Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Is Pete Buttigieg the Israel Lobby Choice?

Cyberwarfare began in Iowa

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • February 11, 2020

Many Americans might consider it decidedly odd that the recent impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump also featured constant vilification of President Vladimir Putin, to such an extent that one might have thought that the Russian leader was also in the dock awaiting sentencing. The irony is, of course, that while “Russian interference” has virtually become a cliché, its actual impact on the 2016 election outcome was less than negligible.

Russia was cited seemingly incessantly by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, to include the always useful assertion that “if we don’t fight them over there [in Ukraine] we’ll have to fight them over here.” Even more ridiculous, Schiff suggested that if Trump were to lose the presidential election later this year, he might well refuse to accept the result and could be supported by an invading Russian army.

Senator Charles Schumer of New York delivered one of the more astonishing pre-impeachment vote diatribes, tying Trump to foreign interests. He said “No greater subversion of our democracy than for foreign powers to determine our elections… My fellow Americans, asking for foreign interference in our elections is a high crime. Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth.” Yet the same Schumer brazenly claims that he is the “protector” of Israel in the U.S. Senate, that his surname is derived from the Hebrew “shomer” which means “guardian.”

Strangely, the country that, acting directly and through proxies like Schumer, does regularly and openly interfere in American politics and elections is Israel, but it was not mentioned at all in the hours of testimony in spite of the fact that Trump’s partiality towards the Jewish state has done more actual damage to genuine U.S. interests than the Kremlin was ever able to do. One would have thought Israel and its kleptocratic leader Benjamin Netanyahu would have deserved at least a nod from Congress.

Indeed, Israel has been involved in American politics before, even if it is predictably never held accountable, and it has been suggested that Russiagate was really Israelgate based on what actually took place when shortly after the 2016 election, when Trump National Security Adviser designate Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The call was made at the direction of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, in turn, had been approached by Netanyahu, who not coincidentally is a family friend of the Kushners.

Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included the call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23rd.

What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite equate to the Constitution’s definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy, but it most certainly could be construed as covered by the “conspiracy against the United States” statute that Special Counsel Robert Mueller exploited in his investigations.

Currently, Israel may just turn out to be part of last week’s story of the astonishingly inept Democratic Party caucus in the state of Iowa. Award winning investigative journalist Max Blumenthal has provided the back story relating to the app that was developed to expedite Iowa’s voting but which instead delayed the reporting of the results for nearly a week. It now appears that the app might be part of an operation being funded by Jewish billionaires with close ties to right wing Israeli settler groups who are opposed to Senator Bernie Sanders and supporting Mayor Peter Buttigieg. The failed app that caused the problem was developed by a company called Shadow Inc., which was staffed by former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters and funded by billionaire Seth Klarman, who also is a major contributor to Pete Buttigieg’s campaign and also has been linked to former and current senior members of the intelligence community. The Iowa Democratic Committee reported that the software that included the app was paid for by the Buttigieg campaign, “Pete for America Inc.”

Klarman is a deeply committed hard line Zionist. Blumenthal described in a separate article how “Klarman has been a top funder for major Israel lobby outfits, including those that support the expansion of illegal settlements and Islamophobic campaigns. Klarman was the principal financier of The Israel Project, the recently disbanded Israeli government-linked propaganda organization that lobbied against the Iran nuclear deal and backed the Israeli settlement enterprise. Klarman has heaped hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the American Jewish Committee. And he funded The David Project, which was established to suppress Palestine solidarity organizing on college campuses across the U.S. and battled to block the establishment of a Muslim community center in Boston.”

Klarman also financially supports major Israeli lobbying and disinformation organizations to include AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the anti-Iranian neocon think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD. Blumenthal also reports that Klarman owns the Times of Israel, which once called for Palestinian genocide.

The delay in the Iowa results just might have been deliberate, possibly caused by the Shadow app. The New York Times review of the caucus results concluded that they were “riddled with errors and inconsistencies,” with tallies that are “internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses. In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.”

Apart from possible fraud or even a hack, Senator Bernie Sanders, who appeared to be heading for a win, found that the inconclusive and even disputed result denied him momentum and a victory speech heading towards this week’s primary in New Hampshire. It also allowed Buttigieg to preemptively declare a predicted win on twitter even before any votes had been counted: “By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious. #IowaCaucuses.” And it is possible that worse is to come as the Democratic National Committee (DNC) head Tom Perez is tweeting his intention to “recanvass,” which would mean a complete review of all work sheets and might even require new voting. It could conceivably cost Bernie a win. Sounds a bit like a conspiracy, doesn’t it?

It is, in fact, remarkable the extent to which Buttigieg has hardened his line supporting Israel. He has abandoned his commitment made last June that he would withhold aid from Israel if it were to seek to annex more of the West Bank, saying then that “If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements, he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill.”

Buttigieg also is on record as having said in October “I think that the aid is leverage to guide Israel in the right direction… that our policy goal will be to do what you do when a friend is moving in a way that you’re worried about, which is to put your arm around them and guide them somewhere better.”

Presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is not saying that any more. Mondoweiss reports an exchange he had in a speaking engagement in Iowa on January 29th with IfNotNow organizer Elias Newman:

Newman: … recently I was happy to see that you said if annexation happens that you’ll make sure the U.S. doesn’t foot the bill. So, I wanted to know… now that annexation is happening in full force, are you ready to commit? Are you ready to commit, to make sure the U.S. doesn’t send a blank check to Israel?

Buttigieg: The U.S. cannot be promoting annexation, like it is under this president. By the way, I am not talking about withdrawing aid or withdrawing our support from Israel–

Newman: You’re not willing to make good on your commitment–

Buttigieg: Well, if you’re asking me to commit to withdrawing American support for Israel, the answer is no.

