(August 7, 2021)
Because they want to.
Archiv: A world of fools unfit for politics and democracy and science and culture and and and...
Netanyahu Corruption Trial Testimony Delayed Due to ‚Security and Political Reasons‘
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s request to delay testifying in his criminal trial was accepted by judges on Sunday due to „security and political“ reasons related to „the dramatic events that have occurred in the State of Israel and throughout the Middle East in recent times,“ according to a letter sent to judges.
Warum halten sich die Staatsführungen von China und Russland an die U.S.-Sanktionen gegen Iran, Venezuela, Syrien und Kuba?
(August 7, 2021)
Weil sie es wollen.
Why are the state leaders of China and Russia complying with U.S. sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba?
(August 7, 2021)
Because they want to.
Yitzhak Rabin – The Last Speech (English Subtitles)
The last speech of prime minister and minister of defense Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by right-wing Israeli radical on November 4th 1995 in Tel Aviv.
US, 40 partner countries, hold symposium to implement UNSC regulations against Iran
(today)
The US and 40 partner countries gathered in Prague last week for a symposium to advance the implementation of reimposed United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) against Iran, the US State Department confirmed on Tuesday. (…)
Six UNSCRs were reimposed on September 27, 2025, after the Islamic Republic regime‘s „continuing ‚significant non-performance‘ of its nuclear commitments,“ the State Department noted.
Iran: Closed Consultations on the Invocation of the “Snapback” Mechanism
(August 28, 2025)
The JCPOA was concluded in July 2015 between Iran and permanent Council members China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US, as well as Germany (collectively known as the P5+1), and unanimously endorsed by the Council through resolution 2231. The agreement placed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for relief from UN sanctions, which the Council had imposed between 2006 and 2010. The restrictions were scheduled to progressively expire over time, culminating in the “termination day” of 18 October 2025, when the Council would end its consideration of the Iranian nuclear file.
The agreement also contained a provision—known as the “snapback” mechanism—allowing any JCPOA participant to reimpose UN sanctions in the event of “significant non-performance” by Iran. The snapback operates through a two-stage process anchored in both the JCPOA (articles 36–37) and resolution 2231 (operative paragraphs 11–13). If a participant considers another to be in “significant non-performance”, it may refer the matter to the JCPOA’s Joint Commission—which is coordinated by the European Union (EU)—and its Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM).
Warum das Atomabkommen für den Iran von Anfang an wertlos war
(May 14, 2018)
D.h., das Atomabkommen gilt faktisch nur für die Vertragsparteien ohne Vetomacht im U.N.-Sicherheitsrat: den Iran, Deutschland und die Europäische Union.
Es ist anzunehmen, dass sich jetzt wieder einmal alle beteiligen Regierungen auf die Unfähigkeit herausreden ihren eigenen Betrug zu verstehen.
Eine U.N.-Resolution ist Teil des am 14. Juli 2015 unterschriebenen internationalen Iranabkommen / Atomabkommen (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, J.C.P.O.A.).
Bereits Monate vorher warnte Radio Utopie ausdrücklich vor genau dieser kommenden U.N.-Resolution und der damit zusammenhängenden Frage der Sanktionen. (4. April 2015, Das Iran-Abkommen: Wende oder Hebel)
Und schon zuvor warnten wir im März 2015 davor, dass diese kommende U.N.-Resolution sich ausgerechnet auf Kapitel VII der nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg beschlossenen Charta der Vereinten Nationen berufen solle
Genau das tut die am am 20. Juli 2015 im U.N.-Sicherheitsrat beschlossene Resolution 2231 (2015), indem sie sich in ihren entscheidenen Abschnitten („decides“) auf Artikel 41 (und damit Kapitel VII) der Charta der Vereinten Nationen beruft.
Das Iran-Abkommen: Wende oder Hebel
(April 4, 2015)
Am 23. März meldete der britische „Telegraph“, dass sich in der iranischen Zeitung Kayhan Abgeordnete des iranischen Majlis über die Verhandlungsstrategie von Außenminister Zarif beschwerten und bezüglich einer von Zarif angestrebten Resolution nach Kapitel VII der U.N.-Charta als einer „Falle“ sprachen. Auch der eine oder andere Generalissimus, wie überall Repräsentant der örtlichen Hochkultur, befand – gerade noch rechtzeitig – es sei vielleicht doch keine so gute Idee sich mit der Zustimmung zu einer Kapitel VII-Resolution auch noch selbst als Gefährdung des Weltfriedens zu bezeichnen, nur weil man Atomkraftwerke und medizinische Anlagen samt Forschung dazu betreibt.
Im nun vorgestern am 2. April in Lausanne von den Regierungen der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, des Vereinigten Königreichs, der Russischen Föderation, von China, Frankreich und Deutschland gemeinsam mit Iran beschlossenen und veröffentlichten Abkommen ist von einer „neuen Resolution des Sicherheitsrates“ die Rede, die das Abkommen bzw dessen „Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action“ (JCPOA) „unterstützen“ und auf dessen vollständige Umsetzung „drängen“ soll.
