Eretz5: Vatican's immoral treaty with 'Palestine' will bring confusion and war.

The Vatican is to sign a treaty formally recognizing an entity called ‘the State of Palestine’. It is a big mistake. It is likely to lead to war, disputes and further injustice. Is the pope ignorant or has he lost his balance? He called PLO leader and Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Abbas  ‘an angel of peace’ and  gave him a medal.
Angel? Do angels tell the truth? Abbas (war name or kunya: Abu Mazen) wrote a holocaust-denying PhD in Moscow of the USSR as part of a Cold War disinformation campaign. The book is still reprinted and in circulation. No retraction. Abbas wants a Jew-free State. Is the pope’s commendation for Holocaust-denial and a Nazi-style Judenrein State the sort of moral conduct Europeans would expect from a religious leader?
Peace? Would any right-minded person call Abbas, who glorifies hijackers of a public bus who killed in cold blood 37 people (12 of them children), ‘an angel of peace’? Just a few weeks ago Abbas celebrated the March 1978 coastal road massacre in his Facebook post addressed to Israelis! He even exaggerated the bloody gore by saying there were 80 victims. He then told Israelis that ‘they should take their body parts and leave! The Vatican can hardly be unaware of this and other devilish remarks about murders or his fellow ‘Palestinians‘ in Syria.
The Vatican is not a member of the UN, nor was it a member of the earlier League of Nations. As a Permanent Observer State, a status granted in 1964, it maintains that ‘ its only competency is in elucidation of questions of principle in morality and public international law.'
The so-called ‘State of Palestine’ has no elected government, no defined borders and is in cahoots with terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood vowed to destroy Israel. In their constitutions, the PA’s National Covenant and Fatah’s Charter  maintains a similar objective. What would a PA State look like? Even at present the PA has a law that any Arab selling land to a Jew will be killed.
It took a pope like John-Paul II to recognize Israeli statehood! When? 1994! Nearly a half century late!  Why? Is the Vatican’s bizarre move now due to a resurgence of antisemitism to sideline the State of Israel?
It is shocking to normal, outside observers that the Vatican — which should know something about  the history of Israel and be familiar with the Bible — is showing such deplorable ignorance about both. Worse, such a treaty would likely ignite and stoke up further violence and war in the Near East. This move also shows that the present Vatican leaders have lost touch with basic principles of moral philosophy.
Let’s assume the technical ‘Palestine’ government of  Fatah and Hamas exists. What then is the purpose for the Vatican to sign a treaty with a group allied to Hamas which openly proclaims its objective as the destruction of Israel and the Jews?
What would be the purpose of signing a treaty with Abbas whose corrupt regime trains children to become martyrs by killing Jews, glorifies jihadis and celebrates them in public monuments and sport? Would that be morally acceptable in the streets of Rome?
Let’s turn to international law.
All States who joined the UN agreed to abide by the international law established by the League of Nations. That included the recognition of the historical borders of the Land of Israel.
Israel owes its international law recognition, not just to the UK’s Balfour Declaration of the Lloyd George government but principally the decision taken by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo, on 24 April 1920. The Jewish State was thus incorporated into law of the Treaty of Sèvres. Recognition became part of the conditional entrance requirements of the League and the later United Nations. This is a recognition of long-standing, continuous, undisputed rights, not a grant by other States. Like Britain it has been recognized as a 3000 year-old independent State, regardless of some invasions.
All Arab States subscribed to this when they became members of the UN. Indeed the very existence of those States relies on a similar, parallel process of international law. Deny one and they also deny their own existence!
What did those same Arab States do in 1948? They illegally declared war on the newly proclaimed State of Israel. Seven national armies, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, tried to march into this territory ILLEGALLY in unprovoked war. The Arabs living inside western Palestine were not planning an attack. The armies invaded an area that the United Nations still referred to as ‘Judea and Samaria’.
