‘Rule of law’ states defend Israel’s cold blooded murder of peaceful demonstrators while trying to rob Venezuela of its oil

From:

what’s left

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/rule-of-law-states-defend-israels-cold-blooded-murder-of-peaceful-demonstrators-while-trying-to-rob-venezuela-of-its-oil/

By Stephen Gowans

March 18, 2019

recent independent investigation sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Council into the killing and injury of unarmed Palestinian refugees who were participating in peaceful demonstrations demanding that they be allowed to return to territories they, or their forbears, had been driven from, concluded that Israeli security forces unlawfully killed almost 200 and injured over 9,000 over a nine-month period last year.

The February 28 report of the Human Rights Council’s independent international commission of inquiry into the protests in Gaza, concluded that Israeli snipers “killed and maimed Palestinian demonstrators who did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others when they were shot, nor where they directly participating in hostilities.”

Israeli snipers killed 183 Palestinians and injured 6,106 by live ammunition; 1,576 by bullet fragmentation or shrapnel; 1,084 by direct tear gas canister hits; and 438 by rubber-coated metal bullets, the investigation found.

The overwhelming majority of victims, including clearly marked journalists and medical personnel, as well as children, women and persons with disabilities, “were hundreds of metres away from the Israeli forces and visibly engaged in civilian activities” when they were shot. Of the thousands of cases of injury or fatality, the commission found only two in which an individual was engaged in hostilities or posed an imminent threat to life or serious injury.

The commission concluded that “the use of live ammunition by Israeli security forces was unlawful” and observed that “intentionally killing a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime.” It also raised the possibility that Israeli actions constituted a crime against humanity.

In less diplomatic language, Israel behaved as a gangster state, murdering nearly 200 Palestinians in cold blood, who posed no direct threat to Israel and injured over 9,000 others. Some of the injuries, the investigation found, were “long-term” and “life-changing” and in some cases led to “paralysis” or “amputations.”

These thuggish, criminal acts are hardly Israel’s worst atrocities. Tel Aviv’s contempt for international law is unmatched, except by its patron, the United States. It has undertaken a series of wars of aggression and territorial annexations, both de jure and de facto. The state is based on a racist doctrine that demands the differential assignment of rights to Jews and non-Jews. It constructs Jewish-only colonies on land it hasn’t already plundered from the original Arab occupants. The enterprise is redolent with the stench of settler colonialism, an institution long recognized as an abomination against humanity, which, all the same, carries on in Palestine under the aegis of the United States, Canada, and European Union.

If we are to enumerate the crimes of Israel and conclude that it is a gangster state, we will almost certainly be accused of practicing the ‘new’ anti-Semitism, an accusation no more meaningful than denouncing critics of Al Capone’s crimes as practicing a new anti-Italian bigotry.

The United States, Canada, and the EU—advocates of this new approach to silencing critics of the West’s beachhead in the Middle East—sanction dozens of countries, including Venezuela, Syria, and North Korea, and do so in many cases illegally, without the authorization of the UN Security Council, knowing that there are no legal grounds on which the sanctions can be based, and so bypass the Council altogether. These self-designated ‘rule of law’ states do not, however, sanction Israel.

Read that again. Western states, which never tire of presenting themselves as champions of an international order based on the rule of law, are unlawfully sanctioning Venezuela, while overlooking Israel’s cold-blooded murder of almost 200 Palestinians—people who were peacefully demanding their rights and asking for nothing more than to be granted the charter of humanity.

The sanctions on Venezuela have created untold economic hardship, according to Alfred de Zayas, an independent expert who wrote a report for the Human Rights Council in the autumn of last year. De Zayas wrote:

Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns with the intention of forcing them to surrender. Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees. A difference, perhaps, is that twenty-first century sanctions are accompanied by the manipulation of public opinion through “fake news”, aggressive public relations and a pseudo-human rights rhetoric so as to give the impression that a human rights “end” justifies the criminal means. There is not only a horizontal juridical world order governed by the Charter of the United Nations and principles of sovereign equality, but also a vertical world order reflecting the hierarchy of a geopolitical system that links dominant States with the rest of the world according to military and economic power. It is the latter, geopolitical system that generates geopolitical crimes, hitherto in total impunity.

The ostensible reason for imposing a medieval siege on Venezuela is to drive the resource nationalist Maduro government from power for its alleged departure from democratic norms.

Set aside for the moment that Maduro’s favored replacement, the foreign-investment-friendly Juan Gauidó, intends to sell off Venezuela’s publicly-owned oil to private interests, and that this is a flagrant oil-grab, as US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has frankly acknowledged.

Even were it true that Maduro’s election was fraudulent—and there isn’t a scintilla of evidence that it was—this would hardly compare to the massacre of longsuffering residents of Gaza, who, it should be added, are living under an Israeli-imposed medieval siege which the “United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have both found” to constitute “collective punishment”—that is, to violate international law.

So, Israeli murderers gun down Palestinians who peacefully demand what is due to them as human beings, and this passes without comment by the self-proclaimed defenders of the rule of law. In Western capitals, the only discussion about Israel is one pivoting on the contrived concept of the ‘new’ anti-Semitism, an all too transparent ploy to suppress criticism of Al Capone’s crimes, while John Dillinger gets on with robbing Venezuela of its treasure trove of oil and gold.

