torsdag 31 december 2015

Tyskland döljer alla brott utförda av migranter. Sverige?

Tyskland försöker dölja alla brott som begås av invandrare precis som Sverige. Hur många grova brott myndigheterna lyckas dölja vet ingen.

Police in Germany are covering up the extent of crime committed by migrants

Police in Germany are covering up the extent of crime committed by migrants, claim Bild… as country is revealed to have taken in 1.1 MILLION people during 2015, Daily Mail, Alexandra Genova, December 31, 2015

(Please see also, Merkel urges Germans to see refugee arrivals as ‘an opportunity’ in New Year address. — DM)
♦ Asylum seekers are being recruited as cheap drug dealers and traffickers as well as petty thieves, Bild newspaper claims
♦ police have apparently been ordered to cover up extent of crimes so as not to fuel ‘right wing extremist debate’
♦ Shocking claim comes as Germany registered over one million migrants in 2015 – five times last year’s total
♦ Germany has taken more refugees from the Middle East and Africa than any other EU state
♦ The country is a magnet for migrants partly because of its generous social benefits

German officials have ordered a cover-up of crimes committed by migrants to prevent causing alarm, a local newspaper has claimed.
Asylum seekers are being recruited across the country as cheap drug dealers as well as petty thieves, says German newspaper, Bild – the biggest daily paper in the country.
The paper accused the police of covering up the extent of migrant crimes in order to stop concerns among the general population.
It also claimed asylum seekers were prepared to work for a few euros couriering drugs across the country and said they were being signed up almost as soon as they had registered as asylum seekers.
Migrants GermanyGermany officials have apparently ordered a cover-up of crimes committed by migrants to prevent causing public alarm, German newspaper Bild has claimed
Migrants Germany1Bild claim that migrants are being used as cheap drug traffickers and dealers as well as petty thieves but the extent of the crimes has been hushed up by police so as not fuel right-wing debate
Migrant crime was apparently the hot topic of discussion at gatherings of police, city officials, health officials and other officials dealing with the drug problem in the city of Frankfurt.
As well as drug related crimes, asylum seekers were also being used to sell stolen goods such as mobile phones, which in many cases were sold on to other refugees.
But the paper said that all of the officials dealing with the problem had been ordered not to talk about it, as it was an extremely sensitive subject that has been forbidden to be referred to in an ‘offensive manner’.
The reason given by the paper was to avoid alarming the general public already concerned with the vast number of asylum seekers the country has allowed in, but also to avoid providing material for right-wing extremists.
New arrivals to the country were apparently the most desirable as they did not have any formal way of complaining about what they were asked to do and rarely gave problems to the drug-dealing Mafia.
The most successful couriers are then being recruited into the Mafia and are also being used to bring in further new recruits.
This shocking claim comes as Germany will have registered just over a million migrants by the end of the year, a local paper has claimed.
This is roughly in line with the latest predictions but still about five times more than last year.
Migrants Germany2The shocking claim comes as Germany registered over one million migrants in 2015, five times last year’s total
As Europe’s biggest economy, Germany is a magnet for migrants partly due to generous social benefits and is taking in more refugees from the Middle East and Africa than any other EU state.
Authorities expect about 125,000 asylum seekers to have registered on Germany’s EASY system in December, down considerably from 206,000 last month, Saechsische Zeitung reported, citing unpublished government figures. 
That brings the overall figure to 1.09 million people.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry declined to confirm the numbers which will be available in early January, but Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said in a statement the numbers were falling slightly.
Frau MerkelChancellor Angela Merkel’s popularity has waned as a result of her open-door policy
Germany’s 16 federal states plan to spend about 17 billion euros to deal with the refugee crisis next year, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s popularity has waned as a result of her open-door policy, with some of her own conservatives – especially in Bavaria, the entry point for many seeking asylum – seeking a cap on numbers.
In a speech to her party this month she sought to silence critics by saying she would stem the flow of refugees.
De Maiziere said that creation of an orderly processing of refugee applications meant the situation was improving and that authorities were working hard to register and accommodate refugees.
Merkel’s government is putting measures in place to speed up deportations of those refused asylum.
It is also pushing other EU countries to take more migrants and to work with Turkey to ensure fewer people come to Europe in the first place.
But de Maiziere rejected demands by Merkel’s conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria to ban migrants from entering Germany unless they have valid identity papers.
He said: ‘Regarding the CSU demands to send back refugees without valid identity papers, no further changes are planned.’




