ΗΡΘΕ Η ΩΡΑ ΤΟΥ “ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑΣ”!..
Χθες (18-10-2010), οι Τούρκοι ουσιαστικά επαναδημοσίευσαν τις μετά το 1974 “αποκαλυφθείσες”… ορέξεις τους για 1/2 τ/Αιγαίο και για ανύπαρκτη… Ελλάδα, μεταξύ Κρήτης και Κύπρου! (Κε Α/ΓΕΝ, αυτή είναι η πολιτική… πλάτη, θα καταλάβεις παρακάτω διαβάζοντας το τί εισηγούμαστε στον Ε/Π-Θ, που δεν πρέπει να μας πάρουν οι Τούρκοι, σχετικά με τις θέσεις, με την Γεωγραφία δηλαδή της Ελλάδος και της Κύπρου, ενώ η στρατιωτική… πλάτη είναι αυτή που σε καλούσαμε “προχθές” -θα το θυμάσαι- να ενεργήσεις, ώστε να μην έχουν στο θαλάσσιο Πεδίο οι Τούρκοι μόνον αυτοί την Κύπρο… πλάτη, αλλά να είσαι και εσύ και(!) με… πλάτη το νησί μας αυτό, το ΕΠΝ δηλαδή, κατάλαβες, ανάμεσα στην Κύπρο και στην γραμμή Ρόδος – Κάρπαθος – Κάσος – Κρήτη)!..
Το ιδιαίτερο αυτού του νέου τ/Χάρτη του τ/Υπ. Μεταφορών είναι ότι οι Τούρκοι σε τυχόν ατύχημα, κλπ, στις ελληνικές αυτές περιοχές που έχουν σχεδιάσει ως δικές τους (!), λένε ότι θα προβαίνουν αυτοί σε “Έρευνα Και Διάσωση”! Πχ Μεταξύ Κρήτης και Ρόδου (sic), κλπ!..
Ένα τέτοιο ατύχημα θα μπορούσε να είναι τυχαίο, αλλά θα μπορούσε να ήταν / να είναι και “στημένο” από τους Τούρκους το προσεχές διάστημα!
Το “τυχαίο” το αντιλαμβάνεστε όλοι! Το “στημένο” όμως, θα μου πείτε / θα με ρωτήσετε, τί ακριβώς εννοείς; Διαβάστε λοιπόν παρακάτω, τί εννοώ / – ούμε!
Οι Τούρκοι και πλέον ο ίδιος ο ΡΤΕ ξεκίνησε προσωπικό πόλεμο κατά του Ε/Π-Θ! Ένας πιθανός του σχεδιασμός (προταθείς από την “κλίκα” του), είναι ένα πχ “στημένο ναυάγιο” ή ένα “στημένο αεροπορικό δυστύχημα”, με πιο πιθανό το πρώτο, δυστύχημα μέσα στα ελληνικά νερά (“κυριαρχία μας”) και απόπειρά του να πάνε τουρκικά μέσα για διάσωση, κλπ!
Προσοχή τώρα, αφού η Ελλάδα / ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗΣ, θα είναι τότε υποχρεωμένος να αντιδράσει, αφού αν δεν αντιδράσει και παραμείνει αδρανής και θεατής ο Ε/Π-Θ, (αν φυσικά πάνε οι Τούρκοι πρώτοι στο… “δυστύχημα”, διότι αν πάμε εμείς δεν νομίζω να μας προσβάλλουν πρώτοι οι Τούρκοι, εκεί όπου θα είναι το… “δυστύχημα”), η τ/προπαγάνδα θα παρουσιάσει την Τουρκία νικήτρια, καταλαβαίνετε, λέγοντας ότι η χώρα μας απεδέχθη στην πράξη ότι δεν είναι δικός της χώρος (τα μέχρι σήμερα… νερά της δηλαδή), για “έρευνα και διάσωση”, κλπ, ενώ παράλληλα και η ντόπια 5η φάλαγγα θα παρουσιάσει τον Ε/Π-Θ ως προδότη!.. (Κυρίως τα κρυφο-κομμούνια του “ΣΟΡΟΣ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ” και λοιπές διεθνιστικές δυνάμεις-φερέφωνα της νέας “Νέας Τάξεως”, ΚΚΕ, ΑΝΤΑΡ-CIA, ANTI-FA, Ρουβίκωνες, … Πάδοι, και άλλοι… ποταμοί, αλλά και οι υπερ-πατριώτες του “γλυκού νερού” κρυφο-Χουνταίοι και λοιποί… συγγενείς τους θα πράξουν το ίδιο! Σημειώστε ότι τα υποτιθέμενα “δεξιά” έντυπα έχουν ακόμα πρώην ή και νυν -κρυφούς- αριστερούς Δντες και κομμουνιστές δημ/φους, όπως πχ η συριζαίϊκη “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ”, η “ΕΣΤΙΑ”, κλπ)!
