Tuesday, 29 July 2014

CHINA, JAPAN AND RUSSIA ZERO IN ON LATIN AMERICA

TAP INTO RESOURCE-RICH MARKETS

The leaders of CHINA, RUSSIA and JAPAN all descended on LATIN AMERICA in recent weeks, jostling with the UNITED STATES to increase their influence, invest and tap into resource-rich markets.

The latest arrival was Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who was in TRINIDAD and TOBAGO, the second stop on a five-country tour that began in MEXICO.

Abe’s visit began just as CHINESE President Xi Jinping wrapped up his tour, which included stops in BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, VENEZUELA and CUBA. Xi signed more than 100 trade agreements on the trip. RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin was in the region for a week from July 11, stopping in ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, NICARAGUA and CUBA.

THE USA STILL LATAM'S TOP TRADE PARTNER

The UNITED STATES remains LATIN AMERICA’S top trade partner, but gone are the days when Washington could take the region for granted as its backyard.

“In two or three more years, CHINA will displace the EUROPEAN UNION as the second most important trade partner of the region,” said Osvaldo Rosales, head of the international trade division a the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), a UNITED NATIONS agency.

“That probably explains prime minister Abe’s visit. For JAPAN and SOUTH KOREA it is important to counterbalance the increased ties the region is establishing with CHINA,” he told AFP. Even though Xi visited countries that denounce US “imperialism,” Rosales said his visit was “merely economic.”

NEED OF NATURAL RESOURCE

“CHINA needs the natural resources that allow it to maintain a long-term growth rate of five to seven percent,” the CHILEAN-born economist said. CHINA is in the market for Chilean copper and timber, PERUVIAN gold and zinc, ARGENTINE beef, wheat and soybeans, BRAZILIAN sugar and corn and VENEZUELAN oil, among other commodities.

Yun Sun, East Asia expert at the Washington-based Stimson Center think-tank, said Xi’s trip partly sought to “strengthen CHINA’S ties with LATIN AMERICA, which is probably the weakest area in CHINA’S global strategy.”

While CHINA is boosting economic ties with the region, the ASIAN giant has a ways to go to catch up to the UNITED STATES, whose trade with LATIN AMERICA topped $800 billion in 2011, more than three times that of Beijing, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, a US think tank.

CHALLENGING US DOMINANCE

Xi and Putin, who overlapped in BRAZIL, played to LATIN AMERICAN resentment toward perceived dominance of the region by JAPAN’S longtime ally the UNITED STATES.

Together WITH BRAZIL, INDIA and SOUTH AFRICA — their partners in the BRICS group of emerging nations — they announced a new $50 billion development bank and $100 billion reserve fund to rival the Western-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Xi also wooed LATIN AMERICAN leaders by proposing a new $20 billion infrastructure fund for the region. In communist CUBA, Xi signed deals on nickel and joint oil exploration in CUBAN waters of the GULF OF MEXICO. CUBA is a regional bridgehead for foreign powers in the trade competition with the UNITED STATES. Washington has had a economic embargo on the island since 1961, and the arrival of major US competitors shows that Latin nations no longer follow Washington’s wishes with ease.

“That CUBA can host Xi or Putin and sign agreements … is something that was absolutely unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago,” said Rosales. “It shows that we’re in a completely different international political context.”

Via yahoo news

Sunday, 27 July 2014

ARGENTINA AND TUG OF WAR WITH THE VULTURE FUNDS

SUCCESSFUL DEPT RESTRUCTURING OF 2005 AND 2010, A NIGHTMARE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING COMMUNITY - THE REAL REASON FOR THE TUG OF WAR BETWEEN ARGENTINA VS VULTURE FUNDS

The vulture funds vs ARGENTINA issue roots in political reasons rather than on financial or technical, with the clear aim at tearing down the successful debt restructuring of 2005 and 2010, a process that became a serious danger for a big part of the International banking community (a country that restructures its debt without falling into further debt).

Comment Posted by Andres:

THE VULTURE FUNDS VS ARGENTINA issue roots on political reasons rather than on a financial or technical one, with the clear aim at tearing down the successful debt restructuring of 2005 and 2010, a process that became a serious danger for a big part of the International banking community (a country that restructures its debt without falling into further debt).

Two key events prove this:

1) NLM Capital and other holdouts ("vultures") rejected the proposal presented by Gramercy funds (the largest holder of Argentine structured bonds) last February that could have found common ground on the holdouts and the Argentine government. Also, apparently Gramercy and Fintech proposed to intermediate between holdouts and Argentina in order to solve this issue without triggering the RUFO clause.

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-238721-2014-01-29.html

2) The US Supreme Court could have consulted the US government before overturning the Argentine appeal. That would have given Argentina the 5 additional months necessary to reach the RUFO clause expiration and then easily proceed to pay the vulture funds. It seems irrational that the SCOTUS didn't assess the consequences of not consulting the US government before.

Buenos Aires as the site of payment is ruled out not because of corruption but because many US institutional funds (retirement, 401k, etc.) are required by US law to only buy bonds under US legislation.

"ARGENTINA may be depicted as a bad payer a serial defaulter or an outlaw state by the global finance propaganda, however if ARGENTINA would pledge to accept the sentence of NY courts and therefore forced to default and repay, lenders would be ready to sign the check and lend again as it has been always the case thus swamping once again the country in debts with the guarantee of the ARGENTINEAN state."

It doesn't matter if Argentina is a good or bad borrower to those who were "cheated" before; it only matters if the country will continue being over-indebted, a situation that will force the incumbent Argentine government to accept the conditions of new borrowing: . These conditions include the failed recipes that Argentina experienced in the past and that Europe is suffering: Reduce wages, reduce pensions, devaluation of the peso, open markets to let goods from developed countries take over the domestic market, privatize juicy enterprises (YPF, railroads, municipal water supply, etc)

Contributed by Andres, a Reader Comment

‘Argentina won’t default on Wednesday’

By Fermin Koop

Via Buenos Aires Herlad

As an agreement hasn’t been reached so far between the federal government and holdouts, questions remain open over what could happen on Wednesday when the 30-day grace period for Argentina to pay ends.

In an interview with the Herald, Sebastián Soler, a lawyer specialized on financial law and a former adviser with the Central Bank presidency, says that if a deal isn’t reached the country wouldn’t default because it has already paid. At the same time, he explains the RUFO clause wouldn’t be triggered and question’s Griesa’s performance in the case.

Background Information:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2014/07/argentine-default-to-be-or-not-to-be.html#comment-form

Do you have positive expectations regarding the case?

I don’t know what’s going to happen but I hope an agreement can be reached on fair terms that contemplate all creditors. If we are going to solve this case, we also have to solve all the pending problems of the Argentine debt.

Can the RUFO clause be triggered if the government pays the holdouts?

As a lawyer, I think it’s technically accurate to say that a payment either in bonds or in cash wouldn’t trigger the RUFO since the government would be fulfilling a court’s order. Nevertheless, considering the unusual ruling of Griesa, we cannot dismiss that another judge would rule something unusual regarding RUFO. If triggered, creditors could ask for a better payment than the one they receive now.

What would be a reasonable solution for Argentina?

A reasonable solution would be avoiding the RUFO clause to be triggered, but to achieve that Griesa would have to issue a new stay. Without it, it’s hard to move forward. At the same time, the payment mechanism through which the government would pay holdouts should set a precedent for other bondholders benefited by Griesa’s ruling. The government also has to keep on paying bondholders that entered the 2005 and 2001 debt swap.

Judge Griesa has been criticized lately for his performance during the case. As a lawyer, how do you rate his work?

Griesa has been clumsy when managing the case. Rulings that solve conflicts as relevant as this one have to be precise and Griesa’s one wasn’t considering the numerous complaints of third parties that have questioned it and even said they don’t understand it. He was biased and we are now seeing the problems of that. He wants the parties to solve the problem, to avoid having to make a decision.

If an agreement isn’t reached next Wednesday, will the country default?

A default isn’t an abstract concept and it’s defined on the contract Argentina signed with its creditors. It means not paying either on the established time or in the 30-day grace period. But that definition has to be combined with what paying means, which is depositing the funds. Argentina paid so it would be technically incorrect to say the country will default on Wednesday. That doesn’t mean that if an agreement isn’t reached, holdouts wouldn’t demand for someone to compensate them. But that someone should be the Bank of New York and not Argentina.

Friday, 25 July 2014

ARGENTINE DEFAULT, TO BE OR NOT TO BE

OPINIONS

ARGENTINE JUDICIARY SYSTEM IS PLAGUED WITH JUDGES LIKE GRIESA

The option to use Buenos Aires as a legal site of payment is a no-go. The ARGENTINE judiciary system is plagued with judges like Griesa ready to give legal shelter to vultures, a possible intervention of the ARGENTINIAN Supreme Court in its present composition would not differ much to the US supreme court.

RETHORIC SOLIDARITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

The very notion of sovereign state is at stake in this case and this will not be settled by rethoric solidarity of the international community or by letting ARGENTINA to freefall in hands of speculative and opaque finance predators.

OUTLAW STATE BY THE GLOBAL FINANCE PROPAGANDA

ARGENTINA may be depicted as a bad payer a serial defaulter or an outlaw state by the global finance propaganda, however if ARGENTINA would pledge to accept the sentence of NY courts and therefore forced to default and repay, lenders would be ready to sign the check and lend again as it has been always the case thus swamping once again the country in debts with the guarantee of the ARGENTINEAN state.

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AVOIDING THE RUFO CLAUSE.

The only way out to skip default is that a 3rd. party (Maybe CHINA or RUSSIA?) deposits in an escrow account the amount owed under the Griesa's ruling (hence avoiding the negative pledge) and start negotiating a new bond issuance which will be executed after December 31, 2014. This will end up paying to all the holdouts 100% bonds face value (similar to the Repsol's deal) and left the 2005 and 2010 bondholders with their pitiful deal. ARGENTINA should have never entered into a deal with the combination of holdouts and a RUFO clause with an expiring date.

At this point you cannot ignore the fact that the strategy of "some investors" is to collapse, with the concourse of the almighty NY courts, the entire debt restructuring process opened by ARGENTINA in 2003 with 93% of the bondholders.

ARGENTINA cannot “involuntarily” comply with the decision court, because ARGENTINA is a sovereign. Any payment is voluntary, and would trigger the RUFO clause.

