Archive | October 5th, 2018

It Is Friendship With Russia, Not China, That Will Allow Pakistan to Cut the Cord With the US

New-found Russia friendship have Pakistan increasingly confident in its path of non-conformity to US demands

With Afghanistan and Pakistan as the staging grounds, politics in South and Central Asia appears to be coming full circle with the making and breaking of alliances involving major regional and international actors.

The switching of goalposts by the erstwhile Cold War-era allies — keeping their converging and diverging geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geostrategic interests in mind — apparently indicates the beginning of a new “Great Game” in the region.

Russia’s re-emergence under Vladimir Putin; China’s vision of greater connectivity in Eurasia through Xi Jinping’s ambitious Road and Belt Initiative (BRI); America’s quest to safeguard its interests in the region by not losing the war in Afghanistan and containing China’s growing economic and military clout; India’s outreach to the world markets to compete Xi’s China; Pakistan’s struggle to retain its strategic importance by taking sides; and Afghanistan’s desire for lasting peace – these are some of the key drivers spurring the race.

While Afghanistan’s unending struggle to attain peace and stability is the epicenter of this contest, it is nuclear-armed Pakistan, with its population of over 200 million and looming economic, political, and security troubles, that is attracting the focus of the major powers. For Pakistan, while a shift from its old goalpost seems to be imminent, it is not going to be without hassles.

Bittersweet Frenemies

Pakistan has been allied with the United States since the era of SEATO (South-East Asia Treaty Organization) and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization). This alliance, though off-again-on-again, was further cemented following the 1978 Saur Revolution in Afghanistan, which paved the way for military intervention by the Soviet Union in December 1979.

More recently, Pakistan was given the status of a non-NATO ally of the United States following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That devastating event forced the world’s sole superpower to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, from where the al-Qaeda terrorist network masterminded the attacks in Washington D.C. and New York City.

During this period of alliance, Pakistan remained dependent on U.S. largesse in military, economic, and developmental terms. Over the decades, Pakistani leadership successfully maneuvered to secure huge sums of money for their country’s services, whether in the CIA-sponsored (Reagan-era) anti-communist jihad or the Bush-era global war against terror, with its key focus on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda.

What Pakistan failed to do, however, was endear itself to the United States as an all-time trusted partner in the region. Instead, the relationship mostly remained transactional. Each bout of intimacy followed the emergence of a new security environment in the region and ended in a fiasco, leaving behind more doubts and animosities as soon as that particular security environment began to change.

The two countries’ diverging interests kept their alliance mostly transactional. The latest example is the United States’ 17-year-long war in Afghanistan. While the United States struggles to bring peace and stability by routing the Taliban, Pakistan believes the ousted militia offers the best guarantee for peace. The Haqqani Network, the most secretive group in the region, is the United States’ worst enemy. But Pakistan has its hopes pinned on this group’s survival, which Islamabad sees as the key to guaranteeing its strategic interests in the face of both anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan and perceived Indian encirclement.

Many in Pakistan’s security circles were disillusioned when then-U.S. Central Command chief Admiral Mike Mullen called the Haqqani Network a “veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence” in September 2011, months after the killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Ladin in a mid-night raid by Navy Seals in Pakistan’s garrison town of Abbottabad. The same year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her visit to Islamabad, gave a blunt warning to her Pakistani allies that “you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors.”

But the real bombshell came from none other than President Donald Trump on January 1, 2018 when he accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit” in a tweet. “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit thinking of our leaders as fools,” Trump said. “… No more!”

As the Trump administration struggles to wrap up the war in Afghanistan by seeking Pakistan’s help and support, Pakistan looks the other way by expanding and further cementing its economic and military ties with Russia and China, both of which are seen as adversaries in U.S. policy circles. Pakistan will have to balance its acts while walking this tightrope.

Sweeter Than Honey

“Sweeter than honey” is the new jargon suffixed to Pakistan’s “deeper than oceans and taller than mountains” friendship with China. The depth, height, and saccharinity, however, mostly depend on China’s contentment with the strategic, political, and economic interests that Beijing attaches to Pakistan.

There is no such thing as a free lunch in the realm of economics, but when it comes to China, every single loaf has a cost. The $62 billion that China promised for infrastructure development in Pakistan under the BRI’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will require Pakistan’s commitment not only to China’s economic and commercial interests, but also its political and security considerations.

Pointing to the potential CPEC faultlines in South Asian security, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says in its “The Silk Road Economic Belt” report that Pakistan’s Balochistan “remains a strategic area that could become a flashpoint for regional competition and is even referred to as the new epicenter of the ‘Great Game’ by some regional analysts.”

As a result, when a Pakistani official spoke about a review of the CPEC agreements, it sparked a flurry of meetings between Islamabad and Beijing in mid-September. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi landed in Islamabad just a day after the publishing of Razak Dawood’s interview in the Financial Times. Then Pakistan’s army chief visited Beijing and met top civilian and military officials. Meanwhile, Dawood, in a face-saving statement, said that he was quoted “out of context.”

New Friendships

Several about-faces have been witnessed over the past decade and half as the U.S.-led global war on terror continues in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan’s becoming an ally of Russia and Iran’s rapprochement with the Taliban, both to the chagrin of the United States, are the most spectacular changes. Pakistan’s new closeness with Russia, at a time when the latter is engaged in indirect war with the United States both in the Middle East and Ukraine, is clear indication of a rift with Islamabad’s erstwhile ally the United States. Likewise, Iran and Russia’s closer links with the Taliban are being seen as a new stumbling block to U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and the region.

Nothing is more evident of these new arrangements than a meeting of the spy chiefs of Russia, Iran, China, and Pakistan in Islamabad in July this year to discuss Afghanistan and Central Asia. While Russia and Iran’s ties with the Pakistan-backed Taliban have only been recently disclosed, China has long been seen as a trusted country by the Taliban leadership.

