On Wednesday, 128 members of the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution that rejected US President Donald Trump's acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Of the member states, a whopping nine, including Guatemala and Honduras, voted against the resolution, and 35 others chose to abstain.

However, while the "reaffirmation of this international consensus… actually set Israel back in many ways," according to Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of the book "The Battle for Justice in Palestine," he also says that this is only the beginning of a long road.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201712271060341568-un-resolution-vote-j...

Meanwhile in Syria:

According to the space reconnaissance data, extremist groups are training at the Al-Tanf US base in Syria, said Valeri Guerassimov, chief of staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

The US military base at Al-Tanf in southern Syria is proving to be a training platform for radical groups, said Russian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Valeri Gerassimov. an interview with the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda.

"It is a base in southern Syria limited to an area of 55 kilometers radius. It's on the border of Syria, Jordan and Iraq. According to the data of space reconnaissance and other types of reconnaissance, terrorist units are there. Practically, they train there, "said the general.Read more:https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201712271034502713-al-tanf-base-usa-terroristes/

French magazine Youpi had to withdraw its January issue for making the “mistake” of putting Israel next to North Korea as examples of not “real countries.”

The magazine, which is aimed at children aged from five to eight, includes trivia card games. On one of the cards, Israel is put on a par with North Korea, both of which are apparently not “real countries.”

197: We call these 197 countries states, like France, Germany or Algeria. There are others, too, but not all the world’s countries agree that all of them are real countries (for example the State of Israel or North Korea),” reads the card, which has sparked a fierce backlash.

“Shocked by this lie taught to children. Such rhetoric can only encourage anti-Zionism, inseparable from anti-Semitism,” Aliza Bin Noun, the ambassador of Israel to France, said on Twitter, while tagging French President Emmanuel Macron.

Francis Kalifat, the president of CRIF (the Federation of Jewish Communities and Organizations of France) condemned the cards, calling them a “factual lie and a flagrant one at that.”

Following the backlash, the magazine was removed from kiosk sales in France and Belgium.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/414289-israel-not-real-korea-france/

As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley didn’t have much need to worry about foreign policy. Yet for reasons unknown (other than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy.

What makes America different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right—indeed, the duty—of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally, but in their own nations, too.

U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect, what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress.

There is precedent for Washington as all-seeing and all-knowing. A sparrow cannot “fall to the ground apart from the will of” God, Jesus explained. So, too, it appears, is such an event impossible in America’s view apart from U.S. approval.

Washington officials rarely are so blunt, but their rhetoric is routinely suffused with arrogance. The concept of American exceptionalism is one example. The country’s founding was unique and the U.S. has played an extraordinary role in international affairs, but that does not sanctify policies that have often been brutal, selfish, incompetent, perverse, and immoral. Sometimes America’s actions share all of those characteristics simultaneously—such as aiding the royal Saudi dictatorship as it slaughters civilians in Yemen in an attempt to restore a puppet regime there.

In recent history, Madeleine Albright, both as UN ambassador and secretary of state under Bill Clinton, perhaps came closest to personifying the clueless American diplomat. As Washington made a hash of the Balkans and Middle East, she explained that “we stand tall. We see further than other countries in the future.” The U.S., of course, was “the indispensable nation.” Which presumably is why she felt entitled to announce that “we think the price is worth it” when asked about the reported deaths of a half million Iraqi children as a result of sanctions against Baghdad.

And, of course, there was her extraordinary exchange with Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when she asked, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Presumably she had no family members at risk as she planned to wage global crusades with other people’s lives.

Albright has large shoes to fill but Haley appears to be well on her way. In a position that theoretically emphasizes diplomacy, the former South Carolina governor has been cheerleading for war with North Korea. Never mind that a nuke or two landing on Seoul or Tokyo would wipe out millions of people. No doubt she will cheerfully put a positive spin on disaster if the administration decides it’s time for Armageddon in Northeast Asia.

Haley has also brilliantly played the sycophantic spokeswoman for the Saudi royals. Riyadh’s intervention in the unending Yemeni civil war has killed thousands of civilians, imposed a starvation blockade, and led famine and cholera to sweep through what was already one of the poorest nations on earth. All of this has been done with U.S. support: supplying munitions, refueling aircraft, and aiding with targeting.

But when the Yemenis returned fire with a missile, Haley summoned her best sanctimonious demeanor and denounced Iran for allegedly making this outrageous, shocking attack possible. Apparently the Saudi sense of entitlement goes so far as to believe that Saudi Arabia’s victims aren’t even supposed to shoot back.

Yet Haley’s finest hubristic moment may have come after the president’s decision to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem. Israel treats that city as its capital, of course. But Jerusalem is the holiest land for Jews and Christians, third holiest for Muslims, and the most emotional point of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, since conquering East Jerusalem in the 1967 war, the Israeli government has been working assiduously to squeeze Palestinians out of the city.

Read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nikki-haley-the-bold-sco...

Read also:

Israel's parliament has passed an amendment that would make it harder for it to cede control over parts of Jerusalem in any peace deal with the Palestinians, who condemned the move as undermining any chance to revive talks on statehood.

• Legislation increases number of votes required to hand over part of city to "a foreign party"
• Amendment was sponsored by far-right Jewish Home party
• Palestinian spokesman said passage of amendment is "declaration of war"

The legislation, sponsored by the far-right Jewish Home coalition party, raises to 80 from 61 the number of votes required in the 120-seat Knesset to approve any proposal to hand over part of the city to "a foreign party".

Last month US President Donald Trump angered the Palestinians, Middle East leaders and world powers by recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

As home to major Muslim, Jewish and Christian holy sites, Jerusalem's status is one of the most sensitive issues in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr Trump's December 6 decision sparked regional protests and prompted the Palestinians to rule out Washington as a peace broker in any future talks.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-03/israel-changes-law-to-make-it-hard...

“We obviously regret the loss of lives as a result of the demonstrations that were not so peaceful. However, let Iran deal with its own problems, especially since this is precisely what’s taking place,” Russia's envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia said.

He slammed the US for diverting attention from important international issues the UN Security Council should be addressing.

“You are dispersing the energy of the Security Council, instead of focusing it on dealing with key crisis situations in Afghanistan, Syria Libya, Iraq, Yemen, DPRK, the African continent. Instead of that, you are proposing that we interfere in the internal affairs of a state."

"We don't want to get involved in destabilizing Iran or any other country."

He also reminded Washington of its own history of cracking down on protests.

"If we follow your logic, then we should have meetings of the Security Council after the events in Ferguson or after the dispersal by force of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Manhattan.”

In her opening speech, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, dubbed the ongoing unrest in Iran a “spontaneous expression of fundamental human rights,” claiming the protests were simultaneously playing out in “over 78 locations.”

“In the end, the Iranian people will determine their own destiny. Let there be no doubt the US stands unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their families and dignity for their nation. We will not be quiet,”Haley said, dismissing any attempts to paint the protesters as “puppets of foreign powers.” The US envoy said Washington was absolutely sure they [the protesters] are acting on their own.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/415116-un-security-council-iran-abuse/

If there’s one thing that the West’s state-corporate media loves to report, it’s public protest within a non-compliant country — people demonstrating against a government that has refused to roll over in the face of Western aggression and greed.

If you’re in the habit of examining these media reports, you’ll often find that there’s a particular word which gets used a lot.

Here are a few highly topical examples; see if you can work out which word it is…

Iranians protesting the country’s strained economy gathered in Tehran and another major city on Friday, for the second day of spontaneous, unsanctioned demonstrations […] (US, Associated Press, via Washington Post, 29 Dec 2017)

A wave of spontaneous protests over Iran’s weak economy swept into Tehran on Saturday, with college students and others chanting against the government… (UK, Associated Press, via Mail Online, 30 Dec 2017)

Unauthorized, spontaneous protests engulfed Iran’s major cities for a third straight day on Saturday as what started out as demonstrations over rising prices seem to have taken a decidedly anti-government tone. (Slate.com, 30 Dec 2017)

Pro-government Iranians rallied in Tehran Saturday following spontaneous angry protests in the capital and other major cities. (US, Fox News with Associated Press, 30 Dec 2017)

A relatively small protest on Thursday in Mashhad, Iran’s second largest city . . . unexpectedly gave impetus to a wave of spontaneous protests spreading across provinces. (UK, Guardian, 31 Dec 2017)

Protests seem to be spontaneous and lack a clear leader. (Australia, ABC Radio Australia, 1 Jan 2018)

Yes: the Word of the Day is spontaneous.

As far as our state-corporate media and its ubiquitous anti-journalism are concerned, this is one of the most fascinating adjectives we ever see. Let’s take a moment to examine its use…

For a start, how would anyone really know — and so quickly, too! — that these foreign protests, these far-away demonstrations were all ‘spontaneous’? Are thousands of protestors across Iran currently in touch with hundreds of Western journalists — and constantly insisting on the utter spontaneity of everything they do?

No, they aren’t. And even if they were, why would anyone with any sense believe they were telling the truth?

The reality is, of course, that ‘spontaneous’ is a propaganda word, purely manipulative. It’s there to achieve three different but related aims — every one of which serves the imperialist agendas of the Western elites.

First, it helps to create the encouraging impression of an Official Enemy in Deep Trouble. If the media unites in painting a given set of protests as ‘spontaneous‘, then the illusion can be manufactured that ‘the population as a whole‘ is ‘angrily turning against‘ the obstructive government that the West is so selfishly anxious to see removed. ‘Clearly, this vile regime is tottering! Stay focused, everyone! Our corporations will be gang-raping the place in no time!‘

Secondly, ‘spontaneous’ protests are by far the best kind when it comes to ‘justifying’ illegal and destructive ‘intervention’ in a non-compliant country. How ‘desperate‘ an oppressed population must be if it ‘takes to the streets’ in ‘spontaneous protests’! How ‘close to the edge‘ those people must feel to be ‘finally overcoming their fear‘ and ‘actually calling for change‘! ‘Those people can’t take much more of this! For God’s sake, we have to do something! How about we try more economic warfare — plus humanitarian bombing? Agreed…?‘

Thirdly, it’s a word that’s designed to take the most important thought of all … and drive it far away from everyone’s mind. For what, ultimately, the word ‘spontaneous‘ says is: ‘Do not for a moment consider the probability that this is happening as part of a carefully co-ordinated and externally funded regime-change operation. Don’t even think about it! It’s all just SPONTANEOUS, d’you hear!‘

And if you won’t listen to me, pay attention to Nikki Haley, the Novelty Talking Insect currently doubling as the Trump Administration’s ‘Ambassador to the United Nations’…

read more:

https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/wordoftheday/

Organised by the Germans, the Munich Security Conference has become a world forum for Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for Defence. The participants were all attempting to anticipate the political evolution of the moment, while the organisers were attempting to advance the cause of their re-armament. Finally, although the positions of the participants was clarified, the question of the rules of the new game remain in suspense.

Over the years, the Munich Security Conference has become the wold’s most important meeting on the subject. Created in the context of the Cold War by an ultra-conservative aristocrat and hero of the Resistance to Nazism, Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist-Schmenzin, it has always leaned to the anti-communist and Atlantist side. It nonetheless remains a German event and not a US initiative.

Founded in 1963, it comprised about sixty personalities – taking part were Henry Kissinger, who at the time was no more than a spy and an academic, and Helmut Schmidt, then a simple federal deputy. Since 2009, under the impulse of its new President, the diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, the conference is no longer a Germano-US strategic seminar, nor even a European forum, but the world’s main event in international relations and defence.

The 2018 edition assembled 682 high personalities, including approximately thirty heads of state and government, forty-odd Ministers for Foreign Affairs, forty more Ministers for Defence, and almost all the chiefs of the Western secret services, not to mention the directors of think-tanks, Atlantist humanitarian NGO’s, and self-righteous journalists [1]. For the last three years, a secret service summit has been held discreetly on the fringe of the Conference.

This unprecedentedly high level of this meeting may be explained by the current state of international disorder. Everyone can see that the unipolar system imposed by the United States from 1995 is no longer. And yet, no-one has a very clear idea of what comes next.

The Press focused only on the puerile show by Benjamin Netanyahu and a few phrases from one member or another. The real issue was elsewhere.

The host power, in other words the German people as a private entity, and not the federal state, intended to use the participants in order to advance its own objectives. A document distributed at the entrance begins with two articles. The one on the left, signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sigmar Gabriel, includes this phrase: « It is neither imprudent nor anti-American to imagine a Europe without the United States » [2]. The article on the right, drawn up by lawyer Constanze Stelzenmüller, analyses the divergences between President Trump and his main advisors and concludes with a warning against their potential developments [3].

Just before Berlin was paralysed by the absence of a parliamentary majority, the federal government was thinking about the possibility of investing massively in its army and taking control of all European armies, including the French [4]. The point was to use the European Union at a time when the United States is in difficulty to confirm Germany’s economic power on the political level. But how can this be accomplished after Brexit, without the powerful British army? How to manage the French nuclear force? And how much elbow room is the US ready to concede to Germany?

British Prime Minister Theresa May answered that as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, once it has left Europe, it intends to negotiate a Peace Treaty with the European Union, which takes us all the way back to the vision that Winston Churchill had of Germany. The European Union must maintain the stability of the West of the continent, London will always be a solid ally, but it is Her Majesty’s government which will define common objectives, and certainly not Berlin or Paris.

French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe showered praise on European Defence and confirmed that his country will be dedicating 2% of its GDP to military questions in 2025. Capitalising on the excellent communication by President Emmanuel Macron, he expressed his support for Germany’s ambitions, while at the same time avoiding having to answer the concrete question about the strike force. So we are not really any further along – the tandem Macron-Philippe is happy with the new network for European discussion in matters of the Defence industry (the PESCO), but has signed firm commitments only with London.

The enormous US delegation behaved as predicted in the preparatory document — Washington attaches much importance to its allies in order to reinforce its credibility. Which is tantamount to saying that the confirmation of German military will only be possible if it is kept on a leash by the Pentagon.

