Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has selected as his Minister of Justice a woman who has expressed hatred against all Palestinians, and he has appointed as his negotiator with the Palestians a man who said, and who has always followed though with, "We are all against a Palestinian state, there is no question about it."

These policies are direct rejections of the U.S.-overseen 1978 Camp David Accords, and of consistent U.S. policy since. The Camp David Accords were so bad for the Palestinians that the signatory on their behalf, Egypt's leader Anwar Sadat, was despised by virtually all Muslims and was assassinated for having done this. But Egypt abided by the Accords, while Israel for decades since has been constantly hemming and hawing about when they will some day fulfill their obligations under them; and, now, we finally have been given the answer: It's never. They signed an agreement that was so bad for Palestinians it was rejected by them and by the U.N., but now it's finally clear: to Israel, it's not bad enough to Palestinians. So: Israel insists upon continued (and now upon never-ending) military occupation.

Netanyahu has proven by actions, not mere words, that Israel is America's enemy, refusing to do even what Israel had signed an American-sponsored accord in 1978 promising to do — and, now, at last, installing a government that is deeply committed to never complying with it.

In 2011, someone posted to facebook an article, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," and gave no links to sources but merely his own untrustworthy allegations, that the following U.S. Government officials possess dual U.S. and Israeli citizenships:

Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Stuart Bernstein, Brad Blakeman, Lincoln Bloomfield, Samuel Bodman, John Bolton, Joshua Bolten, Nancy Brinker, Michael Chertoff, Bonnie Cohen, Eliot Cohen, Ruth Davis, Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, Lawrence Franklin, David Frum, Christopher Gersten, Joseph Gildenhorn, Adam Goldman, Steve Goldsmith, Marc Grossman, Richard Haass, Henry Kissinger, Daniel Kurtzer, Frank Lavin, Jay Lefkowitz, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Edward Luttwak, Ken Melman, Michael Mukasey, Richard Perle, Robert Satloff, James Schlesinger, Mel Sembler, Martin Silverstein, Cliff Sobel, Mark Weinberger, Ron Weiser, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Robert Zoellick.

Victoria Nuland arrived in Moscow last weekend and declared that Ukraine's government doesn't intend to resume the civil war. Either Nuland was being mendacious or President Poroshenko is on a dangerous solo-run.

It's all gone Lethal Weapon. Not in the sense of munitions, although some of those are definitely in play, but rather the movie series. Just as Danny Glover and Mel Gibson delivered four memorable performances in their good cop/bad cop roles, the US State Department is now deploying the tactic.

First John Kerry, who like Glover probably thinks he's getting too old for this, turns up all smiles in Sochi. Convinced the straight man's charm offensive has softened Russian resolve, the Americans then let Victoria Nuland loose on Moscow. The fact that the Russians were so pleasant about it, after she helped coordinate the 2014 Kiev coup, speaks volumes for their tolerance.

The Ukrainian elites, which receive upon the division of the Soviet inheritance everything necessary for the successful state building, by their own actions brought the country to the brink of a collapse.

Ideal starting conditions

Politics and history are not pre-determined. The "project Ukraine" living its last days was not doomed from the start.

Suddenly emerged new country had the world's 10th economy. It housed on its territory 40% of the Soviet military industry and 60% of the heavy industry. Well-developed agriculture was not only able to provide enough to cover domestic needs but also to actively export agricultural products. The network of the railroad and highways, long-distance pipelines, several large warm water ports more than covered the needs of the foreign trade but also had an almost unlimited potential for transit. The Ukraine's population was 52 million, and the demographic dynamics in 1991-1992 was still positive. The country possessed highly trained work force, a well developed system of personnel training for the industry and agriculture, high quality scientific base. All these goods were protected by half a million-strong group of the Soviet Army - the largest in the USSR -armed with the most modern weapons, since it was deployed at the peak of the potential main offensive.

Memorial Day commemorates soldiers killed in war. We are told that the war dead died for us and our freedom. US Marine General Smedley Butler challenged this view. He said that our soldiers died for the profits of the bankers, Wall Street, Standard Oil, and the United Fruit Company. Here is an excerpt from a speech that he gave in 1933:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Most American soldiers died fighting foes who posed no threat to the United States. Our soldiers died for secret agendas of which they knew nothing. Capitalists hid their self-interests behind the flag, and our boys died for the One Percent's bottom line.

The Ukrainian parliament has approved a regulation removing the obligation to protect certain human rights in the eastern Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

An note accompanying the regulation states that the conduct of what Kiev calls"anti-terrorist operations" in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions is not in compliance with the country's obligations for the protection of human rights. The document, cited by Tass, also mentions an "objective necessity to take measures to repel armed aggression of the Russian Federation"prompting Ukraine"to implement a temporary derogation from its obligations to ensure certain human rights to the extent permitted by relevant international agreements."

Among the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights the Ukrainian authorities can now refuse to fulfill in Eastern Ukraine are those stipulating the obligations to protect the security of citizens and their right to a fair trial, freedom of movement, choice of residence and guarantee the inviolability of people's homes.