Αν, από την άλλη, ο ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗΣ προσβάλλει τους Τούρκους… διασώστες, τότε οι Τούρκοι θα τον και θα μας διαπομπεύσουν ως απανθρώπους, κλπ, και θα απαντήσουν στρατιωτικά, μεμονωμένα ή και ευρύτερα, ανάλογα με την εξέταση του Πεδίου (3 “Θ.Ε.”) τότε, αναφέροντας ότι οι Έλληνες “ήρξαντο χειρών αδίκων”, κλπ, με στόχο να πετύχουν στρατιωτικά να ανατρέψουν την ανίσχυρη πολιτικά σήμερα θέση τους, απέναντί μας, κερδίζοντας “πράγματα” και αναγκάζοντάς μας να πάμε σε διαπραγματεύσεις, με τους όρους τους, ήτοι με διακύβευμα το ίδιο μας το… σπίτι, λέγε με Πατρίδα! Και πάλι καταλαβαίνετε!..
Έτσι, οι Τούρκοι βλέπουν πλέον ως στόχο προσωπικά τον ίδιο τον ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗ, απόδειξη του πόσο πολύ καλά, όπως σας το έγραψα, χειρίζεται τα Ε-Τ θέματα, τουλάχιστον μέχρι τώρα ο Ε/Π-Θ, και ΚΑΤ’ ΕΜΑΣ(!), το προσεχές διάστημα, θα επιδιώξουν είτε να τον βγάλουν “Προδότη” στην χώρα του (με ένα “στημένο”… συμβάν, κάτι σχετικά εύκολο, αφού ήδη υφίστανται οι πρόθυμοι στα ε/τηλεοπτικά κανάλια και ε/Τύπο) και συνεπώς και διεθνώς, είτε να τον υποχρεώσουν να τους προσβάλλει στρατιωτικά, στο όποιο επιχειρησιακό Πεδίο, οπότε μετά αυτοί να μπορέσουν ανεμπόδιστα να… εγκαινιάσουν (sic) τον τελευταίο Ε–Τ πόλεμο, ακόμα βεβαίως “επικείμενο”, αλλά όπως είχε πει ο Τ/Στρατηγός Ι. Χ. ΠΕΚΙΝ (ένα από τα πιο σοβαρά μέλη της τ/”ΕΥΡΑΣΙΑΤΙΚΗΣ”… σκέψης και φερόμενος ως σύμβουλος του ΡΤΕ / όλη η ομάδα του ΠΕΡΙΝΤΣΕΚ ελέγχει “σήμερα” ιδεολογικά το τ/ΥΠΑΜ και το τ/ΥΠΕΞ ), “πλέον αναπόφευκτο”!.. [Θα θυμάστε την σχετική δήλωση του τέως Δντού της τ/ΥΣΠ, του τ/ΓΕΕΔ ΠΕΚΙΝ, όταν αυτός και η “παρέα” του επείσθησαν ότι οι Έλληνες θα “καθήσουν” σε διαπραγματεύσεις μαζί τους, με μόνον επίδικο τον καθορισμό της υφαλοκρηπίδος και της ενσκυψάσης μετά το 1982, “ΑΟΖ”, γεγονός που δεν το θέλουν καθόλου οι Τούρκοι, οι οποίοι επιθυμούν διακαώς να συζητήσουν με τους Έλληνες, και άλλα… στοιχεία που τους ανήκουν, κλπ, αλλ’ όμως άπτονται αυστηρά της ε/κυριαρχίας ή -έστω- και δικαιοδοσίας (“Κυριαρχικά Δικαιώματα”)! Καταλάβατε]!..
Προς τούτο, προτείνεται! (Στον Ε/Π-Θ και στην Κ-Β του)!
– Πλήρης ενημέρωση του ε/λαού, ΔΙΑ ΔΙΑΓΓΕΛΜΑΤΟΣ του ιδίου του Π-Θ, για το πού ακριβώς “το πάνε” οι Τούρκοι, μ’ αυτόν τον ακραία ΔΟΛΙΟ τρόπο, ώστε να αναγκάσουν την Ελλάδα να εμπλακεί -τουλάχιστον- σε εχθροπραξίες μαζί τους!
– Πλήρης έγγραφη ομοία ενημέρωση της επισήμου ηγεσίας των 27 Κρατών της ΕΕ, όπως και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου (Προεδρείου και Κομμάτων), στους πλέον υψηλούς τόνους και με έμφαση στο πού τυχόν δύναται να οδηγήσει τον Πλανήτη, μια ενδεχόμενη Ε-Τ σύγκρουση!
