Democracy?

I have had a bad night's sleep due to fears and ideas swirling around my head and my blogging today will be very, very light as I have a tough work day.

The idea that we live in a democracy is one that is quite hard to give up as without it, what is the point of campaigning, writing and arguing. However it has been long apparent that their are forces within this country, and without, that demand victory and power and only believe in democracy if the vote goes their way. In the UK the Labour party and its supporters took power in 1997 and all opponents were expected to just 'suck it up' and accept the will of the people. The BBC and much else of the media and population were taken in by the smarm of Blair and cowed by the veiled (or otherwise) threats of Campbell and Mandelson. Of course in the case of the BBC a Labour government was greeted by the opening of champagne bottles on election night as their hard work destroying the Conservative government had finally paid off. 12 years on and this Labour government have proved even more incompetent and destructive as any previous Labour government and the UK is in real trouble. However the BBC, as shown by Andrew Marr's contrasting interviews with Gordon Brown and David Cameron, have no doubts that the continuation of Labour government of the UK is their aim. Within the UK the army of state employees has been carefully increased by Gordon Brown, with our money. An army expected to vote Labour and ally itself with those on state benefits to ensure permanent Labour governments. The carefully set-up Quangocracy will ensure that if by any fluke a Conservative government is elected, it will have enemies embedded everywhere to slow it down, fight it at every turn and work for the return of a Labour government as soon as possible.

Meanwhile outside of the UK, the EU has concentrated on accruing as much power to itself as possible. The EU Constitution was voted down by countries allowed the vote so its powers were re-written as amendments to the existing treaties in attempt to avoid any referenda. Ireland's courts saw through this and demanded a referendum, which the NO vote won but this was not satisfactory and the EU made some dubious concessions made them vote again and won a scared YES from the Irish. It is obvious to all that the UK population would vote no if asked to support the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum so we will not be asked for our approval. The Czechs will be bullied over and over again to ratify the Treaty before there is any chance of a Conservative election victory. Once ratified whoever wins elections in the UK will be of little importance as power will be centralised in Brussels like never before. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the return of Peter Mandelson was brought back into the Uk government to shore up Gordon Brown for just long enough for the Irish and Czechs to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

So do we really live in a country where however we feel, however we vote; nothing changes? I fear that this might indeed be the case.Even if David Cameron's Conservatives manage to overcome the BBC's bile and win the coming general election, it is easily possible that they will find they have to answer to Tony Blair as unelected President of the EU and Gordon Brown as (unelected) head of the new more powerful G20.

Maybe Gordon Brown's prattling about a New World Order was more than just rhetoric. Maybe it is our future to live in a world where undemocratic supranational bodies have more power than elected governments.

The BBC in full ant-Conservative mode this morning

Andrew Marr's interview of David Cameron and most of The Politics Show showed how the BBC/Labour alliance will play the game from now on. Attack the Conservatives from the left and the right, try and get the word "extremist" associated with the Conservative party and portray David Cameron as a rich toff.

A tough weekend

David Cameron and his team will have a tough weekend (and beyond) to cope with. First the Irish were bullied into voting YES on the Lisbon Treaty, I make that 1:1 shouldn't there now be a decider? This will allow the BBC to try and open up as many splits as they can during the Conservative Party Conference; the BBC/Labour alliance needs to make up ground fast - expect the BBC to invite as many Euro-sceptics as they can into the studios next week and to concentrate on the EU in all interviews. Second Gordon Brown has folded and agreed to debated, with conditions, he and Labour have nothing to lose - they will therefore be dangerous.

The only film of Anne Frank

"July 22 1941. The girl next door is getting married. Anne Frank is leaning out of the window of her house in Amsterdam to get a good look at the bride and groom. It is the only time Anne Frank has ever been captured on film. At the time of her wedding, the bride lived on the second floor at Merwedeplein 39. The Frank family lived at number 37, also on the second floor. The Anne Frank House can offer you this film footage thanks to the cooperation of the couple."

Seeing that face looking out of the second floor window/balcony is a really odd experience for me. I first went to Amsterdam back in the 1970s and I found the Anne Frank museum very moving. I have been back to the museum quite a few times since, although not for some years now, but the last time it got too much for me.

"I'm essentially mad, mad, mad, mad, mad!"

A reminder of Rory Bremner's brilliant Gordon Brown as Mika parody

"I want to talk to you
The last time we talked Mr. Brown you reduced me to tears
I promise you it won't happen again.

Ding!

Do i attract you, do I repulse you
With my queasy smile
Am I too scary, are you too wary
Do I fill you with bile
I could be wholesome, I could be loathsome
'cause i'm a little bit shy
Why don't you like me
Why don't you like me without making me try

I tried to go on the telly, hee
but my looks were too bad, aah
now I act like Machiavelli, emm
I'm essentially mad, mad, mad, mad, mad!

I could be brown
I could be blue
I could be violent and cry
I could be hurtful
I could be purple
I could be anything I like
Gotta be green, gotta be mean
gotta be everything more
Why don't you like me
Why don't you like me should I just head out the door?

Getting angry doesn't solve anything!

Ding!

How can I help ya
How can I help ya how can I change how you vote
Helping the workers helping the Gurkhas being a bit less remote.
Why don't you like me
Why don't you like me, why don't I like myself
Feeling rejected never elected will be I be left on the shelf

I tried to go on the telly, hee
but my looks were too bad, aah
now I act like Machiavelli, emm
I'm essentially mad...

I could be brown
I could be blue
I could be violent and cry
I could be hurtful
I could be purple
I could be anything I like
Gotta be green, gotta be clean
gotta be everything more
Why don't you like me, why don't you like me
Why don't you head out the door.


I'll put her down as a maybe? (cheesy smile) "

Is Sinitta Jewish?

Sinitta celebrates Sukkot or else it's something to do with the X-Factor...

If Sinitta is the lulav, would she mind if I gave her a shake? BTW where does she keep the etrog?

Operation "destroy Cameron" (Update)

Further to this from July when I reported that:

"A Channel 4 programme not one of the BBC's, but I am sure the BBC will find a way of publicising it. The Independent report that:

"When Boris met Dave will dramatise the school and university years of the Conservative Party leader and his friend and political fellow-traveller, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London. This period in the two Old Etonians' lives is widely known for an infamous mid-Eighties Oxford University photograph, which shows the pair posing in the blue tailcoats and mustard-coloured waistcoats of the notorious Bullingdon Club.

The 90-minute documentary will be shown on More 4 in the autumn, prompting complaints from Tory MPs that it may influence voters in the run-up to the next general election. Philip Davies, a member of the House of Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, said the timing of the programme left Channel 4 open to "accusations they are pursuing an agenda". "

The "left" in the UK are worried that despite all their hard work of destroying the credibility of the Conservative party, the voters are turning to that party. The answer - go into overdrive, attack on every front, after all to let the "nasty party" back into power would be a crime. "

Well I have news... When Boris Met Dave is to be broadcast on More 4 next Wednesday October 7 at 9pm, completely coincidentally David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Conference is on the Thursday afternoon after the broadcast.

"The smart way to keep people passive & obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that..."

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

Not my words but those of the darling of the left Noam Chomsky. I wonder if the BBC have been using those words of his as their operational template for the last 20 years.

Maybe the BBC also agree with Noam Chomsky that "supporters of Israel are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction" and that "Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security may well lead to that consequence"

"I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good."

Not my words but those of the BBC's Andrew Marr. You can read more from the ever so liberal Andrew Marr in The Guardian. Here's some more

"Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too. "

and also

"What then can be done (to defeat racism)? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation ("s the mixing of different racial groups, that is, marrying, cohabiting, having sexual relations and having children with a partner from outside one's racially or ethnically defined group."), which is the best answer, "

Delightful chap and without a hint of scandal around him...

Freedom of Information?

The BBC are pleased to report that their vile anti-Israel bias can remain hidden

"A bid to force publication of a review by the BBC of its Middle East coverage has been rejected in the High Court.

London lawyer Steven Sugar wanted the Balen report, which was drawn up in 2004, to be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

But Mr Justice Irwin ruled that, as the material was held "for the purposes of journalism, art or literature", the corporation had no duty to disclose it.

...

In 2004, senior news editor Malcolm Balen examined hundreds of hours of television and radio broadcasts to compile the 20,000-word report.

Mr Sugar, from Putney, south London, wanted it to be part of the debate about alleged anti-Israeli bias at the BBC.

He has argued that the Freedom of Information Act was badly drafted and prevented disclosure of material which should be publicly available.

But the BBC said the report was always intended as an internal review of programme content, to inform future output.

It has said it was vital for independent journalism that debates among its staff about how it covers stories do not have to be opened up to the public gaze.

In his judgment on the Steven Sugar case, the judge said he had taken account of the fact that the BBC was a public body under the Act which was publicly funded, adding that there was a public interest in accessing information about its activities.