Although Germany voted for European sanctions against Russia, the members of the MSC do not question the reunification of Crimea and Russia. They do not refer to the example of German reunification, because it did not occur to the detriment of another state, but on their own initiative to recognise the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina against the wishes of the Yugoslav Federation (currently Serbia) [5]. They analyse the Ukrainian crisis in terms of plate tectonics. For them, the forces which confronted one another over a period of twenty years are responsible for the separation. From now on, the question of Donbass is a question of defining the limits of the tectonic plates. The answer is not the same, depending on whether your view of History is long or short.

In any case, the MSC considers that the Minsk agreements are the only peaceful solution, but it does not read them in the same way as Moscow, since the text is particularly imprecise.

The Germans were surprised by President Vladimir Putin’s proposition to deploy a UN stabilisation force in Donbass. They understand it as being tasked with keeping order as defined in Kiev, and thus to disarm the region, while the Ukrainian government could prepare a new confrontation. This is obviously not the Russian point of view.

About ten Ukrainian personalities were present in Munich. Obviously President Petro Poroschenko and his allies, like his Minister for Foreign Affairs Pavlo Klimkin (ex-ambassador to Berlin) or the mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko (ex-world heavyweight WBO & WBC boxing champion, the « hero » of Maïdan). There were also economic leaders like Natalie Jaresco (an ex-employee of the US State Department, posted by Washington as Minister for Finance) or the boss of Naftogaz, Andriy Kobolyev, and the oligarchs Viktor Pinchuk and Sherhiy Taruta. But since the MSC has little confidence in the team currently in power, it also invitedYulia Timoschenko, the deputies Mustafa Nayyem (catalyser of the Maïdan events) and Svitlana Zalishchuk (US National Endowment for Democracy).

In a separate room, out of sight, the representative for France, Germany, the European Union and Russia met with those of Ukraine. No progress was made, particularly concerning a deployment of the Blue Helmets.

Germany invested a lot in the US project for the Middle East (the strategy of the destruction of societies and states, conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski [6]), but noticeably less in the British-US project for the « Arab Springs ». Since the Cold War, it has housed and supported several headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood, including that of the Syrians in Aix-la-Chapelle. Germany took a part in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafic Hariri [7]. In 2012, it co-wrote the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria [8]. At present, Volker Perthes, director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the state think-tank, is advisor to Jeffrey Feltman at the UNO.

For several years, the internal documents of the European External Action Service (EEAS) are copied and pasted from Volker Perthes’ notes for the German government.

Volker Perthes was of course at Munich [9] with Jeffrey Feltman and their friends, Lakdhar Brahimi, Ramzi Ramzi, Steffan de Mistura, Generals David Petraeus (the KKR was also represented by Christian Ollig) and John Allen (Brookings Institution), as well as Nasser al-Hariri, the President of the High Authority for Negotiations (pro-Saudi Syrian opposition), Raed al-Saleh, director of the White Helmets (Al-Qaïda) and their Qatari sponsors, including Emir Thamim.

In an article from the preparatory document for the Conference [10], Volker Perthes assures that political balance in the Middle East has collapsed. But he reasons by basing himself on what he wants rather than what he sees. He assures that the Damascus government is exhausted by the war, although it has just laid a clever trap for the Israëlis and managed to destroy one of their aircraft. He evaluates the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, believing that Riyadh is in a position of force, while the anti-palace coup is being organised from abroad. He imagines that the Emirates will help Saudi Arabia against Teheran, when they have just obliged Riyadh to partition Yemen – the Emirates also take their wealth from Dubaï’s avoidance of the anti-Iranian embargo.

Volker Perthes’ errors have been boosted by the voluntary errors of three bosses - German BND (Bruno Kahl), British MI6 (Alex Younger) and the French DGSE (Bernard Emié), who explained in a private room, in front of an audience chosen for their naïveté, how nervous they were about the Turkish operation in Syria. The three men pretended to believe that the combatants of the YPG constitute the safest barrier against Daesh. Yet they were supposed to create the Frontier Security Force with certain ex-members of Daesh. And although several jihadist officers were arrested by the Syrian Arab Army this week as they journeyed to Afrin concealed amongst the ranks of the Kurdish combatants. It’s clear that the job of these three super-spies is to know to whom they owe the truth, and to whom they can lie. Sustaining their momentum, they hinted that the Syrian Arab Army uses chemical weapons – profiting from the absence in the room of the US Secretary for Defence, Jim Mattis, who had testified a few days earlier that proof of this claim is inexistant [11].

Finally, before engaging in massive rearmament, Germany will have to choose its analysts of Foreign Affairs more carefully.

Translation 
Pete Kimberley

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article199781.html