– Πλήρης έγγραφη ομοία ενημέρωση και του ΝΑΤΟ, με την ίδια έμφαση και τους ίδιους υψηλούς τόνους, τόνοι οι οποίοι θα καταδεικνύουν την επικινδυνότητα των τ/δράσεων – κινήσεων, για την παγκόσμιο ειρήνη!..
– Πλήρης έγγραφη ομοία ενημέρωση και του Ο.Η.Ε. και ΠΡΟ-ΣΟ-ΧΗ(!) γραπτό αίτημα προς αυτό για σύγκλιση του “Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας” του(!), με θέμα την σε βάθος εξέταση της προκλητικότατης στάσεως της Τουρκίας, έναντι της Ελλάδος – Κύπρου, αλλά και ευρύτερα απέναντι της “Διεθνούς Κοινότητος”, τ/στάση που θα πρέπει να καταγγελθεί παγκοσμίως, ως άγουσα, αργά ή γρήγορα, σε έναν Γ’ “Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο”, αδιαμφισβήτητα συνακόλουθο ενός Ε-Τ πολέμου!..
– ΣΥΝΕΠΩΣ Κε Ε/Π-Θγέ, εν όψει του προφανούς επικειμένου σοβαρότατου εκβιασμού σου από τους Μογγόλους και τον Γενίτσαρο εισέτι Αρχηγό τους, εσύ, που φυσικά και δεν(!) θα μηδίσεις, αλλά και κυρίως η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ μας, την οποία σήμερα εσύ εκπροσωπείς, ως επισήμως αιρετός Π-Θ της, θα πρέπει να ΚΑΤΑΔΕΙΞΕΙ ΣΑΦΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΓΡΑΦΩΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΠΑΡΑΔΕΚΤΗ Τ/ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ ΣΥΜΠΕΡΙΦΟΡΑ, ΣΤΟΝ Ο.Η.Ε. / “ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑΣ”(!), ώστε να αντιληφθούν άπαντες, το πόσο επικίνδυνη είναι εφεξής για την “Παγκόσμιο Ειρήνη”, μια -πολύ πιθανή πια- Ε–Τ πολεμική αναμέτρηση, εξ αιτίας της… αδηφάγου εξωτερικής πολιτικής της Τουρκίας, η οποία, ούσα σε επιθανάτιο ρόγχο, δρα έτσι στοχεύοντας στο να επιβιώσει ως Εθνο-Κράτος, μετά το 2023, όπως και εξ αιτίας της παράνοιας του Τ/ΠτΔ ΡΤΕ (δεν ξέρω αν τα θέματα πρωκτού, εντέρου, κλπ, σαν αυτά τα μείζονα απ’ τα οποία πάσχει ο ΡΤΕ, που ζει και κινείται με “παρά φύσιν έδρα”, επηρεάζουν το μυαλό, αυτό οι γιατροί μας μόνον μπορούν να μας το πουν), αλλά και για να αναλάβουν πια τις ευθύνες τους όλοι οι ισχυροί της Γης!.. [Τα μέλη του “Σ.Α.” δηλαδή και όσοι άλλοι κρύβονται από πίσω τους και κινούν τα νήματα του Κόσμου (“Διεθνείς Εβραίοι Παγκοσμιοποιητές”, κλπ)]!..
* Κα Μέρκελ, (αλλά και εσείς Άγγλοι που… κρύβεστε / ίσως το τσάϊ σας να μην είναι τόσο ήρεμο στο εγγύς μέλλον κάθε απόγευμα στις 17: 00), έως πότε θα συνεχίσεις να κάνεις την… Ινδιάνα ή έστω την… Τουρκο-Μογγόλα, ρε θηλυκέ σύγχρονε πολιτικέ… Λίμαν Φον Σάντερς, ΑΝ ΔΕΧΘΟΥΜΕ ΒΕΒΑΙΩΣ ΟΤΙ ΑΓΝΟΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΣΜΟΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΤΟΥΡΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΩΣ ΔΕΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΙΓΟΝΤΑΡΕΙΣ Η(ΔΙΑΖ) ΠΩΣ ΔΕΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΑΠΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΥ ΑΠΟΦΑΣΙΣΕΙ;
Τόσο πολύ λοιπόν σε “κέρδισε” ο… Καθρέφτης και δεν θυμάμαι τώρα τί άλλο σου είχε κάνει δώρο ο ΡΤΕ στην Πόλη, σχεδόν πρόσφατα, όταν τους είχες επισκεφτεί;
Το μίσος σου για τους Έλληνες το κατανοώ, αλλά αν είχες επίπεδο και δεν ήσουν μια φανατική και… κομμουνιστο-αναθρεμμένη, θα το είχες ξεπεράσει το ψυχολογικό σου εναντίον μας πρόβλημα και θα ήσουν πραγματικός ηγέτης της ΕΕ, έστω και δοτή, όπως είσαι!..