The only “involuntary” way to pay the vultures would be to leave the amount under USA jurisdiction, available to be embargoed by the court. But that would open the door to lawsuits based on fraudulent voluntary payment.

Let’s suppose that suing ARGENTINA for trying to hide a voluntary payment has a puny 10% chance of success. The gain would be 50 billions, and the cost would be near to nothing. The expected value for suing is more or less 5 billions. Who will not run the risks? It can be leveraged.

Comply with the court before 2015 is too risky for ARGENTINA.

The RUFO clause, if triggered, would increase the debt in at least 50 billion, and automatically force ARGENTINA to pay around 120 billion in cash (or on the same terms got by the vultures).

Default would be unavoidable, and far worse that July’s incoming default.

Renegotiation of 120 billion in debt would be necessary, but who will accept another restructuring if the vultures got paid 100%, and impeded payment, and destroyed the restructuring?

Everybody would want to be the new vulture, and the vultures would buy the debt again to repeat a successful business model.

Therefore, paying to the vultures before 2015 makes no sense, and makes all worse. It will not be done. Cannot be. Griesa ruling makes non-sense.

THIS LITIGATION IS NOT ABOUT 1.5BN BUT FOR A MUCH LARGER POTENTIAL PROFITS that could emerge from the collapse of the ARGENTINE economy in their present form.

A SO CALLED "TECHNICAL DEFAULT" IS INEVITABLE AS ARGENTINA IS BEING FORCED TO AVOID NY AS LEGAL SITE TO PAY ITS COMMITMENTS, THIS WILL TRIGGER DEFAULT INSURANCES INDEED, HOWEVER ARGENTINA WILL IMPLEMENT ALL THE POSSIBLE MEANS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE TO HONOR ITS COMMITMENTS WITH 93% OF BONDHOLDERS EVEN USING THE MOON AS LEGAL SITE OF PAYMENT.

Background Information:

DEFYING INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-future-of-argentina.html

ARGENTINA: THE GEOPOLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AND FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/09/argentina-geopolitics-of-international.html

CARLOS MENEM, THE CULPRIT ?

Former ARGENTINE President Carlos Menem ruined the ARGENTINE economy borrowing too much for unnecessary projects. The economy changed with low revenues. The country did not have sufficient funds to pay the debt. CFK inherited such debt as Obama inherited a DEBT of TRILLONS of dollars.

Many agree that Carlos Menem policies, were far from successful,to say the least. But he also inherited a rather complex economic problem from the junta.This does not excuse him, no more than Christina can be excused for the same reason. The ARGENTINIAN establishment (this include Peron,the trade Unions,left and the right) have mismanaged their country for 50 years (or more).This is not only a "debt" problem,but more a very human desire to escape macro economic rationality.This made things worse for them in the long run.

Argentina and the Paris Club

ARGENTINA REACHED DEAL WITH THE PARIS CLUB

The Paris Club announced an agreement for Argentina to repay its debt over five years, clearing the way for the resumption of international financing.

Most heavyweight opposition leaders in ARGENTINA were left with no option but to welcome the agreement, which does not include the usual involvement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

ARGENTINA HAS REFUSED TO SWALLOW THE IMF’S BELT-TIGHTENING RECIPES

since it cancelled its debt with the fund in 2006. Accepting the IMF’s involvement in the case of Paris Club agreement would have been a major concession for the Fernández de Kirchner administration, which would have been difficult to explain to voters on the domestic front.

The Paris Club deal comes after ARGENTINA’S recent settlement with the SPANISH company Repsol over the nationalization in 2011 of the ARGENTINE energy company YPF.

CENTRAL BANK’S FOREIGN CURRENCY RESERVES NOT TO BE DENTED SIGNIFICANTLY

The Paris Club agreement, which has to be reconfirmed by 16 of its 19 member nations, includes a 650 million dollar payment in July. With another 500 million dollars to follow. But financial analysts are saying that, even when the bill to foot looks hefty, the payments are manageable and will not significantly dent the Central Bank’s foreign currency reserves.

Background Information:

ARGENTINE CENTRAL BANK TARGETS GROWTH

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2012/06/argentinean-central-bank-targets-growth.html

The agreement with the Paris Club wrong-footed critics. The president in 2008 failed to deliver on an announcement that the Paris Club debt would be cancelled with Central Bank reserves. The world was hit by a financial crisis soon after that announcement and there was no such payment. This time the payment is for real.

The debt the current ARGENTINE administration has now restructured in FRANCE is a debt previous governments had incurred in and thus the 2001 default has been hindering trade opportunities with the members of the Paris club.

The payment repairs the condition of irregularity that ARGENTINA encountered with some of the most important countries in the world that account for 55 percent of the global GDP. The Paris accord is based on ARGENTINA’S responsibilities and thus will not jeopardize growth.

THE ROLE OF THE IMF

ARGENTINA seems to have fixed one of the wrongs that liberalism left behind, emphasizing the government’s criticism of the role played by the International Monetary Fund in the 70’s, 80’s and mostly in the 90’s (the so called “neoliberal decade) that resulted in the 2001-2002 social, political and economic collapse and historic default.

The Minster of Economy describe in detail the role played by the IMF in ARGENTINA’S previous negotiations with the Paris Club.

