal and al-Kaim). 38 people were killed (mostly Iraqi Hezbollah). Several dozen were injured. Officially Pindostan denied the fact that the impact (according to the Pentagon, coalition aircraft strikes did not enter the area), but if you remember the same episodes of the 2016-2017 year, we can recall that in some of them, Pindostan also denied any responsibility (for example, the impact of Sep 2016, which led to the deaths of more than 80 soldiers from the SAA and the collapse of the defense of one of the walls of the enclave in Deir ez-Zor).The Syrian government accused Pindostan of the drone strike on the Syrian and Iraqi military to conduct operations to eliminate the remnants of Daesh gangs in the Eastern province of Deir ez-Zor.

I would guess that Pindostan is trying to disrupt the interaction of Syrian and Iraqi soldiers, and Iranian proxies that operate in the border areas with the goal of eliminating Daesh. The strike occurred against the background of ongoing attempts to start negotiations tucked SDF with Assad about the future of a unified Syria and rumors that Damascus makes demands tolerance of public officials and Mukhabarat to Rojava. The need to keep the position in Rojava will require Pindostan to stage new provocations or attacks to justify the continued occupation of the north-east of Syria against Daesh, Iran, Hezbollah, etc, etc.

get fit with the energizer bunny

It’s Time To Start Getting Enraged At What Western Imperialists Have Done To Syria
Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 18 2018

Rumors are again swirling of an impending false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria, just as they did shortly before the highly suspicious Douma case in April. Warnings from Syrian and Russian intelligence, as well as Pindo warship movements and an uptick in Pindo funding for the AQ propaganda firm known as the White Helmets, give these warnings a fair bit of weight. Since the US war machine has both a known regime change agenda in Syria and an extensive history of using lies, propaganda and false flags to justify military interventionism, there’s no legitimate reason to give it the benefit of the doubt on this one. These warnings are worth taking seriously. So some people are understandably nervous. The way things are set up now, it is technically possible for the jihadist factions inside Syria and their allied imperialist intelligence and defense agencies to keep targeting civilians with chemical weapons and blaming the Assad government for them until they pull one off that is so outrageous that it enables the mass media to manufacture public support for a full-scale assault on Damascus. This would benefit both the Pindocentric empire which has been plotting regime change in Syria for decades and the violent Islamist extremists who seek control of the region. It also creates the very real probability of a direct military confrontation with Syria’s allies, including Russia. But the appropriate response to the threat of a world war erupting in Syria is not really fear, if you think about it. The most appropriate response to this would be unmitigated, howling rage at the western sociopaths who created this situation in the first place.

Pindostan & its vassals started the war in Syria. The narrative that it was an organic uprising brutally attacked by the Assad government is a lie. There is no reasonable doubt about this. The former Prime Minister of Qatar said on television that Pindostan & its vassals were involved in the Syrian conflict from the very beginning. A WikiLeaks cable and a declassified CIA memo both show the pindo government plotting to provoke an uprising in Syria exactly as it occurred, years before it happened. Former Foreign Minister of France Roland Dumas stated that he was informed that Britain was engineering an uprising in Syria two years before the violence erupted in 2011, and General Wesley Clark stated that there were Pentagon plans to take out the Syrian government in 2001. Shortly after the violence started President Obama secretly authorized the arming and training of violent extremist factions for the overthrow of Assad in a CIA program code named Timber Sycamore, which along with Toad finances has wound up aiding some of the most evil terror groups ever to exist. Six hundred thousand Syrians have lost their lives as a result of this regime change intervention, many of those lives ending in the most horrific ways imaginable at the hands of depraved Jihadis. It was planned, and the people who planned it have names and addresses. They deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for what they did. We should all be loudly demanding war crimes tribunals and life imprisonment for these vicious criminals. We need a major adjustment of our emotional posture on this issue. We shouldn’t be sitting around nervously hoping Trump pulls Pindo troops out and western-backed terror groups don’t stage another chemical attack, we should be screaming at these bastards to get their murderous tentacles out of that poor war-torn country immediately. We shouldn’t be meekly trying to justify our skepticism of the establishment Syria narrative while snide Guardian op-eds inform us that we are not permitted to think such things. We know that we are right. We know what these evil monsters did. We should be shouting the imperialists down, not the other way around.

The same depraved sociopaths who raped Iraq are presently raping Iraq’s next-door neighbor Syria for the exact same reasons. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. We should be much more angry and aggressive in pushing back on their pernicious pro-interventionism narratives. There is no excuse for any faction of the western empire to be anywhere inside of that nation’s borders. Out. Now. Much like medicine, anger can do more harm than good when used improperly. Channeled in a wholesome, conscious direction, however, it can be an indispensable tool for driving out the toxic influence of manipulators and exploiters. The social engineers who manufacture the narratives which are dispensed to the mass media and repeated as fact to unsuspecting audiences rely heavily on the tactic of generating sympathy. Sympathy opens people up and allows narratives to be imbued with the power of belief in a way that bypasses skepticism and critical thinking. This is why the users and abusers you have known in your personal life are always telling stories about how much wrong has been done to them, or even going out of their way to make themselves look helpless and pathetic; if they can suck you in with sympathy, they can get you to buy into the other stories they need you to believe about who they are, who you are, what your relationship to them is, and how much money/resources/affection/sex/forgiveness you should give them.