But he also said there was a public interest in preserving the freedom of journalism as well as creative and artistic activity.

He told the court: "Different views may legitimately be taken about these questions, particularly at the margins or where the principles collide.

"The resolution is for Parliament, not for the courts or the tribunal. The resolution is contained within the proper meaning of the language of the statute."

Welcoming the ruling, a spokesman for the corporation said: "The BBC's position is that free and impartial journalism is vital to our viewers and listeners and is at the heart of public service broadcasting.

"If we are not able to pursue our journalism freely and have honest debate and analysis over how we are covering important issues, then how effectively we can serve the public will be diminished." "

Dithering Gordon?

Apparently the BBC, ITV and BSkyB have written to the three main party leaders setting out the details of their proposal to each produce and broadcast their own debate, selecting the chair themselves. This would mean not one but three debates, one shown live on each network - with delayed coverage on the others.

So far David Cameron and Nick Clegg have agreed to appear in such debates whilst Gordon "courage" Brown has just said that he had made up whether to participate or not in a live broadcast but that now was not the right time to discuss the matter.

Mr Cameron has accused Gordon Brown of "dithering" over the issue, something that is of course totally out of character for the decisive Mr Brown.


I have my doubts over these debates mostly because so much depends upon the choice of debate moderator; the BBC would be most likely to choose David Dimbleby which I cannot see being to the benefit of any party other than Labour.

Gilad Shalit is alive

But still held hostage, not that the Western media seem especially upset by this fact.

It's Rio

Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympics. The first Olympics to take place in South America and just two years after Brazil hosts the World Cup.

Has the gloss rubbed off Barack Obama?

It seems only a few months since Barack Obama could do no wrong, so I am sure that the Chicago Olympics 2016 team thought he would be an asset to their bid; maybe as big an asset as Tony Blair was to the London 2012 bid. Well it seems they were wrong as Chicago was the first city to be eliminated from the voting process.

The BBC must be in shock

"0926: Chicago entered today slight favourites to win the 2016 Games, lest we forget - although many will concede this year's race is just too close to call. As well as the Obamas' presence, the likes of basketball legend Michael Jordan, TV talk show host Proah Winfrey and secretary of state Hillary Clinton have all lent their support - and as shown by Tony Blair's influence in 2005 and Vladimir Putin's in 2007, personalities can be absolutely crucial to a bid team's success.

...

BBC sports news correspondent James Munro: "The Chicago bid really came alive when the Obamas came to the fore in their presentation - it is now a question of whether their impact is big enough to sway the IOC voters to their city."

...

0955: Here's how the news wires are reporting Chicago's bid - and no surprises for guessing the Obamas are big, big news. "Led by President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, Chicago made a heartfelt and, at times, very personal plea for the 2016 Olympics," reported AP. Reuters opened their review of the bid with: "Chicago played its two trump cards on Friday, US President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle both making impassioned speeches." And the AFP report mused: "US President Barack Obama took a brief respite on Friday from a packed political agenda to visit Copenhagen on a mission to capture the 2016 Olympics for his cherished hometown of Chicago... he is taking somewhat of a political risk in putting his presidential prestige on the line."

...

1015: So, Tokyo - whose presentation was kick-started by a 15-year-old gymnast, underlining the bid's desire to involve the children of the city should the 2016 Games be awarded them - are just wrapping up their 45-minute stand in Copenhagen, but many believe they will really have to pull something out of the fire if they are to rival the two cities considered by many to be the front-runners - Chicago and Rio de Janeiro. However, as BBC Sport's Matt Slater pointed out in his blog in August, "my guess is that we'll be left with the same equation: the IOC's heart calling for Copacabana but its head worrying about crime and passing up the riches on offer in Chicago - a confusion that might just let in Madrid or Tokyo."

...

1210: By way of an indication of just how fleeting US President Obama's visit to Copenhagen was, Air Force One has just departed Denmark. A fleeting visit, yes, but also one that underlines Obama's crucial support of the Chicago bid. Will it make all the difference?

- A flight from the USA to Copenhagen to deliver a speech each and then straight back to the USA, presumably AirForce 1 produces no CO2 -

...

1305: In Chicago, Amy Jacobson reporter for WLS Radio: "Optimism is growing here in Chicago especially after that wonderful and emotional closing speech by Michelle Obama. I'm down on Daley Plaza, where they are getting ready for a huge party - everyone here expects to win. They are going to broadcast the decision live in the heart of the city and we are expecting thousands of people to come down and cheer on Chicago."