Islamabad’s emboldened stance regarding nonconformity with U.S. demands partially stems from its increased military cooperation with Russia. This bond-making between Russia and Pakistan is not new; former military ruler Pervez Musharraf visited Russia in 2003. But the pace of exchanges has picked up remarkably in the past few years.

Raheel Sharif, one of Pakistan’s most celebrated army chiefs, paid a visit to Moscow in June 2015 following the Islamabad visit of Russia’s defense minister in November 2014. Within three months of Sharif’s visit to Moscow, Pakistan received four Mi-35 assault helicopters from Russia as part of a newly signed deal.

In December 2015, Pakistani and Russian naval forces jointly organized anti-narcotics exercises dubbed “Arabian Monsoon” in the Arabian Sea. In September 2016, for the first time Russian commandos participated with their Pakistani counterparts in “Friendship 2017” exercises. And in yet another first, a Russian military delegation visited Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal district, once known to be a Taliban emirate, in March 2017.

Pakistan’s current army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, visited to Moscow in April 2018, where, just days ahead of the U.S. decision to cancel training and aid for Pakistan’s military, Russia entered into a historic agreement allowing officers of Pakistan’s armed forces to receive training in Russia.

Already, there is no reversing Pakistan’s new friendship with Russia. The point here is how much Russia’s stepping in will cater to Pakistan’s military and economic requirements, particularly in terms of the space left vacant by the U.S. stepping back.

Meanwhile, Washington is tightening ties with Pakistan’s long-time rival, India. After a brief stop-over in Islamabad in early September, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proceeded for the first-ever “two-plus-two” ministerial dialogue in New Delhi, where the two sides agreed to further enhance their security cooperation under the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement.

India has already been given wider space in the U.S. National Security Strategy, while Trump’s South Asia Strategy recognizes an even bigger role for India in “Afghanistan’s stabilization.” These fresh measures will further distance Pakistan from its Cold War-era ally.

A Difficult Moment

While the United States is set to proceed toward an Afghanistan solution with or without support from Pakistan, it is a difficult moment for Islamabad. Pakistan must decide whether to take side with Washington by ditching the Taliban and Haqqani Network or continue to take sides with the two militant groups, to the annoyance of its long-term partner. As part of this decision, Pakistan will need to assess whether the Russians are capable of meeting the country’s defense needs if it continues to stay detached from the United States.

Another complicating factor is that action against individuals such as Hafiz Saeed and his group Jamat-ud- Dawa will also benefit India. By acting under U.S. pressure against such groups, Pakistan will lose its strategic assets, which are being used as a counterbalance against the much bigger neighbor India.

For Pakistan, it is tough to do it, but even tougher not to.

Posted in China, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on It Is Friendship With Russia, Not China, That Will Allow Pakistan to Cut the Cord With the US

Syria’s New S-300 Air Defenses Could Potentially Take on an F-35, But an F-22 Would Be a Problem

“The S-300PMU-2, unlike the more modern and capable S-300V4 and S-400 deployed by the Russian military, notably lack the latest counter stealth capabilities and hypersonic missiles which give newer surface to air missile platforms a critical edge over the Raptor”

Shortly after Russia announced the delivery of the S-300PMU-2 air defence system to the Syrian armed forces, which the U.S. State Department termed a “serious escalation” with potentially dire consequences for America and its allies, the United States military indicated its potential response to the new deployment.

The American response reportedly could come in the form of deployment of the most capable Western combat jet ever developed, the F-22 Raptor, a squadron of which are currently based at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates within range of Syrian targets.

While F-22 has already flown several sorties over Syria alongside the older and lighter F-16CJ – the latter serving an interim supporting role until its replacement the F-35A becomes fully operational – this would be the first time that the Raptors would be used to directly target Syrian government positions, or those of any state entity for that matter.

While the S-300PMU-2 remains well within its limits to counter fourth generation fighters such as the F-16, and other older U.S. designs such as the F-15E deployed by Israel, its ability to threaten America’s most capable and survivable radar evading combat jet, the F-22, remains in serious question.

While slower, less stealthy and lower flying stealth jets such as the F-117 and F-35 are potentially at risk when operating within range of the S-300PMU-2, the Raptor’s combination of a high altitude, high speed and extreme manoeuvrability with an unmatched radar evading stealth profile means that the fighter remains ideally suited to countering the Russian made air defence system.

The S-300PMU-2, unlike the more modern and capable S-300V4 and S-400 deployed by the Russian military, notably lack the latest counter stealth capabilities and hypersonic missiles which give newer surface to air missile platforms a critical edge over the Raptor. The F-22 thus may be deployed in response to the threat posed by Syria’s acquisition of the missile platform – which particularly threatens the position of neighbouring Israel by limiting its air force’s freedom to operate in Syrian airspace.

While Israel lacks an analogue to the Raptor, an American strike on the S-300 using its air force’s unique asset would be invaluable in facilitating future Israeli strikes on Syrian positions – thus ensuring that the balance of power in skies over the country remain favourable to both Washington and Tel Aviv.

While originally conceptualised as an air superiority fighter, with a specialised strike variant, the FB-22, planned to fulfil a complementary strike role, the F-22 has since been modified to itself carry out air to ground missions. The Raptor has since been used to carry out precision strikes on Islamic State and Taliban targets in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, and while they are not specialised in this role they remain more than capable of carrying it out.

The Raptor’s advanced sensors paired with either GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs and other precision guided munitions makes it an potentially highly lethal strike platform, though due to the lack of depth of its interim bomb bays relative to the F-35 it cannot deploy higher payload or penetrative munitions. Whether the United States will resume F-22 overflights of Syrian territory in response to the S-300’s deployment, signalling Damascus that it remains ready to respond to potential provocations, thus remains a considerable possibility.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria’s New S-300 Air Defenses Could Potentially Take on an F-35, But an F-22 Would Be a Problem

Green Party: Open Letter to Caroline Lucas


Open Letter to Caroline Lucas – You can’t run with the Palestinian hare and hunt with the Zionist hounds – You are either with the Oppressed or the Oppressor

Why are you supporting the IHRA, a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’, whose sole purpose it is to Chill Free Speech and Sanitise Apartheid?