Yes, Arab Muslim armies illegally invaded an area where Jews lived called Judea! This is one reason why Arab oil-fed propaganda after the 1967 Six Day War wanted to change the name of Judea and Samaria to ‘West Bank’. How could they influence world public opinion by accusing Jews of illegally occupying Judea?
Judea became illegally occupied by Jordan.
(Jordan was initially called Transjordan. On the East Bank of the Jordan river, TRANS-Jordan indicates it was a transitory arrangement of the 1920s. It was trans, meaning across but still part of Israel, being across the Jordan from Israel’s capital, Jerusalem.) Jordan’s ‘king’ was hardly ‘legal’. The usurping Wahabite ‘king’ Saud had earlier expelled the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia!
The term ‘Palestine’ in 1948, both before and for many years afterwards, meant the Land of Israel. ‘Palestinian’ meant ‘Jews’ of Israel. No Arab State called ‘Palestine’ ever existed in history. (Only in the 1960s did the concept of ‘Arab Palestine’ arise, thanks to Egyptian and Soviet disinformation services.) Before this Arabs called themselves ‘southern Syrians’ or identified by name as Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis etc. They still do.
What’s in it for the Vatican? Is it claiming title to property it occupies in Israel? Does it still believe it has rights to tax-free extra-territoriality for the places it occupies? Does it still want Jerusalem (Israel’s capital since 1967!) to become an international City under its control and influence? Is that why the Vatican refuses to recognize the ‘eastern’ parts of Jerusalem as being part of Israel? Israeli officials pose the question: ‘What makes the Roman Catholic Church different from all the other nominally Christian churches?’
Does the Vatican move completely reject international law and justice?
A treaty with Palestinian Arabs puts the Vatican in the same thieving camp as some Muslim Arabs. Let me explain. One Arab proudly boasted that the property he had was legitimately his because it had been given to his forefathers by Saladin. Saladin was a foreign military invader. This Kurdish leader, born in Tikrit, who founded the Ayyubid dynasty in the twelfth century was proclaimed sultan of Egypt and Syria. He conquered Syria and fought the Crusaders.
Saladin, like the Romans before him, had no legal rights. During this process he killed some Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. That does not make property transfer legitimate. Saladin is no more. Neither is the bloody sword of his caliphate. Property belongs to the Jewish families from whence it was taken.
The Crusaders probably killed far more Jews. They burned the Jerusalem synagogue to the ground. They gave Jewish property to the Roman church.
So which of the two, Saladin or the Crusaders, really owned the land? Obviously neither. They merely dispossessed or killed some of the rightful owners whose families had lived there for three thousand years. The Greeks, Syrians, Romans, Islamic and Mongol hordes, Ottoman Turks did the same.
The Crusaders of the twelfth century may well have built the so-called Tomb of David. Above it is the Cenacle, also claimed by the Vatican. It is falsely called the Upper Room of the New Testament. (It was nowhere near there!)
You do not have to be a Permanent Observer at the United Nations with a self-given remit for morality and international public law to conclude that the Vatican has no legal right to this property or any other given by the Crusaders.
Is the pope a descendant of Jewish King David? No, he claims he is a Non-Jew, of Italian extraction from Argentina. Does the Roman church (among all the other churches) have any claim to Davidic property? No. Legally the property stays in the Davidic and Jewish family. There was no corporate ownership in Israel in biblical times. Nor is Rome in Israel!
If the Vatican wants to continue a claim for Jewish property, if it want to recognize a State of Palestine on the ancient land of Israel, then it had better be prepared for a shock. The Vatican should await a claim from the  Gauls, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks and ‘Holy Roman’ Germans.
They could apply Vatican moral and legal logic. They and others who once invaded Rome may lodge a property claim against the Vatican!

