Israel is a perpetual Geostrategic project MANUFACTURED to separate the eastern flank of the Arab World from the Suez Canal, Egypt and Beyond...

THE MODERN STATE OF “ISRAEL” IS A FRAUD PERPETUATED UPON THE HUMAN RACE BY THE THUGS AT BRITISH CROWN INC...

It is BEYOND obvious that the whole scheming since 1894 & the Balfour Declaration of theft in the Levant, was a deliberate geostrategic barrier created from scratch by the Empire of utter criminals in London, in order to separate the eastern flank of the Arab World from the Suez Canal, Egypt and Beyond. This nuclearized geostrategic barrier allows the control of the main maritime choke points in MENA & Arabia, which can suffocate Asia etc. anytime the Zioconned West chooses to do so within a few months...This policy of support for a failed concept in the face of international law and simple Justice, still prevails in the corridors of the UKUSA alliance of Evils... Pathetic!

http://youtu.be/AOv_Ll_Pl08

Semite–A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians...

Arthur Koestler, author of The Thirteenth Tribe, easily the most expansive single work on the subject, states, “The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.” 1
This is the story of a kingdom of belligerent, warlike Caucasian nomads, having no linked ancestry with anything Israelite this side of Noah, yet adopting Talmudic Judaism and becoming the dominant — and virtually only — current force in twenty-first century international Jewry.

Where Do Jews Come From?

 

By EVAN R. GOLDSTEIN

This much is known: In the mid-eighth century, the ruling elite of the Khazars, a Turkic tribe in Eurasia, converted to Judaism. Their impetus was political, not spiritual. By embracing Judaism, the Khazars were able to maintain their independence from rival monotheistic states, the Muslim caliphate and the Christian Byzantine empire. Governed by a version of rabbinical law, the Khazar Jewish kingdom flourished along the Volga basin until the beginning of the second millennium, at which point it dissolved, leaving behind a mystery: Did the Khazar converts to Judaism remain Jews, and, if so, what became of them?

Enter Shlomo Sand. In a new book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” the Tel Aviv University professor of history argues that large numbers of Khazar Jews migrated westward into Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania, where they played a decisive role in the establishment of Eastern European Jewry. The implications are far-reaching: If the bulk of Eastern European Jews are the descendents of Khazars—not the ancient Israelites—then most Jews have no ancestral links to Palestine. Put differently: If most Jews are not Semites, then what justification is there for a Jewish state in the Middle East? By attempting to demonstrate the Khazar origins of Eastern European Jewry, Mr. Sand—a self-described post-Zionist who believes that Israel needs to shed its Jewish identity to become a democracy—aims to undermine the idea of a Jewish state.

Published in Hebrew last year, “The Invention of the Jewish People” was a best seller in IsraHell...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464023091024180.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf

Russia's principled policy in the Levant is based on international law, will it stand the test of Time...

Russia's policy towards Syria is one based on principles and not one which will change depending on circumstances.  Russia has clearly said that it will never allow a "Libya 2" in Syria.  That is a principled position which in itself does not secure an outcome, only excludes a specific scenario...

Several Russian (and Ukrainian) nationals have been kidnapped by the Al-CIAda insurgents which, in a typical Wahhabi-thuggish manner, are now demanding a ransom in US dollars.  This is an ominous development which the Kremlin cannot ignore.  Again, contingency plans do NOT AT ALL mean a change in policies.  To take all the necessary measures to protect its nationals is an inherent obligation of any state and not an original policy.

Fundamentally, Russia is using the power that it has (veto at the UNSC) and stays away from pretending to use the power it does not have (military intervention). This is also exactly what China is doing, all for the same reasons, yet nobody is constantly speaking about Chinese zig-zags on China.  Why?  Because China is not the ex-Soviet Union with global ambitions...

This is the key thing which so many experts simply cannot get used to: Russia is not a global power anymore.  In fact, it has absolutely no desire to become one again.  Russia is, of course, a major power which, in theory, could challenge the USA, just like China could.  However, both Russia and China could only do that at great, immense, risk for themselves.

And then there is the time factor: both Russia and China fully realize that they, even more than the other BRICS countries, have time on their side and that each passing year makes them stronger.  The USA, in contrast, is globally overextended, burdened by a debt it will never pay, profusely hated world wide, and the only thing which still keeps it going is the fact that the rest of the planet is too afraid of the US military to openly refuse to use the US dollar as a currency reserve and to pay for its energy.  The US is also socially dysfunctional, culturally sterile, militarily over-extended, economically de-industrialized, and politically "neo-feudal" (1% rule over 99% of serfs).  Sooner or later the USA will become weak enough to make it possible for any major power, including Russia or China and Brazil, to openly defy it, but while it is still powerful but weakening it is an extremely dangerous foe which should not be under-estimated.  This is why Russia, along with the other regional powers on the planet, will continue to carefully wait for the right time and avoid any sudden move which would compromise all that it has achieved in the past 12 years...

On The EU poodles....  I would argue that the current condition of the EU is even worse than the one of the Zio-USA...  Russian politicians look at the EU in total disgust. Russian experts are saying that all that the EU had to offer was a "never ending gay-pride parade combined with a massive Maghrebization and of Africanization of its society".  That is not a bad way to put it.  The EU, as a political project, is dying, and the European society arguably is even more dysfunctional than the US one.  The likes of Sarkozy, Hollande, Cameron, Fabius, Juppe and Merkel can delude themselves by playing big power politics, but the fact that French Rafales were the first to bomb Libya will change exactly nothing to prevent the French society from dying from the truly cataclysmic influx of immigrants, most of which come from the Maghreb or Africa.  From Estonia to Portugal and from Bulgaria to Iceland, Europe is nothing more than a US colony, totally ruined by a corrupt political elite, which is sinking as fast as the Titanic did, and whose orchestra (corporate media) is still playing its happy ballroom music...

But "dying" and "dead" are very different things.  The EU is still a huge market, and the EU elites have a lot of soft power to throw around, much more than Russia.  And this is why at least for the time being, Russia will try to avoid openly antagonizing the EU...

Russia's stance on the Levant is based on principles and international law...Russia has exactly *zero* need for Syria. Russia does see Syria as a friend, and many Russian politicians see Assad's MAFIA as "friends", but that does not mean that anybody in Russia "needs" him...
In this case it is a national interest of Russia to insist that the situation be handled strictly according to international law. Russia seeks a multi-polar world and that means one in which international law is fully respected. In other words, it is in Russia's pragmatic national interest to insist on principles...

Russian gas is already going through two routes (north and south) to Europe in total safety which would never be the case if the EU depended on a pipeline going through Syria... In fact, Russia does not even "need" Iran, though I would argue that Iran is far more important to Russia than Syria... Syria and Lebanon are strategically located at the crux of the Middle-East, but Russia has very little influence in the Middle-East anyway, and there is no aspect of Russian national security to which the Middle-East would be really important except one: the fact that the USA is trying to impose its will on the Middle-East in total violation of international law which does set a dangerous and highly undesirable precedent for Russia...

To the extent that genuinely autonomous nation states continue as the major military and political arbiters of the planets military and political affairs, that would be a desirable outcome...

My worry is that transnational organizations with minimal national loyalties/allegiances are coming to dominate foreign affairs and marginalizing nation states in the process. The major globalised corporations seem to be the driving force, with their bought-and-paid-for politicians, bureaucrats and intelligence establishments who effectively moderate the treaty interpretation and development process (among other critical things). Their big potential problem lies in the ultimate loyalties/allegiances of the military establishments that they rely on as enforcers of last resort. That together with the mass of the planets population that really have come to hate America and NATO with a vengeance..., courtesy of the most Infamous White House Murder INC, following the barbaric Cheney's 9/11 and the cowardly assassination of HK, January 24th 2002 in Lebanon...

The thing that nags me deeply is the possibility of Putin and/or other capable Russian and Chinese big-hitters being made offers they can't refuse. In other words, when the chips are finally down in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really lie?

That is a big question indeed. Which would they choose - themselves and their power or the welfare of their people?

I guess that we will never know for sure until they are actually faced with this choice. Sometimes, in historical situations, not so principled folks suddenly take a principled stance, while in other circumstances previously rather idealistic people suddenly cave in and betray the values they were supposed to stand for...CIRCA January 15th 1986...etc etc.

Regardless of personalities, there is, I believe, a very large social consensus in Russia and this social consensus is what gives real power to the Kremlin's policies. Any politician wanting to go against this social consensus would place himself in a great deal of risk and would have to start ruling by force, which would be rather dangerous.