An alliance of 31 countries dedicated to using the Holocaust to legitimise Zionism


Dear Caroline,

During last year’s General Election you wrote to me explaining that:

‘it’s vital that we do more to tackle antisemitism and this was my motivation in backing the IHRA definition.’

You went on to explain ‘the importance of not conflating criticism of Israel with genuine anti-Jewish racism’ and in the same breath spoke about ‘drawing where helpful on the IHRA definition, at the same time as protecting freedom of speech and promoting Green Party policy on Israel and Palestine.’

This is probably as good an example of cognitive dissonance as it gets. You went on to ask me ‘If you are aware of any more helpful definitions, particularly when it comes to illustrative examples, I’d be interested to see them’ whilst explaining that you wished to withdraw your support from an Early Day Motion supporting the IHRA but ‘At the moment I am not able to remove my name but shall enquire whether that’s possible if I am re-elected to Parliament on June 8.’

Caroline Lucas hoists the Green Flag of Surrender on Antisemitism

You concluded by assuring me that:

as a passionate and long standing advocate of Palestinian rights, I reject any idea that support for Palestine equates with antisemitism and share your concern about any attempts to prevent activities or silence voices designed to highlight the ongoing occupation of Palestine and the Israeli authorities’ complicity in human rights and other abuses

Despite your obvious confusion I was pleased that you were willing to withdraw your support for the IHRA. One should always welcome the sinner who sees the light and repenteth on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately it appears that you have reverted to your sinful past.

Caroline Lucas in her more radical days before being an MP

I was tempted to ask you why it was necessary “to do more to tackle anti-Semitism” when it barely exists in this country. I’m not aware of any Jewish Windrush-style deportations or Jewish deaths in custody or the Stop and Search of Jews in Golders Green or indeed violence against Jews as Jews. Jews are living in a golden age. The assumption that anti-Semitism is increasing is one of those taken for granted establishment myths that become true by virtue of repetition.

The merchants of smear descend on the Green Party

I understand that the Green Party is due to debate the IHRA at its conference this weekend and you are backing an Executive motion supporting the IHRA. On 13th August you issued a statement expressing your support for the IHRA at the same time as reiterating your support for the Palestinians.  This is like someone who murders his parents whilst professing his love for them.

The whole purpose of the IHRA is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I doubt if there is a single Palestine solidarity activist in the country who hasn’t been accused of ‘anti-Semitism’. Likewise there isn’t a single Jewish supporter of the Palestinians, be they anti-Zionist or non-Zionist, who hasn’t been called a ‘traitor’ ‘self-hater’ or ‘kapos’.

Ghetto walls in Warsaw Ghetto

Your decision to support the IHRA, in all its McCarthyist glory, is shameful. It suggests that the Green Party’s commitment to civil liberties and human rights is skin deep. The IHRA has nothing whatsoever to do with combating anti-Semitism. That is why the anti-Semitic regimes of Hungary and Poland, both of which are part of the 31 country International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, endorse the definition. In your statement you say that you support the IHRA because ‘on balance… the definition provides an instructive framework that can help with the vital work of education, understanding and campaigning’

I don’t know what an ‘instructive framework’ is and I suspect neither do you. Perhaps Professor David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism also misunderstands when he says that the core definition,“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.”  is‘bewilderingly imprecise.’ Perhaps you know something he doesn’t?

Sir Stephen Sedley, the Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge, in his article Defining Anti-Semitism, when commenting on the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC that the IHRA was unclear and confusing’ suggested instead that it was ‘calculatedly misleading’.

Renowned human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC described the IHRA as not fit for purpose.’ One wonders what it is about the IHRA definition that you have discovered that eminent human rights lawyers, academics and the most radical judge the Court of Appeal has ever had missed out on?

Both Robertson and Sedley pointed out a curious thing about the IHRA. Far from educating people as to what anti-Semitism is, the IHRA actually does the opposite because it raises the bar, defining anti-Semitism as ‘hatred’ rather than ‘hostility’.

You asked me about any other helpful definitions of anti-Semitism. Could I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary definition‘Anti-Semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’ Or perhaps Oxford academic Brian Klug’s definition, in his Kristallnacht memorial lecture at the Berlin Jewish Museum in 2014:

antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are

The OED defines anti-Semitism in terms of ‘hostility’whereas the IHRA defines it in terms of ‘hatred’. The two are not the same. If someone says ‘I don’t want my daughter to marry a Jew although I’ve got nothing against them’ then according to the IHRA they are not anti-Semitic.You go on to say that

The legitimate concerns about free speech can be powerfully addressed by our continuing as a Party to champion… the rights of the Palestinian people to peace, freedom and justice…. The definition… explicitly allow for this and make clear that criticising Israel or its policies, for example, is only antisemitic if it’s deliberately manifesting or inciting hatred.’

You are wrong on all counts. It’s like saying you can oppose poverty whilst supporting austerity  If you conflate support for the Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and 7 of the 11 IHRA examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ include the Israeli state, then you cannot help but undermine support for the Palestinians.

It is simply untrue to say that the definition only forbids criticism of Israel that manifests or incites hatred. Have you read it? The IHRA says that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.’ In other word criticism of Israel that is unlike that of other countries is anti-Semitic.

As Sedley put it ‘characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new.’Israel is unlike any other state in the world but according to the IHRA if you say this then you are anti-Semitic. Perhaps you can tell me which other state in the world, apart from Burma, demolishes the homes and villages of one section of the populace in order to replace them with settlers from the dominant racial group?

Eric Pickles – former Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, supported the alliance of the Tories in the European Parliament with antisemitic parties such as Poland’s Law & Justice Party

In most states citizenship is the legal embodiment of nationality however Israel is the state of the Jewish nation, wherever they reside, which means it excludes 20% of its citizens from this definition. Perhaps you know of another state where this is true because according to the IHRA merely pointing this out is anti-Semitic?