Είναι αλήθεια όμως, λίγοι άνθρωποι μπορούν να υπερβούν τον ίδιο τους τον εαυτό και εσύ δεν είσαι ένας (μία) απ’ αυτούς!..
NATO Deputy Secretary General highlights education and training as key to adaptation to future challenges
Speaking about the impact of Covid-19, he said that in a post-Covid world, resilience, innovation and unity are important for adapting to future challenges.
The NATO Defense College’s Anciens’ Association is composed of former course and staff members who have attended the College since its foundation 69 years ago, many of whom hold or have held strategic positions within the Alliance. “Anciens” is the historic name given to the Association at the time the College was located in Paris.
Yunanistan korkudan saçmalamaya başladı: Türkiye S-400’lerle F-16’larımızı vuracak
Türkiye’nin Rusya’dan alınan S-400 hava savunma sistemlerini Sinop’ta test etmesi Yunan medyasında gündem oldu. S-400’lerin Yunanistan’a karşı kullanılacağını iddia eden Yunan medyası, Türkiye korkularını gözler önüne sererek “Türkiye F-16’larımızı bunlarla düşürebilir” dedi.
Türkiye’ye ait S-400’lerin “ciddi manada rahatsız edici” olduğunu belirten Yunan medyası, Ankara’nın provokasyon peşinde koştuğunu ve saldırgan bir politika izlediği söyleyecek kadar küstahlaştı.
Türkiye füzeleri ateşlemişti! NATO’dan sürpriz S-400 açıklaması
“TÜRKİYE S-400’LERLE F-16‘LARIMIZI VURACAK”
Yunanistan’ın sorunların çözümünden yana olduğunu ileri süren Yunan medyası, Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan‘ın Yunanistan’a tehditler savurduğunu iddia etti. Bununla da yetinmeyen Yunan medyası, ipin ucunu iyice kaçırarak Türkiye’nin S-400’lerle Yunan F-16’larını vuracağını öne sürdü.
“NATO TÜRKİYE’DEN KORKUYOR”
NATO’nun Türklerden korktuğunu ve bu yüzden çekingen davrandığını aktaran Yunan medyası, “Türkiye S-400’leri Yunan F-16’larına karşı aktif hale getirdi. Bu durum hem NATO’yu hem de ABD‘yi yakından ilgilendiriyor. Sultan (Erdoğan) S-400’leri ateşleyerek kışkırtıcı bir tavır sergiledi” ifadelerini kullandı.
Kathimerini: Türkiye S-400’leri aktif edip bize karşı ilk kez kullandı, ABD alarma geçti
“ERDOĞAN BİZİMLE DALGA GEÇİYOR”
Erdoğan’ın Yunanistan’a açık bir şekilde meydan okuyup dalga geçtiğini belirten Yunan medyası, S-400’lerin çok geniş bir alanı kapsadığını ve 400 kilometrelik bir menzile sahip olduğunu kaydetti.
Türkiye’den Yunanistan’a okkalı harita yanıtı: Tek ülke Türkiye’dir!
Dışişleri Bakanlığı, Ankara’nın yayınladığı yeni arama-kurtarma sorumluluk sahası haritasına tepki gösteren Atina’ya “Bölgede insan yaşamına yönelik tehlike arzedebilecek her türlü olaya müdahale için operasyonel yetkinliğe sahip tek ülke Türkiye’dir” yanıtını verdi.
“Yunanistan Dışişleri Bakanlığı bugün (18 Ekim) ülkemizin Ege ve Doğu Akdeniz’deki arama-kurtarma sorumluluk sahasının genişletilmesine ilişkin mesnetsiz bir açıklama yapmıştır.
Arama-kurtarma alanları egemenlik değil hizmet sahalarıdır. Bu bakımdan kendi karasularını kapsamayan, insan hayatının kurtarılmasına ve korunmasına yönelik bu alanı egemenliğini ihlal olarak gören Yunanistan’ın bu iddiası hukuktan ve insani mülahazalardan uzaktır.
Keyfiyet ülkemizin halihazırda fiilen arama kurtarma hizmeti verdiği alanların günümüz şartlarına göre güncellenmesinden ibarettir.
Ülkemizin arama-kurtarma sorumluluk sahası, Doğu Akdeniz’deki kıta sahanlığımızdaki faaliyetlerimizin emniyetini de sağlamak için genişletilmiştir.