Frage: Nach Kapitel VII U.N.-Charta? Bei „ernsthaften Konsequenzen“ für den Iran, wegen erklärter Gefährdung von „internationalen Frieden und Sicherheit,“ wegen behaupteter oder tatsächlicher Vertragsverletzungen?
Israel, Russia, and the United States Are Testing the Boundaries of Global Order
(September 12, 2025)
As I’ve discussed at length recently, we have already witnessed the death of the global trading system as we have known it. But this slide away from the rules-based system isn’t limited to trade. It is evident in the use of military force as well.
Three examples of unilateral military action over the past couple weeks are particularly instructive:
(…)
That is the real Hobbesian peril. Each of these actions can be seen as an isolated instance, but if one or two or three countries take kinetic action unilaterally, it risks creating a permission structure where others feel there are no guardrails to constrain them.
Israel, Russia, and the United States Are Testing the Boundaries of Global Order
(September 12, 2025)
As I’ve discussed at length recently, we have already witnessed the death of the global trading system as we have known it. But this slide away from the rules-based system isn’t limited to trade. It is evident in the use of military force as well.
Three examples of unilateral military action over the past couple weeks are particularly instructive:
(…)
That is the real Hobbesian peril. Each of these actions can be seen as an isolated instance, but if one or two or three countries take kinetic action unilaterally, it risks creating a permission structure where others feel there are no guardrails to constrain them.
Archiv: Enfopol (US-EU surveillance system over Europe and beyond)
(archive entries)
Yitzhak Rabin – The Last Speech (English Subtitles)
The last speech of prime minister and minister of defense Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by right-wing Israeli radical on November 4th 1995 in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu says backs ‚Greater Israel‘, which includes parts of Jordan and Egypt
Similar views have been echoed by ministers within Netanyahu‘s government.
Last year, in a documentary, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was filmed advocating for the expansion of Israeli borders to include Damascus.
He suggested that Israel would gradually grow to encompass not only all Palestinian territories but also parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Netanyahu says he’s on a ‘historic and spiritual mission,’ also feels a connection to vision of Greater Israel
(August 12, 2025)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells i24 he feels he is on a “historic and spiritual mission,” and that he is “very” attached to the vision of a Greater Israel, which includes areas slated for a future Palestinian state and possibly also areas that are part of present-day Jordan and Egypt.
The interviewer Sharon Gal, who was briefly a right-wing member of Knesset, gifts to Netanyahu what he says is an amulet of “a map of the Promised Land.”
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations to partition Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. Drafted by the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) on 3 September 1947, the Plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181 (II).[1][2] The resolution recommended the creation of independent but economically linked Arab and Jewish States and an extraterritorial „Special International Regime“ for the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings.[3][4]
XVII RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
(November 29, 1947)
PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
PART I
Future constitution and government of Palestine
A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
l. The Mandate for Palcstine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
2. The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but
in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the Mandate and to evacuate each area.
The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than l October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, tbe Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
Can Netanyahu say just what he likes?
(October 25, 2015)
A political consultant once related how he lunched with Benjamin Netanyahu, who ordered a hamburger with fries. He was not supposed to be eating such foods – doctor’s orders. As they were finishing up, Bibi’s wife, Sarah, came in, saw the evidence and began to see red. Netanyahu, all righteous indignation, looked her straight in the eye and said he had eaten no such hamburger. The storyteller said he was convinced at that moment that Netanyahu himself believed it.
If apocryphal, it is definitely in character. Netanyahu regularly embraces bad ideas or even lies so totally that he convinces himself of their rightness. Others start to believe them too. His outlandish idea, uttered in a speech, was that Hitler would have been happy with just expelling Jews if a Palestinian, the then grand mufti of Jerusalem, had not suggested annihilation instead.
Netanyahu says Hitler didn‘t want to kill the Jews, but a Muslim convinced him to do it
Oct 22, 2015
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Adolf Hitler didn‘t want to kill the Jews, but a Muslim convinced him to do it.
Holocaust historians disagree.
The symbiotic relationship between Netanyahu and Hamas
(October 22, 2023)
With Hamas in power in Gaza, coupled with a deliberately emaciated PA in the West Bank, Netanyahu could claim there was no Palestinian partner for negotiation, and he could continue to crisscross the West Bank with settlements.
In the aftermath of the bloody Black Shabbat, as it is now called in Israel, and an extensive aerial bombing campaign, Israel is poised “go after Hamas leadership” — whatever that means — in a costly ground offensive.
The key question is what happens the “day after” — something Netanyahu has never been adept at answering. His concept appears to be apres moi, le deluge — after me, chaos.
Netanyahu and Hamas: A symbiotic relationship that costs Israel dearly
(November 22, 2024)
Hamas political bureau member Mousa Abu Marzouk knows a thing or two about Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decades-long support for the group.
In fact, Mr. Abu Marzouk is Exhibit A.
Thanks to Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Abu Marzouk operates from the luxury of Doha instead of rotting in an Israeli jail since 1996 when Mr. Netanyahu first became prime minister.
In a move never adequately justified, Mr. Netanyahu, in his first year in office, dropped a request by his predecessor, Shimon Peres, for Mr. Abu Marzouk’s extradition from the United States, where he was a resident.
Shimon Peres Witnessed Israel‘s History, and Shaped it
(September 28, 2016)
After Rabin‘s assassination by a Jewish ultranationalist opposed to Israel‘s peace moves in 1995, Peres became acting prime minister. But he failed to capitalize on the widespread sympathy for the fallen leader and lost a razor-thin election the following year to Netanyahu.
In one famous incident, an angry Peres rhetorically asked a gathering of his Labor Party whether he was a „loser.“ Resounding calls of „yes“ rained down on him.
Peres would later blame a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings for his defeat. He described his visit to the scene of a deadly bus explosion in Jerusalem, where people started screaming „killer“ and „murderer“ at him. „I knew that I lost the election,“ he said.
NETANYAHU ASSUMES POWER, SPEAKS OF PEACE
(June 19, 1996)
Arafat, speaking in China, said the peace accords were an international agreement rather than a bilateral one between the Palestinians and Israel.
„Now it is the turn of the international community. I am not alone now,“ Arafat said. „We hope everyone will be committed to what has been agreed upon.“
Khalil Shakaki, head of a West Bank think tank, predicted Netanyahu will eventually support a Palestinian state confined only to the Gaza Strip – where almost half the Palestinians now under autonomy live. He predicted a complex „arrangement“ in the larger West Bank, possibly including a role for neighboring Jordan.
Netanyahu‘s first test of intentions will come soon: He must decide whether to honor the outgoing government‘s commitment to withdraw troops from Hebron, the last West Bank city under Israeli occupation.
BOMBING IN ISRAEL: HAMAS;Split in Hamas Seen as Bomb Follows Vow Of Brief Halt
(March 4, 1996(
In a leaflet distributed in Jerusalem today, „The Cells of the Martyr the Engineer Yahya Ayyash — the New Pupils“ said the bombing was „the end of our violent revenge“ for the death of Mr. Ayyash, a Hamas bomb maker killed on Jan. 5 in the Gaza Strip by an exploding cellular phone widely believed to have been planted by Israeli agents.
The Cells of the Martyr group had taken responsibility for the suicide bombings last Sunday in Jerusalem and in the coastal Israeli town of Ashkelon, and appears to be a renegade offshoot of the armed wing of Hamas, the Qassam Brigades.
A leaflet issued last Thursday by the Qassam Brigades offered an eight-day respite from attacks while Israel considered the Brigades‘ conditions for a cease-fire: an end to Israeli violence against Hamas members and other Palestinians and the release of all Hamas prisoners in Israel jails.
Ignoring that offer, The Cells of the Martyr blew up a bus today and set its own terms for a cease-fire, declaring that it would halt attacks for three months to enable Hamas and Israel to reach a truce mediated by the Palestinian Authority, the governing body led by Yasir Arafat.
The Cells criticized the Qassam Brigades for its truce offer, and warned that attacks would resume if Israel pursued Hamas militants. Addressing Israelis ahead of the May 29 national election, the group said, „Neither the Labor party nor the Likud party will give you security as long as your Government practices terrorism against us and continues to arrest members of our people.“
BOMBINGS IN ISRAEL: THE OVERVIEW;2 Suicide Bombings in Israel Kill 25 and Hurt 77, Highest Such Toll
(February 26, 1996)
Although Government and opposition leaders joined in condemning the attacks and both sides refrained from recriminations, there was no question that the revival of terror attacks, with the worst carnage to date in suicide bombings, would have a profound impact on the campaign for national elections on May 29.
While Prime Minister Shimon Peres and his Labor Party have held a sizable lead in public-opinion polls over the conservative Likud opposition since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November, all political pundits have said that could change sharply and rapidly if Palestinian terrorists struck again.
Yitzhak Rabin – The Last Speech (English Subtitles)
The last speech of prime minister and minister of defense Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by right-wing Israeli radical on November 4th 1995 in Tel Aviv.
Buy, Borrow, Die: How to be a billionaire and pay no taxes
(March 17, 2025)
Step one: buy. The average American derives most of their disposable income from the wages they earn working a job, but the superrich are different. They amass their fortune by buying and owning assets that appreciate.
(…)
Instead of selling their assets to make major purchases, the superrich can use them as collateral to secure loans, which, because they must eventually be repaid, are also not considered taxable income.
(…)
According to a provision of the tax code known as “stepped-up basis”—or, more evocatively, the “angel of death” loophole—when an individual dies, the value that their assets gained during their lifetime becomes immune to taxation.
(…)
“Only morons pay the estate tax,” Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive and the then–chief economic adviser to Donald Trump, memorably remarked in 2017.