One of the IHRA’s 11 examples of anti-Semitism states that ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ I strain to understand why opposing the right of the ‘Jewish people’ itself a contentious formulation, is an example of hatred and therefore anti-Semitic. Is it racist to oppose Scottish or Welsh self-determination? And what is the connection between Israel as a racist state and anti-Semitism? I find it difficult to believe that you find this non-sequitur educative!

You say that you will ‘continue to use my voice to speak out against the abuses of the Israeli authorities, to demand that the human rights of both Palestinians and Israelis are upheld’.  Not only do you equate the oppressed and oppressor, Palestinians and Israelis (you mean Israeli Jews!) Palestinian oppression is a political not a human rights problem. Just as Apartheid in South Africa was at its core a political question.

Most states in the world are racist but very few have racism at the very core of their identity. Racism is the DNA of the Israeli state.  It is a Jewish i.e. a Jewish Supremacist state.

To give but one example. At the moment there 5 yearly local elections are being held in Israel. In Tel Aviv Likud, the party of government are campaigning on the slogan ‘It’s either us or them’. The them are the Arab minority of Jaffa and the African refugees of South Tel Aviv. It is a campaign to racially purify Tel Aviv and Jaffa, to make it a ‘Hebrew city’.In what other state in the world would a governing party be campaigning to ‘cleanse’ a city of its minority populations? Yet to point this out is ‘anti-Semitic’ according to the IHRA definition that you have embraced.

You suggest that although ‘The IHRA definition isn’t perfect (but) it’s a working definition.’ I hate to tell you this but it has been a working definition for 13 years!

You also state that ‘letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is distracting from the actions all political parties need to take to show real leadership on antisemitism.’  This is fatuous, puerile. Words devoid of all meaning. There is nothing good about a definition of anti-Semitism that anti-Semites can sign up to but which defines anti-racists and anti-imperialists as anti-Semites.

What amazes me is that you are endorsing the weaponisation of anti-Semitism whose primary purpose is the suppression and chilling of free speech. Even Kenneth Stern, the author of the IHRA, has come to recognise that this is what the IHRA has become.

As Stern acknowledged in testimony to Congress, ‘The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus… at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do.’

The IHRA was used to try and remove Rebecca Gould as a lecturer

Whereas the author of the IHRA has become alarmed at how it is being used, you seem either oblivious or indifferent.Among the many examples of how the IHRA has been used, is the case of Professor Rebecca Gould of Bristol University. On the basis of an article she had written in 2011, Sir Eric Pickles, the anti-Semitic former Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel called on Gould to ‘consider her position’. Kenneth Stern described this as ‘chilling and McCarthy-like’ yet you turn a blind eye and simply pretend that the IHRA is about combating anti-Semitism. The group who targeted Professor Gould, demanding that she be sacked for having compared Israel with Nazi Germany, was the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. The CAAcomplained that ‘the lecturer is able to continue to teach unimpeded.’  [see Rebecca Gould, Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech]

It is therefore baffling that the Green Party, in response to a CAA attack on Shahrar Ali, a candidate for the Green Party leadership, stated that “We have reached out to the Campaign Against Antisemitism to ensure we fully understand their concerns and to respond accordingly.”Perhaps next time the GP thinks of reaching out to this racist group they will bear in mind my criticisms of them inElectronic Intifada.

The obvious question that you and the Green Party have failed to ask is why is there a need for a definition of anti-Semitism at all? You don’t need a definition of fascism to oppose fascists and you don’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to oppose anti-Semitism. If you want one you can adopt the legal test of the reasonable person on the Clapham Omnibus. If asked they would say ‘a person who doesn’t like Jews.’ You don’t need a 500+ word definition unless your purpose is to conflate criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Your attitude to the IHRA, that it is compatible with freedom of speech is like saying that the right of women to choose to have an abortion is compatible with legislation outlawing abortion.

I am left asking what is the real reason for you changing your position on the IHRA? The only answer is that the British Establishment has adopted the IHRA as a means of defending British foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel’s role as a gendarme of the Middle East.

The weaponisation of anti-Semitism is a device to put a moral shield around British foreign policy in the Middle East. It would appear that for all its posturing, the Green Party is just another pro-capitalist, Establishment party whose aim is to green capitalism.  When the British ruling class has adopted a definition of anti-Semitism that embraces Israel you feel obliged to join in this consensus. [, @tonygreenstein]

Kind regards

Tony Greenstein

Statement by Caroline Lucas, 13thAugust 2018

The executive has recently reviewed its position and considered a proposal to formally adopt the IHRA definition, both to help in our ongoing commitment to antisemitism, and to sit alongside our policies on Israel/Palestine and free speech.

The Green Party Executive will not be formally adopting the IHRA definition at this timeOne argument was that such a significant decision ought to be taken by the wider membership and in close partnership with our Jewish members in particular. 

My personal position was, on balance, to support adoption because I think the definition provides an instructive framework that can help with the vital work of education, understanding and campaigning. The legitimate concerns about free speech can be powerfully addressed by our continuing as a Party to champion that right and the rights of the Palestinian people to peace, freedom and justice. The definition and associated guidelines explicitly allow for this and make clear that criticising Israel or its policies, for example, is only antisemitic if it’s deliberately manifesting or inciting hatred. 

I especially recognise my own responsibility to continue to use my voice to speak out against the abuses of the Israeli authorities, to demand that the human rights of both Palestinians and Israelis are upheld, whilst also firmly committing to work with others to tackle antisemitism.

The IHRA definition isn’t perfect but it’s a working definition and I’m encouraged by initiatives to improve upon it. The Home Affairs Select Committee’s proposed amendments are very helpful in this respect.  I am also mindful that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is distracting from the actions all political parties need to take to show real leadership on antisemitism. 