So, the current Russian policies will stand and there will be no sudden "zig-zag!" Only Time will tell...

The Obomba/Bush three options...

The Obomba/Bush three options...

 

The Obomba/Bush administration's opposition to yesterday's United Nations General Assembly vote on the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) bid for non-member observer state status once again places the United States outside the consensus of the vast majority of the international community. While the merits and usefulness of such a move by the PLO can be debated, the United States has once again made it clear that it lacks any new ideas as to how to move toward a just and lasting peace in the region and suggests that the administration is likely to continue to support blindly whatever the current Israeli government wants.
However, looking forward to his second term, President Barack Obama faces three basic options for dealing with the Palestine issue. Their outlines have not really changed since the most recent Israeli attacks on Gaza. The first is the tried and true method of simply ignoring Palestine and the Palestinians, while paying lip service to the "peace process" and attempting to extract unreciprocated Palestinian concessions to Israel. This approach was practiced during most of the administration of George W. Bush, and over the last two years by that of Obama. There are many pretexts for following this course of action today. These range from the persistent political divisions in Palestinian ranks and the feebleness of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, to the supposedly "terrorist" nature of the Hamas leadership in Gaza. They include as well the stubborn unwillingness of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to engage in serious negotiations to change the intolerable status quo of never-ending settlement growth and strict Israeli control over the millions of Palestinians who have lived under Israel military occupation for over 45 years. If, as clearly seems to be the case, the Israeli government is not fully willing to allow unfettered Palestinian self-determination, terminate its occupation, and remove its settlers, what is the point of "negotiations" for the Palestinians? Another reason for doing nothing is the unbroken record of failure of every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter in trying to stop the inexorable expansion of the Israeli settlement enterprise. This vast endeavor now comprises nearly 600,000 colonists -- or about one in every 10 Israeli Jews, who live on stolen Palestinian land in a far-flung archipelago explicitly intended to make the creation of a contiguous, viable Palestinian state physically impossible, with majestic success thus far.
The second option is to make a major effort to revive a "peace process" which has been moribund for well over a decade, and was on life support long before that. There is a large body of pious conventional opinion in Washington and elsewhere that would back such an approach. Those who favor it ignore the various realities on the ground just mentioned, which make the two-state solution that is the ostensible object of this process well-nigh impossible. They ignore as well the question of why a Palestinian leader with any degree of self-respect should re-engage in a "peace process" that, far from bringing peace, has resulted in the further entrenchment of this colonial reality and of Israel's military occupation of Palestinian lands. Beyond this, the Palestinians have been imprisoned in a collection of separate, sealed Bantustans, with those in the West Bank unable to enter Jerusalem or Israel or Gaza, those in Gaza who cannot freely go anywhere at all, and those in Jerusalem who can move more freely, but are at constant risk of having their Jerusalem residency rights arbitrarily withdrawn. These are all realities that took on their full form during the 21 years of this misnamed and misbegotten "peace process," starting with the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, and it is these realities that are the most concrete results of this process.
Moreover, from the beginning, this process has been totally dominated by the United States, which is Israel's closest ally, and a broker so prejudiced toward Israel it was once described by a senior American negotiator, Aaron David Miller, as acting as "Israel's lawyer." Many of these officials have been blatant in their sympathy for Israel and in their antipathy for the Palestinians. During a recent televised discussion I faced two of them, Elliot Abrams, a senior advisor to George W. Bush (and who served under Reagan and George H.W. Bush), and Dennis Ross, a senior advisor to both Presidents Clinton and Obama (and who served under their two Republican predecessors). I was struck by how extraordinarily alike they sounded, and by the heavy responsibility they, their colleagues, and their superiors bore for the failure of this process.
The third and last option is one never before taken by U.S. policy makers. This would involve a complete reassessment of a thoroughly bankrupt two-decade old negotiating process. This process shoe-horned the Palestinians into an "interim" self-governing authority with no sovereignty, no jurisdiction, and no real authority that has been in existence for 18 years, and deferred discussion of "final status issue" -- all the important ones like Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, water, and so forth. These core issues have never been seriously addressed in over 20 years of farcical negotiations. The Madrid-Oslo framework has produced not peace but a significant worsening of the situation of the Palestinians: it must be abandoned. Such a reassessment would require as well an acceptance that the United States, because of its profound inherent structural bias in favor of Israel, cannot monopolize peace making. This is necessary if the desired result is peace, and not yet another instance of blind American support for Israeli intransigence where the Palestine issue is concerned, which has been the outcome of every such attempt from the days of President Carter until the present.
