Wednesday 14th February 2018

Ehud Barak has “broken the silence”. He has published an article in The New York Times attacking our prime minister in the most abrasive terms. In other words, he has done exactly the same as the group of ex-soldiers who call themselves “Breaking the Silence”, who are accused of washing our dirty linen abroad. They expose war crimes to which they have been witnesses, or even participants.

But apart from the attack on Binyamin Netanyahu, Barak has used the article to publish his Peace Plan. A former chief-of-staff of the Israeli army and a former prime minister, Barak is obviously planning a comeback, and his peace plan is part of the effort. There seems to be, anyhow, open season for Peace Plans in our region.

I respect the intelligence of Barak. Many years ago, when he was still the deputy chief-of-staff, he unexpectedly invited me for a talk. We discussed the military history of the 17th century (military history is an old hobby of mine) and I soon realized that he was a real expert. I enjoyed it very much.

On a spring evening In May 1999, I was part of a huge jubilant crowd in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square after Barak had won the Knesset elections and become prime minister. He promised us “the dawn of a new day”. In particular, he promised to make peace with the Palestinians.

Intellectually, Barak is superior to all other politicians on the Israeli scene. Soon enough it appeared that this may be a handicap.

Intelligent people tend to be arrogant. They despise people of lesser mental powers. Knowing that he had all the answers, Barak demanded that President Clinton call a meeting with Yasser Arafat.

On the morrow I spoke with Arafat and found him deeply worried. Nothing has been prepared, no prior exchange of views, nothing. He did not want to go to the meeting which he thought was bound to fail, but could not refuse an invitation from the president of the US.

The result was catastrophe. Barak, sure of himself as usual, presented his peace plan. It was more accommodating than any prior Israeli plan, but still fell far short of the Palestinians’ minimum. The meeting broke up.

What does a diplomat do in such circumstances? He announces that “we had a fruitful exchange of views. We have not yet reached total agreement, but the negotiations will go on, and there will be more meetings, until we reach agreement.”

Barak did not say that. Neither did he say: “Sorry, I am totally ignorant of the Palestinian point of view, and I shall now study it seriously.”

Instead, Barak came home and announced that Israel had proposed the most generous terms ever, that the Palestinians had rejected everything, that the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea, that we have “no partner for peace”.

If this had been declared by a right-wing politician, everybody would have shrugged. But coming from the leader of the Peace Camp, it was devastating. Its effects can be felt to this very day.

So here comes Barak, the new Barak, with a brand-new Peace Plan. What does he say? The aim, he writes, is “separation” from the Palestinians. Not peace, not cooperation, just separation. Get rid of them. “Peace” is not popular just now.

How separation? Israel will annex the new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the “settlement blocs” – the clusters of Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line but close to it. He agrees to “land swaps”. And then comes the killer: “overall security responsibility in the West Bank will remain in the hands of the Israel Defense Forces as long as necessary.”

And the sad conclusion: “Even if it is not possible to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this stage – and it probably is not…”

If there is one Palestinian who would accept these terms, I shall be surprised. But Barak, then and now, does not care for the views and feelings of the Palestinians. Just like Netanyahu, who at least has the decency not to propose a “Peace Plan”. Unlike Trump.

Donald Trump is not a genius like Barak, but he also has a Peace Plan.

A group of right-wing Jews, including his son-in-law (also no genius, he) have been working on this for months. He has proposed it to Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, to the new Saudi Crown Prince and other Arab princes. It seems to provide for a Palestinian State composed of several small isolated enclaves on the West Bank, without Jerusalem and without an army.

This is sheer lunacy. Not one single Palestinian and not one single other Arab would accept this. Worse, anyone proposing such a caricature of a state betrays utter ignorance.

That’s where the real problem lies: it is much worse than just not knowing. It demonstrates abysmal contempt for the Palestinians and for Arabs in general, a basic belief that their feelings, if any, don’t matter at all. This is a remnant of colonial times.