Rpt: U.S. Preparing New Sanctions On Iran After Rocket Test - America's Newsroom

Tror nån att Obongon skulle få för sej att GöRA något?

Source: Rpt: U.S. Preparing New Sanctions On Iran After Rocket Test - America's Newsroom

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbVWxHuLkbQ]


Mullornas svar - vad tror du Obongon gör nu?:

Rouhani hits back at Obama, expands missile program

Day after report of new sanctions on ballistic missile program, Iranian president orders to expand program in UN sanction breach.

Kongressen ska undersöka Obamas spioneri av Netanyahu.

Obama har ljugit igen, han hade lovat sluta spionera på Netanyahu men det ingick inte i hans verkliga planer. Han spionerar även på Netanyahus kontakter med Kongressen.

House Intelligence chair to probe NSA spying on Netanyahu


Rep. Devin Nunes says his committee will look into report that the NSA spied on Netanyahu after it was supposed to limit such activities.

By Elad Benari
First Publish: 12/31/2015, 12:13 AM

03
UP NEXT2,700-year-old farm found in Rosh Ha'ayin
00:49
00:49
Created by Wibbitz
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Wednesday his committee will look into a report that the United States spied on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and in the process swept up communications with Congress.
Speaking to The Associated Press, Nunes said he had asked the director of National Intelligence and the head of the National Security Agency (NSA) to come to Capitol Hill next week to brief lawmakers on the matter.
The request comes following a report Tuesday in the Wall Street Journalwhich revealed that even after President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would limit spying on friendly heads of state, the NSA kept watch on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top Israeli officials.
The report said that the spying was done so that the United States could monitor Netanyahu’s campaign against the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.
In the process the agency caught some conversations with U.S. lawmakers, according to the Wall Street Journal.
That is something that would typically be reported to top congressional leaders and the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees, but Nunes said he recalled receiving no such notification.
He said his goal would be to "get the facts" about the situation.
"We're going to play this right down the middle and determine whether or not somebody did something wrong," Nunes told AP by phone from California.
The White House declined to comment on specific intelligence activities carried out by the U.S. But White House officials said the U.S. doesn't spy overseas unless there's a specific, validated national security reason to do so, emphasizing that the principle applies both to world leaders and regular citizens.
Earlier on Wednesday, Likud ministers responded angrily to the report and demanded that Israel protest Washington’s action.
"If the information that was published is shown to be true, Israel should submit an official protest to the American administration, and demand that it stop all activity of this sort," Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz stated.
Immigrant Absorption Minister Ze'ev Elkin said the report highlighted the hypocrisy of the White House in its harsh treatment of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard.
"Precisely on the background of the spying, in opposition to the official declaration that they stopped listening in on friendly states, theirstubbornness on the case of (Jonathan) Pollard, the limitations on him and the refusal to bring him to Israel seem even more unacceptable," Elkin said.
Netanyahu's office, as well as the spokesman of the foreign ministry, declined to comment on the report.




EU hittar på låtsaslagar för att trakassera - du vet vem.

Ytterligare en gedigen artikel om alla "lagar" EU har hittat på fritt ur fantasin och vad Israel kan göra. Läs noga.

Translations of this item:
  • Israel's occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel's rights to remain there until such time as there is a "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
  • When the EU states that its aim is "to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967," it refuses to recognize the validity of UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by "sovereignty."
  • As only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated in the UN Resolution 181, which established a Jewish and an Arab state.
  • The European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India -- all with territories under dispute -- label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel.
  • "The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel." -- Law Professors Eugene Kontorovich (Northwestern University) and Avi Bell (University of San Diego).
On December 7, 2015, Germany, of all countries, announced its support for the EU labelling of products produced on disputed land sometimes referred to as Israeli "settlements." Apart from the fact that Palestinians openly consider the entire country of Israel -- "from the River to the Sea" -- one big settlement, one can only marvel at what is now being imposed by the EU and, this week, by Germany.
Faced with the greatest crisis in its 22-year history -- an influx of millions of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan -- the European Union spent much of November on its long-debated policy of the labelling of products from the disputed territories of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. On November 11, it demanded that exports (mainly fruit and vegetables) from these areas no longer be labelled "produced in Israel."
The four-page "Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967", issued by the EU's executive body, the 28-member European Commission, makes assumptions about Israel and the territories that have already been challenged by Israeli officials. It begins with the following paragraph:
(1) The European Union, in line with international law, does not recognise Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and does not consider them to be part of Israel's territory, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law. The Union has made it clear that it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
If this is the basis for a discriminatory measure, it has little or no legal basis. The claim that their interpretation of Israeli rights in the territories mentioned is "in line with international law" raises the simple question: "which international law?"

Israel's occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel's rights to remain there until such time as there is a "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

As no secure and recognized boundaries have been established, despite numerous attempts by the government of Israel to bring them about, Israel's presence there remains entirely legal. And as only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated into UN Resolution 181, which called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state.

Similarly, the statement that the EU "will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders" is legally invalid as well as obnoxious. No such pre-1967 borders ever existed. The armistice lines, established in 1949 on the termination of the 1948-1949 war between Israel and its several Arab enemies, are not borders. And as the 1967 war was fought by Israel as a war of defence, its alleged "occupation" (which then included the Gaza Strip) of territories previously occupied by two of the belligerent states (Egypt in Gaza, and Jordan in the West Bank) is fully legal under the international laws of armed combat, principally under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

When the EU's Interpretative Notice goes on to state that its aim "is also to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967," it clearly does not recognize the validity of a major international agreement, UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by "sovereignty."
The many debates over the occupation, international law, sovereignty status and so forth need to be addressed in their own right. Suffice to say here that the EU's blanket declaration of its enforcement of international law is seriously open to question. And, it must be added, its inclusion of Gaza in the occupied territories takes no account of the fact that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 and that no goods exported from Gaza have been labelled "produced in Israel" for over a decade.
The Israeli response to the EU decision was swift. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahucommented:
"The EU decision is hypocritical and constitutes a double standard; it singles out Israel and not the 200 other conflicts around the world. The EU has decided to label only Israel, and we are not prepared to accept the fact that Europe is labeling the side that is being attacked by terrorism. The Israeli economy is strong and will withstand this; those who will be hurt will be those Palestinians who work in Israeli factories. The EU should be ashamed."
Netanyahu was backed by the leader of Israel's main opposition party, the Zionist Union, Isaac Herzog. He said that he "strongly opposes this harmful and unnecessary measure." Herzog called the ruling "a prize that Europe is bestowing for terror," and adding that it "serves only one purpose -- continuing the hate and regional conflict. Marking these products is an act of violence by extremists who want to further inflame the situation and the EU is falling into their trap."

Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs expressed further support for the determination that the new legislation is discriminatory. It pointed out the discriminatory nature of the decision: "It is puzzling and even irritating that the EU chooses to apply a double standard concerning Israel, while ignoring that there are over 200 other territorial disputes worldwide, including those occurring within the EU or on its doorstep. The claim that this is a technical matter is cynical and baseless."

Netanyahu and the Israeli Foreign Ministry are right. There are countless territorial disputes round the world. Ones that stand out are those in which a state illegally occupies or incorporates the territory of another people. After the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, the country was incorporated into the People's Republic of China as an "Autonomous Region." When Spain and Mauritania withdrew from the Western Sahara in 1976 and 1979 respectively, Morocco annexed the area. It still occupies two-thirds of this vast (100,000 square miles) territory, despite the absence of any UN resolution recognizing its sovereignty there. Kashmir is controlled by no fewer than three countries -- India, Pakistan and China -- each of which holds a different part of the former princely state. This division has led to two wars between India and Pakistan, and remains hotly contested, without a formal international recognition of territorial rights. In 2014, Russia dispatched armed forces, started a war, and annexed Crimea, a territory that had been formally recognized as part of Ukraine. The UN General Assembly subsequently issued a resolution that called on the international community not to recognize any change to the status of Crimea.
All of the above disputes involve territorial claims that are essentially illegal, yet the European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel. There are no labels saying "Product of Tibet (produced by Han Chinese occupiers)", "Crimean produce under Russian occupation," or "Western Sahara phosphates (extracted by Moroccan settlers)."