Advertisements

‘Rule of law’ states defend Israel’s cold blooded murder of peaceful demonstrators while trying to rob Venezuela of its oil

Israel invaded and has occupied illegally a land known for two millennia as Palestine and murders with impunity protected from prosecution by the same countries who want to steal Venezuela’s oil and gold under the outright false claim of the “rule of law”, where that rule is selective and unjust.The US and it’s EU poodle have sown death and destrution across the globe in one form or another for so long, they can no longer distinguish truth from their own lies and fully deserves to reap what they have sown.

what's left

By Stephen Gowans

March 18, 2019

A recent independent investigation sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Council into the killing and injury of unarmed Palestinian refugees who were participating in peaceful demonstrations demanding that they be allowed to return to territories they, or their forbears, had been driven from, concluded that Israeli security forces unlawfully killed almost 200 and injured over 9,000 over a nine-month period last year.

http://www.barakabooks.com

The February 28 report of the Human Rights Council’s independent international commission of inquiry into the protests in Gaza, concluded that Israeli snipers “killed and maimed Palestinian demonstrators who did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others when they were shot, nor where they directly participating in hostilities.”

Israeli snipers killed 183 Palestinians and injured 6,106 by live ammunition; 1,576 by bullet fragmentation or shrapnel; 1,084 by direct tear gas canister hits; and 438 by…

View original post 852 more words

Eight Thoughts On The Christchurch Attack

Tales from the Conspiratum

Source: Eight Thoughts On The Christchurch Attack – Caitlin Johnstone – Medium

medium.com

With permission from

Three people are currently in custody in New Zealand for terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch. As of this writing, 49 people are dead and 48 people are being treated for gunshot wounds. Explosives were found in two vehicles but none were detonated. It was the worst attack of its kind in New Zealand’s history.

One of the three individuals, a 28 year-old Australian man, live-streamed himself shooting mosque attendees and published a white nationalist manifesto explaining his motives. I don’t feel like linking to either of these things, the former because sharing it would be gross and the latter because the manifesto contains calls for further acts of terrorism and suggestions as to how they might be carried out, as well as instructions on how best to circulate white nationalist…

View original post 1,154 more words

Monsanto is Not Happy – The European Court of Justice just ordered the release of its bogus glyphosate studies to the public.

Monsanto have bought and paid for every level of research critical of it’s poisonous products, we can only hope that the EFSA hasn’t been bought off as well.

World Animals Voice

monsanto 1

Monsanto is fuming: The European Court of Justice just ordered the release of its bogus glyphosate studies to the public.

This is huge.

These studies are the reason the European Union re-licensed cancer-linked glyphosate for another five years back in 2017. Monsanto’s been fighting tooth and nail to keep these studies secret. 

Monsanto would do anything to get its infamous toxic weedkiller approved. But this stops now.

!

monsanto 2But we need to be quick: we have momentum on our side with this court ruling, we need to use it to get the EU to act now and ban glyphosate once and for all. Are you in?

It’s really incredible: not even our MEPs have seen these studies.

Until now, the European Food Safety Authority refused to give anyone access — saying that it “could harm the commercial interests of companies that presented the studies”.

You and I both know what…

View original post 156 more words

The Guardian refused to publish this scathing letter from over 200 Jewish women. It’s obvious why.

From: The Canary

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/03/16/the-guardian-refused-to-publish-this-scathing-letter-from-over-200-jewish-women-its-obvious-why/
It turns out the Guardian refused to publish a scathing letter from over 200 Jewish women on 10 March. The Guardian claims that it didn’t include the letter because it already covered similar ground.

But there are other obvious explanations for its refusal. Because the letter is critical of the Guardian‘s reporting on Labour and antisemitism – particularly its “unquestioning” coverage of rhetoric from political opponents of Jeremy Corbyn. Also, the Jewish women are communicating a perspective on Labour and antisemitism that the Guardian rarely acknowledges.

“Baffled, hurt and infuriated”
The letter, which was published by the Morning Star, opens by calling out the Guardian‘s approach to allegations from Margaret Hodge:

We, all Jewish women, are baffled, hurt and infuriated by your unquestioning coverage of Margaret Hodge’s campaign against Jeremy Corbyn (‘Just Close them down: Margaret Hodge on antisemitism in Labour’s branches’, March 9). Hodge extends her allegations that Corbyn is an ‘antisemite and racist’ under whom antisemitism ‘has been given permission to come into the mainstream and, like a cancer, is infecting and growing through the Party’.

Hodge provides no evidence of such horrific wrongdoing by Corbyn, nor by ‘mainstream’ Labour members. Her own submissions to the Labour Party certainly don’t do the job: General Secretary, Jennie Formby reported that Hodge’s 200 complaints concerned 111 individuals, of whom only 20 were actually Party members.

“A legitimate critique”
The Jewish women also expressed support for Chris Williamson, who Labour recently suspended for questioning the party’s approach to antisemitism allegations:

Williamson presents a legitimate critique; Labour’s response to antisemitism accusations has been unnecessarily defensive, he said, not that it has been ‘too apologetic about antisemitism’ itself.