Circus9: European Commission EP Report discloses 2019 Election Dirty Tricks

The Christian Democrat  EPP, Socialists and Liberals think they have the eternal right to select old and pensioned-off politicians to be their Commissioners. The European Commission, was once a politician-free zone. It was then much more effective politically. One Commission president was a law professor, another was an engineer, a third was formerly a trades unionist.Together they stood firm against the powerful nationalist policy of de Gaulle who wanted to destroy the very idea of a European Community. Party hacks would have compromised the idea of Justice and European rights.
How do I know? Just look what party politicians are doing today, ignoring treaty articles on citizens’ rights in the smoke of their own propaganda machines! Read their reports to each other!
Now composed of entirely of party politicians contrary to Treaty law, the party political Commission has just explained in a Report how it wishes to seize permanent, undemocratic control of the European Commission. It won’t discuss flagrant political bias and abuse against the citizens, financial corruption and tax.
The treaties say the Commission should be composed of a small number of independent, experienced people from all walks of life. The treaties forbid national governments choosing national representatives. They forbid party politicians becoming Commissioners because that is a temptation for corruption. These rules have been turned on their head.
In 2013 the governments in Council were supposed to reduce the number of Commissioners.  What did they do? They decided without telling the public that the Commission would be entirely composed of party political national buddies acting as representatives. And they refused to tell the public of their decision or discuss it!  Is this shocking fact discussed in the new Commission report?
What do you think?
Last year’s European Parliament election had the lowest turnout of the voters — EVER! It was not due to apathy. The nationalist parties around Europe whether the Scottish Nationalist Party in UK or the National Front (FN) in France or the True Finns in Finland can all bring out their voters. The so-called ‘anti-Europeans’ like UKIP, are also increasing their support. Greece has its neo-Communist, anti-austerity party. Italy barely escaped from its own instant party government led by a comedian Beppe Grillo. In 2013 it rose from nothing to become the largest party in the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
The parallel decline in the European vote while the nationalist vote is booming shows that voters believe that European democracy is not working. The only way Joe and Jane Voter have to influence European policy is to select a nationalist party to fight their corner behind the closed doors of the Council.
Europe celebrated 65 years since its first treaty. Yet it has NEVER had a proper European election as repeated in articles in all the many European treaties. It has 28 national elections for the EP, each with its own electoral rules that favour national cartel parties. This allows some nationals to have the equivalent of ten or more votes and others none! The report says there is a need to act ‘far in advance of the next elections‘ but is the need for uniform, fair electoral rules discussed?
What do you think? What the report discusses is how to get politicians permanently into the 2019 Commission as antidemocratic, nepotistic ‘lead candidates‘. Mr Juncker selected by a handful of EPP faithful then got only 10 percent of the electorate to vote for him. In UK it was close to zero.
(The cartel parties think they know all the tricks. Take the example of the first-past-the-post trick in the Mother of Parliaments. UKIP’s 3.8 million votes resulted in just one seat in the House of Commons! Compare that with 56 MPs the SNP got with only 1.5 million votes! But social media is encouraging instant, rebel or anti-establishment parties, overtaking a century of tradition.)
Both nationalists and anti-Europeans are beaming a red light and blasting a siren warning to Brussels.
The Brussels political clique — composed of the EPP (Christian Democrats), the Liberals and the Socialists — are not listening. Their eyes are tight shut. They are already on the road to try an fleece the voters of democratic rights for the next European Parliament in 2019.
What does the European Commission’s official ‘Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections‘  say? The cover is labelled (or should I say libels) ‘Justice and Consumers‘!

‘The 2014 elections stemmed the steady fall in overall turnout since the first direct Elections in 1979.’