Türkiye, çevre denizlerde yürüttüğü başarılı arama-kurtarma faaliyetleriyle Yunanistan’ın aksine siyasi saiklerle değil, bütünüyle insani mülahazalarla hareket etmektedir.
Buna karşın Yunanistan, Ege ve Doğu Akdeniz’de kıyıdaş iki ülkenin örtüşen arama-kurtarma sorumluluk sahaları hususunda 1979 Hamburg Uluslararası Denizde Arama ve Kurtarma Sözleşmesi’nin hükümleri uyarınca ülkemizin ısrarlı işbirliği ve eşgüdüm çağrılarını yanıtsız bırakmaya devam etmektedir. Ayrıca, sözkonusu sahaların bir egemenlik alanı olduğunu iddia etmek suretiyle Yunanistan insan yaşamının güvenliğini ikinci planda tutmakta beis görmemiş, Ege Denizi’nde zor duruma düşen düzensiz göçmenlere reva gördüğü insanlık dışı muamele ile bu tutumunu gözler önüne sermiştir.
Bölgede insan yaşamına yönelik tehlike arzedebilecek her türlü olaya müdahale için operasyonel yetkinliğe sahip tek ülke Türkiye’dir. Bu çerçevede, ülkemizin arama-kurtarma sorumluluk sahasının genişletilmesi, dünyada deniz ve hava trafiğinin en yoğun olduğu bölgelerden biri olan Ege ve Doğu Akdeniz’in fiilen de insan yaşamı için daha güvenli hale gelmesi için atılmış önemli bir adımdır.”
The EU’s Discrimination Against Israel
An inherited instinct to scapegoat the Jews.
The European Union (EU) discriminating policies against Israel are not new. The EU court approved the labeling of products from Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. This labeling is reminiscent of the “Yellow Star of David” Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany and in Nazi occupied Europe. Israel considers the EU court decision to be unfair and discriminatory. It pointed out that other countries involved in land disputes are not similarly sanctioned. Now the EU has come up with a new discriminating formula in which to single out Israel. It is spelled by the EU as “housing demolitions” in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria for most Israelis).
According to Professor Hillel Frisch of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, “Entering the phrase ‘housing demolition’ in the EU’s official website yields a shocking result: 18 of the first documents to appear concern Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in the West Bank. In other words, 80% of the EU reports on this worldwide phenomenon involve a population and an area less than one-tenth of 1% of the world’s population or landmass.”
Ironically, an EU report from 2005, acknowledge widespread discriminatory demolition and eviction within the EU against Gypsy, Roma, and Sinti populations in such countries as Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Portugal. Housing demolition as a punitive practice occurs throughout the world. India accuses Pakistan of the practice in Hindu areas in Pakistan’s Punjab region. Egypt evicted thousands of Bedouins in the Sinai to clear the way for housing projects for Egyptians from outside the Sinai Peninsula. In the U.S., likewise, evictions and demolition of homes occur for the purpose of urban renewal.
Israel has continued a practice that dates back to the British Mandate, when British authorities demolished homes of terrorists. Israel has continued the practice as a deterrent against would be terrorists. These terror practitioners know that it would cost their family their home. Moreover, Israel, in following the rule-of-law, has the right to demolish illegally built homes whether the occupants are Arab-Palestinians or Jews.
The EU funded what clearly amounted to efforts to thwart Israel’s plan to construct the E-1 project, which would provide residential continuity between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem. The illegal Ras Shahadah apartment project was meant to build hundreds of apartments in northern Jerusalem, without being approved by the Jerusalem municipality. Its aim was to create Arab-Palestinian residential continuity between northern and southern parts of the West Bank
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, announced Israel’s intention to extend Israeli sovereignty to the Jewish communities in the Jordan Valley. The immediate reaction was that the governments of France, Ireland, and Luxembourg pressed the EU to adopt punitive measures against Israel. In Britain, 127 members of Parliament urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson to impose sanctions should Israel go ahead with its sovereignty declaration.
Richard Goldberg, in a piece for Foreign Policy Magazine (June 10, 2020) wrote: “That some European governments would threaten sanctions against Israel while refusing to impose sanctions on Iran and Hezbollah is disappointing. If they are serious, these European governments should be on notice: their companies will pay the price.” Most U.S. states prohibit sanctions against Israel. Back in February, 2020, the EU foreign policy Chief Josep Borrell, tried to convince the 27 European foreign ministers who are member of the Union’s Foreign Affairs Council, to issue a damning resolution critical of the Trump administration Peace Plan, and warning against Israel’s intention to “annex” major parts of the West Bank. The resolution required unanimity, but Austria, Italy, Hungary and the Czech Republic, along with two other unnamed member-states, voted against it. Borrell issued a later statement warning that Israel’s annexation would violate international law.