It gets worse. The European Union was a joint signatory (with the US, the UK, China, France, Russia and Germany) to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the notorious deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that permits it to build nuclear weapons, despite its decades-long repeated violations of its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In anticipation of the lifting of the sanctions against Iran, European diplomats and businessmen have been packing their bags and heading to Tehran to set up commercial deals that will allow the export of European products to Iran and the import of Iranian goods to Europe: a "Pistachio Deal." They are being encouraged to do so by European governments, such as the UK through its Trade and Investments wing. But Iran is the world's biggest terrorism-supporting state, and Tehran is still deeply engaged with fighting in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while supporting Hamas in Gaza and manoeuvring to increase its influence in the West Bank.
This seemingly innocuous move, taken for purportedly "technical reasons," clearly reveals the racist, anti-Semitic underpinnings still alive and well in members of the European Union. It singles out Israel for treatment not meted out to other, larger countries, even where their occupation and annexation has led, and still leads to, conflict, crime, terrorism, and even repeated threats of genocide. Such a singling-out reflects the many other ways in which countries, world bodies (such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, or the UN Human Rights Council) isolate Israel and hold it to arbitrary, fabricated standards not applied to any other country in the world.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, of which this European labelling is a part, takes the issue of marking products even farther. It does not just involve itself only with capriciously directing commerce; it also tries to muscle academic, cultural, and scientific spheres. The EU directive on labelling is already being cheered as a justification of BDS policy. Ramallah-based Mahmoud Nawajaa, general coordinator for the Palestinian BDS National Committee has said labelling was a "sign that European governments are reacting to public opinion, civil society campaigning and Israeli intransigence and are becoming more willing to take some basic action against Israeli violations of international law." He did not, of course specify which laws were Israel was presumably violating.