IMF, DESTROYER OF NATIONS?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/08/imf-destroyer-of-nations.html

FEE PAYMENT PLAN WITHOUT THE IMF

“In general, all the agreements that the Paris Club has reached have been under the supervision of the IMF. If a country had trouble paying its debt, then it turned to the IMF. That is ARGENTINA’S own history, prior to the 2001 (crisis). Each of the governments turned running to the IMF because they could not keep up with the Club’s payments. The IMF lent them the money but also told them they had to commit with the reduction of social spending, the privatization of public companies. That is what we call 'to condition'. It is the loss of sovereignty and of economic independence,” the Minister of Economy stated, describing the ARGENTINA-Paris Club 2014 negotiation precisely as “atypical.”

Despite the “interference” of the IMF in all the Club’s negotiations, the minister said ARGENTINA “managed to agreen on a fee payment plan without the IMF.”

Background Information:

IMF AND ARGENTINA

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2011/10/corporatocracy.html

Furthermore:

WHEN ARGENTINA WAS THE “SUNNY BOY” OF THE IMF UNDER PRESIDENT MENEM,

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2012/04/argentina-and-repsol.html

ARGENTINA REACHES DEAL TO REPAY DEBTS WITHOUT IMF INVOLVEMENT

ARGENTINA also reached a landmark deal with a group of creditor nations to repay its longstanding debt without the involvement of the International Monetary Fund. ARGENTINA is still trying to recover from a massive economic crisis and default more than a decade ago, which followed years of neoliberal reforms backed by the IMF and World Bank. ARGENTINE President Cristina Fernández de Kirchener hailed the deal to pay the Paris Club $9.7 billion.

THE IMF’S FAULT FOR BALKAN WARS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2012/03/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

IS IT ALL ABOUT THE VAST AMOUNT OF SHALE RESERVES?

President Cristina Fernández de Kirchener: "It’s the first time in the history of the Paris Club that a country in our conditions has negotiated with a multilateral body without the intervention of the International Monetary Fund, and without giving up the autonomy that a sovereign country should have, and which reveals to us that when we’re allowed to grow, when we’re allowed to develop our own policies, that when we’re allowed to generate jobs and employment, the conditions exist to honor one’s commitments and take charge of its debt. We’re not, as the vultures say, serial debtors. They, the international financial capitalists, are serial predators not just on our economy but of many economies in the world."

Part of ARGENTINA’S plan for economic recovery involves opening its vast shale reserves to foreign oil and gas firms.

ARGENTINE SHALE GAS FINDINGS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/argentine-shale-gas-production-could.html

ARGENTINA HAS PAID

IN DEFIANT SPEECH THE ARGENTINE PRESIDENT OPENLY BRUSHES ASIDE ANY DEFAULT “BECAUSE ARGENTINA HAS PAID”

In a defiant speech President Cristina Fernández reiterated that ARGENTINA will “not fall into default” and warned that “they will have to invent a new word” to explain how a country has paid its debt and “someone blocked it”.

The ARGENTINE president warned that “they will have to invent a new word to explain how a country has paid its debt and someone blocked it”.

“ARGENTINA won't fall into default for a very simple, elementary, obvious reason that I should not mention: because it has paid” underlined the ARGENTINE president in a strong message adding that “they won't make me sign whatever they want threatening me that the world is going to fall to pieces”.

Background Information:

DEFYING INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-future-of-argentina.html

ARGENTINA: THE GEOPOLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AND FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/09/argentina-geopolitics-of-international.html

SINCE WHEN DID ARGENTINA HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY MARKETS?

”They've warned us that if we don't comply with the 'vulture funds' (holdouts), that we won't have access to money markets, and I ask: since 2003, when did we have access to international money markets?“ added CFK during the inauguration of a Yamaha motorbike plant in the province of Buenos Aires.

Several cabinet ministers, union leaders and Buenos Aires province governor Daniel Scioli as well as JAPANESE diplomats and business people attended the ceremony.

”This president is not going to sign nothing that compromises the future of the coming ARGENTINE generations“, however ”we are willing to honor out debts with all of our creditors“.

The president then went on to say that risk agencies, investment banks and guru analysts ”will have to invent a new word to disguise this situation“ since ARGENTINA has paid its structured bond holders, but the funds were blocked by the decision from New York federal judge Thomas Griesa.

ARGENTINA is demanding ”fair, equal and legal conditions” in order to speak to holdout investors involved in the legal dispute with ARGENTINA, and has criticized Judge Griesa for failing to address concerns in the conflict over unpaid sovereign debt.

In effect, ARGENTINA deposited the funds to pay holders of debt swaps from 2005 and 2010, but Griesa has frozen the operation because he has ordered ARGENTINA and the holdouts to discuss 'round the clock' until they reach a deal.

Holdouts have a pari passu ruling which means they must be paid the 1.3bn face value bonds plus accrued interests at the same time any other payments are made, in this case the swap bonds.

TUG OF WAR

However if ARGENTINA pays the holdouts the full face value, it triggers a RUFO clause (Right Upon Final Offer) which means restructured bonds have a similar and immediate right to the best conditions. In other words the whole restructured debt process could collapse.

To this must be added the fact that ARGENTINA has until 30 July to comply with the swap bonds, and since funds are frozen, is no agreement is reached could fall into what is described as 'technical default'.

“Don't let them snatch our future” said President Cristina Fernandez addressing the workers at the plant, but nevertheless insisted that ARGENTINA will go 'wherever necessary but with our very good reasons“.

The ARGENTINE delegation was supposed to engage in direct talks with the holdouts, but facilitator Daniel Pollack, named by Judge Griesa, said the appointment had been delayed because the ARGENTINIANS would be arriving late to New York.

ARGENTINA PAID

President Cristina Fernandez underlined that violating the RUFO clause was 'impossible' because it would mean undoing all that was achieved since 2003 and the considerable 'hair-cut' that enabled to restructure the over 100bn dollars debt. However she was firm in that a default on payments due by July 30 was out of the question, despite Griesa.

”ARGENTINA will not default, for one simple reason. An obvious reason, so much so that it should not need to be said. Those who cannot pay default, and ARGENTINA has paid,“ she asserted. The ARGENTINE president also rejected overseas criticism and from the holdouts that the country had consistently denied dialogue and negotiations.

”In 2005 when Nestor Kirchner was president, we were dead tired of travelling all over the world to collect backing for the ARGENTINE debt renegotiation. At the time ARGENTINE debt was equivalent to 160% of GDP, and currently thanks to restructuring the bonds in foreign hands represent only 8% of GDP”, pointed out Cristina Fernandez.

Sunday, 20 July 2014

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AND ISRAEL

UAE OFFERED TO FUND ISRAEL’S GAZA OFFENSIVE PROVIDED HAMAS WAS ELIMINATED

The UAE knew in advance of ISRAEL’S plans for an offensive in Gaza and even offered to fund the operation provided the militant PALESTINIAN outfit Hamas was eliminated in the process, ISRAEL’S Channel 2 claimed in a recent report, according to local ARABIC daily Al Sharq. The daily says in a report published that ISRAEL’S leading national TV station (Channel 2 in Hebrew) disclosed details of secret parleys between the UAE’s foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and his ISRAELI counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, in Paris at the end of last month.

Background Information:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2012/09/origins-of-israel-palestinian-conflict.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/09/palestine.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/08/israel-palestinian-peace-talks-revived.html

Both leaders met on the sly in Paris on the sidelines of a meeting of a meeting of foreign ministers from the GCC states and JORDAN with US Secretary of State John Kerry. ISRAEL’S foreign minister was also in the city.The meeting was to discuss the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian issue.

Al Sharq said the UAE was aware of ISRAELI’S planned military action in Gaza beforehand and Al Nahyan, at his meeting with Lieberman, expressed his country’s keenness to fund ISRAELI’S Gaza offensive provided the Hamas movement was annihilated since it had close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Al Sharq, Channel 2 reported that just a few days ago there was a meeting between Sheikh Abdullah and an ISRAELI minister in Abu Dhabi. Sheikh Abdullah’s Security Adviser, Mohamed Dahlan, was also present. Dahlan, a Palestinian, is a former Fatah member expelled from the party and Gaza and now lives in the UAE.

Via Peninsula

Read also:

PAYING THE “VICTIM” GAME at:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/07/license-to-statehood.html

http://jordanispalestine.blogspot.com/

Their “victim” role has progressed to such extend over the last couple of years that international media happily jump on the “PR” train when it comes to voice the PALESTINIAN view regarding the PALESTINIAN ISRAELI conflict which can hardly described as impartial journalism.

What no mains stream media ever reports are the opinion, citizens of other ARAB Nations, and tribes have of the PALESTINIANS. Ask for example SYRIAN, JORDANIAN or LEBANESE citizens, and they will in most cases comment, that no Sunni ARAB tribe or nation really want PALESTINE Arabs in their country for PALESTINIAS are notorious when it comes to land ownership, for they never are satisfied with what they have. "Thus it’s better to let the ISRAELIS struggle with them instead of us."

An Arab – Israeli citizen once mentioned that if you give the Palestinians the entire West banks they will sooner or later claim Tel Aviv and Haifa and then entire ISRAEL. Once that is accomplished, they will once again claim JORDAN, as ARAFAT did in 1969 when he attempted to overthrow King Hussein of JORDAN in order to create a PALESTINE state on JORDANIAN land.

A PALESTINIAN STATE - NOT A PRIORITY

By Yoram Ettinger

The Palestinian issue has benefited from the Arab/Muslim talk, but — due to the Palestinian record of intra-Arab subversion — has never been supported by the Arab/Muslim walk. Arab/Muslim policy makers have never considered the Palestinian issue a strategic interest, but rather a tactical instrument to advance intra-Arab or Muslim interests and to annihilate the Jewish state.

Irrespective of this, Palestine has been a geographic, not a national, concept, as evidenced by the lack of distinct, cohesive national character of its Arab inhabitants. This lack of cohesion has been intensified by the violent internal fragmentation along various lines: cultural (such as Bedouin vs. rural vs. urban sectors), geographic (e.g. mountain vs. coastal Arabs, southern vs. northern, Hebron vs. Bethlehem, Nablus vs. Ramallah, Nablus vs. Hebron), ethnic, ideological, political (pro- or anti-Jordan), historical and tribal identity. Such turbulent fragmentation was fueled by the multitude of Arab or Muslim migration waves from Bosnia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Lebanon.

The establishment of a Palestinian state was not on the agenda of the non-Arab Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1517 through 1917. The Ottomans linked the area, defined by most Arabs as a region within Southern Syria or the Levant, to the Damascus and Beirut provinces.

The British Empire, which dominated the Middle East from 1917 until the end of World War II, did not contemplate a Palestinian Arab state, while establishing a series of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the 1917 Balfour Declaration dedicated Palestine, including Jordan, to the Jewish homeland. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, formulated by the principal Allied Powers, formalized the Balfour Declaration-based British Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified on Aug. 12, 1922, by the League of Nations, eventually transferring 77 percent of Palestine (Jordan) to the Arabs. The U.S. House and Senate approved it unanimously on June 30, 1922. In 1945, the Mandate for Palestine was integrated into the U.N. Charter via Article 80, which precludes alterations, and is still legally binding.

Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1949 through 1967, but did not ponder the establishment of a Palestinian state; nor did the Arab League.

According to Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna of Ariel University, who headed the Palestinian Desk at the Mossad Research Division, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated in September 1947 that the core problem was not a Palestinian state or Jewish expansionism. The only priority was the duty to uproot the Jewish presence from Palestine, which was defined by Muslims as “Waqf” — an area divinely endowed to Islam and not to the “infidel.”

The elimination of Jews was the top priority of the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder and president of the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee and a collaborator with Nazi Germany. In September 1941, he submitted a memo to Adolf Hitler on “the resolution of the Jewish problem in the Middle East in the same manner it is resolved in Europe,” planning the construction of Auschwitz-like crematoriums in the Dothan Valley, adjacent to Nablus in Samaria. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas recently expressed his admiration for al-Husseini as a hero and martyr. Abbas appointed the current grand mufti of Jerusalem, who continues al-Husseini’s anti-Jewish hate education.

The limited role of the Palestinian issue was highlighted during the 1948 War of Independence. Jordan launched the war to eliminate the Jewish state, expand to the Mediterranean and advance the goal to dominate Greater Syria. Egypt and Saudi Arabia entered the war despite their inadequate military infrastructure, in order to abort Jordan’s imperialistic strategy. Iraq joined the war, aiming to control the oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa. Syria assumed that the destruction of the Jewish state would facilitate the reassertion of Greater Syria. On Sept. 20, 1948, the Arab League recognized the Arab government of the whole of Palestine, but ignored it, declaring it null and void in 1951-1952, causing the U.N. to refuse Palestinian participation in the General Assembly proceedings.

None of the Arab countries fought on behalf of, or due to, Palestinian Arab aspirations. They did not share with the Palestinian Arabs the spoils of war. Iraq occupied Samaria and transferred it to Jordan, which occupied Judea. In April 1950, Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria to the east bank of the Jordan River, naming it the West Bank. Egypt occupied Gaza and, just like Jordan, did not allow Palestinian nationalistic activities. None of the ensuing Arab-Israeli wars (1956, 1967, 1969-70 and 1973) were Palestinian-driven.

Furthermore, the Israel-Palestinian/PLO wars of 1982 (in Lebanon), 1987-1991 (the First Intifada) and 2000-2004 (the Second Intifada) and Israel’s wars with Hamas in 2009 and 2012 (in Gaza) did not engage the Arab states militarily or financially.

During the October 1994 Israel-Jordan peace signing ceremony, top Jordanian military leaders told their Israeli counterparts that “a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite kingdom east of the river.”

The Arab League and the U.N. did not raise the issue of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza until 1967, when the issue was raised as a means to undermine the survival of the Jewish state.

In fact, the Palestinian issue has never been a chief axis of U.S.-Israel relations. While the two administrations have never agreed on the Palestinian issue, their strategic cooperation has surged dramatically due to joint interests, mutual threats and shared values, which significantly transcend the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, ignoring reality, Western policy makers consider the Palestinian issue the crown jewel of Arab policy-making, the core cause of Middle Eastern developments and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. An erroneous underlying, Palestinian-driven assumption has produced an erroneous policy, radicalizing Arab and Palestinian expectations, fueling terrorism and inherent Middle Eastern instability, distancing the parties from peace and bringing them closer to war, and undermining Western national security and vital economic interests.

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

ISRAEL and GAZA

Problematic Media Coverage of Operation Protective Edge

By Rob Harris

RTE News: “Dozens of tanks and bulldozers have amassed along the border with Gaza…in a true show of force and determination”

Faced with an asymmetrically powerful opponent, Arab-Palestinian terrorist groups have no realistic hope of winning conflicts militarily. However, they can use conflict to strengthen their hand in a number of ways. By bringing violence to Israel’s door, in assaults where they have no hope of overwhelming their foe, their political esteem in the Islamic world is nonetheless raised substantially. The Arab-Palestinian populace, radicalised from youth, also finds favour in such conflicts, despite the hardship it often brings.

With the onset of any protracted conflict between Israel and the various Arab-Palestinian military factions, so much of the substance of a given fracas comes to be waged on television screens across the world. The fight, as per Hamas’ stated strategy, should be taken into civilian Arab-Palestinian areas, to use the people it purports to represent as human shields. Fittingly, its operational headquarters, during the 2009 Cast Lead war, was located in Gaza’s Shifa Hospital.

With every war comes graphic images of Arab-Palestinian suffering, ending in a public relations disaster for Israel. Some of this imagery is faked as has so often been the case in the past, or it can be stripped of context by elements in the media. Some journalists also follow far-fetched pro-Palestinian narratives without critique. Some reports featured subtle justification for the recent widespread Arab rioting. Some lay blame at Israel’s door for any act of self-defence, and interpret motives in a fashion wholly disconnected from obvious facts.

The other Side of GAZA

Have such pictures of Gaza ever been published by Media outlets??

This is also GAZA !!!!!!!!

The prejudicial narration of one RTE report

A July 8th news report by Niamh Nolan (or see from 7:48 found here) featured on Irish public service broadcaster RTE’s Lunchtime News (frequently repeated on RTE’s news channel), can be justifiably seen as one of the many recent examples of the mainstream media’s close observance of the pro-Palestinian narrative. The report shares a number of common features with that of the prejudicial coverage in other mainstream and international news sources. Below is a full transcript of Ms. Nolan’s two-minute report.

“The air-strikes hit before dawn. The injured were rushed to hospitals in Gaza City. Palestinians say the rocket attacks injured as many as fifteen, including two women and a child.

At one scene residents used the light from their mobile phones to search the rubble for their belongings.

Sunrise over Gaza, and the full scale of the damage is visible. This house, one of two flattened by the Israeli’s, was evacuated in time. This was Selem Selemi’s home, where he lived with his ten children. He says [English translation] “the army called after three AM and asked us to leave. Ten minutes after evacuating they attacked. The house is totally destroyed.”/”

It’s hard to see past the destruction.

Israel have stepped up their offensive against the Hamas militants in a campaign named Operation Protective Edge. Dozens of tanks and bulldozers have amassed along the border with Gaza, lined up in fields in a true show of force and determination.

[Statement by Israeli official Mark Regev:] “Israel defence forces are currently acting to put an end to this once and for all. Our goal is to free the people of Israel from the threat of these incoming rockets.”

Those rockets were fired into Southern Israel by militants in Gaza, enraged by the reported death of five of its forces in Sunday’s strikes.

Hamas warns it will continue to hit targets in Israel unless the air-strikes stop. But the Israeli position has now moved into one of escalation rather than de-escalation.

Niamh Nolan, RTE News.”

A distorted sequence of events

Niamh Nolan’s report fails to mention Hamas’ rocket attacks, until the brief statement made by Mark Regev, more than half-way through the report. This is a substantive omission that skews the sequence of events, to present Israel as acting in a wholly aggressive fashion, without any provocation.

The reporter worsens this inaccuracy by then claiming that Hamas had fired the aforementioned rockets at Israel after the Jewish State killed five of its terrorists, two days previously. This statement is misleading for two reasons. The group of five or six Hamas members likely died handling explosives in a tunnel designed to attack Israel. This incident was used by Hamas to justify stepping up attacks on Israel.

Secondly, Israel had targeted Gaza due to persistent rocket barrages, which had gathered pacesince the kidnap of three Jewish Israeli teens on June 12th, who were subsequently murdered, in all likelihood by Hamas operatives. None of this context is provided, despite the opportunity to do so in what was a relatively slow-moving report, which lingered on the damage Israel’s bombing raids caused in Gaza.

The inaccuracy is further compounded by failing to mention the dramatic upturn in rocket attacks, to an almost unprecedented level. An 80 rocket barrage hit Israel within the space of a few hours, with no mention of the chaos it caused to the populaces of Israeli towns nearest the Gaza border, where it effectively paralysed life.

Notably, other popular news outlets have presented the same lopsided narrative. For example, theBBC and the New York Times have both suggested Hamas is responding to Israeli attacks, rather than the other way around.

Escalation or proportionality?

At the end of the report, after presenting Israel as the true aggressor, Nolan states that Israel is set on a course of “escalation rather than de-escalation”. Whilst Israel is stepping up its Gaza strikes, this view is not in keeping with the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been open to compromise.

Netanyahu has acted with relative restraint to the protracted rocket fire, for which he was strongly criticised. Israeli forces conducted a modest number of reprisals, until the dramatic increase of rocket attacks on Sunday last.

Before the increase in military strikes, Netanyahu gave Hamas repeated opportunities to scale back their assault on Israel:

“Amidst increased rocket fire at the Israeli south and threats from Hamas to expand range of rockets, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that if Gaza rocket fire stopped then Israel would also halt its actions.”

Last week, Netanyahu is also rumoured to have given Hamas a 48 hour deadline to stop the attacks, via an Egyptian intermediary. Netanyahu’s reaction, prior to military actions on Sunday, was one of relative restraint, until it became clear Hamas’ rocket barrages would not desist.

By contrast, Hamas rejected a de-escalation. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum stated:

“This is not the time for quiet. We have a bank of various targets. An Iron Dome [Israeli missile defence system] will be needed in every Israeli home.”

The importance of images

The report featured lingering images of the destruction of Gaza. The image-led narrative may possibly suggest that Nolan’s narration followed a video sequence constructed by RTE’s news production team.

Tellingly, the report’s imagery presents a rather overt dichotomy: for the Arab-Palestinian side, it is one of innocent suffering; for Israeli’s, it is intense militaristic aggression. The report focused on the destruction of Selem Selemi’s Gazan house — an appropriate human interest story, but there was no question of the reasons for Israel’s targeted attack, in which they chose to forewarn the residents.

There have been a number of reported instances of Israel specifically targeting the homes of Hamas operatives. Often, residents claim to be civilian but some of these stories can be discounted, along with the suggestion the homes did not store weapons or munitions. The Washington Post recounts one such incident in the present conflict:

“Ahmed Kawarea said he ran home when he heard about the first rocket. The second missile hit when he was in the stairwell on his way to the roof.

“We are civilians,” he said. “We don’t have anyone who lives in the house who works in the resistance.”

But neighbors suggested that one of the occupants was a member of the military wing of Hamas. Soon after the house was hit, a man pulled a sidearm out of his waistband and scurried into the gutted building, saying he had been sent to retrieve a laptop computer from the debris.”

RTE News presents the viewer with emotive images of a young girl looking past barbed wire, with the narrative line “it’s hard to see past the destruction”

The RTE report presents the viewer with emotive images of a young girl looking past barbed wire, with the narrative line “it’s hard to see past the destruction”. Realistically, news reports that display some level of artistic licence, which draw the viewer into the story, are not necessarily a bad thing. However, with contentious news stories, an appropriate level of care is required.

In this instance, there was no corresponding footage of attacks in Israel, except a few seconds of ambiguous footage of a field on fire, shown after video of a regimented line of IDF bulldozers.

Despite many applicable examples, there was no corresponding human interest angle presented of the Israeli side.

The report’s references to non-specific Israeli “targets” that Hamas wish to hit, further emphasises its divergent treatment of both populaces, since these targets are solely civilian — Israeli towns and cities. The report’s oddly depersonalised treatment of this issue is noteworthy because the terrorist group has recently stepped up its rhetoric, with boasts of targeting civilians, in a further effort to intimidate.

Broader ethical issues in RTE coverage

Other RTE reports have been more balanced in their coverage but a variety of their reports nonetheless downplay the impact of rocket fire despite Hamas’ long range rockets reaching as far asJerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel’s Iron Dome defence system somewhat limited in its capacity to intercept the large number of projectiles.

Hamas use both involuntary and voluntary human shields, as evident in footage from recent air strikes, and reports from Gaza itself. The resultant effect of voluntarily taking part in a conflict, by assisting one side’s objectives, represents the most fundamental feature of belligerency as distinct from that of civilian categories. However, such individuals tend to be classified as civilian by media institutions generally, with RTE failing to ever mention that there have been numerous reports of the application of such strategies, on the part of Hamas’, whilst omitting from coverage the fact that Israel forewarns civilian areas of impending strikes.

Problems of methodology arise with the reportage of casualties. RTE’s news programmes frequently repeat headlines throughout an allotted time-slot. With the present conflict, these segments habitually refer to death tolls. Such references are appropriate but they do not distinguish between the death of militants and those of other groupings. This form of reportage is politically leading for several reasons. Palestinian narratives markedly conflate such categories in missives concerning death tolls, and have used misleading imagery of civilian suffering in a persistent fashion. The present conflict is proving to be no exception in this regard. It constitutes conflict propaganda.

Similarly, RTE tends to lead in its reports with figures of overall Arab-Palestinian casualties. Its recent reports assert that no casualties on the Israeli side have been reported. For example, Joan O’Sullivan’s Lunchtime News report (July 9th) stated:

“No injuries have so far been reported as a result of the rocket attacks.”

O’Sullivan, in an otherwise quite balanced report, may be making this assertion with respect to the given day of the report but it is unclear, as on other occasions (Carole Coleman, 6.1 News report, July 10th). Such assertions, without clear contextualisation, will inadvertently reinforce notions that Israel’s response is disproportionate, even though their stated aim is to simply silence rocket attacks on their towns and cities. There have been a modest number of reports of injury, both physical and Mental, as a consequence of the rocket barrages. For example, on the 7th it was reported that a woman and child from the town of Askelon were being treated for shrapnel injuries, with others suffering mental distress.

Screen-grab RTE Player ‘News with Signing’ 10-July-14

RTE’s July 10th News with Signing (AKA ‘News for the Deaf’) text-based bulletin (see at 9:30) stated:

“The UN Secretary General has warned that the situation in the Middle East is on a knife edge. He said that the region cannot afford another full blown war and has urged Israeli and Palestinian militants to end hostilities.”

As with many other news outlets, it is problematic for RTE to consistently describe Hamas as “militants”, when the EU, of which Ireland is a full member state, recognises the group as a terrorist entity. However, the phrase “Israeli and Palestinian militants”, wording that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon does not appear to have used personally in the statement so described in the News with Signing report, negates not only the Israeli Defense Forces’ sovereign status, it also represents a rather extraordinary degree of moral relativism, in view of Hamas’ “dead baby strategy”, which was publicly reaffirmed by Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri this week.

“Obsession, Exclusion and Double Standards – the Points of Prejudice in the Coverage of an Emergent Third Intifada” portrays another example of RTE’s coverage of the conflict.

Rob Harris contributes articles to several websites on contentious political issues (not to be confused with the popular English novelist (1957-) of the same name). He blogs ateirael.blogspot.com. He lives in Ireland. For all the exclusive blog entries by Rob Harris,go here.