For the Europeans, the inventors and practitioners of racist antisemitism, Israel is the collective Jew. Jews in Europe have been the historical and permanent scapegoats for millenniums. Modern Europe’s hatred toward nationalism and religion (G-d and Christianity have been abandoned in the EU’s domain), in contrast with Israel’s proud nationalism, is an anathema to the EU. In its effort to deny Jews the right to their historical homeland centered in Judea and Samaria, the EU and its individual member-states have funded directly or through Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) various anti-Israel, Palestinian-Arab organizations, as well as Israeli anti-Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and anti- ‘Occupation’ groups.
According to NGO-Monitor, “the EU’s European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is designated for promoting human rights and democracy through civil society in non-EU countries. In 2014, civil society in Israel received €3,754,133 from EIDHR, and adding NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza €5,630,323 – the majority of which are related to the conflict. In contrast, Ukraine – a deeply flawed democracy with a population roughly five times the size of Israel’s, and at the time (2014), a war zone affected by severe human rights violations – received just €3,400,575.” Most of the recipients of the EU funding engaged in undermining the Jewish state rather than promoting democracy and human rights in the Palestinian territories.
Many NGOs that enjoy European financial support promote political agendas that are contrary to European official government policies, such as anti-Israel BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions), lawfare campaigns, activities that oppose a two-state framework, and other aspects of the Durban Strategy. These heavily funded groups exploit the rhetoric of human rights and are consistently relied on by decision-makers for input, on the basis of which agendas and policies are formulated.
The shameless Durban (South Africa) conference held in September, 2001, sponsored by the UN World Conference on Racism, singled out Israel in the ugliest possible way. The then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced the conference as “Hateful.” The U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out of the conference in protest, but the EU delegations did not. The atmosphere and the rhetoric in the NGO forum (there were three forums: an official diplomatic forum, a Youth forum, and the large NGO forum) featured extreme antisemitic vitriol. Israel was accused of perpetrating a “Holocaust” on the Palestinian people, and Israeli soldiers were called “Nazis.” Antisemitic cartoons were distributed to the 7,000 attendees. The final declaration charged Israel with “perpetrating racist crimes against humanity,” including ethnic cleansing, and acts of genocide. It called for Isolation of Israel as an “apartheid state,” imposing sanctions and embargoes, and cutting off all nations diplomatic links with the Jewish state.
The fact that the Europeans honored this racist and antisemitic conference by staying and not demonstratively leaving with Israel and the U.S. in the face of Israeli Jews being called Nazis, and accused of perpetrating a “genocide,” and a “Holocaust,” is most telling about the Europeans. Considering that Europeans such as Frenchman Count Arthur de Gobineau, German Friedrich Nietzsche, and England’s Stewart Chamberlain, were the race theorists that prepared the way for Hitler and Nazi Germany’s real Holocaust, that murdered a third of world Jewry, is instructive in understanding European attitudes toward Jews and Israel.
The Europeans, and especially the colonial and imperialist states like France, Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, are clamoring against Israel’s “occupation.” The EU is eager to establish a Palestinian state in spite of clear knowledge that it will be another failed state like Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, where human rights, democracy, and the rule-of-law are non-existent. Nonetheless, demonizing Israel for “housing demolition” is an inherited instinct to scapegoat the Jew – or the Jewish state, in this case.
A Radical Shift
The nightmare Obama brought to U.S. foreign policy.
Editors’ note: Walid Phares has a new book out on the difference in foreign policy between Obama and Trump titled: The Choice: Trump vs. Obama-Biden in US Foreign Policy. Below is an exclusive excerpt – Chapter 3 – which illustrates the nightmare that Obama brought to U.S. foreign policy.
Soon after landing in the White House, President Obama initiated two major moves, which by the end of May or early June 2009 indicated where his administration was going in terms of national security and foreign policy. It was obvious to me at the time that the country was veering away from the post-9/11 posture and the so-called War on Terror and heading in the opposite direction of demobilization of America on the one hand and the activation of an apologist policy on the other in order to engage with future partners who were actually at the core of terrorism and extremism.
Most Americans in the early years of the Obama administration focused on the domestic agenda and therefore did not see or understand the much wider change of direction that the new team at the White House was implementing: the eventual dismantling of the War on Terror and with it the war of ideas. In other words, the Obama doctrine was telling Americans that our conflict with the radicals overseas was in error because the conflict was caused by us—and therefore we need not only to cease our efforts of resistance against the jihadists, Iran, and the other radicals but jump on a train going in the other direction, one that would lead us to engaging the foes and finding agreement with each of them in order to transform American policy overseas.