Oh! Really?  If that is so, can all Europeans now go to the betting shop and place a big bet on the election turnout in 2019 being bigger? The Commission, as far as I know, has no powers of prophecy. It has Gaullist-style five-year or ten-year plans such as that for 2000,  and so on to 2020.  After many populations in several referendums had rejected outright what later became the Lisbon Treaties, these ‘plans‘ refused even to discuss democracy. The 2020 plan also refused to discuss energy blackmail that costs Europeans trillions of euros. That for 2030 refused to discuss how Europeans made war both ‘unthinkable and materially impossible‘.
These plans are characterized by myopia and blindness. Today Europeans are robbed by gas and oil energy providers and surrounded by hostile forces in the East and by religious fanatics across the Mediterranean and in the Middle East.
Europe needs proper democracy. Even putting to one side the shock victory of UK Prime Minister David Cameron over the entire gaggle of pollsters, that totally inaccurate prediction of stemming voter decline is not what an impartial Commission of civil servants should be publishing at taxpayers’ expense. It is politicized and politically biased nonsense. Eurocrats are supposed to publish facts not fiction.
The Commission’s full-colour 24-page report has no reference number or ISDN except saying that it is from the Commission’s Justice and Consumer section. The Eurocrat folks there must have a bizarre sense of law and justice and a rather twisted view of consumer rights!
The truth is the 2014 EP election saw the lowest voter participation EVER! Therefore the trend is down, down, and continuously down! There was no upturn. No break in the trend. Here are the actual figures given in the report showing there is no stemming to the downward trend. If it were not for some Member States like Belgium and Greece where voting is mandatory by law, the average would be even lower. Many other States would reflect the woeful rates of the Czech Republic ( with18% turnout) or Slovakia (13%). Here are the figures from the Report itself:
1979      1984      1989      1994      1999      2004      2009      2014
62        59         58.4           56.7         49.5          45.5         43         42.6
percentage voter turnout at European elections.
The politicians who have seized control of the institutions cannot even raise enthusiastic voters among the populace of the new Member States! In Croatia only one in four voted. Why? People ask: ‘What’s it all for, seeing the budget and practical results of the funds are cooked up in secret in closed door budget or tax discussions!’ No press is allowed! What a travesty of ‘no taxation without representation‘ — the cry of the American Revolution. The representatives of Justice and Consumer Affairs have formed an opaque cartel of corruption.
Why would the Commission want to publish a bald fib? The answer is in the Report’s next sentence.

These elections have laid the ground for future European elections and established a clear link between the results of the European Parliament elections and the choice of the European Commission President.

The Report is an official Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. That means it’s an official legal document. It also exposes another lie.
Together with the Court of Justice these bodies represent the real institutions of the European Community system regardless of what the fraudulent, fog-ridden Lisbon Treaties say. (They say that the Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank are institutions. If they really were, why don’t they get a copy?) Only the Council, Parliament and Consultative Committees have the right to revise the Commission’s legislative proposals. Did the Report explain that?
What do you think?
The Founding Fathers said that not only should Members of the European Parliament be elected on uniform European basis, the Members of the Consultative Committees should be elected on a fully European basis. They should represent European economic, regional and professional organizations, with powers equivalent to the Council of Ministers.
The Report asserts that the elections were

the first to take place since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and were fundamentally different from those which preceded them. For the first time, a direct link was established between the outcome of the elections and the appointment of the European Commission President.

This too is a bit of a fib. None of the treaties (including the Lisbon Treaty) say that any legal authority exists linking the EP elections  and the selection of the Commission’s members. They say the REVERSE! Both institutions should be independent of each other. More importantly, and for very good reasons of anti-corruption, the Commissioners should all be totally independent. They should be the opposite of partisan politicians. They should be non-partisan.  Thus the ‘direct link‘ which the report speaks of is a corrupting link! It is flannel designed to flaunt the law of the treaties and Justice!
The Lisbon Treaty merely states that the Commission should be selected after the European Parliament elections. It defines the TIMING. That was thoroughly discussed when the treaty was put together. Many people objected to the ‘parachuting’ of politicians into the Commission.  It is against the letter and spirit of the Community system. Candidates should come from all citizens, engineers, lawyers, NGOs, unionists, journalists, academics, diplomats, all who can show they have a conscience free of party ideology. The Lisbon Treaty actually guaranteed this:

Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. TEU article 10.

The politicians are creating a trick to ‘interpret’ law differently — as a means to create jobs for their party guys. They want the total exclusion of normal citizens who are independent. All who are not members of three main political party groups — about 98 percent of the EU’s population are OUT.
What are the final objectives of the politicians’ cartel on seizing the Commission and making it a party secretariat? They want to make sure for the long-term future that only politicians can be Commissioners.
It is a policy that will lead to disaster. They may get away with it for a bit. But what happens when their national governments change?  What happens when the National Front controls France? What happens when UKIP breaks through the frustrating first-past-the-post barriers and forms a coalition government or — horror of horrors — forms its own government? What happens if and when Scotland with a SNP government separates from the UK? What happens in Spain, Catalonia, Italy, Greece? The rise of one nationalist movement will encourage the rise of nationalism in neighbouring countries or the parent nation.
If the governments become more and more nationalist, then the Commission will be composed in part or in whole of ultra-nationalists!  Who will speak impartially, without fear or favour, for the European common good? Who will stop national governments fiddling the election rules and giving extra votes to its parties? The ‘mainstream’ cartel political parties, who have put their politicians’ careers ahead of citizens’ rights,  will eat the fruit of their own corruption.
Consumers and Justice will suffer most.

