Similarities Between Russia and Israel

The Martinez Perspective

By Brandon Martinez

Over the years I’ve observed many similarities between the behaviour of Russia and Israel. Here are some things I’ve noticed:

1) Russia and Israel both have ruthless, murderous intelligence agencies carrying out “wet-work” in foreign countries. The Mossad and the FSB (formerly KGB) are both notoriously adept at assassinations, staged provocations and other wicked chicanery. In 2006, the FSB used polonium to poison exiled Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. In 2010, the Mossad crudely assassinated an operative of Hamas in a Dubai hotel room. The two agencies have carried out dozens of other assassinations of their political enemies over the years. In 2014 a Russian minister encouraged the FSB to “follow Mossad examples” by assassinating the leaders of the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector group.

2) Both countries employ an online “troll army” of paid propagandists to forward their states’ lies and deceit. Russian and Israeli online…

View original post 181 more words




 The hard copy of this weekend’s Jerusalem Post had a special supplement ….

The Jerusalem Post’s 50 Influential Jews Of 2017

The surprise I refer to was number 35 …..


Rebecca Vilkomerson. (photo credit:YOU TUBE)

To say Rebecca Vilkomerson, the head of the pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace organization, is a controversial figure in the Jewish world would be an understatement.

She triggered anxiety in mainstream American Jewish circles with a 2016 Washington Post opinion article titled “I’m Jewish and I want people to boycott Israel.”

As head of JVP though she is one of the greatest instigators of BDS around the world today and specifically in the US. While some people are on this list due to the positive impact they are having on Israel, the world and the Jewish people, Vilkomerson is not. Nevertheless, she is here since JVP…

View original post 892 more words

People’s Tribunal: Myanmar is guilty of Muslim Genocide

Rehmat's World

On Friday Rome-basedInternational People’s Tribunal on Myanmar held Myanmar guilty of genocide against Rohingya Muslims (watch video below) and said the “systematic targeting of civilians and other acts committed by the Myanmar Army must be qualified as war crimes.”

A seven-member bench of Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT), holding proceedings on atrocities and state crimes against the Rohingya Muslim minority in Buddhist Myanmar, said its army was committing the crime in the context of official duties.

On the strength of the evidence presented, the tribunal reached the consensus ruling that the State of Myanmar has the intent to commit genocide against the Kachin people and the other Muslim groups. Further, the State of Myanmar is guilty of the crime of genocide against the Rohingya group. Moreover, that genocide against the Rohingya is now taking place with ongoing acts of genocide and the possibility the casualties of…

View original post 294 more words

Sixteen More Reasons to Question 9/11

Just because people ignore them doesn’t mean facts cease to exist!
“As the crimes of 9/11 continue to go unsolved and largely unquestioned, Americans should be aware that another 9/11 could happen at any time. If it does, the ongoing failure to question obvious deception in terrorism could take society to places where freedom to question is no longer an option.”


by Kevin Ryan

It has been 16 years since the crimes of September 11th, 2001. In that time, facts have been revealed that led more than a third of Americans to believe that the U.S government was involved in the attacks. This blog noted 14 such incredible facts on the 14th anniversary of the crimes. Here are 16 more.

1. In the nine years before 9/11, the FBI failed miserably at preventing terrorism. There are many examples of how FBI leadership under director Louis Freeh facilitated and covered-up acts of terrorism during this time. After 9/11, the FBI took extraordinary measures to hide evidence related to the attacks.
2.CIA director George Tenet led an agency that also failed in its duties related to counterterrorism and those failures appear to have been intentional. Like Freeh, Tenet had developed secret paths of communication with Saudi authorities. The facts suggest that Tenet…

View original post 764 more words

Australia: Whose interests? Why defining the ‘public interest’ is such a challenge – Jane Johnston

“ut (despite its lack of definition) the public interest should mean more than legal compliance – it is as much about process and procedure as it is outcome. It’s also about governance and ethics.

Wheeler lists seven elements that better round out the full process that should take place:

complying with applicable law (both its letter and spirit);
carrying out functions fairly and impartially;
complying with the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice;
acting reasonably;
ensuring accountability and transparency;
exposing corrupt conduct or serious maladministration;
avoiding or properly managing private interests conflicting with official duties; and
acting apolitically in the performance of official functions.
There’s no rule book for working in the public interest and, despite arguments that it is too loose, ambiguous and easy to hide behind, it is an integral part of the discourse, law, regulation and governance of modern democracies.

The ConversationSome professions, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, have tackled it head-on. This would seem a prudent measure for all professions in the future.”

Inforrm's Blog

File 20170920 910 y2p3r0

The “public interest” is a political concept that’s regularly trotted out along with other democratic principles such as transparency and accountability. And, like transparency and accountability, it’s difficult to pin down exactly what it means.

View original post 753 more words

Jonathan Collinson: Disqualifying Dual-National Parliamentarians in Australia: A Problem of Legal Status or of Their True ‘Belonging’ to Australia?

UK Constitutional Law Association

It has been reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Barnaby Joyce, has referred himself to the Australian High Court over his eligibility to sit in Australia’s Parliament. It was discovered that Mr Joyce was a dual national of Australia and New Zealand, a fact of which Mr Joyce claims he was entirely ignorant. However, dual nationals are prima facie disqualified from sitting in Australia’s Parliament by section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution:

‘Any person who is under any acknowledgement of allegiance obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power […] shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.’

The Australian High Court in Sykes v Cleary ((1992) 176 CLR 77) found that a dual national may…

View original post 1,390 more words


Kerry Underwood

This blog first appeared in Practical Law on 21 September.

I deal with this matter in detail in my Fixed Costs Autumn Tour starting on Monday 25 September– you can book here.

All of these matters are dealt with in my new book – Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs, running to three volumes and 1,300 pages and costing £80.00 and available from me here or Amazon here.

This piece does not deal with the costs figures; that is for another piece.

As part of his Supplemental Report on Fixed Recoverable Costs, which will be considered by the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and the government, Jackson LJ has proposed a new intermediate track.

This new track is a streamlined system for cases of no more than “modest complexity” valued at between £25,000 and £100,000, and lasting no more than three days at trial.

View original post 1,150 more words

Integration is Multidimensional: ‘Generic Factors’ Count in Calculating Integrative Links in Deportation Cases

United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog

AS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1284 (23 August 2017)

AS entered the UK aged nine with his mother under the family reunion rules because his father had been granted indefinite leave to remain as a refugee who had fled persecution in Iran. But he developed a serious criminal record. Unlike his mother, he did not acquire British citizenship and was thus a “foreign criminal” holding Iranian nationality. The authorities sought his deportation and the decision-maker assessed that the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals was not outweighed by AS’s article 8 rights. However, the First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal. However, the Upper Tribunal set aside the decision because of the judge’s failure to consider the effects of the provisions relating to article 8 and the public interest contained in sections 117A-D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and…

View original post 1,765 more words

Early pioneers of Quantum physics (IX Century)

“Maybe another reason for my sorrow is that there are millions of non-discovered issues waiting for the genuine researchers. The question is do we have these ”genuine researchers”?”

Shaykh Atabek Shukurov an Nasafi

Early pioneers of Quantum physics (IX Century)

© Atabek Shukurov

Islamic theology and philosophy have witnessed a lot of heated debates over issues some of which would look like very useless or some times maybe absurd topics. One of these debates was between the two groups on the topic of ”the smallest particle”. They normally call the issue as ”the particle which cannot be divided”. Obviously, there are masses of people (could be over ninety percent) who may get the essence of the point incorrectly thinking that the issue is about dividing the matter practically. That is, without doubt, incorrect understanding and I do not have time to explain it here. In my thesis I have included this question (among other 18 issues raised by Alberonius). By looking at my research I don’t really know, shall we be proud or shall we be upset. First, I want to quote…

View original post 701 more words

#Tory shambles #EU #Law #Article127: Obscure section could stop #Brexit?

Article 127: What is the obscure section of EU law – and how could it stop Brexit? | Ben Kentish  | Ben Kentish | INDEPENDENT | 20 September 2017

Some experts say the obscure regulation could keep Britain in the single market.

As Cabinet divisions over Brexit threaten to tear Theresa May’s Government apart, focus is turning to the obscure legislation that governs how the UK would leave the single market.

Now experts have claimed that Ms May’s plans for a hard Brexit could be scuppered by a little-known legal clause.

The small print at the heart of the debate, Article 127, is the lesser-known cousin of Article 50. Whereas Article 50 spells out how a country leaves the European Union (EU), Article 127 relates to departing the single market.


Pro-EU campaigners have already launched a legal bid over Article 127 Reuters

The former has already been triggered, but the latter has not – and that is where the Prime Minister’s problem could lie.

Former Bank of England governor: Brexit negotiations are “not going in the way that we might hope”

What is Article 127?

It is a clause of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement 1993 – the document that includes the rules governing the single market.

Article 127 explains the process for a country leaving the single market.

It says: “Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months’ notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties.

“Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.”

That’s it. But some experts say these 52 words could be enough to keep Britain in the single market – and even scupper Brexit entirely.

How could that happen?

Britain has already triggered the Article 50 clause that sets the ball rolling on withdrawing from the European Union.

In March, Ms May wrote to Donald Tusk, the European Council President, saying: “I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union.”

In doing so she began a two-year process that will see Britain leave the EU in March 2019.

However, some legal experts say this is not the same as leaving the EEA (the single market), and that a separate process is needed for this to happen.

Under Article 127, members of the EEA must explicitly say they plan to leave the single market – which is legally separate, many lawyers believe, to leaving the EU.

Jo Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, told The Independent: “There is an argument that leaving the EU automatically triggers departure from the EAA. There’s another argument that actually it doesn’t, and you have to trigger your departure from the EEA separately.

“If the first of those is right, then the Government doesn’t need the permission of Parliament because we already announced we’re leaving the EEA when we triggered Article 50.

“But if the second argument is right, there would need to be parliamentary authorisation either through the Repeal Bill or otherwise.”

Could Article 127 stop a hard Brexit?

Potentially, yes. Late last year, pro-EU campaigners launched a legal bid to force the Government to consult Parliament before triggering Article 127.

High Court judges blocked that challenge because, they said, it was too early; the process of the UK leaving the single market had barely begun. However, the case is likely to be relaunched further down the line.

Depending on how the courts rule, the Government could be forced to give Parliament a vote on whether the UK should leave the single market. Under the “12 months’ notice” part of Article 127, that would mean a vote would need to be held by next March, if Britain is to leave the single market at the same time as it leaves the EU.

In that scenario, it is far from certain that Ms May would be able to get Parliament to back her plans.

Labour would take Britain out of the EU single market, Corbyn says

While Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in theory supports leaving the EEA, its commitment to this is far from clear and several shadow ministers have already touted the possibility that the UK could remain in the EEA and customs union after Brexit.

For example, Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, recently said his party was “flexible” about the option of “negotiating a new single market relationship”.

That raises the possibility that, if the EU is willing to make concessions on freedom of movement, Labour could shift its position and end up backing EEA membership.

In that case, only six pro-EU Tory MPs would need to rebel in order for the Government to be defeated.

Mr Maugham said he believed MPs would be likely to support a proposal to “keep all options open” and “keep single market membership on the table for a transitional period and then adopt a wait-and-see approach for after a transitional period” – in other words, keep Britain in the single market until further notice.

Former Government insiders also believe Article 127 could prove critical and might even halt Brexit entirely if ministers are forced to give Parliament a vote on single market membership.

According to The Mirror, James Chapman, the former Chief of Staff to Brexit Secretary David Davis’, yesterday told an event at the Liberal Democrats’ annual conference: “Is there a majority in the House of Commons, let alone [the Lords] to leave the single market? No there’s not.

“So the Government won’t be able to get that through Parliament and at that point Brexit will collapse.

“Because the British people will say ‘we’ll have to pay more to stay in the single market and we won’t be able to control freedom of movement. So what is the effing point of doing this?’”

What does the Government say?

Ministers say Article 127 is irrelevant because when Britain stops being an EU member, it will automatically leave the single market.

In February, a Number 10 spokesperson said: “The UK is party to the EEA agreement only in its capacity as an EU member state. Once the UK leaves the EU, the EEA agreement will automatically cease to apply to the UK.”

However, the Government’s position appears to have shifted slightly. Earlier this month, David Davis hinted that ministers might try to trigger Article 127 to avoid any doubt about Britain’s legal position in relation to the EEA.

He told MPs: “We are considering what steps, if any, we might need to take to formally confirm our withdrawal from the EEA agreement, as a matter of international law.”

And, let’s not forget, Government lawyers don’t have the best track record on Brexit. They previously claimed that Parliament did not need to be given a say on triggering Article 50 – an argument that was dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter included an explicit – and separate – reference to the UK’s intention to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). That could be interpreted as an implicit recognition that leaving the EU’s institutions requires a separate notification – one that might also apply to the EEA.

What will happen now?

The Government may continue to argue that Article 127 is irrelevant, or it may try to trigger the clause without the approval of Parliament. Clauses in the EU Withdrawal Bill, which is currently before Parliament, would grant ministers that power.

However, MPs are prepared for this.

Labour backbencher Heidi Alexander has already tabled an amendment to the bill that says: “No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.”

If this or any similar amendment is passed, ministers would be forced to call a vote of Parliament on triggering Article 127 – like they were with Article 50.

As things stand, the battle seems set to end up in the courts. If ministers attempt to ignore Article 127 or to trigger it without a parliamentary vote, Remain campaigners are almost certain to re-launch their legal challenge.

Should this happen, Theresa May would face the prospect of her most significant parliamentary defeat yet and, when it comes to determining Britain’s future relationship with Europe, one that could have major ramifications for decades to come.