News reports have begun to come in about the fall of Palmyra to ISIS in Syria, and while most Western media has rightly been concerned with the city's ancient ruins, few mentions have been given to the welfare of the people living in the region, or the fact that "The Syrian army launched a massive operation to evacuate as many civilians as possible of the city's 100,000 inhabitants before its epic defeat." (Debkafile, May 20, 2015)

Perhaps it is not expedient to the Western narrative to report the fact that the Syrian army is heavily invested in the protection of its people.

However, these outlets do note that "The capture of Palmyra is the first time the al Qaeda offshoot has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks." (Reuters, May 20, 2015) (emphasis added)

The title "insurgent groups" is a euphemism for al-Qaeda, as "the Syrian military opposition is dominated by ISIS and by Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda representative, in addition to other jihadi groups,"(1) and their gains are not some recent aberration but instead are the direct result of the US-led coalition ramping up aid to their proxy forces in the region.

Bill and Hillary Clinton "earned" — can a mortal earn such stratospheric sums? — "at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations," The New York Times reports. "They have now earned more than $125 million on the [lecture] circuit since leaving the White House in 2001."

This is an important issue. But the big story has little to with what actually matters.

Coverage of the Clintons' spectacularly lucrative speaking career has focused on how it affects Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign — specifically the political damage caused by the public's growing perception that Hillary is out of touch with the common man and woman. It is a promising line of inquiry for her detractors (myself included).

Hillary is out of touch. She hasn't been behind the wheel of an automobile for nearly 20 years, is a multi-multi-millionaire who nevertheless considered herself "dead broke" and still believes that she and her husband are not among "the truly well off." (Maybe Bill still drives.)

Ostentatious wealth coupled with tonedeafness didn't help Mitt "47 percent" Romney in 2012, or John "I can't remember how many houses I own" McCain in 2008 — and they were Republicans, a party that gleefully despises the poor and jobless. For a Democrat under heavy fire from her party's progressive base — with Elizabeth Warren, Bill di Blasio and Bernie Sanders leading the charge — this stuff could be politically fatal.

But the media ought to focus on the real issue. FDR was wealthy, yet he created the social safety net as we know it (what's left of it, anyway). JFK and RFK came from money, yet no one doubted their commitment to help the downtrodden. Liberals distrust Hillary due to her and her husband's long record of kowtowing to Wall Street bankers and transnational corporations, supporting jobs-killing "free trade" agreements, backing the NSA's intrusions into our privacy and as an unrepentant militarist. Her progressivism appears to have died with her law career.

Pointing the finger of blame at Russian President Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down last July, an Australian news show claims to have found the spot where the Russian BUK missile battery made its getaway, but the images don't match, raising questions of journalistic fakery, writes Robert Parry.

An Australian television show claims to have solved the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down mystery - the Russians did it! - but the program appears to have faked a key piece of evidence and there remain many of the same doubts as before, along with the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. government has withheld its intelligence data.

The basic point of the Australian "60 Minutes" program was that photographs on social media show what some believe to be a BUK anti-aircraft launcher aboard a truck traveling eastward on July 17, 2014, the day of the shoot-down, into what was generally considered rebel-controlled territory of eastern Ukraine, south and east of Donetsk, the capital of one of the ethnic Russian rebellious provinces.

Citing one image, the program's narrator says the "launcher is heading east further into rebel territory," south and east of Donetsk.

I've never been keen on boycotts. The one against Italy for invading Abyssinia didn't work. Nor did the arms blockade on Spain. I'm still not sure that boycotting South Africa really brought down apartheid. I rather suspect that the old racists simply realised they were hopelessly outnumbered by the blacks of South Africa and that the game was up.

And I'm still unconvinced that boycotting Israel, even though it frightens the right-wing crazies in Benjamin Netanyahu's government, will achieve a two-state solution, human rights for Palestinians, etc. I'm free to refuse to buy products from Jewish colonies in occupied Arab land (I do not buy them), but, when I visit Israel, I stay at the King David Hotel in west Jerusalem, visit the Tel Aviv gallery of art and buy Israeli-published books. Some Israeli academics support a boycott of their own country. They may be right in doing so.

But in Canada - and I had to literally rub my eyes when I read this - the totally pro-Israeli Conservative government of Stephen Harper intends to list the boycotting of Israel as a "hate crime". This is not only ludicrous, stupid, pointless and racist because it assumes that anyone opposed to Israel's vicious and iniquitous policies of land-grabbing in the West Bank is an anti-Semite, but it is also anti-democratic. Those who believe in non-violence have always espoused boycott movements on the grounds that economic pressure rather than bombs is a moral way of putting pressure on a country that violates international law.

The former deputy chief of staff of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is to front the European Court of Justice, suing the European Commission for a range of sanctions imposed against him, which saw him banned from entering the EU, and some of his assets frozen.

Andrey Portnov, whose sanctions imposed by the EC were lifted in March, is taking European officials to court, arguing that he shouldn't have been sanctioned and penalised in the first place, while warning that Ukraine's current government should be concerned about prosecution for malpractice.

Portnov was one of 22 officials, including former Ukrainian President Yanukovuch, who was banned from entering the EU, and who had assets in European Union member states frozen.