Peace1: Why doesn't Europe divulge the keys to its unprecedented peace?

How did the European Union construct the bases for its longest time of peace it ever experienced? The EU presently outstrips the USA in GDP and global trade.
In May, Europe commemorates the end of WW2 in Europe. Europe was left in ruins, its industries destroyed, its populations decimated by killings and injuries, its economies torn by debts and inflation.
May also celebrates a far more important event. Five years after the end of war, Robert Schuman’s Proposal of 9 May 1950 brought about an unprecedented peace: the means to make war ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible.’
War, impossible?! That sounded extraordinary in the 1950s. The reality is even more extraordinary today.
Europeans are now living in a 70-year period of peace, longer than any other in all written history – more than two thousand years. The core of today’s European Union composing France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, knew war every generation back to before Roman times. Today, three or four generations have never seen their home towns destroyed, their families killed or such horrors as concentration camps or forced labor.
No one foresaw such a peace. It was not ultimately due either to the Marshall Plan of 1947 or NATO, formed 1948, generous though they were.
In March 1950 the US-based Foreign Policy Association published a report on ‘Europe and the United States.’ It was written and finalised by Vera Micheles Dean, its research director. She made an extensive tour of Europe speaking with government ministers and lecturing on US foreign policy around Europe. This think tank expressed the common opinion:
‘We realise… that the United states, no matter how generously inclined, cannot under the most favourable political circumstances re-establish the economy of the continent on the foundations of 1914 or even 1939. Some of the foundations … have vanished beyond salvaging; others are perhaps not a total loss, but … their future contribution to the continent’s economy remains in doubt.
‘No power on earth can remedy Europe’s impoverishment as a result of two world wars. The only remedy one can recommend for the future would be the avoidance of conflicts so costly in terms of human values and material wealth. Whatever we do, Europe will sooner or later have to adjust itself to a radically altered world economic situation and face the fact that the singularly favourable position it enjoyed during the five centuries following the discovery of the Indies and the of the New World and the conquest of the colonies in Asia and Africa is now drawing to a close. While the Russians and the Communists have capitalised on the predicament of western Europe, they did not bring it about.’ Teenage Germans are ‘strongly imbued with Nazi ideas.’
The same conclusion was reached by the annual conference of US ambassadors in Europe in 1949. They considered European solutions as ‘pipe dreams’ and their ‘golden goose’ of the Marshall Plan was being sacrificed to various forms of nationalism. They were keenly aware of Soviet designs on Germany especially the industrial Ruhr.
General Lucius Clay, US Military Governor of Germany in March 1949 concluded: ‘I repeat what I said in a cable a few days ago. We have lost Germany politically and therefore it really does not matter except that history will prove why there was World War III. No gesture can we make to draw Germany westward so why do we spend money on Germany. Thank God I will be out of it soon…’ Papers of General Lucius Clay, p. 1063.
Robert Schuman was often a lone voice. His own political party often opposed him. Yet he was convinced as French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that Europe must use this last chance for peace, others said was impossible. He was not only the designer of the peace, but a shrewd political technician and an impartial visionary for a positive future.
He told the US Secretary of State Acheson before his Proposal that the supranational Community system would produce the greatest period of prosperity since the Middle Ages.
In a world where Europe is increasingly surrounded by war in Ukraine, Georgia, and barbaric violence in the southern Mediterranean, Syria and the Middle East, isn’t it high time we took a longer, harder look at how Europe gained such an enviable peace?
How do the European institutions commemorate ‘Schuman day’ — now proven to hold the key to Europe’s longest peace? They open their buildings to the public and show them their empty offices! What a  way to communicate the moral vacuum of the present political class!