Newman: I asked you a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question…. are you committed ‘yes’ or ‘no’, to withdrawing aid for the occupation

Buttigieg: I stand by what I said about this.

Newman: What, just now or a couple months ago?

Buttigieg: So, if you’re asking me in light of the president’s proposal, I would withdraw aid from Israel? The answer is no.

In short, Buttigieg is a manufactured corporate candidate who is little more than an empty suit, having no core values whatsoever apart from seeking to become the first gay president. The Establishment is comfortable with him and he is good-looking, seemingly affable and articulate, though he suffers from an unpronounceable surname. He has now checked the box making him acceptable to the Israeli government and its powerful domestic lobby, which have always been suspicious of Trump even as he gives them gift after gift. Being Israel-friendly is also a must with the mainstream media.

But perhaps the more important question must be related to the actual extent of Buttigieg’s possible involvement in another DNC/Clinton inspired and Israel-supporter financed scheme to stop Bernie Sanders. There are indications that Zionist attack ads directed against Sanders have already been and will continue to be surfacing. No one is seemingly asking, for example, whether the Shadow Inc. app, which was vulnerable to hacking, might have actually been able to change the vote totals without leaving an electronic footprint? Or was it designed to fail, casting doubts on the caucus result, which would most hurt a surging Sanders? Someone should ask Pete if we “have seen the last of anything like the app that he and his apparent paymasters unleashed in Iowa to subvert the electoral process?” Stay tuned.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | 2 Comments

Save the planet & die alone: Swedish prof says we should ditch pet cats & dogs, for climate’s sake

By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 10, 2020

With human populations already on the decline in the West, climate-conscious academics have now taken aim at carnivorous pets. But even if ditching canine and feline companionship helps save the planet, is the loneliness worth it?

A Swedish agricultural studies professor has joined the growing chorus of environmentally-conscious academics scolding pet owners about their four-legged friends’ carbon pawprints. Cats and dogs eat meat, which produces significant emissions, and therefore should be replaced with herbivorous pets when possible, Sigrid Agenäs recently told Swedish outlet Expressen. While Agenäs does not join her more militant colleagues in insisting cat and dog owners attempt to feed their pets a vegan diet – a death sentence for cats, and a risk to dogs’ health for the uninitiated in canine nutrition – anyone who owns a carnivorous pet can testify that it is not as simple as trading in Fluffy for a goat or rabbit. They aren’t called “fur babies” for nothing – cats and dogs are increasingly the only living things keeping humans company in ever-more-atomized industrial societies.

Why are the climate militia setting their sights on pets? Birth rates are plummeting in Europe and the US, where record low fertility has long since dipped past the rate needed for the population to replace itself. While this trend was underway long before the climate brigade came along demanding women put off childbearing to save the planet, enough celebrities have taken up that line of argument that they can claim it as a victory and move on to people’s four-legged children.

But if pets are one of the last things standing between an increasingly large slice of humanity and utter alienation – and if, as medical experts are saying, loneliness is truly worse than obesity in predicting future health problems – those who would replace our cats with goats are asking us to make a very difficult choice.

As we get used to the lonely green future without our furry friends, we can take comfort in the fact that we’ve kept planet-wide warming to a manageable level, though, right? Not quite – the carbon footprint of the world’s domesticated cats and dogs pales in comparison to that of the US military, for example, which produces more emissions than most countries. Why, with elephants like this in the room, is the environmental movement setting its sights on dogs and cats? Aren’t we already lonely enough?

It’s not an idle question when nearly four out of five members of Generation Z report that they are lonely, more even than their notoriously disaffected older siblings the millennials (“only” seven in 10 of whom report feeling loneliness). More than any other issue, Generation Z is concerned with climate change, according to a December survey conducted across 22 countries in which 41 percent named the phenomenon as their chief concern; a further 36 percent named pollution. But while “eco-anxiety” likely contributes to the spike in depression and anxiety  witnessed in Generation Z, the future presented as climate-friendly living, with no children, no pets, and an ascetic lifestyle that frowns on any form of carbon-emitting leisure, is liable to overwhelm them with feelings of loneliness.

But the misery that accompanies climate-change doomsaying is probably part of the attraction for some. Extinction Rebellion rallies have all the trappings of religious revivals – some play host to actual religious rituals – and the climate-change-obsessed preaching their low-consumption lifestyles can be likened to medieval devotees wearing hair shirts and whipping themselves in the public square. Guilt-stricken children of privilege can rush to absolve themselves in the eyes of some hypothetical Gaia by eating bugs, gluing themselves to trains, and renouncing the creature comforts their peers take for granted.

And with no children, no pets, and – apparently – no real-life friends to distract today’s young adults from the all-consuming quest to save the planet, environmental groups have never had more fertile recruiting grounds. Political movements the world over have long known that alienation is a feature, not a bug, when it comes to filling their ranks with soon-to-be ideological zealots.

If ditching cats and dogs fails to save the planet, there’s always a silver lining. Before our pets’ carnivorous diets heat Earth beyond habitability, Big Business stands to make a killing in psychiatric medication. After all, loneliness kills – kills worse than smoking, if the experts are to be believed. Generation Z is going to need medical intervention on a grand scale when they come out the other side of this green ‘phase.’

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Despite Iowa Caucus Fiasco, Nevada Democrats Plan to Use New Software “Tool”

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | February 10, 2020

Even while the chaos of the recent Iowa Caucus remains fresh in voters’ minds, the Nevada State Democratic Party is setting itself up for more of the same by using a new software application for reporting results that is set to be coded and tested in less than a month. The application, still currently under development, will come preloaded onto iPads that will be distributed to precinct chairs during Nevada’s upcoming caucus, scheduled for February 22.

The scramble to create this new application followed revelations that the same company that had developed the software largely blamed for the Iowa debacle – known as Shadow Inc. – had also developed the two applications that Nevada Democrats had planned to use both for early voting and for Caucus Day.

Volunteers for Nevada’s upcoming caucus were told at a recent training session about the software’s existence and the rough details of how it will operate, but very little other information according to a report in the Nevada Independent. Notably, volunteers were urged not to refer to the application as an “app” but instead as a “tool,” likely due to the fact that Nevada Democrats said they would not use any apps for their upcoming caucus in light of what happened in Iowa. CBS News previously reported on the existence of this “tool” last Friday but was also short on specifics.

During the volunteer training session, a party staffer told participants the following:

What we’ve done after Iowa is consult with a group of tech and security folks who are helping us through this process and making sure that we’re doing this in a way that is simple and efficient and secure for all of you so that we’re giving you the best tools we can possible on Caucus Day. (emphasis added)”

Then the staffer, whose comments were recorded and were first reported by the Nevada Independent, described the function of this “tool” as “flow[ing] your precinct early vote data, so that you can have the information for your precinct caucus, so that when you do your viability calculations, you’re able to get the number of people who voted early and then when you see the results of your first alignment, you’re able to key in that early vote information so that you have every piece of information you need to run your precinct caucus.”

When a volunteer asked the staffer how the software “tool” would transmit results from one place to another, the staffer did not provide details but instead stated that “… We’re still working out some of the details around those so I’ll make sure that everyone has more information as we’re able to share it.”

Shadowy connections

Nevada’s decision to use a software program to be developed in less than a month is jarring considering that the failure of Iowa’s caucus was blamed on the rushed development of the Shadow Inc.-created app that resulted in only partial results of the caucus being reported. Yet, the Shadow Inc. app was reported to have been developed over a period of roughly two months, though the company’s CEO, Gerard Niemira, has since claimed that the app’s creation began last August. In contrast, Nevada Democrats are now slated to use a software application developed in less than half that time, thereby raising the likelihood of undiscovered coding errors and other functionality issues of this app significantly.

Another issue is the fact that Nevada Democrats decided to go this route after consulting “a group of tech and security folks” whose names and affiliations were not provided. As previously mentioned, after the Iowa debacle, several media reports quoted technology and cybersecurity experts as well as software developers who had cited the rushed development of the Shadow Inc. app as having largely led to the app’s failure and the resulting chaos in Iowa. It thus seems odd that a group of “tech and security folks” are urging Nevada Democrats to pay for the development of a new program in an even shorter time frame as a way to prevent Nevada’s caucus from repeating Iowa’s failures.

Though the identity of this group remains unknown, concerns have been raised that some may have links to the 2020 presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg, given that the Shadow Inc.-developed app used in Iowa was found to have ties to the Buttigieg campaign and the Iowa caucus chaos clearly benefited the Buttigieg campaign.

Concerns about possible connections between these tech and security consultants and the Buttigieg campaign have only grown since it was revealed that Nevada Democrats recently hired an organizer for Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign, Emily Goldman, as the Caucus’ Voter Protection Director, just weeks before the caucus is set to take place. Goldman also previously interned at the Brookings Institute, whose chair recently authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Stop Bernie Sanders Now.” After Goldman’s connections to the Buttigieg were revealed, she deleted her work history on LinkedIn and locked her Twitter account.

Goldman’s new position at the Nevada State Democratic Party tasks her with “ensur[ing] that all eligible Nevadans are able to cast their ballot.”

Given the rushed development of a new app, the lack of transparency regarding the Nevada Democrats’ technology consultants and Emily Goldman’s recent hire, concerns that Nevada’s upcoming caucus will repeat the chaos seen in Iowa have hardly been assuaged.

Worse still, the very volunteers who attended the recent caucus training workshop described the sentiment in the room as “frustration and confusion”, with one caucus site leader telling the Nevada Independent that “there was ‘not a bit of proof’ at the training that Nevada wouldn’t be another Iowa.” Another volunteer told the Nevada Independent that “the people participating in the training didn’t even seem to understand the basic details of how to carry out the caucus process and didn’t know that precinct chairs can’t also be precinct captains on behalf of a campaign,” while other volunteers said they were not told how to properly realign early voters’ preferences on Caucus Day should the new tool fail.

Though the fallout from the Iowa Caucus is still fresh, it appears that the technology-driven chaos and corruption seen in Iowa has not served as a warning to some in the Democratic Party, but instead a roadmap.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Exposed: The “Con of The Century” Will Not Bring Peace

State of Palestine, PLO Negotiations Affairs Department | February 9, 2020

Everything you need to know about Trump’s “apartheid” deal :

1. Does the plan, presented by U.S. President Trump, support an independent and sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, or a Greater Israel between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean? 

The plan outrageously dismisses the right of Palestine to exist as an independent, sovereign, and contiguous State. By sponsoring the legalization of Israeli illegal settlements and dictating that none will be dismantled, the plan simply represents the annexation of territory, rendering a free Palestine impossible. Under this plan, Israel would retain its overriding security control over vast areas of occupied Palestine, including its capital East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. It suggests a fictional State of Palestine, whereby it substitutes territorial contiguity with “transportation contiguity” thus undermining the very viability of Palestinian statehood. This fictional state will be divided into a series of enclaves, scattered around like an archipelago to be connected by tunnels and bridges, allowing Israel to maintain security control over Palestinian terrestrial and maritime borders, airspace, and natural resources. As such, the plan cancels all possibilities for the State of Palestine to exercise any meaningful sovereignty and the very security of the state. On the other hand, the plan outlines total support for a Greater Israel between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean.

