In this mailing:
by Denis MacEoin
• September 15, 2016 at 5:00 am
- When the
inquiry's report was published on June 30, it turned out to be what
most Jews and pro-Israel activists had suspected it would be from
the beginning: a whitewash. It opens with the words: "The
Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other
forms of racism". But nobody had ever suggested that it was.
- The report is
vague and waffly, 28 pages saying almost nothing about the subject
under question, anti-Semitism, which is throughout subsumed under
general issues of racism.
- The working
definitions of anti-Semitism for the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia and the US State Department, along with
others, agree that exaggerated, mendacious, or malicious criticism
of the Jewish state, or the setting of double standards for Israel
that are used for no other nation, is anti-Semitic. It is precisely
accusations of this kind that make up the bulk of the Labour Party's
anti-Semitic comments, including statements still being made by some
party members, including Jeremy Corbyn himself.
Jeremy Corbyn (center) is questioned by a House of
Commons Home Affairs Committee on the Labour party's anti-Semitism
inquiry, while the inquiry's author, Shami Chakrabarti (left) scribbles a
note to him, July 4, 2016. (Image source: UK Parliament)
Britain's
Labour Party, out of power since 2010, more or less cut its own throat
when its members (plus fresh recruits who, instead of taking out
membership, paid £3 to vote in the leadership election in 2015) chose
Jeremy Corbyn, a formerly marginalized far left socialist, as the new
head of the party. Ordinary Labour voters were horrified, knowing from
day one that Corbyn could never lead the party to government and was not
either remotely Prime Ministerial material. But vast numbers of young
extreme left-wingers, flushed with victory and dedicated to an idealistic
coming revolution and led by a new Corbyn-worshipping movement called
Momentum, were determined to take traditional working- and middle-class
voters in a direction that had little or no appeal to them at all.
by Shoshana Bryen
• September 15, 2016 at 4:30 am
- The new
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) plans to change a fundamental part
of the U.S.-Israel security relationship -- missile defense.
- President Obama
is tying Israel's hands for the future by extracting a promise that
it will not approach Congress for funds in excess of those in the
MOU "unless it is at war."
- What does that
mean? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria still maintain a state of
war with Israel, as does Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and sometimes the
Palestinian Authority. Did the Obama Administration leave Israel a
loophole for Congressional assistance? Or is it denying that Israel
lives in a perpetual and evolving state of threat and often fights
"wars" that are essential to the protection of its
population, but are not formally declared?
- "Over the
next decade, [Israel] is going to need to spend more on domestic
defense, research and development, because the IDF is going to be
under more threat, not less. This MOU sends the wrong signal to the
Ayatollahs. I am appalled that the administration would (give) the
largest state sponsor of terrorism access to $150 billion in
sanctions relief without any requirement that they change their
behavior. Instead, it is nickeling and diming Israel." –
Senator Lindsay Graham.
Israel is the target of both direct and indirect
presidential fire as the MOU sets out to change fundamental security
relations between Israel and the Congress. Above, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Barack Obama at the White House, May
20, 2011. (Image source: Israel PM office)
Yes. It is a lot of money.
Yes. A ten-year deal provides a stable base for Israeli planning.
Yes. With the unsettled American political situation and the
unsettled military situation in Israel's neighborhood, stability counts.
No. Israel's military industries will not collapse without the use
of 25% of its American aid internally.
Yes. Israel remains a close and respected ally of the American
military establishment.
by Fjordman
• September 15, 2016 at 4:00 am
- "[Britain
wants] to be like Switzerland but they don't know that Switzerland
has to pay an enormous amount to the EU... They will have to accept
the free movement of people and pay high fees and accept some laws
which they would have no influence on." -- Daniel Pedroletti,
president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London.
- Norway is the
only country that has adopted all EU directives before their
deadline. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus
implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the
founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands
and Luxembourg.
- Most of
Norway's laws are currently written by bureaucrats in Brussels, not
by elected parliamentarians in Norway.
- The citizens of
Norway rejected membership in the EU, twice. Opinion polls today
show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against membership
in the EU. Despite this, the nation's politicians have made the
country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence
or voting rights -- in opposition to the popular will, and possibly
also in violation of the country's Constitution.
- The British
should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative
example of what to avoid.
Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg with European
Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, on January 21, 2015. (Image
source: Norway Prime Minister's Office)
On June 23, 2016, 51.9% of the voters in the United Kingdom voted
for leaving the European Union (EU). The turnout was high, and the
British referendum gained great international attention. Marine Le Pen,
leader of France's National Front, praised the result, calling Brexit
"the most important moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall." Le
Pen said that if she wins France's 2017 presidential election she would
call a referendum on leaving the EU.
Nigel Farage stepped down as leader of the UK Independence Party
(UKIP) shortly after winning the historic vote. Many death threats
against him and his family from supporters of the EU reportedly affected
his decision.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment