European Union Tortures Greek Fellow Europeans - What Can Israel Expect from the EU?

In January 2012 the EuroZone, the countries sharing the single currency, the euro, demanded extreme austerity from Greece. One of the provisions of the set of demands on Greece was to reduce medical benefits for the Greek population [veda qui].

We can now see the effect of these draconian demands. The French daily Le Figaro reported one and a half years ago, July 2015, on the gloomy picture. That is when Greece accepted a further set of harsh austerity demands by the EuroGroup which runs the EuroZone. I have no doubt that the situation now is worse than in 2015. Le Figaro writes:

Elevators out of service, tired greenish linoleum, a corridor burdened with patients abandoned on rolling beds. Over-aged medical material and medications that are running out. Austerity. At the Evangelismos Hospital in Athens, "We know what it is." . . .   

We hear them speaking harshly to each other . . .  "Go in front of me? Do you take yourself for a German?" exclaims an irritated fifty-year old  waiting his turn at the window where medicines are given out. "We're all worn out," another patient makes an excuse. "We mustn't complain," sighs Denise, an epileptic, 40 years old who subsists with her daughter  thanks to a disability pension of 300 euros per month. "We still have free medications." . . . . "I try to survive as best I can," chief cardiologist Dr Ilias Zarkos confides.  "At the  age of fifty-five I earn 1320 euros per month, as against 1600 euros four years ago. . . . In the past five years, we have all had our salaries reduced, and 20% of the staff went on retirement without being replaced. . . . Who would want to work under these conditions? Greece is now naked." "Every year the subsidies and equipment provided to the hospital are reduced by 15%," Dr Sioras continues. [Le Figaro, 15 Juillet 2015]

That is the state of Greek hospitals as of July 2015. That is the result of years of EU austerity treatment for the original debt crisis, whereas Greek debt as of July 2015 and as of now too, is worse, is higher than in 2010 when the debt crisis first came to light. Sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease.

If the Greeks were perhaps an exotic tribe in Africa or on the island of Borneo or some decidedly Third World country, would the EU be so callous to their suffering? Would the hospitals have to make do with short supplies and out of date equipment and supplies and reduced staff? Wouldn't Europe's supposed charitable and humanitarian instincts take over and wouldn't the cries for help be answered? Where is the solidarity for fellow Europeans, whereas solidarity is supposed to be a fundamental principle of the EU? Indeed, solidarity may be located in the same place as another EU principle, transparency, another EU value which is honored as much in the breach as the observance.

Besides, when the Palestinian Authority, a new form of the old PLO, is short of funds, somehow the EU finds the money. But the same generosity does not show up for the Greeks, for their fellow Europeans who are suffering. Nor does the supposed EU principle of transparency come into effect when it comes to funding a whole array of anti-Israel NGOs .....

The EuroGroup policy toward their fellow European Greeks is harsh and callous, and unproductive. What is their attitude toward Israel? Do they any longer recognize the Jewish right to live throughout the Land of Israel (Palestine in their parlance) west of the Jordan,  as the international community had decided in 1922 in the Mandate for Palestine issued to the UK for the purpose of erecting the Jewish National Home?  Today old commitments are forgotten. In fact, prominent EU member states voted at the UN Security Council for a resolution calling it a crime for Israelis to live east of the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line, even in Jerusalem, a city that has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, whereas all Jews were ethnically cleansed from parts of Jerusalem --including the Old City's Jewish Quarter-- that were under Arab control after the 1947-1949 Israeli War of Independence. So the EU states represented in the UN SC favored apartheid against Jews by proclaiming that Jewish residence east of the Green Line, in Jerusalem too, was illegal according to international law, no less. That is what UN SC resolution 2334 has to say. Those EU states want to return Jews to their traditional status in Europe in the Middle Ages where often Jews were forced to live in ghettoes. Indeed, this demonstrates the cyclical nature of history. Out of the ghetto, now back to the ghetto.

Israel can hope for nothing decent at the upcoming French-sponsored "peace conference" in Paris. Bear in mind that the words, working-for-peace, can really mean working for war. There are strong grounds for assuming that the Paris war conference due to start on January 15 is meant to produce a resolution that will be taken to the UN Security Council before Donald Trump is inaugurated as US president on 20 January 2017 in order to prevent him from interfering in the gang up on Israel which Trump has already defined as "unfair". The Paris-to-New York time schedule is tight but possible. As the example of Euro treatment of Greece demonstrates, the EU and its member states can be not only stingy but harsh and cruel. Can Israel expect better from the EU after nearly 2000 years of discrimination and oppression of Jews and often of persecution?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For more on the Eurozone's treatment of Greece, as well as the contrast between favoritism for the PLO/PA contrasted with stinginess with Greece, see here & here .

A quote from Il Sole-24 Ore (30 January 2012) on proposed reductions of medical coverage for Greeks:

Sul fronte previdenziale, la Troika fa notare che il 50% dei medicinali rimborsati dal sistema sanitario pubblico è generico, con prezzi bassi (e che vi è quindi spazio per ridurre l'esborso di denaro pubblico). [Il Sole-24 Ore, 30 Gennaio 2012  qui] 

Beware of Obama's Stage Shows in Support of His Iran Deal - Watch for His Ventriloquist's Dummies

revised 8-24-2015

Barack Obama's political career has been marked by putting on shows to win over the public plus artful rhetoric and purple prose to mesmerize those who may have trouble thinking for themselves. Obama's great rhetorical, oratorical and thespian talents have allowed him to consolidate a hard core of devoted supporters who may have been educated in American universities but never learned to think for themselves. And are largely lacking in information. Obama and his staff rely on appeals to emotion and lofty values in order to promote his often harmful policies. They succeeded a great deal. Which is a great pity. Because they have swindled the American people in many ways. Just think of: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Even more threatening than Obama's medical care program that lessens medical care for more people than are helped by it is his Iran deal. I don't want to go into detail about the lack of independent, outside verification of Iran's nuclear facilities, the Iranian violation of their commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 10 to 15 year expiration term of the restrictions supposedly imposed by the deal [that is, if Iran doesn't cheat and get a  bomb beforehand], the 100 to 150 million dollars that Iran will get to pursue its bloody mischief in other Middle Eastern countries (not only Israel, but Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq) and other important defects in deal. Since rational and knowledgeable and reasonable people recognize the problem with the deal, the problem becomes how to stop it and what techniques Obama will use to push it through. Watch  what Obama does as if he were a magician. What does he do with his left hand while pointing into the distance with his right hand??:

Kyle Shideler warns that Obama will stage shows in order to play on the public's emotions and have the people support a deal that is against their own interests. His article is entitled:

Americans Should Be Wary of Carefully Managed Productions Supporting Iran Deal

Kyle Shideler | Aug 19, 2015 [townhall.com]

Recently, three-dozen retired flag and general officers endorsed the Obama administration’s controversial Iran Deal. The Washington Free Beaconreported that former Rear Admiral James “Jamie” Barnett, an employee of the law firm and lobbying group Venable LLP, organized the letter.

Barnett, who took credit for producing the letter, told the Free Beacon that the White House played no role, despite that Barnett’s letter says, “I am working with the White House on a letter for retired General Officers and Flag Officers to sign, supporting the U.S.-Iran accord on nuclear armament.“

Adm. Barnett’s support for the deal is not necessarily surprising. Barnett has repeatedly taken public positions on military or national security related issues that align closely with those of the Obama White House, including opposition to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in favor of changes to DOD’s Transgender policy, and applauding the use of national security as a reason to support school lunch changes proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama. In his capacity as a Venable employee, Barnett also worked a high profile case on sexual abuse in the military during a period at a moment when the White House was seized with the topic.

Barnett solicited signatures for the letter from his Venable work email, but denies that his employer played any role in the letter.

Given that Barnett had denied what appears to be obvious White House involvement, his other denial seems worthy of further investigation as well. Is there reason to believe that the firm has an interest in ending Iran sanctions?

Most immediately apparent is Venable’s close association with the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), an Iranian-American group, with its own political PAC. PAAIA is listed as one of Venable’s Non Profit Clients. PAAIA isopenly working in favor of the Iran Deal, and signed a joint statement with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a group with long-established ties to the Iranian regime. One of PAAIA’s “Founding Donors” was Venable Partner Robert S. Babayi.

Babayi is also the co-founder of the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA). Venable held presentations for the IABA on Iranian Americans living in or doing business in Iran and Iran sanctions laws. In March of 2010, IABA screened the anti-Guantanamo Bay detention facility movie “The Response” which was executive produced by Venable LLP. Venable represented Egyptian detainees at Guantanamo (the subject of the film), and Babayi’s email is listed as the RSVP email.

Babayi apparently left Venable to become Managing Director of Vector IP, a boutique Patent law firm in June 2014. Babayi is also a U.S. Advisory Team member for IBridges, an organization that works to promote High Tech entrepreneurship in Iran.

Venable may also have other interests in Iran . . . . [for full text go here]

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

After making the horrendous and fateful Munich Pact with the Nazi Hitler, UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain came back to Britain saying: peace with honour. . . . peace for our time. Obama stopped making what seemed to most people an outlandish promise of peace emerging from his Iran deal. Now he puts it differently. He claims that the only alternative to his Iran deal is war and that a better deal is not and was not possible. Perhaps he is implying that his Iran deal represents something between war and peace. A cold peace or a cold war perhaps, or maybe just a lot of limited wars that Iran will initiate against its neighbors in the Middle East but not against the United States. Meanwhile, Obama is insinuating that the opponents of his deal are warmongers and he openly said at American University in Washington, DC, that the only country that had openly commented on the deal but had not praised it was Israel. Literally that might be true if we only consider official declarations by rulers, top officials and foreign ministries. But the insinuation was that Israel was a warmongering power that might not know its own best interest. In fact, many Arab powers, including Saudi Arabia, have been very strongly opposed to the deal but fear to challenge the White House. Obama knew that when he made his speech but he considered it useful to insinuate that only Israel opposed the deal. Indeed, Saudi Arabia went so far in opposing Obama's long obvious efforts to appease Iran and leave it with its nuclear program as to allow Anwar Eshki, a former general, to appear jointly with Dore Gold, now the director-general of Israel's foreign ministry, before the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington in order to show the common Israeli-Saudi opposition to the weak nuclear deal taking shape.

- - - - - - - - - -

To get some idea of how Obama thinks, consider the words of Don Juan in Molière's play of that name [here/ici]

A Peace Agreement Is Not Necessarily Peace

Here's another fraud of the "peace process." It is the notion, widely disseminated and advocated by Western politicians, diplomats, journalopropagandists, and other peacemongers, that an agreement --in particular one called a "peace agreement"-- means peace, represents peace, will lead to peace, and so on. Agreements and accords can just as easily lead to war, even peace accords can lead to war. So if President Bush Junior can bring about an "agreement" between Israel and the "palestinian authority," most likely by twisting craven Olmert's arm, that most likely will not mean peace or bring peace. It will simply be an agreement that can improve the strategic situation of the Arab enemies of Israel, especially if Israel gives up strategic territory, such as the north-south Judea-Samaria mountain ridge [גב ההר] for the sake of a "peace agreement." In that case, a "peace accord" will surely lead to more war, to more rockets falling on Israeli cities, and so on.

For example, look at the Munich Accord of October 1938. It was touted by British PM Neville Chamberlain as "peace in our time. . . peace with honor" With Czechoslovakia strategically weakened by having given up the mountainous Sudetenland, mainly populated by ethnic Germans who were Czech citizens, Hitler invaded and occupied the rump --the remainder-- of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. Yet Britain and France did not much protest this invasion. It was not until Hitler's Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, in cooperation with the Communist USSR, that Britain and France decided formally thatHitler was an enemy. But they did little about it. The period between the invasion of Poland in 9-1939 and the invasion of France in June 1940, less than a year later, is called the Phoney War [la drole de guerre]. This is because little was done to fight the Nazis or get ready to fight them in that period. By the way, at that time, Communists in the parliaments of France and Britain were opposed to any measures of military defense by their countries. This contributed to the French defeat in 1940. Before we forget, Poland and France both had full diplomatic relations with Germany before they were attacked and invaded in 1939 and 1940 respectively.

Other falsehoods of the misnamed "peace process" are
1) the notion of a "palestinian people" which in fact never existed in history, and even now does not exist. Whereas the PLO charter [see Article I particularly], which supposedly guides the palestinian authority, claims that the "palestinian Arab people" is part of the Arab nation and Palestine is part of the Great Arab Fatherland [call it Homeland, if you don't want to acknowledge the Nazi nature of the PLO], the Hamas on the other hand, believes in the Islamic nation, al-Ummah al-Islamiyyah. In fact, neither the PLO/PA nor the Hamas and its satellites like Islamic Jihad are really interested in a "palestinian" state alongside Israel. They ultimately want a great Arab state --the PLO/PA-- or an great Islamic state ruled by a new caliph --Hamas.
2) the "peace process" is really leading towards peace and is meant to lead towards peace. Shmuel Trigano, quoted in an earlier post here, points out that what is really going on is more of a war process [processus de guerre]. See the earlier post of 15 December 2007.
3) a corollary of 2) is the falsehood of the trustworthy, scientific nature of the "peace process." By calling it a "process," the mindbenders are insinuating that the "peace process" somehow has the trustworthy inevitability of an industrial process or a technical process.
4) That there is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which must be solved. However, the other Arab states are nearly all enemies of Israel as are many many Muslim states. Consider Pakistan and Malaysia. Both Pakistan and Malaysia oppress and persecute the non-Muslim minorities in those countries. Just in recent years the civil rights of non-Muslims in Malaysia, mostly Chinese and Indians [Hindus & Sikhs], have been further cut away and these people have been more and more subject to Muslim Shari`ah law with all that implies [dhimmi status].
5) While the Organization of the Islamic Conference and most of its member states openly avow their hostility to Israel, the EU and several of its member states individually and other Western states, give billions of dollars every year to the PA, supposedly to build up its economy. In fact, much of the money goes to corrupt leaders at or near the top or to finance terrorist operations, and/or to pay the PA "security services" [arafat created more than dozen of them, so none would get so strong as to be able to challenge his supremacy], and/or to pay for the PA schools that slander Jews every day and incite hatred for them [that is, us Jews] and pay for the PA electronic media that do the same, etc. So, objectively speaking, many Western states and the EU are also hostile to Israel, perhaps more hypocritically than the Arabs.

In view of the above, let's honestly admit that Shmuel Trigano is right. We are facing a war process, not a peace process.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on the falsehoods of the "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, & the Land of Israel, Jewish history, etc.