While fully serving the interests of the State of Israel alone, the plan constitutes a continuation of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and Israel’s Jewish-Nation State law of 2018. It aims to formalize the Greater Israel colonial project over the land of historic Palestine, which denies the national rights of the Palestinian people and only allows them to live in self-governing Bantustans with barely a handful of civil and religious rights. It relieves Israel of the burden of paying the cost of its occupation and assuming its responsibilities as an occupying power.

2. Does the plan constitute a “peace” plan or an “apartheid” plan?

By legalizing the annexation of occupied Palestinian territory to the Israeli state, and limiting Palestinians to dis-contiguous enclaves on their own land, the plan consolidates an already existing system where two sets of laws apply in the occupied Palestinian territory: one for Israeli settlers and another one for the occupied Palestinian people. While Israeli law is applicable to illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank of Palestine, Palestinians are subject to Israeli military laws and courts. Not only does the plan propose a Palestinian state with no sovereignty, but it spells out a one-state reality with two systems, whereby Palestinians continue to be denied the political, economic, cultural and social rights that are enjoyed by Israeli Jews. Indeed, with the number of Palestinians, in the State of Palestine and Palestinian citizens of Israel already surpassing the number of Israeli Jews in the land between the river Jordan and Mediterranean, Israel is one step away of becoming a full-fledged apartheid state. In all, this plan demands that the Palestinian leadership and people submit to total subjugation in Israel’s apartheid state.

3. Is the plan in line with the two-state solution on the 1967 border?

At the outset of this plan, its authors introduce the conflict as one between “the State of Israel and the Palestinians,” effectively destroying the two-state solution and deceptively erases the 1967 border, known as the Green Line. The defined borders of the internationally recognized State of Palestine by 139 nations worldwide in accordance with UN resolution 67/19 of 2012 are located within the 1967 borders, comprising the West Bank, including the capital East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, Israel has not yet defined its borders. Not only does the map endorsed by President Trump eliminate the 1967 border, but it also recognizes Israel’s illegal facts on the ground and its de-facto ‘one state with two systems’. Unmistakably, the plan supports the realization of a Greater Israel that erodes the concept of the internationally endorsed two-state solution and replaces it with apartheid.

4. Does the plan respect international law and United Nations resolutions?

The plan brazenly violates international law and consensus, and all United Nations Resolutions concerning the question of Palestine. This includes resolutions endorsing the two-state solution, others considering Israeli settlements as illegal, resolutions recognizing East Jerusalem as the capital of the State Palestine, and deeming any alterations to Jerusalem by Israel as null and void, and resolutions recognizing the rights of Palestine refugees to return and compensation. The plan normalizes (i) the colonization of Palestine, in violation of international law and UN resolutions (ii) annexation of occupied Palestinian territory, manifestly illegal under international law and deemed a crime of aggression under Rome Statute and (iii) apartheid, recognized as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

Both the US and Israel are thus defying and threatening international law and order to replace them with a racist, hegemonic and exploitative new world order. As stated by Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967: “This plan would turn the rules-based international order on its head and would permanently entrench the tragic subjugation of the Palestinians that is already existing on the ground,”. He added that: “The abandonment of these legal principles threatens to unravel the long-standing international consensus on the conflict, favouring realpolitik over rights, power over justice and conflict management over conflict resolution.”

5. Which party is rejecting the internationally-endorsed references to achieve peace?

Based on international law and relevant UN resolutions, the Palestinian Peace Initiative of 1988 marked a historic and painful compromise by accepting Israel’s right to exist on 78 percent of the land of historic Palestine, with the State of Palestine on the remaining 22 percent, comprised of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Unlike Israel, which continues to create illegal facts on the ground and to violate both international law and signed agreements, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continues to honor all its international obligations, including under signed agreements with Israel, and to seize every opportunity to achieve peace and the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination. During the past thirty-two years, the PLO has been genuinely engaged in the peace process that started with the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 and concluded with the last round of negotiations led by the former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014, which failed as a result of  Israel’s continued use of negotiations as a smokescreen to violate Palestinian rights and international law. 

On the other hand, since the signing of the Oslo Interim Agreement in 1993, Israel has been heavily engaged in a colonial process of settlement building on Palestinian territory, while continuing to violate nearly all Palestinian rights, at the expense of the peace process. Israel has been systematically destroying the very foundations of the peace process as it continues to appropriate Palestinian land and transfer of its own civilian population into the occupied Palestinian territory, in clear violation of international law.

According to the Israeli NGO Peace Now, until 1994, there was over 280,000 Jewish Israeli settlers living in occupied Palestine. In contrast, the current available statistics show that this number has almost tripled to more than 640,000 settlers living in over 200 settlements, including 42 in and around occupied Jerusalem. In fact, during the past decade alone, according to a recently published report by an Israeli settler organization, the number of Israeli settlers increased by 48 percent. In 2019 alone, there was an increase of 3.4%, which is more than double the rate of population growth in Israel proper that reached 1.9% at the beginning of 2020.

6. How does the plan prejudge core issues reserved for permanent status negotiations?

Through a series of unilateral decisions, and since its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in late 2017, the Trump administration has methodically been undermining the permanent status negotiations mainly concerning the core issues: borders, Jerusalem, and the question of Palestine refugees. A careful reading of the Trump plan shows how all its details embody the racist vision of the most ideologically extreme Israeli settlers, who have been gradually empowered since the assassination of the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and in fact have been leading the State of Israel for over a decade now.