The propagandists understand this dynamic all too well. They used people’s emotional reaction to 9/11 to manufacture support for not one but two full-scale ground invasions. They circulate pictures of dead children whenever their deaths can be blamed on a long-time target of western imperialism, but never when their deaths are caused by western imperialism. Today the narratives most prolifically circulated by proponents of regime change interventionism in Syria are almost entirely emotional in nature, consisting of nothing more than constant repetition of nonsensical talking points about civilians being brutalized by a sadistic dictator in various ways for no apparent reason. This is all to generate sympathy in order to bypass people’s skepticism of pro-interventionist narratives. Anger is sympathy poison. It kills the sympathy you are feeling toward the narratives being promoted by those you are angry with, thus allowing you to see things clearly and eject them like the parasites they are. This is a very useful tool for dealing with the manipulators and exploiters in your personal life, and it is equally useful for the manipulators and exploiters who control western society with money, media manipulation, intelligence agency operations and brute military force. Creating momentum for widespread rage at those who unleashed the horrors inflicted upon the Syrian people immunizes the public from toxic war propaganda narratives by that much. Six hundred thousand human lives. The chaotic violence which ended them was planned, orchestrated and overseen by the same multinational power establishment whose media propaganda machine has been singing us a seven-year lullaby keeping us from questioning the ongoing military presence and interventionism in that nation and steering us away from seeking justice for those responsible for all that death. If anyone is deserving of our loud, lullaby-shattering howling rage, it is these people.

And of course we will be fought tooth and claw on this by the Pindocentric power establishment; no one is going to give us permission to do this. They will do everything they can to maintain control of the narrative and the veil of government opacity which shrouds those responsible for their Syria atrocities. But we will be attacking, which means that they will be forced to defend against those attacks. Rather than playing defensive and trying to justify our right to be skeptical while praying that there isn’t a devastating false flag attack in the illegally-occupied nation of Syria, we should be putting them on the back foot with rage and loud demands for justice. Righteous anger can severely hobble the propaganda machine they intend to use for further interventionism in that nation. You cannot argue with the rage of someone who is certain that an unforgivable evil has been perpetrated. You simply cannot manipulate and narrative-spin your way around that; it plants an unbreakable, immovable object in the gears of the propaganda machine. By getting unapologetically furious, loud and aggressive and letting the wisdom of our anger guide our response to the situation in Syria, we can shift the zeitgeist of anti-imperialist sentiment from a meek “Oh gosh darn I sure hope the people who decimated Iraq do the right thing in Syria” to a thunderous “FUCK YOU. OUT. NOW.” Which is where it should be. A world in which war crimes tribunals are actually carried out for the imperialists responsible for the evils inflicted upon the Syrian people will look very different from the world that we are in now. But shoving angrily and aggressively against the establishment structures which made it possible and screaming for justice and vengeance is the first step toward creating that world. Let’s not play defense and reaction anymore. Let’s stop waiting for something to go wrong and start forcing things to be right. It’s time to go on the offensive with this thing. Get angry and let it roar through you.

enjoying the chaos

Conflict escalates over FBI role in 2016 elections
Patrick Martin, WSWS, Jun 18 2018

In the wake of the 568-page DoJ IG’s report issued Thursday, the political warfare in Faschingstein over the role of the FBI in the 2016 elections continues to intensify. While the report provided damning information on the pro-Clinton faction in the leadership of the FBI, a television interview Thursday night shed light on the pro-Trump faction within the same agency, centered in the New York field office, the FBI’s largest and most influential office outside the agency’s headquarters in Faschingstein. HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, speaking on Fox News Laura Ingraham show, revealed that dissident agents in the New York office contacted him in late Sep 2016 and told him that the FBI had obtained a new batch of Clinton emails that could lead to the reopening of the investigation into her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, which the FBI had closed two months earlier. Nunes described these “good FBI agents” as “whistle-blowers” but they clearly were acting as partisans of Trump and the Thug Party contacting a leading congressional Thug who had an interest in anti-Clinton information. Moreover, Nunes did not inform his Demagog counterpart on HPSCI, Adam Schiff, underscoring the factional warfare raging through official Washington. A month later, FBI Director James Comey sent letters to congressional leaders informing them that the Clinton email probe was being reopened. This extraordinary action, only 11 days before Election Day, was in flagrant violation of a longstanding DoJ rule against taking any public investigative action in relation to a political candidate within 90 days of an election.

The emails came to light in the course of a separate investigation into disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, then the husband of Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, who was to face charges for exchanging inappropriate sexual messages with an underaged girl. When examining a laptop belonging to Weiner, FBI agents found copies of emails from Clinton apparently sent by Abedin to her husband’s laptop for the purpose of printing them out. According to other accounts, the FBI first found these Clinton emails on Sep 26, meaning that agents in the New York office contacted the Thug chairman of HPSCI even before top boxtops in the FBI’s own Faschingstein headquarters knew of them. It is likely they also contacted former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had close ties with the New York FBI office from his years as federal attorney for the Southern District of New York. Giuliani sparked numerous press reports about an impending FBI bombshell against the Clinton campaign in the weeks leading up to Comey’s letter to Congress. At the time, in the midst of the uproar provoked by Comey’s letter, we wrote:

One former DoJ boxtop suggested that Comey was under intense pressure from within the FBI over his previous declaration that no competent prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton over her use of the private server. If true, this means that sections of the federal police agency are in open revolt against the candidate who may shortly become their nominal commander-in-chief.

It is evident that this was precisely the case. The FBI, the political police force of the Pindo ruling elite, became a battleground during the 2016 elections between pro-Clinton and pro-Trump factions, each seeking to make use of the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance and carry out provocations and frame-ups against the rival candidate. Peter Strzok, the assistant director of the FBI who headed the Clinton email investigation and the initial stages of the Russia-Trump investigation, was an ardent advocate of a Clinton presidency, like the bulk of the leadership of the national security apparatus. In a text message in Aug 2016 to his girlfriend Lisa Page, who was counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok’s boss, Strzok reassured Page that there would be no Trump presidency, because:

We’ll stop it.