The first major benchmark that indicated a massive Obama-Biden change in foreign policy with implications on national security was Obama’s trip to Egypt in spring 2009 and his address at Cairo University. The main idea of President Obama on the political philosophy level was to inform the American public that the United States has been seen as an aggressor against Arabs and Muslims since 9/11—maybe even decades before that. This perception prevailed on U.S. campuses for decades among leftist academics and intellectuals. It was explained as the American branch of Western colonialism. But the urgency behind this U-turn made by the administration in foreign policy perception was in fact linked to how the United States reacted to the 9/11 attacks.
In my own experiences after the 2001 jihadist strikes against New York, D.C., and elsewhere, the immediate reaction after al-Qaeda suicide missions on American soil was explained by a combination of Far Left and neo-Marxist circles actually accusing the United States of provoking the attacks. During the seven years of the Bush administration, both the Islamist lobbies and their Red allies in America were organizing to oppose any form of American self-defense and thus did oppose both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq while also framing them as neocolonialist conquests.
It was imperative for the Obama team to change the national security doctrine that had been approved by a unanimous and bipartisan 9/11 Commission to align with their own narrative. The reality was that for years, before the Obama victory in 2008, a new alliance was being forged between the Islamists in general (the Muslim Brotherhood and the Khomeinist Iranians in particular) and the core left-wing neo-Marxists within the West in general (and the United States in particular). The Obama group belonged to that core—a subset found mostly on campuses but also in parts of the media.
With the alliance already in place, it made sense for the new administration to unleash its plans as early as possible. Hence, Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo was essentially an open invitation through public acknowledgment of his desire for a partnership between his administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. Though Egypt was ruled by authoritarian President Mubarak, Obama’s visit and his praise of the Ikhwan talking points were the opening salvo of a campaign designed to crumble the Egyptian regime and, later, other Arab governments—and replace them with the Brotherhood. The genesis of the Islamization of the Arab Spring of 2011 thus started in 2009.
The Obama speech at Cairo University, in fact, officialized a partnership between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood, and in general terms with the Islamist movements in the MENA region. One might think that such a move would be checked by the mainstream Republican Party in D.C., but it was not—due to the equal impact of the Qatar and Islamist lobbies on the Republican institution. It did, however, unnerve the conservative sectors of the Republicans both in Congress and in the grassroots while also putting pressure on the traditional liberals in the Democratic Party after the ilk of Joe Lieberman and others.
The major shift towards engaging the Islamists worldwide also opened the door for partnerships with their lobbies and NGOs inside the United States. This led to an unstoppable rise of influence of militant groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which in turn became the spearhead of a campaign to silence the critics against Obama’s new policies in Congress and in the media.
But a shift to align with the Muslim Brotherhood was not the only onslaught of the Obama administration in foreign policy; it was simply the first one. Indeed, in the same month of June 2009, President Obama engaged in a second track that would change another U.S. national security policy, one that was established in the early 1980s: the containment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In early June 2009, President Barack Obama addressed a letter to the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Imam Ali Khamenei, calling on him to begin a new era of cooperation between Tehran and Washington. That letter, which was as apologist as the speech to the Muslim Brotherhood weeks earlier in Cairo, signaled the beginning of a long process that would lead to the negotiation and signing of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. But June 2009 had one more surprise that revealed a third shocking policy shift, one that would divert the country from its longstanding tradition of helping nations facing oppression and seeking freedom.
Indeed, America, in one century—between the First World War, the Second World War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union—had demonstrated its commitment, through blood and treasure, to stand by peoples on many continents as they had been brutalized and oppressed—from Europe and the Middle East to Asia and Latin America. But the events in Iran at the end of June 2009 signaled a drastic third policy change. Millions of Iranians, including many women, took to the streets to protest the suppression by the regime. Many of these protesters held signs in English—one of which called on President Obama by name to help them. Yet to reaffirm that the U.S. would not “meddle” in Iranian politics or stand with the democratic revolution in Iran, a second letter was sent to Khamenei on September 3.
The abandonment by the Obama administration of the Green Revolution in Iran was the benchmark that told me that the American policy of supporting freedom fighters and people’s uprisings against totalitarian governments, the praise for dissidents, and the backing of free societies around the world had ended.
2009 was the year that broke the backbone of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy and rebuilt it into a radical approach inconsistent with the feelings and perceptions of the majority of Americans. Yet most Americans were not informed and educated enough, particularly by their academia and media, to correct such radicalization of policy via their members of Congress—or to elect a new president who would change directions one more time to align policy to once again be consistent with U.S. national security and traditional American liberty principles.