Overall, the plan denies Palestinians’ sovereign statehood, recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, violates the historic status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, by imposing time and location divisions inside the compound for different faiths, legalizes the annexation of all Israeli settlements, and categorically dismisses the rights of Palestine refugees. By allowing Israel to expand and perpetuate its colonial-settlement enterprise, the plan negates the Palestinian right to self-determination and proposes an alternative to the international terms of reference for negotiations between Israel and Palestine, all in violation of international law, UN resolutions, international consensus, and previously signed agreements. Engaging with this plan means a legitimization of Israel’s acquisition of territory by force and a perpetuation of its superiority and domination over the land and lives of the people of Palestine. In other words, it legitimizes “might over right.”

7. Can the economic part of the plan be a substitute or an alternative to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace? 

The State of Palestine has the right to exercise its sovereignty with independent financial and monetary plans, control over its imports and export policies, as well as with access to its borders and natural resources, including water, minerals, natural gas, and oil resources. It is only through a just and lasting peace that Palestine can ensure the independence, prosperity, and sustainability of its economy, beginning with an end to Israel’s occupation and the fulfillment of Palestinian statehood and inalienable rights. According to various economic studies, Palestine has great economic potential and the number one obstacle to achieving that potential is the Israeli occupation. For example, in 2013, a World Bank report estimated that if Israeli restrictions on Area C of the West Bank were lifted it “could bring about significant expansion of many sectors of the Palestinian economy,” which will be able to generate $2.2 billion a year in value added terms. According to the report: “The bulk of this would come from agriculture and Dead Sea minerals exploitation.” The Dead Sea, a strategic area for Palestine, is promised to Israel in the Trump plan.

In all, the economic portion of the plan is a failed attempt to cover up for the prolongation of Israel’s belligerent occupation and the theft of Palestinian land and resources.

8. What is the position of the State of Palestine?

The State of Palestine considers the U.S. apartheid plan as blatant aggression against the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, which were endorsed by the United Nations to enable our nation to exercise its right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of our refugees to return. The plan undermines international law and the role United Nations, and hence constitutes a direct threat to the people of Palestine and their just cause, and on the entire international rules-based system as we know it. It considers all Israeli settlements as legal, including those in East Jerusalem – Palestine’s internationally recognized capital, which is comprised of the Old City and the surrounding area of 6 km2.

The State of Palestine has endorsed all relevant UN resolutions and international law as the basis of any solution towards the achievement of peace. It considers the Arab Peace Initiative (API) as the foundation formula that can achieve the diplomatic and economic integration of Israel into the region in exchange for ending its occupation of all Arab territories, including the Lebanese Shebaa Farms, Arab Syrian Golan and the occupied State of Palestine, as well as achieving a just and agreed-upon solution to the question of Palestine refugees.

9. What are the positions of the international community and the Arab world?

While a number of countries “welcomed” the U.S announcement, none have endorsed the plan. But the majority of the responses were positive in insisting on the importance of the two-state solution, international law, and relevant UN resolutions as the way forward to achieve peace. This includes the European Union, through a statement issued by the High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell, which affirmed the EU’s position that “does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied since 1967”, and considered that “Steps towards annexation, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged.” Also, the Arab League decided “to reject the American – Israeli ‘Deal of the Century’, which does not meet the minimum of the Palestinian people’s aspirations and rights, and violates all of the references of the peace process that are based on international law and the pertinent international resolutions.” Additionally,  the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) reaffirmed “its rejection of any plan, deal, or initiative submitted by any party whatsoever, which is inconsistent with the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as enshrined in agreed international legitimacy resolutions, or not in conformity with internationally recognized terms of reference of the Middle East peace process, foremost of which is international law, UN resolutions, and the Arab Peace Initiative.”

10. What is the way forward to achieve peace?

Our vision to achieve peace is fundamentally based on the end of Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestine. An independent and viable State of Palestine can only be based on complete sovereignty over our territory and our resources; control over our borders, airspace, and maritime boundaries; and, most importantly, self-determination: the ability to freely determine the shape of our political, civil, economic, cultural and social lives. Henceforth, the way forward should be in line with international law, and the system of justice and accountability that the international legal order is designed to preserve. Any plan that flouts international law and United Nations resolutions, and instead legitimizes illegal land theft and annexation is no peace plan at all. This is why, the recent Palestinian Peace Initiative of 2018, as proposed by President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations Security Council, can achieve such an objective.

The Palestinian Peace Initiative calls for the implementation of the principle of the two-state solution on the 1967 borders. While proposing the convening of an international peace conference that is firmly based on international law, the plan specifies that unilateral actions that may undermine final status negotiations should not be taken. The overall vision of this plan is clear:  it is based on the respect of international legitimacy and relevant UN resolutions, including with the fulfillment of a just and agreed-upon solution for Palestine refugees based on UN resolution 194 that stipulates their right to return to their homes and to just compensation. The plan calls for “East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and an open city for the faithful of the three monotheistic religions.” It as well demands ensuring the security of both Palestine and Israel “without undermining the independence and sovereignty of either of them.” Ultimately, our vision for peace requires justice and an ability to exercise our rights freely in our homeland. We remain confident that with the support of peace-loving nations that seek to preserve the threatened international order, we will succeed in our pursuit of this just and long-lasting peace.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | 2 Comments

Israel hands Sheikh Raed Salah 28-month jail term

MEMO | February 10, 2020

An Israeli court today sentenced Palestinian resistance icon Sheikh Raed Salah to 28 months in prison, stoking strong condemnation of the country’s legal system and the suppression of free speech.