...

- And after the vote -

"BBC News' Adam Brookes in Chicago: "The shock of Chicago's elimination was greater for the fact that it came in the first round. And greater for the fact that President Obama had taken valuable hours from his packed and tense political schedule to travel to Copenhagen. His legendary powers of persuasion will be said to have failed him, though in reality it will be Chicago's bid that failed him. Nonetheless, this is a moment which allows the president's detractors to allege waning prestige on the part of his presidency. And it will raise questions about the political advice that he is receiving.""

It must be hard for the BBC to understand that Barack Obama may not be the world's favourite politician. I think people are realising that like Tony Blair in the UK he's spin and lies.

Very scary Climate Change prediction from TIME

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.

...

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the ... trend.

...

Whatever the cause of the ... trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic."

Scary stuff, I am deeply concerned... Well I would be were it not of the fact that those are extracts from a TIME Magazine article from 1974. The article concludes:

"The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Why is the 2000's obsession with Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change any more credible than the mid 1970's obsession with Global Cooling?


Thanks to No Parasan for the spot.

Is it 1976-1979 all over again?

The last Labour government collapsed following Britain facing financial crisis from 1976. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of nearly $4 billion. In return the IMF insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.

Today I read in The Guardian that (my emphasis):

"Britain was served notice by the International Monetary Fund today that reforms to healthcare and pensions will be needed to repair the long-term damage to public finances caused by the global recession.

The IMF is in favour of higher government spending to support activity through the most serious downturn since the second world war, but believes governments will have to take stringent steps to deal with their debt. Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's economic counsellor, said the UK and other countries running big deficits had to take measures which improved the medium-term sustainability of the debt.

Asked specifically about the UK's financial health, Blanchard warned that action would be needed once the crisis was over. "That means reforms of the retirement system; that means reforms of the healthcare system. These reforms have basically to be confronted. The idea of (just) introducing these fiscal rules and not doing these reforms is a joke.""

Once again a Labour government takes the UK to the brink of financial collapse, this time it is far far worse than 1976-1979, when will the electorate learn?

Is today the last chance to stop the EU juggernaut?

The Irish go back to the polls as they gave the wrong answer last time. The big battalions of the EU have done their best to persuade the Irish that a "No" vote would not be in their interests and so if all goes to the EU's plan the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified by all except the Czechs and the Poles and it's only the Czechs that might delay this Treaty for more than a month or so. The Mail reports that

"(Tony) Blair is set to become EU President within weeks if Ireland votes 'Yes' in its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow. The former prime minister's candidacy for the new post will be rushed through as quickly as possible, according to government sources."

Rushed to ensure that an incoming Conservative government can do nothing about the Treaty.

So people of Ireland - vote YES and get Blair, is that what you really want?


For more on where the ratification process really is, take a look at Your Freedom and Ours.

Taking the Bacon

I was unfortunate that I turned on my radio late last night as I drove home and heard 5-10 minutes of the most ridiculous discussion on BBC 5Live. It seemed that Richard Bacon and guests were discussing whether or not the BBC was now biased in favour of the Conservatives, the only evidence seemed to be that Boris Johnson had appeared on Eastenders and Gordon Brown and Ken Livingstone had not. The discussion also seemed to decide that 5Live itself might now be biased in favour of the Conservatives.

Let nobody be fooled, this is part of the new Labour narrative that they are the underdogs, that everyone is against them and that it just isn't fair. It is probably only a matter of time before Harriet Harman gets up and threatens to "thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick" unless BBC coverage of the Labour party reverts to the near adulation of the early Blair years.

A reasoned speech to the United Nations

Much publicity was given by the British media to the recent speeches at the United Nations by Libya's Gaddafi and Iran's Ahmadinejad, both less than pleasant rulers of less than pleasant undemocratic, former or current terrorist sponsoring regimes. A speech that got little or no attention was that of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu. So here it is, do take the time to read it.

"Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honour to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fuelled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Muslims and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?


Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies levelled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.


Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgement against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defence. What legitimacy? What self-defence?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defence now accuses us, my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defence. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometres from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Speech to the UN's General Assembly
September 24th, 2009"

Never too young to be brainwashed in the land of the Obamamessiah (update)

Further to my post about the "Dear Leader" cult in the US.


Now I see that Glenn Beck has picked up on the same piece of video...

Does this sort of Obama-worship worry you at all?