This message, damning in its directness, especially given Strzok’s position as the head of both investigations, has been concealed for nearly two years despite endless reports and leaks about the FBI’s intervention into the 2016 campaign. It was first made public in the inspector general’s report. The prolonged concealment by itself demonstrates how critical Strzok’s role was in preparing the way for the Mueller investigation. It is widely expected that Strzok will be fired as a consequence of the IG’s report. Trump and congressional Thugs have called for his prosecution and jailing. Strzok’s attorney Aitan Goelman sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte Saturday offering Strzok’s voluntary testimony before the committee. Goelman wrote:

Special agent Strzok, who has been fully cooperative with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, intends to voluntarily appear and testify before your committee and any other Congressional committee that invites him.

On Sunday, Trey Gowdy threatened to hold top FBI and DoJ boxtops in contempt if they continued to block access to documents subpoenaed by his and other congressional committees. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Gowdy said that he met with FBI and DoJ boxtops on Friday, along with Goodlatte, Devin Nunes and House Speaker Paul Ryan, to go over “item by item” the material subject to outstanding subpoenas. Gowdy said that Ryan “made it very clear.” He continued:

There’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if the FBI and DoJ do not comply with our subpoena request. The House will use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to gain compliance.

Its tools include contempt of Congress. This raises the prospect of congressional Thugs holding in contempt boxtops appointed by a Thug president, including FBI Director Wray and Deputy AG Rosenstein, because they refuse to share documents related to the investigations into that president and his Demagog opponent during the 2016 campaign.

Strzok To Testify Before Congress; No Immunity, Will Not Invoke Fifth Amendment
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Jun 17 2018

Peter Strzok, the FBI counter-intelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, says he will voluntarily testify to Congressional investigators in the House Judiciary Committee and any other Congressional committee that asks, his attorney said in a letter released on Sunday after Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte threatened to subpoena Strzok. We were wondering what the seemingly new “who’s gonna play me in the movie” Strzok headshot was all about. Per the WaPo:

Peter Strzok, who was singled out in a recent DoJ IG report for the politically charged messages, would be willing to testify without immunity, and he would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to any question, his attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in an interview Sunday. Strzok has become a special target of President Trump, who has used the texts to question the Russia investigation.

Goelman says:

He wants the chance to clear his name and tell his story. He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that.

No dates have been discussed yet for testimony, however Goelman called Goodlatte’s subpoena threat “wholly unnecessary.” He said:

Special Agent Strzok, who has been fully cooperative with the DoJ IG, intends to voluntarily appear and testify before your committee and any other Congressional committee that invites him. He intends to answer any question put to him, and he intends to defend the integrity of the Clinton email investigation, the Russia collusion investigation to the extent that that’s a topic, and his own integrity. He said there was “no question” that Strzok regrets sending anti-Trump messages, but added: “I think what he was doing is expressing his political opinions in what he thought was a private text conversation, and he regrets that this has been weaponized by people with political motivations to try to discredit the Mueller investigation.”

Strzok, who had a leadership role in both the Clinton and Trump investigations, was removed from the Special Counsel probe after the DoJ IG Michael Horowitz discovered over 50,000 text messages between Strzok and his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, which revealed anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias, as well as an illicit affair the two were having. It will be interesting to see how Strzok explains his way around a text exchange with Page which reads:

We can only imagine what Strzok will tell Congress. Maybe:

Yes, I said all that but despite Lisa and I hating Trump with the burning intensity of 1,000 suns – none of that bias factored into our decision to exonerate Hillary while launching an international, multi-agency, ongoing operation against Donald Trump.

Or:

Russians hacked our cell phones and made Comey and I use personal email accounts for official government business while investigating Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing!

Maybe Strzok can also explain his personal friendship with the original judge in the Mike Flynn case? Strzok was one of two FBI investigators who took part in a Jan 24 interview of Michael Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to a charge of providing false information to the FBI which was supposed to be heard by Judge Contreras on Dec 1 2017. We can’t wait for the leak of what will certainly be a closed-door testimony.

real men go to moscow

NATO & Germany build up for war against Russia
Gregor Link, WSWS, Jun 18 2018

The defence ministers of all NATO member states met in Brussels on Jun 7 and decided to take all necessary steps over the next two years to be able mobilise a total of 90 military, naval and air force combat units at short notice and at any time. To this end, two new headquarters will be built, with one of them located in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the Pentagon, the Norfolk centre will organise the rapid deployment of combat units across the Atlantic, so that the “entire spectrum of transatlantic missions” can be successfully carried out. Pentagon spox declared in early May:

The return of the major powers and a resurgent Russia demand that NATO focus on the Atlantic to ensure a capable and credible deterrent.

The new NATO command will be “the lynchpin of trans-Atlantic security.” The second new Joint Support Enabling Command (JSEC) will be built in Ulm, Germany, following a proposal made by the German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who said at the NATO defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels:

It will be a new NATO command tasked with coordinating all military troop movements within Alliance territory in the event of a crisis.

The construction of the new command is to be based on the Multinational Command Operational Command operating in Ulm. This unique centre is already carrying out NATO, UN and EU tasks and according to the German army, has already begun preparations for the JSEC, which should reach full operational readiness by 2021. Already by 2020, 90 units from all three military branches are to be upgraded so that in case of emergency they can be sent into action within 30 days. NATO Sec-Gen Stoltenberg announced that 30 army battalions (30,000 troops) would be available for this purpose. In addition, 30 aircraft squadrons and 30 large warships as well as submarines should be able to mobilise within “30 days or less.” In the future, these units will strengthen the already existing NATO Response Force, which up to now has consisted of 20,000 rapid deployment troops and a reserve pool of another 20 battalions. In addition, Stoltenberg announced an increase in the number of positions in NATO’s multinational planning and management staff from its existing level of 1,200 to 8,000. The German army has made no secret of the fact that this massive rearmament is aimed at preparing for a major war. Von der Leyen said:

This is basically about preparing for intervention. (We need) to keep troops in high operational readiness, so that they can be deployed quickly.

According to a report from the army command:

In the event of an attack on an ally, the Command Center will be responsible for troop and material transports within Europe and coordinate their protection. Already on the way to the operational area and well in advance, planning can be centralised and the tasks of protection harmonised. The possible area for intervention extends to the area of responsibility of SACEUR, ranging from Greenland to Africa, Europe and its coastal waters.

The preparations for war are specifically directed against Russia, a nuclear power. Just a few days before the meeting of NATO defence ministers, the European Commission announced that it would invest €6.5b to build new roads in Europe by 2027 to enable troop-carriers and military vehicles to reach the Baltic countries at short notice. Currently bridges and rail networks are often not designed for the heavyweight tracked vehicles. The preparations for war in Eastern Europe are already in full swing, with Germany playing a key role. It is already central to the strengthened NATO presence in Lithuania, with 4,000 soldiers on the eastern border of the NATO area. In addition, the Bundeswehr will take over leadership of the NATO Spearhead Very High Readiness Joint Task Force in 2019 and 2023. Since May there have been large transfers of NATO forces through Germany to Eastern Europe, which will continue until the end of June. As part of the operation “Atlantic Resolve III,” 3,500 Pindo soldiers and about 1,400 vehicles, plus supplies, are to be transferred to Poland and the Baltic states. In addition, massive exercises are already underway with German participation. The NATO exercise “Saber Strike” is currently taking place in Lithuania, with the Bundeswehr leading the eastern flank reinforcement. According to the Pindo army, about 18,000 soldiers from 19 countries are taking part in the exercise. Among other things, the operation includes the simulated storming of the Russian Kaliningrad exclave through the Suwalki gap between Lithuania and Poland. The Bundeswehr is participating in NATO exercises this year with about 12,000 troops, a tripling of its commitment compared to last year. Under conditions of growing conflicts between the NATO powers themselves, the German Defence Ministry sees the NATO offensive against Russia as a means of increasing its own military clout. The leadership of the VJTF must “invest and modernise certain units to bring them up to their best,” von der Leyen said. This will be high up on the agenda for the upcoming NATO summit in July.

rad fems or portnoy, which is worse?

Philip Roth attacked as a misogynist
David Walsh, WSWS, Jun 18 2018

We live at a time of widespread historical ignorance and cultural debasement. The most preposterous things are written and said, and, especially if they touch on gender and racial matters, no one dares respond. In the wake of Philip Roth’s death on May 22, numerous commentaries have appeared accusing him of misunderstanding or being hostile to women and related failings.

Philip Roth in 1973

One of those appeared in the NYT May 25, “What Philip Roth Didn’t Know About Women Could Fill a Book,” by Dara Horn. The NYT leads the foul charge on these issues. Horn essentially complains that Roth was not complimentary enough about people like herself, upper-middle-class Jewish women:

The Jewish New Jersey women I know are talented professionals in every field, and often in those two thankless professions that Roth quite likely required to thrive: teachers and therapists. Roth, who achieved true greatness in depicting people like himself, never had the imagination to give these women souls.

This is simply not true. Roth tended or certainly aspired to be as critical of “people like himself” as he was of people like Horn. He rarely inflicted a wound on others without inflicting one on “people like himself.” What Horn and others find impermissible, among other things, is that Roth painted unflattering portraits of numerous female “professionals.” Furthermore, in “Stop Treating The Misogyny In Philip Roth’s Work Like A Dirty Secret” (HuffPost, May 26), Sandra Newman takes Roth to task among other things for the “gleefully lascivious objectification of women in his novels.” She takes for granted “Roth’s misogyny,” observing:

(For) many 21st-century Pindos, it’s still not misogyny at all but the normal psychology of the male.

D H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928)

This is a slander against men in general and Roth in particular. He openly represented his male characters’ lust and desire for women, often comically, sometimes graphically and semi-obscenely. That was one of his more liberating contributions to Pindo literature, which was still much in need of it. How does that by itself constitute “misogyny” or “objectification”? The new Puritanism includes the urge to censor and suppress, to return cultural life perhaps to the mid-1950s when D H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover was still banned in Pindostan. Generally speaking, Roth’s female characters give as good as they get, from Brenda Patimkin in Goodbye, Columbus [1959] (“Gloria Feldman made her way over to our end of the table and said freshly ‘Well our little Radcliffe smarty, what have you been doing all summer?’ ‘Growing a penis’) onward. Newman complains about Roth’s treatment of a number of female characters in American Pastoral (1997), which deals with a middle class New Jersey girl in the 1960s who becomes for a time a radical terrorist. The characterizations in this case are weak and unconvincing. However, the problem stems not from misogyny, but from the novelist’s failure to artistically imagine and create individuals driven out of their minds, as it were, by the immensity of the crimes committed by Pindo imperialism in Southeast Asia. Most stupidly and cheaply, Newman associates Roth with her vision of typical Donald Trump supporters and claims:

His political novels have a nagging MAGA aftertaste. … Reading these novels in 2018, one half expects the male protagonist to angrily comment, “This is why people voted for Trump.”

This is nonsense, unsupported by any quarter-serious reading of Roth’s books.

Roth’s Goodbye, Columbus (1959)

What irks a good number of the commentators is the fact that the late novelist had no use, generally speaking, for the obsession with identity politics, the brand of fraudulent and reactionary postmodern “leftism” that has proliferated on American campuses and elsewhere over the past 40 years or so. Unforgivably to Newman, Horn and company, Roth treated a number of female academics and other such types rather roughly in his books, suggesting that behind their aggressive “feminism” lay a good number of hidden factors, including psychological insecurity, personal ambition and avarice. His instinctive hostility was entirely appropriate. In any case, the numerous attacks on Roth along the same general lines, his failure to paint his “talented professional” women characters the way his critics would have liked him to, as unfailingly confident, brave and smart, are based on misconceptions about art that are widespread at the moment. The job of the novelist or artist is not to present his or her segment of the population positively and to inspire it to greater heights (and this always proves to be a segment of the petty bourgeois population, which invariably identifies itself with Man and Woman in general). It is currently taken for granted, codified and legitimized in thousands and thousands of “scholarly” works and practices, that no artist can or should try to transcend his or her subjectivity. It doesn’t generally occur to the critics to ask whether Roth’s portrayals, pleasing or not, correspond to realities outside the novels, whether they approximate the way things are. Thus, along with the criticisms of Roth as a supposed woman-hater inevitably arrive a host of articles and essays questioning whether men are ever capable of writing honestly or truthfully about women. Most reveal little or no historical knowledge or perspective. These recent media headlines tell us much of what we need to know about the articles’ superficial (or worse) content: “Why men can’t write about women,” “How Women See How Male Authors See Them,” “Can a Male Novelist Really Write, and Get, Women?” “Do women and men write differently?” etc.

Hélène Cixous in 2011 (Photo: Claude Truong-Ngoc)

In passing, one should note that postmodern feminism resoundingly answers “Yes” to the last question. For example, French theorist Hélène Cixous, a disciple of Jacques Derrida, argued in The Laugh of the Medusa (1975) that there was or should be a distinctly “feminine mode” of writing, bound up with the particularities of the female body. She went on:

Woman must write her self: must write about women and bring women to writing, from which they have been driven away as violently as from their bodies … I write woman: woman must write woman. And man, man.

Directly or indirectly, postmodern subjectivism and irrationalism strongly influence or drive contemporary thinking. Jonathan McAloon, in the Guardian (of course), asked last May, apparently in all seriousness, “Can male writers avoid misogyny?” He explained:

As a critic and a writer, I am curious to know what male authors who are feminists can do to address misogyny. How can men write honestly about the bad behaviour of men, without it being a busman’s holiday for female readers? These days, I feel all authors have a duty to write about misogyny, especially men. … Men are experts in misogyny; after all, we invented it. It is ubiquitous: even writing the previous sentence, I could easily be accused of mansplaining misogyny.

Let’s pass on, as quickly as we can. A few years ago, Michele Willens posted an article in the Atlantic, “The Mixed Results of Male Authors Writing Female Characters,” with the sub-headline:

Authors of both genders have long experimented with narrators and protagonists of the opposite sex, but there’s still debate as to whether either sex can do it right.

Well, there really isn’t a debate, the historical record settled it long ago, but in any event, Willens noted:

(When) Nation magazine writer and poet Katha Pollitt learned that I was pondering whether men write women better than women themselves, her response practically crashed my computer. “You could not possibly be suggesting that! I think few men write female characters who are complex and have stories of their own. Where are the vivid, realistic and rounded portrayals of women in Roth, Bellow, Updike?”

World premiere of Verdi’s La Traviata in 1853

The reaction of Pollitt, a veteran campaigner for gender politics and enthusiastic supporter of corporate warmonger Hillary Clinton in 2016, was predictable, both as to its feminist prejudices and its historical shortsightedness. If postwar novelists Roth, Bellow and Updike were incapable, and they may have been guilty of this sin, of offering “vivid, realistic and rounded portrayals of women,” that was bound up with a more general intellectual and artistic degeneration and a decline in “vivid, realistic and rounded” artistic pictures of social life as a whole. After all, it is absurd to the highest degree to suggest that a writer could accurately and full-bloodedly depict “men” or “women” distinct from one another, or apart from the social organism, as purely biological species existing in different galaxies. In the most decisive sense, the social and historical one, men and women have one common experience. Sexual identity, of course, plays an immense role in the existence of each individual. But neither men nor women participate in life primarily, let alone solely, on the basis of their sexual physiology, even under the worst and most backward theocracies, but as members of one or another social class or fraction of a class. As Marx explained, all human beings contain within themselves and are formed by “an ensemble of the social relations.” There would be no art without human physiology, because there would be no human beings at all, but that doesn’t mean art can simply be explained by human physiology. Between that physiology and art work, as Marxists understand, lies a complex system of transmitting mechanisms in which there are individual, species-particular and, above all, social elements. The sexual-physiological foundation of humanity changes very slowly, its social relations more rapidly. Artists find material for their art primarily in their social environment and in alterations in the social environment. Otherwise, there would be no change in art over time, and as Trotsky put it:

People would continue from generation to generation to be content with the poetry of the Bible, or of the old Greeks.

No truly great artist in modern times, or perhaps at any time, has ever been overwhelmingly a “specialist” in only one gender (or sexual orientation), because the definition of the great artist, in our view, is his or her ability to attempt as comprehensive as possible view of the social totality and its driving forces. Obviously, there have been limitations bound up with particular stages of social evolution, taking into account utopian socialist Charles Fourier’s assertion that in every society the degree of female emancipation has been the natural measure of emancipation in general.
Most of William Shakespeare’s greatest figures are male, but at the dawn of the modern age already the English dramatist produced immortal women characters without whom his plays would be unthinkable: Cleopatra, Rosalind, Titania, Lady Macbeth, Cordelia, Goneril, Queen Margaret, Gertrude, Viola, Juliet, Imogen, Miranda, Ophelia, Beatrice, Portia and countless others. As the poet Heine once wrote,

Can men write about women? And the fool expects an answer.

When bourgeois art was at its progressive height in the 18th and 19th centuries, male novelists, playwrights and opera composers paid great attention to the condition of women because that condition was to them the most representative and often most painful expression of the state of contemporary society. What would be left of modern literature, drama and opera without Clarissa, The Heart of Midlothian, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Little Dorrit, Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, Resurrection, Effi Briest, Hedda Gabler, A Doll’s House, Miss Julie, Mrs Warren’s Profession, Lady Windermere’s Fan, Nana, La Traviata, Luisa Miller, Rigoletto, Tosca, Madama Butterfly and many more, most of them tragedies? And one might add, long before the current focus on sexual harassment, Shakespeare produced a remarkable work entitled Measure for Measure.

A 1918 production of Shaw’s “Mrs Warren’s Profession” (1893)

Of course, the monumental character of this body of work is no deterrent against contemporary stupidity and blindness. There is every reason to believe that the reader will have no difficulty in putting his or her hands on articles or entire books devoted to “Shakespeare the misogynist,” “Tolstoy: Woman-hater,” “How Flaubert slandered his female protagonists,” etc. It is also a backward and, frankly, philistine notion that men ought to be most interested in writing about men, and women about women. In addition to the social question, certainly the central element, there is also a natural, human curiosity in the opposite (almost regardless of sexual orientation). Men spend a good deal of their time thinking about women, and, I believe, vice versa. Contrary to Cixous, Pollitt and their shallow, self-centered ilk, it is certainly “possible to suggest” that men, under certain conditions, might hold the better mirror up to women than women themselves and, again, vice versa. When, in the wake of the French Revolution, above all, women fought their way into the ranks of serious literature, it can’t be said that they showed an inclination to only concentrate on themselves. They too had a wider view of the world and a higher, more ambitious conception of what art and literature could do. Jane Austen is as much (or more) remembered for Mr Darcy and George Knightley as she is for Elizabeth Bennett and Emma Woodhouse. The same goes for Charlotte Brontë in relation to her Mr Rochester and Jane Eyre, and Emily Brontë in relation to Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw. George Eliot titled four of her seven novels after male characters and only one, one of her weakest works, after a woman (Romola). Women artists, it turned out, had a special concern with and sympathy for the difficult and often heartbreaking situations of many men in class society. These are only a few of the issues raised by the manufactured controversy surrounding Philip Roth’s alleged misogyny.

a major storm in the NGO teacup field

The raw truth about Britain’s special relationship with Israel
Mark Curtis, TruePublica.org, Jun 15 2018

Britain has a special relationship with Israel that is little recognised in the mainstream media but unmissable in light of the killings in Gaza. With more than 110 protesters dead, Britain is in effect defending Israeli actions. The British government has not, as far as I have seen, actually condemned Israel for the killings. Rather, it has simply “urged Israel to show restraint” while recognising its “right to secure itself” and also blaming Hamas for the violence. When PM May phoned PM Netanyahu on May 10, by which date 40 Palestinian protesters in Gaza had already been shot, it appears she did not even raise the issue. Meanwhile, the government infers it will not even review British arms exports to Israel after the Gaza massacres which have only been discussed once in the British cabinet. That Britain is supporting Israel over the Gaza killings is true to form. Britain’s relationship with Israel is special in at least nine areas:

  1. Diplomatic support
    Theresa May says that Israel is “one of the world’s great success stories” and a “beacon of tolerance“. To Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, Israel is a “light unto the nations” whose relationship with Britain “is underpinned by a shared sense of values: justice, compassion, tolerance.” These gushing words translate into consistent British support for Israel internationally, helping to shield it from ostracism. Britain abstained on the recent UN vote to authorise an investigation into the Gaza killings because it would not also investigate Hamas; instead, Britain supports Israel carrying out its own inquiry. Last year, the Foreign Office refused to sign a joint statement at the Paris peace conference on Palestine, accusing it of “taking place against the wishes of the Israelis.”
  2. Arms supplies
    Britain has approved arms sales to Israel worth $445m since the 2014 Gaza war and there is little doubt that some of this equipment has been used against people in the occupied territories. British drone components are exported while Israel uses drones for surveillance and armed attacks. Britain exports components for combat aircraft while Israel’s air force conducts air strikes in Gaza, causing civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure. The government admits it has not assessed the impact of its arms exports to Israel on Palestinians. This policy follows the knowledge that Israel promotes an “increasing pattern” of deliberately shooting Palestinian children and that Palestinians generally are “increasingly killed with impunity” by Israel, as a 2015 Home Office report noted. Since 2000 Israel has killed nearly 5,000 Palestinians not taking part in hostilities, around one-third of whom are under 18.
  3. Airforce
    In May 2018, Israel became the first country to mount an air attack using the new generation F-35 stealth warplane, hitting targets in Syria. While F-35 production is led by Pindo arms company Lockheed Martin, British industry is building 15 percent of each F-35, involving companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. Nothing is allowed to interrupt the “very close defence cooperation” between Britain and Israel. British military pilots are even being trained by a company owned by Israel arms firm Elbit Systems.
  4. Nuclear arms
    Israel is believed to possess 80 to 100 200 to 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are deployed on its submarines. Britain is effectively aiding this nuclear deployment by supplying submarine components to Israel. Britain has a long history of helping Israel to develop nuclear weapons. In the 1950s and 1960s Conservative and Labour governments made hundreds of sales of nuclear materials to Israel, including plutonium and uranium. The contrast with British policy towards Iran is striking. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson states that Britain is “adamant that a nuclear-armed Iran would never be acceptable” and thus maintains sanctions against Iran. At the same time Britain refuses to adopt any sanctions against Israel, an actual nuclear state. In 1995, Britain and other states agreed to a resolution to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. It is not known whether Britain has ever seriously pressed Israel on this.
  5. Navy
    This week British and Spanish warships, part of NATO’s forces, docked in Israel’s Haifa port to conduct a joint NATO-Israel naval exercise. This follows naval exercises between Britain and Israel in Dec 2017 and Nov 2016. Through its blockade, the Israeli navy restricts Palestinians’ fishing rights, even firing on local fishermen. The blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as illegal, including by senior UN officials, a UN independent panel of experts and Amnesty International, partly since it inflicts “collective punishment” on an entire population. Britain is failing to uphold its obligation “to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law.”
  6. Intelligence
    Little is known of the intelligence relationship between Britain and Israel. There have been differences such as in 1986 when PM Thatcher ordered a freeze in relations with Mossad after a female Israeli agent lured Mordechai Vanunu, who was trying to reveal Israel’s nuclear secrets, to Rome where he was kidnapped. Former MI6 director Sir Richard Dearlove recently said that British intelligence did not always share information with Israel “because we could never guarantee how the intelligence might or would be used.” But the Telegraph reports that the relationship between MI6 and Mossad has become closer in recent years with both concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran. The director of the British spy centre GCHQ says the latter has a “strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence” and that “we are building on an excellent cyber-relationship with a range of Israeli bodies.” Documents from 2009 leaked by Edward Snowden show that GCHQ spied on the IOF, defence firms and diplomatic missions. But they also revealed that GCHQ monitored Palestinian communications, including the phone calls of Pres Abbas and his two sons. The interceptions took place just three weeks before Israel’s offensive on Gaza in Jan 2009, suggesting that they may have helped Israel gear up for the offensive.
  7. Trade
    Briatin is deepening trade with Israel “as we leave the EU” and has established a joint trade working group. Britain completely opposes BDS movement and rejects imposing even the most basic sanctions on Israel, such as travel bans on those involved in expanding illegal settlements. Indeed, the government appears to be helping Israel counter the BDS movement. In Sep 2017, then communities minister Sajid Javid met Gilad Erdan, Israel’s “strategic affairs” minister in charge of combating the BDS movement, to discuss “steps to counter anti-Israel delegitimisation and BDS.” Rather, Britain wants trade relations to go from “strength to strength“, bolstering Britain’s position as the primary Israeli investment location in Europe.
  8. Illegal settlements
    Britain is aware that there are more than 570,000 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and its formal position regards the settlements as illegal. Yet this is meaningless in light of actual British policy, which is never known to press Israel strongly to end settlement building or the occupation. Britain simply calls on Israel to “ease” restrictions on Gaza, and rather than demand an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights, Britain only calls on Israel to “uphold its obligations under international law.”
  9. Trade from illegal settlements
    Israel’s policy in the OPT has been described by human rights body B’Tselem as an “unbridled theft.” Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of goods produced in these settlements are exported internationally each year, including oranges, dates and spring water. Yet Britain permits this trade and does not even keep a record of imports into Britain from the settlements. Indeed, Boris Johnson has explicitly saidthat it is the “policy of Britain” to trade with the illegal settlements and that this will continue. This policy violates UNSCR which require all states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

What explains British policy?
Britain has a long history of supporting Israeli aggression. As the mandatory power in Palestine from 1920 to 1948, Britain enabled the gradual takeover of Palestine by the Zionist movement. When the Arab revolt against Britain and its Zionist proteges broke out in the late 1930s, the British army brutally crushed it. Britain supported Israel’s brutal takeover of Palestine in 1948 and also aided Israel’s 1967 war, having furnished Israel with hundreds of British tanks. Two reasons are clear in explaining current British policy. One is commercial: arms exports and trade are increasingly profitable to British corporations. The other is that British policy towards Israel is to a large degree determined in Faschingstein and by London wanting to curry favour with Pindostan and not challenge its closest ally. But British policy goes beyond this. Gavin Williamson has said that the Britain-Israel relationship is the “cornerstone of so much of what we do in the Middle East” while former international development secretary, the neocon Priti Patel, noted that “Israel is an important strategic partner for Britain.” Patel was forced to resign last year after it was revealed that she held secret meetings in Israel with key officials including Netanyahu. Most significantly, she visited Israeli military hospitals in the Golan Heights where Israel treats anti-government fighters including members of Jabhat al-Nusra, which Israel is seen as effectively supporting. Patel even wanted to give British aid to the IOF. Britain effectively backs Israeli military policy in the Middle East while it has carried out more than 100 clandestine air strikes inside Syria against government, Iranian and Hezbollah targets. Israel is seen as an ally against Syria and Iran, Britain’s two main enemies in the region. London increasingly regards Israel as a strategic asset, especially now that the old Arab-Israeli conflict has largely disappeared, meaning that Britain can more easily back both Israel and its despotic Arab allies at the same time. The Palestinians are the expendable unpeople in this deepening special relationship.