Jimmy Carter was the first U.S. president to recognize the need for a Palestinian homeland. Ironically, it was also his administration that first accepted former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's restrictive 1978 "autonomy plan" (an Orwellian term if ever there was one) as the absolute ceiling to which the Palestinians would be allowed to aspire. This plan was explicitly designed by Begin to prevent Palestinian self-determination and statehood, and to perpetuate and strengthen Israel's occupation and its colonial enterprise in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has done just that, with the blessing of every U.S. administration since Carter's, under whatever rubric it was disguised since then. This path, of the 1978 Camp David agreements and the 1993 Oslo accords, which are both based directly on Begin's restrictive autonomy plan, cannot lead to peace. It can only lead where Begin, the patriarch of the Israeli right wing, meant it to go and where it has so far gone: toward the permanent subjugation of the Palestinians and the annexation of all or most of their land.
The third path, the road never before taken, would require more than just a diminution by the United States of its heretofore pervasively dominant role, and the involvement of other more neutral parties in negotiations. It would require as well that the Palestinians finally get their act together, unify their splintered ranks, end the destructive political split which has debilitated them, and come to a consensus on an imaginative new strategy for Palestinian national liberation and an end to Israeli settlement and occupation. This in turn requires abandonment of both the PA's approach of half-trying to negotiate from a position of abject weakness under the thumb of Israel and the United States under ground rules designed to favor Israel, and of Hamas's dead-end approach of reliance on violence alone under the rubric of "resistance." This will be hard for both, especially after the Netanyahu government's recent attacks on Gaza have massively enhanced the prestige and standing of Hamas among Palestinians, Arabs, and others. But it is absolutely necessary, since neither the Ramallah PA's adherence to the "peace process" as it has been structured for decades, nor Hamas rockets, have yet liberated any part of Palestine. Indeed the Palestinians are far worse off today than they were at the time of Madrid in 1991. Such a shift by the Palestinians would need to be met by greater U.S. flexibility regarding both Hamas, and the idea of the unity of all major Palestinian factions, which Washington has worked against assiduously since that group won the 2006 elections.
Given the inflexibly pro-Netanyahu political realities of Washington DC, which on this issue are unreflective of American public opinion and indeed of American Jewish opinion (after an election in which 69 percent of American Jewish voters voted for Obama in spite of Netanyahu virtually campaigning for Romney), it may be hard to see the Obama administration doing any of these things. But a new reality is emerging in the Arab world, of which we have only seen a glimmer so far. The 2012 U.S. presidential election showed that the Republican Party has come to represent the fading demographic reality of older, whiter, male southern and western America. Similarly, the Arab upheavals of the past two years have underlined the fact that the old Arab world was represented mainly by entrenched despots who would do whatever Washington wanted and who saw Iran as more of a problem for the region than Israel. This is not how most of the largely young population of the Arab world (or most of the population of Turkey) perceive their region, and in particular how they perceive the issue of Palestine. There are just beginning to arise Arab governments which in some small measure reflect both that popular will and that growing demographic reality. That development may yet be short-circuited by the efforts of forces supported by the reactionary Arab Gulf autocrats, for whom constitutional parliamentary democracies are anathema. Nevertheless, the Obama administration would be well advised to respond to these new realities in the Middle East, before the United States is once again caught behind the curve in this vital region. Instead of continuing to align itself with the old Arab order, and with the Israeli government's bullying of the Palestinians, it should help in the achievement of a just and lasting peace. This would greatly benefit not only Palestinians and Israelis, but also the standing of the United States in the Middle East and the world.

With the announcement this morning that Israel will speed up settlement building especially in E1 and the absolute silence from Zioconned Washington and Ottawa on the announcement. Don't hold your breath. Countries should start with drawing support for the sanctions against Iran if Israel does not back down on these new settlements...

 

Rashid Khalidi a friend of the Obamas..., and is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, a former advisor to the stupid Palestinian negotiators, who have been taken for a ride since 1964 by their atrocious PLO thugs..., and author of The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, and the forthcoming Brokers of Deceit: How the US Undermined Peace in the Middle East.