In the meantime, we will draw where helpful on the IHRA definition and other guidance. We will continue to show zero tolerance of antisemitism and I would like to personally urge all party members to engage with opportunities for training in antisemitism, including at conference this autumn. I also urge members to be mindful of the impact of their words and behaviour as we continue to debate this important issue as a party. 

One of the flaws of the IHRA definition is a focus on whether someone intends to manifest or incite hatred towards Jewish people, rather than being concerned more with the outcome ie if someone feels they have been a victim of racism, as Macpherson argued in his review into Stephen Lawrence’s death. The Macpherson principle underpins our equality laws and it’s a good guide for each of us as individuals – our right to free speech, including the right to offend and insult someone, should be balanced by a responsibility to think hard about the consequences. 

Taking responsibility for our impact on those around us and the planet which sustains us is a fundamental green value,  and it’s one that must underpin our party’s response to antisemitism, moving forward in a positive and constructive way.

Please note that this is not a formal statement on behalf of the leadership team – because others are involved in internal elections it was felt that would not be appropriate

Thank you,

Caroline Lucas MP



Statement by Green Left, 23rd August  2018

We oppose the July 2018 GPEX motion on antisemitism (note 1), currently being discussed by GPEX, which accepts the one-sentence IHRA definition of antisemitism plus all the appended examples (note 2).

This would be a major, controversial change of policy.  If GPEX seeks to move s adoption, then the motion should be put to members at the Autumn Conference to allow for full democratic, transparent debate. This should be preceded by on-line discussion to encourage full participation of members and groups, especially Jewish members and those active in the Palestine solidarity movement.   There also should be a procedure giving the opportunity for timely submissions of alternative motions to the current one.

For identifying anti-Semitism, the motion vaguely refers to ‘the overall context’ yet strangely ignores today’s context, namely: a political campaign weaponising anti-Semitism in order to undermine the Labour Party leadership and to promote false allegations. Those attacks must not intimidate the Green Party to adopt a policy that will inhibit our international solidarity work and free speech more generally. The motion has no recognition that antisemitism has declined among UK voters (especially Labour voters).  It gives no explanation for its apparent urgency, no evidence that antisemitism has become a significant problem within the Green Party, and no evidence that our present procedures are inadequate. The motion accommodates and sanitises the current smear campaign

Within the IHRA guidance document are four contentious examples (f, g, h and j) that have been key weapons for false allegations.  They have been widely criticised, especially by Jewish groups (note 3).  To adopt them would be sleepwalking into censorship; these contentious examples would impose unacceptable political constraints on our campaigning and limit free speech on Israel-Palestine.  Although the motion opposes the use of antisemitism as ‘a political football’ (point 7), the wording would further encourage false allegations against our members, potentially undermining our political effectiveness.   The motion would also increase resentment against Jews for trying to restrict criticism of Israel, given that the four contentious examples have been aggressively promoted by pro-Israel lobby groups (see again Note 2).

In the light of the above we propose, in order of preference:

  1. Green Party policy (Note 4) remains unchanged and the proposed motion is taken no further.
  2. Just the IHRA one-sentence definition, without any examples, is adopted following discussion within the Green Party in line with our democratic principles.


 (1)            The July 2018 Motion to GPEX

  1. GPEx is deeply concerned by current levels of antisemitism in our society. We will take action against all anti-Semitism identified internally and externally, and in particular work across the Green Party to advance understanding of and protection against antisemitism.
  2. GPEx adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is non-legally binding and a working definition. We welcome initiatives to further develop definitions of antisemitism and will regularly review whether they can play a positive role in the Party’s work to tackle antisemitism.
  3. GPEx notes that the contemporary examples given in the guidelines that accompany the definition are not defined as anti-Semitic but are illustrations of what might be antisemitic should the overall context make them so.
  4. GPEx notes the Tomlinson legal opinion of the IHRA definition, particularly that conduct identified in the aforementioned examples, is only antisemitic if it manifests or incites hatred or intolerance towards Jews and that extreme care must be taken when considering some of these examples.
  5. GPEx further notes article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to freedom of expression and reiterates the Green Party’s commitment to protecting freedom of speech and promoting Green Party policy on Israel and Palestine.
  6. GPEx calls on GPRC to develop careful guidance for the Party as to the application of the IHRA definition and to continue to actively monitor the Party’s practices and procedures for responding to allegations of antisemitism.
  1. GPEx rejects any attempts to use antisemitism as a political football.

 [2]   IHRA text and its adoption

As a body representing 31 governments, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) agreed a one-sentence definition of antisemitism in 2016.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”,

Without any official mandate, its website added guidance with numerous examples, most of them about Israel.   The full document with guidance originated in 2004 from the American Jewish Committee, a US pro-Israel lobby group aiming to counter ‘the one-sided treatment of Israel at the United Nations’.  The full document has been widely mis-represented as ‘the internationally agreed definition’ but has not been adopted by any international body.   It has been aggressively promoted by pro-Israel lobby groups, especially in the US and Europe.

In 2016 the full document was adopted by the UK government, which then warned all universities that they must apply the definition and that ‘anti-Semitic comments’ may arise during Israel Apartheid Week 2017.  Several universities denied or cancelled permission to student groups for such events.

 [3] Why the four Israel examples are contentious:  

On 17 July 2018, 30 Jewish organisations in a dozen countries issued a Global Jewish Statement which urges “our governments, municipalities, universities and other institutions to reject the IHRA definition.” The definition, it says, is intentionally worded so that legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights can be equated with anti-Semitism “as a means to suppress the former.” This conflation, it says, “undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against anti-Semitism”.

In July the Labour Party published its own interpretation of the examples, to avoid restricting criticism of Israel.  The two documents have been compared here, with an extra explanation of how the contentious examples restrict criticism of Israel,

 [4] GPEx statement adopted May 2017

GPEx is committed to taking action against antisemitism and notes the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to freedom of expression.

Further notes the Tomlinson legal opinion of the IHRA definition, particularly that conduct identified by the IHRA to illustrate antisemitism is only anti-Semitic if it manifests hatred towards Jews.

GPEx will work across the Green Party to advance understanding of and protect against antisemitism, drawing where helpful on the IHRA definition, at the same time as protecting freedom of speech and promoting Green Party policy on Israel and Palestine.

GPEx will continue to actively monitor the Party’s practices and procedures for responding to allegations of antisemitism. It will also be mindful of initiatives to develop alternative definitions of antisemitism and regularly review whether they can play a positive role in the Party’s work to tackle anti-semitism.

Letter from Caroline Lucas to Tony Greenstein 31st May 2017

Dear Tony,

Thank you for getting in touch. I think it’s vital that we do more to tackle antisemitism and this was my motivation in backing the IHRA definition. As you know, there has been considerable debate about this in the Green Party and the Executive Committee recently adopted a position that notes the IHRA definition and the importance of not conflating criticism of Israel with genuine anti-Jewish racism. It also stressed its commitment to working across the Green Party to advance understanding of and protect against antisemitism, drawing where helpful on the IHRA definition, at the same time as protecting freedom of speech and promoting Green Party policy on Israel and Palestine.

I have taken on the various concerns raised with me about the IHRA definition and have noted the position of Green MEPs. If you are aware of any more helpful definitions, particularly when it comes to illustrative examples, I’d be interested to see them and raise with the Green Party for our ongoing work. My support for the IHRA definition is on record because I signed an Early Day Motion. At the moment I am not able to remove my name but shall enquire whether that’s possible if I am re-elected to Parliament on June 8.

Please be assured that, as a passionate and long standing advocate of Palestinian rights, I reject any idea that support for Palestine equates with antisemitism and share your concern about any attempts to prevent activities or silence voices designed to highlight the ongoing occupation of Palestine and the Israeli authorities’ complicity in human rights and other abuses.

Best wishes, Caroline

Posted by Tony Greenstein 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Green Party: Open Letter to Caroline Lucas

Ron Unz Discusses His Recent Game-Changing, Taboo-Busting Articles About Jewish Power and History

“(The) articles (generated) nearly half a million page views of readership over that short period …  Even more remarkably, (they) provoked nearly 13,000 comments, totaling an astonishing 1.8 million words of text.”


The author is the founder and editor of The Unz Review, a leading conservative American political website. He is also a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, and a one-time candidate for the governor of California. He was once described as ‘the smartest guy in his class’ at Harvard (Class of 2004). His biography on Wikipedia is interesting.

He is Jewish, raised in a Yiddish speaking household, and writes frequently on the Jewish Question.

I’ve recently taken a bit of a break after three long months of writing in my American Pravda series, during which I finally got around to publishing many of the very surprising discoveries I had made over the last fifteen-odd years. That total came to more than 90,000 words of text, and required me to read or (mostly) reread some 40-50 books, so I was quite exhausted by the end of the cycle.

However, the results were quite encouraging, with my small series of articles generating nearly half a million page views of readership over that short period, while helping to drive our small webzine to record-setting traffic. Even more remarkably, those articles provoked nearly 13,000 comments, totaling an astonishing 1.8 million words of text. Indeed, the three most heavily-commented articles in our webzine’s history came from that group, as did five of our seven most widely-read pieces from the last six months.

Furthermore, several of these articles appear to have very strong “legs” and are still attracting enough readership to remain on the front page many weeks after they were first released, suggesting that they may end up accumulating remarkable aggregate traffic across the coming months and years.

Although all items in my American Pravda series have certainly been controversial, many of this group were especially so, with numerous observers noting that I had leaped four-square onto the deadliest “Third Rail” of journalist topics and some of them predicting that I would quickly be annihilated as a consequences of my foolhardy undertaking. I think the following is a reasonable list of these especially “touchy” pieces:

After the first and most innocuous of these pieces ran, an ultra-right-wing blogger quite unfriendly to me claimed that I had gone completely insane and for some bizarre reason had decided to commit immediate journalistic suicide by writing about such utterly forbidden topics. But that statement was made in early June and those reports of my demise seem rather premature.

Another right-winger bitterly hostile to my views said he was astonished that I had dared to publish the “Jewish Religion” article, and declared that if that piece didn’t immediately kill The Review, then absolutely nothing could. Ten weeks have now gone by, and I see no apparent need for any burial shroud.

Several much friendlier readers commended me for my remarkable bravery, but warned that I should prepare myself for one of the most ferocious onslaughts of attacks and denunciations in recent Internet history. Offhand, that might seem a very plausible prediction. After all, writers with far less visibility and readership have sometimes been fried to a crisp by a blast of vituperation for daring to cautiously mention even just one percent of the controversial claims I had boldly made in my columns. Yet almost no such attacks ensued, except from a couple of rather obscure and marginal quarters.

Surely the ADL ranks as the leading enforcer of silence on these sorts of forbidden issues, with Hollywood stars and powerful politicians trembling at merely a cross word from that fearsome organization. But their own silence over the last three months has been absolutely deafening, and without their apparent willingness to participate in any such attack, what other group or individual of any significance would dare to take the lead?

Jonathan Greenblatt, National Director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League since 2015. Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0

A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Or put another way, individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America’s severely malfunctioning political system.

But suppose that same test were applied to the reaction of the ADL and its close allies toward this small series of articles, which have already been read nearly half a million times. What does such total silence indicate about the organization’s opinion on the relative power relationship they would face? I very much doubt that the ADL fears me in the least as an individual, but I do think they may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what keeps them far, far away.

The easiest means of testing this hypothesis would for readers to bring these columns to the direct attention of the ADL and any journalists or activists who may be aligned with it. Perhaps the entire leadership of the ADL has merely been on an extended summer vacation, and remains unaware of the existence of this body of highly controversial material, which they normally would attack in such harsh terms. Surely, they would be grateful at an opportunity to begin earning their munificent salaries.

I don’t use Twitter myself, but I believe it’s very good means for passing along such information and links, and the ADL and its top leadership have several public Twitter addresses, as do their friends and allies.

Meanwhile, I’ve recently spent some time reading a couple of the essay collections of Israel Shamir published in the mid-2000s. These had been sitting on my shelf for three or four years, and found the material extremely interesting.I was very pleased to discover that he had come to so many conclusions quite similar to my own, though his analysis was usually derived from a vastly greater base of historical and personal knowledge rather than my own casual readings here and there. A portion of his articles from such years as 2005 and 2006 are conveniently available here, and provide a flavor of his views.

I first encountered his writings on Counterpunch a few years ago, and I remember the late Alex Cockburn once telling me that no other writer they published received such tremendous support from some of their readers but also such enormous hostility from others. Apparently, the latter group eventually triumphed, and his last column ran there just over three years ago, apparently making him one of the first of their regular contributors to fall in the ongoing purge.Anyway, I’d strongly recommend his books, which so far at least have not yet been banned from

Update – Here’s a nice example of a Tweet someone sent out

View image on Twitter

Kevin Barrett@truthjihad

@ADL has attacked me countless times for saying 1% of what Ron Unz says here! 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, PoliticsComments Off on Ron Unz Discusses His Recent Game-Changing, Taboo-Busting Articles About Jewish Power and History

NATO Suffers Embarrassing Defeat in Macedonia, Running Roughshod Over People Power Is Next

Macedonia can’t join NATO under its constitutional name so NATO wants it to rename itself. In a country where 25 percent are ethnic Albanians (who don’t care about the name Macedonia in the first place) just some 35 percent signaled agreement with the scheme, yet with Western encouragement the local left-wing government is signaling it will plow ahead with a new name

  • With western backing the Macedonians Quislings stooped so low that their referendum question was: “Are you in favour of European Union and NATO membership by accepting the agreement between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Greece?”

Although the September 30, 2018 name-change referendum in Macedonia, which was supposed to set that ex-Yugoslav federal republic on a path to (certain) NATO and (blithely promised but much less certain) EU membership, failed miserably, with only 36.91% of the voters turning out, well short of the 50% + 1 necessary for it to be valid – one would never know it from the reactions of its Western proponents and impatient beneficiaries. Indeed, a new term may be needed to adequately describe the reactions of the key pillars representing the reliquiae reliquiarum of the Western-led post-Cold War unipolar moment. Fake news simply doesn’t do them justice. Fake reality anyone?

The US State Department was firmly in denial, releasing the following statement“The United States welcomes the results of the Republic of Macedonia’s September 30 referendum, in which citizens expressed their support for NATO and European Union (EU) membership by accepting the Prespa Agreement between Macedonia and Greece. The United States strongly supports the Agreement’s full implementation, which will allow Macedonia to take its rightful place in NATO and the EU, contributing to regional stability, security, and prosperity. As Macedonia’s parliament now begins deliberation on constitutional changes, we urge leaders to rise above partisan politics and seize this historic opportunity to secure a brighter future for the country as a full participant in Western institutions.”

EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn wasn’t to be outdone in his contempt for the 63% of the Macedonian “deplorables” who stayed home in order to voice their disagreement with renouncing their perceived national identity and country name (it was to become “Northern Macedonia”) in exchange for the double joy of a) becoming NATO’s cannon-fodder in its increasingly hazardous game of chicken with Russia and b) the EU’s newest debt-serfs: “Referendum in Macedonia: I congratulate those citizens who voted in today’s consultative referendum and made use of their democratic freedoms. With the very significant “yes” vote, there is broad support to the #Prespa Agreement + to the country’s #Euroatlantic path. I now expect all political leaders to respect this decision and take it forward with utmost responsibility and unity across party lines, in the interest of the country.” He was seconded the following day, in a joint statement, by Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the EU Commission.

Understandably, as the most direct public stakeholder, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was particularly (hyper)active. As the disappointing results began to roll in, Stoltenberg went into immediate damage control, tweeting“I welcome the yes vote in Macedonia referendum. I urge all political leaders & parties to engage constructively & responsibly to seize this historic opportunity. #NATO’s door is open, but all national procedures have to be completed.” He reinforced his delusional missive the next day, releasing a similar statement co-signed by EU President Donald Tusk. And the day after, during a news conference, Stoltenberg even offered lightning-quick NATO accession to the unwilling Macedonians – January 2019, to be exact – if they would just be so kind as to urgently implement the very agreement that they had just so emphatically rejected. When NATO says it promotes democratic values – it means it!

But that wasn’t the end of the “democracy mongering” surrounding what may well prove to be NATO’s, the EU’s and the rest of the end-of-history West’s Balkan Waterloo. For example, the EU Parliament’s Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, although “regretting that the turnout was less than 50%,” nevertheless hailed the referendum’s results and “call(ed) on the opposition to respect the expressed will of the majority [sic] of voters.” The Group’s leader, Udo Bullmann, while also maintaining that, somehow, a voter turnout of under 37% still represented a “majority,” additionally used the occasion to chastise Macedonia’s President for having the nerve to call for a boycott of the referendum (he committed the crimethink of referring to it as “historical suicide” during his UN General Assembly address), as well as to decry – what else? – “reports about Russian interference in the electoral process.” It goes without saying that Bullmann offered absolutely zero proof for his assertion. On the other hand, according to numerous media reports, as September 30 approached, while no high Russian official was to be seen anywhere in the vicinity, a veritable procession of Western political bigwigs made the pilgrimage to Skopje in order to reveal to the natives their “true” best interests: Sebastian Kurz“Mad Dog” Mattis, the indefatigable StoltenbergFederica MogheriniJohannes HahnAngela Merkel. No meddling there, obviously…

Speaking of Angela Merkel, she also joined her fellow Western democrats’ show of unanimous disdain for the Macedonian voters’ majority opinion, urging the country to “push ahead” with the implementation of the majority-rejected accord, citing voters’ “overwhelming support” [sic], and arguing through the mouth of her spokesman that the required 50% + 1 turnout was actually “very high,” as voter registers purportedly included many people who had long since left the country.