Indeed, Williamson did not deny that there’s antisemitism in Labour. The MP for Derby North referred to the “scourge of antisemitism” in the same address. He took issue with the party’s failure to properly tackle Corbyn’s political opponents, who have been demonising Labour wholesale “as a racist, bigoted party”.

“The IHRA document has been shredded”
The group also criticised the Guardian‘s reporting on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism:

Meanwhile, no mention that the IHRA document has been shredded by two QCs, plus Jewish human rights specialist, Sir Geoffrey Bindman and Jewish retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Stephen Sedley.

The mainstream media consistently report on the IHRA document as the ‘internationally recognised’ definition of antisemitism. But IHRA is only made up of 31 member countries and only 26% of them recognise Palestine as a state. The lack of Palestinian representation explains why these member countries accept a definition of antisemitism that Palestinian advocacy groups uniformly condemn. In contrast to the IHRA nations, 71% of the 193 UN countries do recognise Palestine. So the widespread affirmation that the definition is ‘internationally recognised’ is disputed.

Indeed, 24 Palestinian organisations, trade unions, and networks in the UK have also criticised the definition:

This non-legally binding definition attempts to erase Palestinian history, demonise solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality, suppress freedom of expression, and shield Israel’s far-right regime

Guardian response
The Guardian claimed it decided not to publish the letter because the issue had “already been aired before”. In another letter to the Guardian, over 200 Jewish Labour supporters also condemned the narrative on Labour and antisemitism:

We believe that the Labour party under the progressive leadership of Jeremy Corbyn is a crucial ally in the fight against bigotry and reaction. His lifetime record of campaigning for equality and human rights, including consistent support for initiatives against antisemitism, is formidable. His involvement strengthens this struggle.

Yet the paper has no problem publishing hundreds of articles amplifying allegations of antisemitism against the Labour Party. A spokesperson also told the Morning Star that the paper receives:

hundreds of letters a day and unfortunately cannot publish every letter we receive.

“Hijack our history”
Rounding off their letter, the Jewish women wrote:

All signatories to this letter grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. We know we must maintain eternal vigilance against antisemitic resurgence. But we also celebrate our Jewishness, especially the disputatiousness (pace our aphorism: two Jews three opinions) central to Jewish identity. We are terrified by Margaret Hodge’s attempt to hijack our history and rewrite our identity and by unwillingness to investigate, fact check and challenge her allegations.

The data supports their condemnation of the establishment for weaponising antisemitism against Labour. Analysis from academics at Goldsmiths found that reporting across the mainstream media of Labour and antisemitism was ‘distorted’, ‘inaccurate’ and ‘misleading’.

With the media peddling such an entrenched smear campaign, we must join these Jewish people in unapologetically correcting the record.

 

French, German Farmers Destroy GMO-contaminated Crops

From Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/french-german-farmers-destroy-gmo-contaminated-crops/5671182?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

About 11,000 hectares of crops will be destroyed to prevent the reappearance of GMO contaminated seeds.

The transnational company Bayer said Wednesday that farmers in France and Germany were digging up thousands of hectares of rapeseed fields after traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are banned for cultivation, were found in seeds sold by the company.

In Europe, few varieties of GMO are authorized for growing, mostly due to environmental concerns. However, during a routine check, French authorities found out GMO seeds in three rapeseed seeds batches sold by Dekalb, a brand previously owned by Monsantobefore the company was taken over by Bayer in 2018.

GMO crops are not authorized in Europe, although GMO could be imported for food and animal feed, Catherine Lamboley, Bayer’s chief operating officer for France, said and explained that the source of the contamination of rapeseed seeds, which were produced in Argentine GMO-free area, is not known yet.

Bayer issued a product recall but some of the seeds had already been sown, representing about 8,000 hectares in France and 2,500-3,000 hectares in Germany, which are in the process of being dug up.

Erica Johannson@OrganicErica

Published on http://SeattleOrganicRestaurants.com  : Millions of bees die because of Neonicotinoid pesticides manufactured by Bayer and Syngenta and 94% of GMO corn in US is treated with either imidacloprid or clothianidin pesticides:

See Erica Johannson’s other Tweets

“We decided to immediately stop all rapeseed seed production in Argentina,” Lamboley said.

The overall cost of this GMO contamination is not known. However, Bayer offers US$2,278 per hectare as compensation to affected farmers, which suggest a US$23 million payout for both countries.

According to the transnational company, the amount will be enough to compensate for the economic losses caused to farmers in this season and the next, since they will not be able to cultivate crops as a precaution to avoid the GMO strain’s reappearance.

The order to destroy some crops is another blow for European rapeseed growers who had already cut sowings sharply due to dry weather.

Besides, the currently affected area is small compared to the total French winter rapeseed area, which the farm ministry, in December, forecast at 1.23 million hectares. The German crop area is believed to be close to 1 million hectares.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

British writer pens best description of why British don’t like Trump & it’s “wicked”.

From: Veterans today
Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:
A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
‘My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.