Palestinians, and Arabs at large, do have deep feelings and convictions. They are a proud people. They still remember the times when Muslims were incomparably more advanced than the barbarian Europeans. To be treated like dirt by the US president and his Jewish entourage hurts them deeply, and may lead to a disturbance in our region that no Arab prince, hired by the USA, will be able to control.

This especially concerns Jerusalem. For Muslims, this is not just a town. It is their third holiest place, the spot from where the Prophet – peace be upon him – ascended to heaven. For a Muslim to give up Jerusalem is inconceivable.

The latest decisions of Trump concerning Jerusalem are – to put it mildly – idiotic. Arabs are furious, Israelis don’t really care, America’s Arab stooges, princes and all, are deeply worried. If disturbances erupt, they may well be swept away.

And what for? For one evening’s headline?

There is no subject in our region, and perhaps in the world – that is more delicate. Jerusalem is holy to three world religions, and one cannot argue with holiness.

In the past I have devoted much thought to this subject. I love Jerusalem (contrary to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who was disgusted by it and left it in a hurry after one single night). The early Zionists disliked the city as a symbol of all that is wrong and foul in Judaism.

Some twenty years ago I composed a manifesto, together with my late friend, Feisal al-Husseini, the leader of Jerusalem’s Arabs and the scion of its most noble family. Hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians signed it.

Its title was “Our Jerusalem”. It started with the words: “Jerusalem is ours, Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians and Jews.”

It went on: “Our Jerusalem Is a mosaic of all the cultures, all the religions and all the periods that enriched the city, from earliest antiquity to this very day – Canaanites and Jebusites and Israelites, Jews and Hellenes, Romans and Byzantines, Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Mamelukes, Othmanlis and Britons, Palestinians and Israelis.

“Our Jerusalem must be united, open to all, and belonging to all its inhabitants, without borders and barbed wire in its midst.”

And the practical conclusion: “Our Jerusalem must be the capital of the two states that will live side by side in this country – West Jerusalem the capital of the State of Israel and East Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine.”

I wish I could nail this Manifesto to the doors of the White House.

A lovely little anecdote about one of life’s more interesting characters.

When Mahatma Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, a professor by the name of Peters disliked him intensely and always displayed animosity towards him. And because Gandhi never lowered his head when addressing him, as he expected, there were always ’arguments’ and confrontations.

One day Mr Peters was having lunch at the University dining room when Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to him.

The professor said, “Mr Gandhi, you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat.”

Gandhi looked at him as a parent would a rude child and calmly replied, “You do not worry, professor. I’ll fly away”, and he went and sat at another table.

Peters, red with rage, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Gandhi responded brilliantly to all questions.

Unhappy and frustrated, Mr Peters asked him the following question: “Mr Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and found a package, and within was a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?”

Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, “The one with the money, of course.”

Mr Peters, smiling sarcastically, said, “I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom.”

Gandhi shrugged indifferently and responded, “Each one takes what he doesn’t have.”

Mr Peters, by this time, was fit to be tied. So great was his anger that he wrote on Gandhi’s exam sheet the word “idiot” and handed it back to him.

Gandhi took the exam sheet and sat down at his desk, trying hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move. A few minutes later, Gandhi got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, “Mr Peters, you autographed the sheet, but you did not give me a grade.”

This is gorgeous! Love it!

If you’re like me, you probably use Google many times a day. But chances are, unless you’re a technology geek, you probably still use Google in its simplest form. If your current use of Google is limited to typing in a few words and changing your query until you find what you’re looking for, then I’m here to tell you that there’s a better way -- and it’s not hard to learn.

On the other hand, even if you are already a technology geek and can use Google like the best of them, I suggest you bookmark this article of advanced Google search tips. Then, you’ll have the tips on hand when you’re ready to pull your hair out in frustration watching a neophyte repeatedly type in basic queries in a desperate attempt to find something.

I came to Sydney 30 years ago in November. I opened a bank account with the Advance Bank who were later taken over by St George. Later again St George were taken over by Westpac.

Last week I authorised a training provider to debit my credit card for some training. The bank foreign currency fees of 3% added up to nearly $900!

When you can do a Telegraphic Transfer for $25 I consider it outrageously unconscionable to charge $900.