Coincidentally (?), the same argument was used by Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias, who opined that the “yes” votes cast in the referendum do, in fact, “represent the majority despite the low turnout because Macedonia does not have the 1.8 million voters entered into its electoral rolls but just 1.2 million since 300,000 people have left the country since the voter lists were last updated 20 years ago.” The fallacy of his reality-challenged claim is easily exposed if we just take a glance at the results of Macedonia’s last parliamentary elections (December 2016), in which voter turnout was just under 1.2 million (1,191,832 to be exact) or, officially, 66.79%. If we were to believe Kotzias and Merkel (who lodged no objections at the time), that would have meant that the turnout for the 2016 elections had been 99% – a figure that would make any totalitarian dictator blush with envy. On the other hand, since those elections did produce the “desired result,” enabling the current heavily pro-NATO/EU government led by Zoran Zaev to be formed, that automatically made them “valid” in the eyes of the high priests of democracy in Brussels, Berlin, London and Washington.

Needless to say, Zaev joined his Western patrons’ charade, hailing the referendum as a “democratic success,” and announcing that he would seek the Macedonian Parliament’s support to amend the constitution and get the agreement with Greece ratified (according to the so-called Prespa Agreement, the Macedonian Parliament must adopt the necessary constitutional amendments by the end of 2018) so that the Greek Parliament can do the same, which would seal the deal. However, Zaev and his Albanian political partners are currently well short of the necessary two-thirds majority (reportedly, they can count on 71 deputies, or 9 short of the needed 80), and will have to call early elections if they don’t soon succeed in securing it.

Yet, let it not go unsaid that Zaev was singing a rather different tune prior to the referendum, assuring that “citizens will make the decision,” and that Parliament would vote on the necessary constitutional changes only if the referendum is successful. But that was then, when confidence was still high that the usual combination of Western pressure, money and overwhelming domination of the media spectrum would get the job done. And then reality struck on September 30…

Still, amidst all the faux cheer and public displays of confidence of the pro-NATO/EU crowd, a palpable sense of unease hangs in the air. As a Deutsche Welle opinion piece put it, the “low voter turnout for Macedonia’s referendum is a bad starting point for the country’s future development.” And, according to DW in Serbian, a Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commentary warned that “politicians who otherwise ceaselessly talk of democracy as a ‘special value’ should not call on the parliament in Skopje to accept the voting results.” In other words, Macedonia’s people (read – a large majority of the majority Slavic population) have “voted with their feet” and rejected the agreement, and no new parliamentary election, no matter the results, can change that unpleasant-but-immutable fact. That alone will delegitimize any Western-led effort to “manufacture consent” by ramming the agreement through the present or future Parliament – although, as we know, NATO doesn’t put too much stock in referenda anyway, while the EU is not averse to making citizens vote as many times as needed to obtain the “right” result.

But the West has lost more than just legitimacy in Macedonia – it has damaged its reputation, perhaps irretrievably. In the words of former presidential advisor Cvetin Chilimanov, “The West has humiliated us… Macedonians have rejected this media, psychological, political and propaganda aggression against the people, and that’s the tragedy of these days, that a large percentage of a people that had been genuinely oriented towards the West has changed its mind and stopped looking at the West as something democratic, something progressive and successful… That is the reason for the boycott. Pressure was applied against Macedonia, a country that had always been open to ties with the West, but which did not want to make this disgusting compromise and humiliate itself before the neighboring countries, before Western countries. We did not understand why that humiliation was needed so that we might become a member of Europe. What’s worst, perhaps that is now the thinking of a silent majority of the people, that they won’t forget this insult and this attack on Macedonia.”

Posted in Macedonia, NATOComments Off on NATO Suffers Embarrassing Defeat in Macedonia, Running Roughshod Over People Power Is Next

Anti-Semitism as a Sword: The Danger of Undermining Democracy for Israel’s Benefit


Attacking the cherished principle of free speech not only threatens Jews’ standing in their home countries, it does not help Israel move towards cherished values of democracy and peaceful co-existence either.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Anti-Semitism as a Sword: The Danger of Undermining Democracy for Israel’s Benefit

Clinton political critic murdered in Honduras ‘Video’


Image result for hillary clinton cartoon drawing



When she was Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton green-lighted a violent right wing coup against the democratically elected president of Honduras.

She then worked to tirelessly to discredit its critics.

Now one of those critics, a woman who was a leading human rights leader, just got a bullet in the head.

She wasn’t shy about mentioning Hilary Clinton by name.

Now, during the presidential primary and election season, she won’t be saying anything.

Posted in USA, HondurasComments Off on Clinton political critic murdered in Honduras ‘Video’

U.S. Allocates $38 Billion Military Aid Package to ”Israel” to Boost “Security”


The deal for the aid was signed in 2016 during the Obama administration and will provide $38 billion in US military financing between 2019 and 2028.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on U.S. Allocates $38 Billion Military Aid Package to ”Israel” to Boost “Security”

North Macedonia Referendum: No Shortage of Foreign Meddling but a Major Shortage of Voters


While the naming referendum is often minimized as yet another Balkan spat over trivial matters, what should be clear is that many of the world’s powers, such as the United States, the European Union, NATO, and Russia consider this matter far from inconsequential.

Posted in MacedoniaComments Off on North Macedonia Referendum: No Shortage of Foreign Meddling but a Major Shortage of Voters

John Bolton Just Confirmed the U.S. Is Becoming a Rogue State


After ditching a treaty with Iran to rebuff an ICJ sanctions ruling, Bolton announces review of international agreements to prevent future court decisions.

Posted in USAComments Off on John Bolton Just Confirmed the U.S. Is Becoming a Rogue State

Shoah’s pages


October 2018
« Sep   Nov »