Israel is not alone in rejecting the EU directive. On November 9, a bipartisan group of 36 U.S. Senators, led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sent a letter to the EU's foreign policy czar, Federica Mogherini, to protest the EU's decision. They emphasized the potential of the directive to encourage and expand the boycott movement:
"As allies, elected representatives of the American people, and strong supporters of Israel, we urge you not to implement this labeling policy, which appears intended to discourage Europeans from purchasing these products and promote a de facto boycott of Israel, a key ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East... We are also deeply concerned that enacting this policy would lead to the broader boycott of Israel."
Similarly, a spokesman for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party declared that the decision to label settlement products was not a step to protect customers, but would instead create a "stigma" against Israel. He added that the ruling was a "mistake."
It is not just American senators who find the EU measure offensive. Several academic lawyers specializing in international law have addressed its contents, and have found them inaccurate, contradictory and lacking in justice. One such lawyer, Jonathan Turner of "UK Lawyers for Israel," wrote in a personal communication on November 11:
Note that the Notice claims at the same time that: It is important that products from the West Bank and "East Jerusalem" cannot be labelled "product of Israel" because (1) the EU (channeling the authority to speak on behalf of "international law") does not recognize these areas as part of Israel and (2) consumers might be confused and think that the areas are part of Israel.
It is okay for products from the West Bank, "East Jerusalem" and Gaza to be labelled "product of Palestine" because (1) even though the EU doesn't recognize a state of Palestine, that doesn't make a difference and (2) magically consumers will not be confused.
In October 2015, just weeks before the EU directive was issued, two international law professors wrote a 35-page summary of the legal issues involved in the process. Eugene Kontorovich, professor of international law at Northwestern University, and Avi Bell, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and at Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, published a paper titled "Challenging the EU's Illegal Restrictions on Israeli Products in the World Trade Organization". Among the points they make is that the EU labelling process is illegal according international law:
The EU's proposed measures restrict Israeli trade in violation of international trade law found in numerous multilateral treaties, including articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; Articles IX, X and XIII of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and Article 2.3 and 5.6 of the Agreement on the Applications Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, among others.
The discriminatory nature of the legislation is made clear in a precise manner:
Any justifications the EU could adduce for its policies are undermined by their admittedly discriminatory application. The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel. This violates the fundamental rules of the GATT/WTO system, under which even otherwise valid trade restrictions are void if not applied uniformly to WTO members. Thus Israel's successful assertion of its rights in no way involves having the WTO accept its position on the status of the territories.
Finally, they add a caveat addressing the technical point that the territories are not part of Israel:
EU arguments that these territories are not part of Israel are irrelevant in this context. The scope of the WTO agreements explicitly extend beyond a country's sovereign territory, and include territories under its "international responsibility." The drafting history and subsequent application of the GATT make clear that this involves territories under military occupation
In a much shorter but comprehensive piece written just after the EU announcement of its new policy, Avi Bell addresses some of the central issues. Like Jonathan Turner, he sees both contradiction and discrimination in the ruling:
The Notice says that when products from the Golan Heights, "East" Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are sold in Europe, they must not be labeled as "products of Israel" because the EU believes that these areas are not sovereign parts of Israel under international law and, therefore, consumers would be misled if they were labeled "products of Israel." However, the Notice states that it would be lawful to label products from the West Bank and Gaza as "products of Palestine" (and maybe from "East" Jerusalem as well, though the Notice is ambiguous on this point) even though the EU does not recognize the sovereignty of a state of Palestine. This is because presumably European consumers only care that product labels reflect EU views of sovereignty under international law when this works to the disadvantage of Israel.
He also draws attention to a British legal precedent that contradicts the EU position:
The Notice claims that it is doing nothing more than providing guidance in response to "a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities." Yet, the Notice not only fails to cite any evidence of this alleged demand, it ignores a British Supreme Court decision that states quite explicitly that there is no such demand -- in the 2014 case of Richardson and another v. Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court ruled that "there was no basis for saying that the average consumer would be misled ... simply because [a product was] described as being [made in] Israel when actually it was [made in the West Bank]."
It is worth quoting further from this well-argued document. One of Bell's strongest points is made when he demolishes the EU's rights to establish international borders and its ability to legislate history:
The Notice presents its position on the borders between Israel and a future state of Palestine as those of "international law" as if the EU had the authority under international law to establish Israeli-Palestinian borders. In fact, not only does the EU lack this authority under international law, the EU is signed as a witness on Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements that state that the borders are to be established only by agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Similarly, the Notice claims that the EU "will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process" even though there were no pre-1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders. In fact, by trying to establish the pre-1967 Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt armistice lines as the new Israeli-Palestinian borders, the EU is trying to force changes to the pre-1967 borders contrary to the agreement of the parties to the peace process. Ironically, the EU is trying to rewrite history as well, since there is no country in the EU that viewed the armistice lines as borders pre-1967.
In the face of so many emphatic legal red lights, it is clear is that the directive would not have been issued at all if there had not been a strong pre-existing EU bias against Israel, its government and its people. Sadly, Europe has clearly returned to its oldest racist hatred. The past decade and more has seen a marked recrudescence of not only the old anti-Semitism in European states, but also the new anti-Semitism -- one motivated by a hatred of the Jewish state of Israel. The duplicitous attempt at a distinction between the hatred of individual Jews and the hatred of the Jewish state is demonstrated in the many instances above of unequal application of the law. There are means available for Israel to fight this bigoted "Jim Crow" ruling.[1]
In the 1930s, Jewish shops, businesses and goods were labelled with Jewish stars and the word "Jude." Everyone thought that this style of crude anti-Semitism had vanished from our towns and cities. Yet today, sadly, the same racism has returned at the highest level of European government.
Denis MacEoin is a former editor of the Middle East Quarterly, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gatestone Institute, and the author of numerous books and articles on the Middle East and Islam.

[1] Kontorovich and Bell's analysis provide important guidelines for how to tackle the problem through legal means:
  • Israel must begin the process of preparing to assert its international trade rights in the WTO's dispute resolution system, a quasi-judicial forum with authority to overturn measures that violate these rules.
  • This would then be followed by formal consultations with EU trade officials, a required "out-of court" step before invoking the WTO dispute resolution process.
  • The process should be monitored at the ministerial level or by a special interministerial committee. It is important to note that even the beginning of formal consultations does not commit Israel to bringing a dispute to a panel, and even then the matter can be narrowed or settled at any time. The substantial majority of WTO disputes never result in a ruling, but are settled diplomatically. However, bringing a dispute provides for diplomatic leverage that would otherwise be absent.
  • It is extremely likely that the EU would respond to Israeli moves towards the WTO with a vocal and forceful reaffirmation of its position. This is commonplace in WTO disputes. Israel must be prepared to not be intimidated by such protests. The likely consequence of a failed WTO approach will be no worse than a failed diplomatic one, and the chances of success are much higher.
  • If other steps fail, Israel should vigorously pursue a challenge to the measures through the WTO's dispute resolution system. The WTO has the power to rule the EU measures illegal. Moreover, it can authorize various forms of retaliation and self-help by Israel.

© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.




USA slut på bomberna mot ISIS.

Är USA effektivt? Åtminstone används mycket vapen.

Air Force burning through bomb stockpiles striking ISIL

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 7:27 p.m. EST December 3, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Air Force has fired more than 20,000 missiles and bombs in the air war against the Islamic State, depleting its stocks of munitions and prompting the service to scour depots around the world for more weapons and to find money to buy them, according to records obtained by USA TODAY.

The Air Force efforts come as the Pentagon has stepped up airstrikes on Islamic State, or ISIL, targets in Iraq and Syria. That bombing campaign began in August 2014 in Iraq, spread to Syria a month later and has continued to target ISIL fighters and equipment.

Klicka på rubriken för att läsa vidare.




Israels drönare utvecklas, 80% säljs på export till bl.a. Schweiz,Sydamerika.

Israel har blivit världbäst på att bygga drönare, UAVs (vad är det det betyder, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles tror jag),  ibland i samarbete med USA. Där finns många olika storlekar med olika flygtid, som länk. Vill du köpa en, se länk.

onsdag 30 december 2015

Iran har vunnit stort mot väst och Obongon igen.

Obama har helt stängt ögon, öron och näsa för vad som händer i Iran.  Iran ger små saker som är lätta att ersätta och får lättnad på sanktioner och pengar att öka terrorn för. Obongon har stopopat IAEA från att göra undersökningar i Iran, något som var absoluta villkor från t.ex. Frankrike - tills de plötsligt flipfloppade som om de hade fått en ordentlig muta.




Experts: 'Iran has achieved a major victory'



Head of Washington think tank tells ‘Post’: Tehran traded away easily-reversible nuclear concessions like enriched uranium and first-generation centrifuges.

A MILITARY truck carrying a missile and a picture of Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei drives in a parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war in Tehran. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Experts dealing with the Iranian nuclear file told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that Iran’s shipment of more than 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia on Monday is not very significant in the big picture.

Under the nuclear accord, certain US, EU and UN sanctions are to be removed in exchange for Iran accepting long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West has long suspected was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb.

“Iran has achieved a major victory by trading away easily- reversible nuclear concessions like enriched uranium and first-generation centrifuges that all can be easily reconstituted,” Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, told the Post.

“Rather than permanently blocking Iran’s nuclear weapons pathways, the deal opens a patient path to a nuclear weapon,” said Dubowitz.

“Tehran simply has to follow the deal to emerge in 10 to 15 years as a much more dangerous adversary with a massive nuclear program, an advanced centrifuge-powered rapid path to a bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles, regional dominance and its economy immunized against future sanctions,” he added.

A key provision of the agreement, negotiated by Iran with the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany, is Tehran’s commitment to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to below 660 pounds.

Emily Landau, a senior research fellow and the director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, told the Post that while some are celebrating the shipping to Russia of low-enriched uranium, there are issues remaining in the larger context of the deal.

Of course, the removal of uranium from Iran is a step in the right direction, she said, but “it was not unexpected. It wasn’t expected to be an obstacle.”

The reconfiguration of the Arak heavy water reactor so that it cannot produce material for a nuclear bomb is another step that needs to be carried out according to the deal.

However, the overall picture is not good, continued Landau, especially if we take into consideration developments over the past few months, such as Iran’s testing of a ballistic missile, which violated UN Security Council resolutions.

“Iran is testing the waters with the missile test and it drew no firm response,” Landau said.

Furthermore, the INSS expert expressed doubt that thorough inspections can be implemented if Iran is limiting them, especially by not allowing direct access to its military sites.

“Iran obviously advanced the military component of its nuclear program at military bases.”

“By closing the file on past military dimensions of the nuclear program, the IAEA is further weakening its ability to ensure Iran cannot build nuclear weapons down the line,” added Landau.

The UN nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation board decided this month to close its investigation into whether Iran once had a secret nuclear weapons program, opting to support Tehran’s deal with world powers rather than dwell on its past actions.

The IAEA, in a separate report issued this month, strongly suggested that Tehran had a nuclear weapons program for years, but – in a sign of the shift in ties since Tehran’s deal with major powers in July – Washington said it was not concerned.

In a report required under that deal, titled “Final Assessment of Past and Present Outstanding Issues Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Program,” the IAEA gave its clearest assessment of Iran’s past activities in more than a decade of investigation.

“The Agency assesses that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort,” the IAEA said in the confidential report to its Board of Governors viewed by Reuters.

“What kind of message does it send to Iran that it is closing the file,” Landau asked.

If at some point Iran decides to leave the deal or waits until the deal ends in 10 years, it can replenish its uranium stockpile, she noted.

In addition, she explained, “the deal allows Iran to continue research and development of advanced centrifuges, which down the road could enable the country to replenish its enriched uranium at a faster pace.”

Asked what the next US president could do to better ensure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb, Landau responded that there could be “greater political will for stricter enforcement.”

Also, she said, there are other factors that should be taken into account, such as Tehran’s holding of American prisoners and its ongoing support for terrorism.

Landau does not think it is realistic that a new US administration would renegotiate the deal.

“The Obama administration is projecting that they are willing to close their eyes to what Iran is doing,” argued Landau.


Litar du på Obongon?

Report: Obama spied on Netanyahu after NSA reforms

Wall Street Journal reveals the United States intercepted Netanyahu's calls in order to monitor his campaign against the Iran deal.






Polisbrutaliteten i Israel fortsätter.

Jag har nu skrivit ett antal artiklar om detta, länk1 länk2 länk3

Här ger domstolen polisen en order om att släppa deras offer efter lång tids illegalt fängslande. De ror att de har alla rättigheter inkl. bryta emot lagen på flera punkter. I sin upphetsning av att under 5 mmånaders babblande från Ya'alon inte ha hittat en enda skyldig utan släppa den ena efter den andra efter tortyr. Stora demonstrationer mot toppolitikerna som jamsat med polisen utan att träffa ett enda av offren.

30 december

Watch: Duma suspect finally released

Saudiarabien utfattigt.

Alla skäller på Saudiarabien - se vår utrikesblondin som hittar mycket fler fel hos dem än hos t.ex. Iran som har mycket fler avlivningar eller Qatar som stöder mycket fler terrorister.

Se http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-arabia-announces-record-98-billion-deficit-in-2015/

All har gått snett. De räknade aldrig med att USA skulle utvinna så mycket olja via fracking. Deras krig mot Irans terrorister i Jemen har blivit dyrt. Nu är det i stället Qatar som är rika som troll - och dessutom överöser terrorister som det vidriga Hamas med överskottet.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4898/qatar-terrorism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html

     . .........

tisdag 29 december 2015

Israel har absolut inget att vinna på närmre kontakt med islamiststaten Turkiet.

Entydlig överblick över förhållandet mellan Israel och Turkiet som jag sympatetiserar med.
Vad han inte nämner är Turkiets armes behov av Israel som både levererade och servade många av deras vapen innan. Där finns ingen fiendskap mellan Israel och kurderna men inte heller någon anledning att Israel ska leverera fler drönare till Erdogan för hans folkmord av kurderna. Israel kan hitta många köpare av deras gas även om de snart bör bestämma sig, helst innan Egypten blir klara att börja sälja, vilket tar några år. Ett tag var Australien redo att köpa men backade ur pga den omöjliga byråkratin Israel levererade. Kanske dags att ta upp det igen, där finns flera möjliga köpare i den änden av Asien.


måndag 28 december 2015

Vad hade Dror Failure med på första resan till solen?

Nu när Erdogan har börjat yla i högan sky om allt han vill ha i samma stil som Arafat och Abbas. Ha, ha, ha, aldrig ge något i gengäld som andra länder gör i förhandlingar. TT

Erdogans turkiska armada anföll illegalt Israel, illegalt enligt FN
Där fanns ingen humanitär hjälp alls,

ISIS är bara rädda för Israel.

ISIS fattar vilket som är det enda landet som kan hota dem - Israel, och erkänner det. Hur Israel kommer att göra får vi vänta och se. De har ofta kommit med direkta överraskningar.




'The only country ISIS fears in the Middle East is Israel'