Of course I contacted St George but they refused to so anything about it saying it is in the terms and conditions of the credit card.

Goodbye St George/Westpac. Hello Bendigo!

Takeaway to you, before doing large transactions, check the bank fees.

Defending the latest round of US/Israeli aggression against Syria, US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert struck a Hitlerian note when she blamed Syria and Iran for an act of overt Israeli aggression, saying “The United States . . . strongly supports Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself,” and when she lied that “Iran’s malign activities” and “calculated escalation of threat and its ambition to project its power and dominance places all people in the region at risk.” https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201802111061547754-state-department-syria-israel-escalation/

Adolf Hiter covered his “projection of power and dominance” and his invasion of Poland with the same blatant lies that Washington and Israel use to cover their aggressions. Hitler claimed that Polish forces had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. That is the excuse used by Israel and its puppets in the White House and Pentagon that blames Iran for Israel’s attack on Syria. When Washington and Israel are shameless in their lies, why does Russia think they are “partners” with whom agreements can be reached?

Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington’s illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel’s continual attacks on Syria. Washington’s continuing support for war against the legitimate government of Syria and support for Israeli and terrorist attacks on Syrian and Russian forces are undermining Russia’s efforts to bring peace to the region. Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington’s illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/

Zuesse is correct. But is the continuation of Washington’s campaign against Syria and Russia largely the fault of Russia? Stephen Lendman makes a case that it is Russia’s fault. https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740

Why? It appears to be the case that the Russian government is so anxious for Western approval that it ends its successful military campaigns before the job is finished. It was Putin himself who declared “victory” in Syria and withdrew some of the Russian military before clearing all of Syria of foreign and jihadist occupation, thus leaving in place US beachheads for renewing the conflict.

It couldn’t have taken more than two more weeks for Russia and Syria to liberate all of Syria from the US backed jihadists, but apparently Russia was afraid to annoy Washington that much and to risk contact with US personnel, even though Russia is in Syria legally under international law and the US is present illegally.

Again trusting to international law, the UN, and “our Western partners,” Russia quit prematurely. As Lendman says, the complaints by Zakharova, Lavrov, Russian Defense Ministry spokesmen, and Putin himself are based in absolute fact. But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington’s interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East.

Lendman makes the point that “As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving Washington a taste of its own medicine . . . conflict will likely continue escalating.” https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740

Lendman might be correct judging by the reported heavy Israeli attacks on Syria on February 10 after Syrian air defences damaged Israel’s image of invincibility by shooting down one of Israel’s US-supplied war planes that was attacking Syria and reports that the conflict might be escalating and involving Iran. RT reports that the Kremlin is worried that the de-escalation zones are threatened and that Putin got on the telephone with Netanyahu urging restraint.

All of my life US presidents have been urging restraint on Israel to no effect whatsoever. Putin’s urges will have no more effect, unless Putin takes the card from Lendman’s playbook and tells the war criminal Netanyahu who heads the illegal Israeli state, which is based on land stolen at bayonet point from Palestinians, that any more of this and Russia will take Israel out. Lendman thinks that no other way of talking to the crazed zionist state, or to Washington, will have any effect, and history seems to be on Lendman’s side. http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/syrian-air-defense-downs-israeli-f-16/ and http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/israel-escalates-aggression-syria/

Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia’s power by the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington’s Fifth Column inside the Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against Russian national interests.

Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are constraints on Putin’s ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as the pro-Washington “Atlanticist Integrationists” who for personal career reasons, personal business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. Putin, apparently, is unwilling or unable to move aside those who serve as Washington’s check on Russian nationalism, which prevents any real Russian victory. If the “Atlanticist Integrationists” inside Putin’s government are able to block more decisive responses, the question arises: how powerful, really, is Putin? Did Putin win Syria only to lose it to Washington and the Israelis? How can we imagine Putin, the head of a powerful state, on the telephone pleading with an Israeli war criminal who heads a tiny state? We know that Israel owns Washington, but does Israel own Russia also?

How many times did Putin announce victory in Syria, pull out, and then have to go back after Washington’s forces had recuperated? Why does Putin refuse the reincorporation of the breakaway Russian provinces in Ukraine? He allowed Crimea back in because of the Russian naval base, but he has refused the Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Consequently, the Russian people in these provinces continue to be subject to attack, and Washington has now armed its Ukrainian nazi state with weapons to reconquer the breakaway republics.

This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the provinces in Russia.The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU’s support is not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist.

Putin can entirely end the Ukrainian conflict by accepting the former Russian provinces back into Russia. We can understand that Putin might be thinking long term, as were the Soviet leaders who put Russian populations into Ukraine, to balance the Ukrainian state with Russian populations so that the West cannot completely turn Ukraine, a historic part of Russia herself, into a completely hostile state against which more military forces must be directed. Clearly Putin is a long term strategic thinker, but Russia’s fate and that of the rest of us will be decided in the short run.

We can also understand that Putin, by continuing to stress international law, is trying to bring Europe to the realization that Washington operates outside of and above law. Putin is wasting his time. For decades European leaders have been on Washington’s payroll. They don’t give a hoot about anything other than their bank balances.

The neoconservatives who rule in Washington believe that Putin’s removal will restore Washington’s hegemony over the world. They regard China as a country that will accept American leadership in exchange for riches. This is most likely a mistaken view of the Chinese government, but it serves to concentrate the attack on Russia, within whose government Washington has allies.

Can the Russian government successfully withstand Washington without Putin dispensing with the Atlanticist Integrationists?

I understand that the views expressed here might be wrong. Zuesse perhaps is wrong. Lendman is perhaps wrong. The Saker is perhaps wrong. And perhaps I am mistaken in my reading of them. No one should underestimate Putin. Nevertheless, Russia should be aware that she is perceived by neoconservative policymakers as a weak state lacking in courage that Washington, and even tiny Israel, can push around, as Washington has done since the collapse of the Soviet Union and as Israel is doing now in Syria. There is never any cost to Washington of blackening Russia’s eyes and Russia’s reputation. Russia’s passivity is inviting nuclear war or Russian surrender.

Whether or not Russia wants to acknowledge it, Russia is in a fight for her life. There is evidence that top Russian leaders are unaware of this. Sergei Chemezov says that Russia is willing to sell Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft system to Washington so Washington can learn how to defeat it and catch up with Russian military technology. Unless Chemezov is making a joke, there is a problem in his perception of reality. http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/02/head-of-rostech-us-may-buy-russias-s.html

Putin damaged himself with people who have a moral conscience when he met with the criminal-in-chief of the Israeli state and treated Netanyahu as if he were not a war criminal who belonged on the scaffold but a world leader worthy of Russia’s recognition. This act of folly deflated Putin’s reputation as a leader who stood for moral outcomes and not merely for self-interested, negotiated outcomes.

The world needs a leader. The hopes were on Putin.

The America-worshipping Russian Atlanticist Ingegrationists must have many screws loose to want to be part of degenerate Western civilization:

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/02/08/sarah-silverman-i-want-to-eat-an-aborted-fetus/

https://www.infowars.com/journalist-calls-for-profs-to-drown-conservative-students/

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/little_barbies_sex_trafficking_of_young_girls_is_americas_dirty_little

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/02/08/boys-silent-victims-sex-trafficking/1073799001/

Until next time,
dream big dreams,
plan out how to achieve them,
be continually executing your plans,
enlist people to your causes,
travel and/or read widely, preferably both,
all the while observing what you observe
rather than thinking what you are told to think,
think well of your fellow man,
take time to help your fellow man,
he sorely needs it and it will help you too,
eat food that is good for your body,
exercise your body,
take time to destress,
and do the important things
that make a difference -
they are rarely the urgent ones!

Most of the content herein has been copied from someone else. Especially the images. My goodness some people are talented at creating aesthetics! The small bits that are of my creation are Copyright 2014-2017 © by Tom Grimshaw - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Back Issues | Feedback | Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Software Development
Festival Management Software
Healthy Snacks
How to Live The Healthiest Life