Salah received a 28-month prison sentence from the Haifa Magistrate’s Court for remarks he had made at a funeral in 2017. The 61-year-old has already served 11 months in detention as part of his sentence and is therefore expected to remain in prison for 17 months.

Israeli police arrested Salah nearly three years ago, accusing the former mayor of Umm Al-Fahm of praising three Arab Israelis who shot dead two police officers in a July 2017 attack. In November, he was convicted of “incitement” and engaging in “anti-Israel activities” for remarks he had made during the funeral of the three assailants.

According to the indictment, Salah praised the attackers saying: “At these moments [we need to stand together] as one house, as one family. We take leave of our martyrs … and express the wish that they join the prophets, the righteous ones and the martyrs. At these moments, may we pray that God increases their value in the heavens in paradise.”

In his defence Salah argued that his views were religious opinions rooted in the Quran, and did not constitute a direct call to violence. Salah’s lawyer also explained that the remarks were made within the context of a religious sermon and urged Israel “to not prosecute him for his faith and beliefs”.

Haifa Magistrate’s Court Judge Shlomo Benjo conceded that some of Salah’s remarks at the funeral had been mistranslated but still ruled that the translation errors did not alter the general meaning of his comments.

“Despite the attempts to give the defendant’s statements a religious character, the conclusion is that the accused expressed praise, sympathy and support for the attacks,” the judge said in delivering his verdict.

Joint List MK Yousef Jabareen criticised the decision by pointing to the normalisation of incitement to hate and violence in Israeli society.

“In a country where the prime minister, senior ministers and main religious figures incite against the Arab public and its leaders from morning till night, Raed Salah’s conviction marks another step in the political persecution of the Arab,” Jabareen wrote on Twitter. He explained that the verdict marked “a dangerous erosion of freedom of expression for the leadership and delegitimisation of political and religious activity”.

Muhammad Baraka, the head of the Higher Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, also dismissed the verdict. The “ruling was prepared in advance, and was based on racist foundations and incitement against Arabs,” Baraka was quoted as saying in a Turkish news source.

In an interview, Salah’s lawyer, Khaled Zabarqa, said that Israel’s endless efforts to silence the Palestinian leader was intended to pave the way for the controversial peace plan known as the “deal of the century”.

According to Zabarqa, Israel has been planning for the past two years to ban any appearance by Sheikh Salah due to his ability to mobilise Palestinians to reject any Israeli plan intending to terminate Palestinian rights in Jerusalem.

See also:

Palestinians in Israel are the next target for the deal of the century

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Kissing International Law Goodbye to Satisfy Israeli Greed

By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | February 10, 2020

Palestinian chiefs say that Trump’s so-called peace plan contains 300 violations of international law and they will take it up with the Security Council. That’s nearly two violations per page. Given the document was put together by America and Israel, both lawless and criminal to the core, no-one is surprised. It is a brazen expression of criminal intent from start to finish.

In the UK our new Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, has shot to prominence.  We’re told he spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University (in Palestine’s West Bank) working for one of the PLO’s chief negotiators on the Oslo peace accords. That doomed-to-fail initiative began in 1993 and created a form of interim governance and the framework for a final treaty by the end of 1998. So Mr Raab was there at a time when the two sides had been faffing about for 5 years achieving nothing.

In October 1998 the US, desperate to keep the charade going, convened a summit at Maryland’s Wye River Plantation at which Clinton with Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, and senior negotiators produced the Wye River Memorandum. Not that this did much good either. But Raab must have learned a lot about Israeli perversity and intransigence, not to mention America’s shortcomings as an honest broker.

Before entering Parliament Raab joined the Foreign Office and worked at the The Hague bringing war criminals to justice, then became an adviser on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But you wouldn’t think so when looking at his latest performances.

As reported in Jewish News Raab welcomed Trump’s so-called peace plan calling it “a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort. A peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that leads to peaceful coexistence could unlock the potential of the entire region, and provide both sides with the opportunity for a brighter future. Only the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian territories can determine whether these proposals can meet the needs and aspirations of the people they represent.

“We encourage them to give these plans genuine and fair consideration, and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations.”

His boss Boris Johnson said of it: “No peace plan is perfect, but this has the merit of a two-state solution. It is a two-state solution. It would ensure that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and of the Palestinian people.” A fatuous remark if ever there was one because (a) he clearly hadn’t read it carefully, (b) the Palestinians weren’t consulted, and (c) as Jewish News stated, a Palestinian capital would be established on the outskirts of East Jerusalem while most of Jerusalem, including the sublime and ancient walled city (which is officially Palestinian), would remain under Israeli control. That is perhaps the cruellest part of the Zionist swindle.

UK Government a ‘Force for Good’?

In the Global Britain debate on 3 February Raab pompously declared that “the third pillar of our global Britain will be the UK as an even stronger force for good in the world. Our guiding lights will remain the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law”.

But Alistair Carmichael (LibDem) pricked Raab’s pretty balloon, asking: “If the concept of a global Britain is to have any meaning and value, surely it must have respect for human rights and an international rules-based order at its heart. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the unqualified support he gave to President Trump last week in respect of the so-called peace plan for Palestine? Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the proposed annexation of the West Bank and at long last support the recognition of a Palestinian state?”

Raab replied: “I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think he has read the detail of this. Whatever else he may disagree with, the one thing that the plan put forward by the US included was a recognition of and commitment to a two-state solution. We have been absolutely clear that that is the only way in which the conflict can be resolved…. Rather than just rejecting the plan, it is important that we try to bring the parties together around the negotiating table. That is the only path to peace and to a two-state solution.”

I’d have expected Raab, by now, to be extremely sceptical of any two-state solution given the many irreversible facts on the ground that Israel has been allowed to create with impunity. And he would know better than most how many times the sides have come to the table for grotesquely lopsided negotiations and how the Israelis never honour the agreements they make.