Fears for the Future
Both the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 and the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 provided indications that peoples in the region had reached critical mass in regard to their tolerance for authoritarians and would eventually protest and demand change. Social media has also evolved and has become much more accessible by ordinary people. In my book The Coming Revolution, I predicted that most countries in the Arab world were going to witness social and political unrests, results I had been waiting for, for many years, to push back against the extremists.
I briefed many members of Congress during that same period of time and convinced them that there were authentic forces of change in the region, including seculars, women, and minorities, and that the United States should immediately partner with them as the authoritarian leaders were going down—and fighting a lost battle to support ailing dictators would not be the right battle for the United States.
My concern was that the moment would be squandered as the Obama administration was racing to connect with the Islamists and the Iranians in the region and thus diverting the resources of the U.S. government to the wrong factions instead of helping civil society forces. I observed how the lobbies of our traditional foes were moving with great speed at all levels within the bureaucracies and the administration. I was also receiving many complaints from Middle East human rights and minorities groups that officials and governments were no longer engaging them like the Bush administration had tried to do. In addition, members of Congress in the Republican opposition (who won the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010) were sharing their fears that the administration had abandoned our allies in the region, not just allies among Middle East minorities, but also Israel. So by the end of 2009, early 2010, I could see the whole picture, and it was a dark and dire one.
Professor Walid Phares served as a Foreign Policy Advisor to Presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016. He also served as a National Security Advisor to Presidential Advisor Mitt Romney in 2011-2012. Professor Phares has been an advisor to the US House of Representatives Caucus on Counter Terrorism since 2007 and is the Co-Secretary General of the Trans-Atlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism since 2008. He is also a Fox News National Security and Foreign Affairs expert.
Video: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran
The new startling revelations.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
With the new startling revelations now surfacing about the connection of top Obama officials to the hiding of Osama Bin Laden in Iran, Frontpage Mag editors have deemed it vital to run the special Glazov Gang episode in which Clare Lopez discusses Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran, revealing who knew the whole time.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch our 3-Part-Special with Clare on Obama’s Betrayal of SEAL Team Six, how9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran and Helping Saudis Slip Away.
 Revealed: Obama’s Betrayal of SEAL Team Six.
 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran.
 Helping Saudis Slip Away.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
China’s Turning Point
A major catastrophe on the horizon?
China appears to be on the brink.
The communist regime is threatening our ally, Taiwan — one of several Asian countries seeking closer ties with the United States while China’s domestic turmoil grows.
In a recent column in China’s state-sponsored Global Times, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin warned, “As the secessionist forces’ arrogance continues to swell, the historical turning point is getting closer.”
“The only way forward is for the mainland to fully prepare itself for war and to give Taiwan secessionist forces a decisive punishment at any time,” he wrote.
Taiwan’s opposition party has been seeking closer cooperation with the United States. But, Hu wrote: “The more trouble Taiwan creates, the sooner the mainland will decide to teach Taiwan independence forces a hard lesson.”
China has been angered by the ongoing tour of Asia by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is seeking support for U.S. efforts to contain China. Recently, the Taiwanese Kuomintang Party, or KMT, renewed its effort for the government to reestablish diplomatic ties with the U.S.
The Chinese are short on food, and face considerable flooding. If one or another dam overflows, major catastrophe could ensue.
Even without such a huge disaster, China faces a grim future. Chin Jin, one of the leaders of the opposition to the ruling Communist Party reminds his followers of the country’s unpleasant past:
The future of China has three prospects:
Prospect 1: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will insist on continuing its rule, despite the inevitability of decline.
Prospect 2: The CCP sees increasing difficulties with ruling China due to intra-party tussles, and political purges within the ruling clique, that may force it to accept various internal and external pressures to make structural change. This would also threaten the CCP regime. Chinese leader Xi Jinping however has already explicitly ruled out any meaningful political reform.
Prospect 3: The blundering CCP collapses overnight like the former Soviet Union, and the ethnic minority regions and Taiwan take advantage of the situation to exit Greater China. Former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui’s proposed “Seven-Block Theory” (1999) comes to fruition dividing the country into seven autonomous regions: Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, South China, North China, and Northeast China.
I believe this is the most likely.
Chin Jin thinks the past is a reliable guide to the future, and hence that our current and future actions should be based on a correct evaluation of our past. He’s an activist, and he thinks that Chinese history provides a reliable guide to its future. He believes that the current model for China—a huge state held together by a rigid ideology and a tough-minded bureaucracy—can not only last for a long time, but endure throughout a period of severe internal and external challenge.
President Trump does not believe that. He believes that American history shows that Americans are able to change course very quickly, and that the Chinese are locked into failed past models. Is he right?
We don’t know. Yet!..