judeonazi legal news

Israeli ministers approve ‘unconstitutional’ bill to ban filming of IDF actions
RT.com, Jun 17 2018

A bill that criminalizes filming IDF soldiers has been advanced by an Israeli government committee. The Israeli Attorney General, however, said it would not withstand a constitutional review in its current form. The Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which determines the coalition government’s position on all pending bills, has green-lighted the legislation, which envisages penalties of up to five years in prison for anyone filming or publishing footage showing IOF with an aim to “harm their spirits.” It is to be debated in the parliament this week. However, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit said he considers the bill to be “problematic” from a legal point of view, adding that he would not be able to defend it in court. The legislation “presents serious legal problems,” Mendelblit said, in a letter he sent to the government committee, adding that it is unlikely to be upheld by the Supreme Court as it apparently contradicts Israel’s basic laws in its current form. The legislation, which was proposed in April by right-wing politicians and backed by Defense Minister Liberman, says the sentence could be doubled to as much as 10 years if a published footage “harms the state’s security.” Explanatory notes to the legislation list the groups targeted and say:

For many years Israel has witnessed a worrisome phenomenon in which IOF soldiers are being documented via video, stills photography and audio recordings by anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups such as B’Tselem, the women of Machsom Watch, Breaking the Silence and various BDS groups.

Those behind the controversial legislation also accused the NGOs of spending “entire days” waiting for any action which they could then “document in a biased way to slander the IOF.” Robert Ilatov, the head of the parliamentary right-wing faction that proposed the bill, told the JPost:

The time has come to end this practice of left-wing organizations and activists, backed by foreign entities, having a free hand to videotape IOF soldiers while they fulfill their duty.

Following the Attorney General’s concerns, the bill’s proponents eventually agreed to amend it. However, the bill must first be presented in the parliament in its current form and would then be amended only during the debate, Israeli media report. According to the reports, the amended version of the bill is expected to ban “interfering” with IOF activities and preventing soldiers from fulfilling their duties but would not put a blanket ban on documenting their actions. It would also envisage a penalty of three years instead of five for a breach of this law. The legislation has provoked angry reaction from various rights groups and activists who document the abuses committed by Israeli soldiers. B’Tselem particularly said that it will proceed with its work and “no stupid law could stop it.” According to Haaretz, the group said:

If the government is embarrassed over the occupation, it should work to bring it to an end. In any case, visual footage of life under occupation will continue. This is a fact of life that no idiotic proposed bill will change.

The New Israel Fund, which funds B’Tselem, criticized the legislation as well. The fund’s CEO, Daniel Sokatch, told the Israeli media:

In Israel, as elsewhere in the world, video footage of police and military activity has become an important tool for human rights groups and the media. It’s part of how citizens can blow the whistle on wrongdoing by authorities. We’ve seen that from Abu Ghraib to the case of Philando Castile. Tyrants restrict the rights of people to record what happens around them; democracies do not.

Videos showing Israeli soldiers gloating and cheering while shooting Palestinians have surfaced on social media on numerous occasions. One such clip shows an Israeli sniper shooting a motionless Palestinian to the sound of cheers, while another one portrayed a sniper openly using a Palestinian as “target practice.” The bill, proposed amid world condemnation of Israeli violence at the Palestinian’s ‘Great March of Return’ protests, which saw 120 people killed, was earlier slammed by the PLO, which said:

If the IOF troops have nothing to hide, then there is no harm in documenting their actions against Palestinians.

Friedman scolds MKs for demanding Pindo recognition of Golan
Stuart Winer, Times of Israel, Jun 17 2018

Pindo Ambassador Friedman reportedly told Israeli MKs they were “ungrateful” for demanding that Faschingstein follow up on its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with an official Pindo acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Among those who recently called for Pindo recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights were Transportation and Intelligence Minister Israel Katz, Likud party MK Yoav Kisch, and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. According to a Hebrew-language report from the Kan public broadcaster on Sunday, Friedman met recently with some MKs and admonished them over the public call for a change in US policy vis-a-vis the Golan Heights. The report quoted him as saying that Israelis do not understand that Pindostan has global interests unrelated to the Jewish state, while Israeli politicians have only a domestic agenda. In private conversations, Friedman allegedly told the politicians that, instead of being grateful after Pindostan recognized Jerusalem and made the momentous move of its embassy to the city, the Israelis immediately asked for more, displaying what he termed “ingratitude.” The Kan report did not specify which lawmakers Friedman spoke to in the meetings. The Pindo Embassy responded in a statement to the news channel, saying the Pindo ambassador does not recall any conversations about the matter. Concerning the Pindo policy regarding the Golan Heights, the mission said there are no new announcements to be made at this time. The embassy noted that Pindo boxtops have regular meetings with various Israeli officials on various topics. Recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the strategic mountainous plateau in the north east of the country has both support and opposition in Faschingstein. Likud Minister Katz said in late May:

This is the perfect time to make such a move. The most painful response you can give the Iranians is to recognize Israel’s Golan sovereignty, with a Pindo statement, a presidential proclamation.

Likud MK Kisch had also recently sent a letter to Friedman urging Faschingstein to take the step. At the end of May, the Pindo House of Reps shelved a Thug Rep’s proposal for the recognition, following reported opposition from party leaders and from within the White House. Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida had introduced the non-binding proposal to the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which he is a member, saying that although symbolic, its approval could encourage the administration to take a position on the matter. The proposal, however, was shelved and prevented from coming up for a vote as part of the NDAA.