Raab won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law while at Cambridge. So if he’s so wedded to the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law, why are these vital ingredients missing from his recipe for peace? It must be obvious to everyone – except Government ministers – that you cannot achieve peace without justice. And justice in the form of UN resolutions and international and humanitarian law has already spoken several times. It waits… and waits… and waits… to be implemented.

Then we had Dr Andrew Murrison, Minister of State for International Development & the Middle East, in answer to a written question: “We have made clear our deep concern about the suggestion that any parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should be annexed…. Any declaration of a unilateral border change undermines the rules-based international order and the UN Charter. The UK calls on all parties to refrain from actions in contravention of international law that would imperil the viability of a two-state solution, based on the 1967 lines, and make it harder to achieve a just and lasting peace.”

Dr Murrison can’t have been paying attention. Illegal border changes departing from 1947 Partition lines and 1967 lines, annexations and other actions in contempt of international law and the UN Charter have been going on for 70 years simply because none of those pillars of modern civilisation have been enforced where Israel’s concerned. Rules-based international order has been constantly undermined and is now non-existent in the Holy Land.

The question is, what does the UK Government, which is largely responsible for this sorry state of affairs, plan to do about it besides mouthing the usual limp-wristed idiocy? Is the Johnson administration happy, in George Orwell’s words, for the US-UK-Israeli boot to stamp on the human face of the Palestinians for ever?

BDS targeted

And as if the Holy Land fiasco wasn’t enough we must put up with crass ministerial utterances on the home front. Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, complains that only 136 of the 343 local authorities in England have agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and insists that all universities and local councils “must adopt” it. If they don’t, and they fail to tackle anti-Semitism, they can expect to lose public funding.

According to the Jewish Chronicle he vowed to take action against universities and “parts of local government” who have become “corrupted” by anti-Semitism. Writing in the Sunday Express, he added: “I will use my position as Secretary of State to write to all universities and local authorities to insist that they adopt the IHRA definition at the earliest opportunity. I expect them to confirm to me when they do so.”

Jenrick qualified as a lawyer so should respect warnings by top legal opinion (for example Hugh Tomlinson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Robertson QC) that the IHRA definition is “most unsatisfactory”, has no legal force, and using it to punish could be unlawful. It also undermines Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the UK’s own Human Rights Act 1998.

But Jenrick seems to have aligned himself with sinister moves by Johnson aimed at protecting Israel from the consequences of its countless breaches of international law and crimes against the Palestinians by banning public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions (BDS). What could any decent administration possibly fear from BDS? It is simply a peaceful response to Israel’s thuggery. It urges non-violent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting three perfectly reasonable demands:

  • Ending its unlawful occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall (international law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel).
  • Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
  • Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

So how is Boris Johnson proposing to block BDS? Briefing notes accompanying the Queen’s Speech to Parliament, which set out his Government’s programme, said:

  • We will stop public institutions from imposing their own approach or views about international relations, through preventing boycotts, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries and those who trade with them.
  • This will create a coherent approach to foreign relations from all public institutions, by ensuring that they do not go beyond the UK Government’s settled policy towards a foreign country. The UK Government is responsible for foreign relations and determining the best way to interact with its international neighbours.

The ban will apply to institutions across the public sector, not just councils, and will cover purchasing, procurement and investment decisions.

Johnson and his underlings just don’t get it. BDS is a legitimate, peaceful way of opposing the Israel’s illegal occupation. Put simply, as long as the Occupation is business as usual for Israel, there should be no business with Israel. Furthermore the foreign policies of successive UK governments have not met with the approval of the British people, and never will with US-Israel pimps dictating at Westminster.

If the Government’s “settled policy” towards Israel was consistent with international law and human rights conventions – as it should be – there’d be no need for BDS campaigns because the UK would already be applying sanctions. Furthermore the Conservatives’ election manifesto pledged to “ensure that no one is put off from engaging in politics…. by threats, harassment or abuse, whether in person or online.” They also promised to champion the rule of law, human rights, free trade, anti-corruption efforts and a rules-based international system – all of which Israel refuses to comply with.

Yet, only last month Jenrick announced to a Conservative Friends of Israel parliamentary reception that he would “look forward to the day” when Britain’s embassy in Israel will be “moved to Jerusalem.” And he told the Board of Deputies of British Jews he would not tolerate local authority approved BDS campaigns in the UK. “Local authorities should not be wasting time and taxpayer’s money by dabbling in foreign policy or pursuing anti-Israel political obsessions.”

By the same token one might ask why the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is wasting time and taxpayers’ money dabbling in foreign policy and advocating on behalf of a foreign military power? It’s not in his job spec.

Jenrick has an Israeli-born wife and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Before he tries ordering local authorities what to think and do he should have the courtesy to declare these interests. According to the Guardian he’s an MP who is “on the up.” Heaven help us.

Johnson is expected to hold a Cabinet reshuffle this week. His administration is already top-heavy with Zionists and, as 80 percent of Conservative MPs are reportedly signed-up Friends of Israel, there’s no shortage of compliant stooge material to fill even more top posts.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

China, Russia to Defy US Sanctions Over Support to Venezuela

teleSUR | February 10, 2020

The Russian government on Monday rejected the U.S. threats to impose new sanctions against several Russian companies for their cooperation with Venezuela in the oil sector.

Last week, the United States special representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, warned Russia that its support for Venezuela will cost them economically as Washington is looking to sanction them.

“We classify this practice as harmful, we believe that many countries suffer because of this practice, we consider it contrary to international law,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov told reporters Monday in regards to Washington’s plans.

“The United States, especially, and several other countries, unfortunately use these trade and other restrictions very frequently against third world countries, which are illegal under international law.”

Peskov added that “they use this practice more and more often in recent times to ensure their own interests in international commercial and economic affairs.”

Also, spokesman Peskov stressed that Russia categorically opposes this practice.

On the other hand, in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, in a media briefing session offered online, said China is against any foreign interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela and against the application of unilateral sanctions.

The United States imposed sanctions on the airline Conviasa, the largest airline in Venezuela.

The Treasury Department published on its website that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) included 40 aircraft of this airline in the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (SDN).

“China’s position on the problem of Venezuela is clear and remains unchanged. We stand against any foreign interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela and against unilateral sanctions,” said the diplomat.

Since 2019, the United States in particular, and some other countries due to pressure from Washington, began applying new sanctions to Caracas, which seriously affected its economy, people’s lives and Venezuela’s relations with other nations, Geng Shuang recalled.

“We urge other countries to take into account the humanitarian reality of Venezuela, stop imposing unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions, and work to create necessary conditions that will lead to the stability of their economic growth,” said Geng.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Economics | , , , | 1 Comment

Support for NATO wanes in France, Germany & even US as alliance struggles to maintain unity

RT | February 10, 2020

Public support for NATO has seen a notable decline in France, Germany and the US, according to a new poll. The alliance has suffered from months of budgetary in-fighting and mud-slinging among member states.

While the Pew Research study noted that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization still enjoys general support across member states, it pointed out that several countries “have soured on the alliance.”

Positive views of the transatlantic alliance fell to 52 percent in the United States last year, from 64 percent in 2018, the survey found. In France, support fell to 49 percent, from 60 percent in 2017 and 71 percent in 2009. A figure for 2018 was not available. Germany also saw a drop in public support, which stood at 57 percent in 2019, down from 63 percent in 2018. Positive ratings of NATO among members range from a high of 82 percent in Poland to 21 percent in Turkey.

The decline in public support can be attributed to a number of factors, including months of heated debate over defense spending among member states. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly chastised alliance members for not meeting their military spending commitment of two percent of GDP, while arguing that the United States pays far too much for Europe’s defense.

European states have also been highly critical of the Cold War-era defensive alliance. Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron accused NATO of suffering from “brain death” because of its perceived failure to help maintain global security and resolve world conflicts.

The alliance has also struggled to maintain a united front, most notable in Syria, where Turkey has been at odds with its American allies. Ankara has also locked horns with Athens over the tense military and political situation in Libya.

Founded in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, NATO has been criticized for being largely obsolete and lacking a clear purpose. Despite billing itself as a defensive alliance, it has participated in a number of disastrous military interventions in the Middle East and North Africa.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Poll Results: Climate Is Always Low Priority

There is no evidence that climate change has ever been a top concern for most Americans.

By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | February 10, 2020

Recently I reported on a poll that Gallup has conducted in America every month of every year since 2001. Admirably, it makes no attempt to prompt or influence. It asks people to name the most important problem facing the country, then it records their answers.

If one seeks honest, genuine insight into ordinary people’s lives, that’s a great approach.

Pew Research Center, another American polling outfit, conducts a different kind of survey. For 25 years (from 1994 to 2019 inclusive), it has read members of the public a long list of pre-selected topics in random order. People have been asked to attach a label to each one.

Should it be a ‘top priority’ for the President and Congress this year? Should it be a lower priority? Is it unimportant? Does it deserve no attention at all?

In 2007, Pew added ‘global warming’ to this list of potential top priorities. In 2016, it started calling it ‘climate change’ instead.

Last year, 44% of respondents told Pew that ‘Dealing with global climate change’ should be a top priority. That sounds significant until you notice that every single item on the list received at least 39% support.

In such cases, raw percentages are meaningless. What matters is how a topic ranks compared to its fellows. Those results couldn’t be clearer. In 2019, climate change ended up in 17th place out of 18.

70% of people said strengthening the economy should be a top priority.

69% said reducing health care costs should be.

68% said the education system needs attention.

Those are very strong numbers, involving more than than two-thirds of the population. What came next?

4.  ‘Defending the country from future terrorist attacks’ – 67%

5.  ‘Taking steps to make the Social Security system financially sound’ – 67%

6.  ‘Taking steps to make the Medicare system financially sound’ – 67%

7.  ‘Dealing with the problems of poor and needy people’ – 60%

8.  ‘Protecting the environment’ – 56%

9.  ‘Dealing with the issue of immigration’ – 51%

10. ‘Improving the job situation’ – 50%

11. ‘Reducing crime’ – 50%

12. ‘Dealing with drug addiction’ – 49%

13. ‘Reducing the budget deficit’ – 48%

14. ‘Addressing race relations in this country’ – 46%

15. ‘Strengthening the US military’ – 45%

16. ‘Improving the country’s roads, bridges and public transportation systems’ – 45%

17. ‘Dealing with global climate change’ – 44%

18. ‘Dealing with global trade issues’ – 39%

In other words, another long-running US poll tells us the public’s climate concerns are weak. Ask people if they care about it, and many will say ‘yes.’ But they feel more urgency about a long list of other issues.

‘Dealing with global warming’ ended up in second last place in 2007. Between 2008 and 2013, it ranked last (select a year and then ‘Overall’ here). Here’s what happened after that:

2014: second last

2015 second last

2016 third last (the first year Pew began calling it ‘global climate change’)

2017: second last (see bottom of the page)

2018: second last

2019 second last

Moral of the story: There has never been any evidence that climate change is a top concern for most Americans. This is not a crowd pleaser or a vote getter.

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment