Benjamin Netanyahu to urge Russia to say 'nyet' to Iranian ops near Israel border




Israel hopes to reach “specific understandings” with Russia to prevent Iran from permanently setting up a base of operations in Syria against Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet on Sunday.

At the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu announced that he will be traveling to Moscow on Thursday for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the focus of the discussions will be on current efforts to put together new arrangements in Syria. Those efforts have taken place in recent weeks in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, and Geneva.



“With the framework of these arrangements, and also without them, there is an Iranian effort to become firmly established on a permanent basis in Syria, either through the presence of ground forces, or naval forces,” Netanyahu said. He also said the Syrians are involved in a “gradual attempt to open up a front against us on the Golan Heights.”

The prime minister said that he will express Israel’s fierce opposition to this in his discussions with Putin.

“I hope that we can reach specific understandings in order to decrease possible friction between our forces and theirs, as we did successfully until now,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu traveled to Moscow in September 2015, just as Russia began its military engagement in Syria, and set up a deconfliction mechanism between the two countries aimed at preventing any accidental engagement between Israeli and Russian forces in Syria.

The prime minister discussed the situation in Syria, and how he defines Israel’s interests there, with US President Donald Trump when he met with him in Washington last month. Diplomatic sources said he now wants to have a similar conversation with Putin.









Do you own property? How does it feel to have a piece of land that is yours, that no one can take from you?
Unless of course, you don’t pay your yearly rent, or rather property tax, to the town.
And then of course the government could always just take your land for “public use” providing “just compensation,” a price which will be decided by the government.

Oh and the government could also steal your land for private use, because they decided “public use” can include tax revenue gained from the land.
And if you are suspected, not convicted, of a crime, governments in many states can take your land through civil asset forfeiture.
Do you have water on your land? Even a drainage ditch means the EPA really owns it.
Private property means sovereignty for the individual; something the power elites cannot stomach.

Bottom up approaches mean freedom; individuals control their property, which they organize into larger voluntary groups controlled by those individuals. But feudalism was the opposite. The King owned all the land, and awarded some to the Lords, who likewise reigned over the serfs.

Originally America was supposed to resemble the former, where individuals had the most power over town governments. Local officials then controlled state government, which controlled federal government. Now it is the opposite, where the feds issue orders to the states, and the states control the towns.


And each government really controls all the land in their territory, and graciouslyallows us peasants to rent it from them, unless and until they decide to take it back.
The big question many have is, if the government cannot steal private property for actual public use, then how would we get projects like roads done? This is just like the Kings used to provide roads, and the Lords protection. We need them, right?


But in a non-feudal system, our “superiors” would have to offer actual just compensation. How can the government consider something just compensation if the owner of the property gets no say in that? The government somehow comes up with a market value, but that is not necessarily the same as the value to the homeowner.


Real just compensation is whatever the homeowner will accept. At some point, Kelo would have sold her property, she just hadn’t been offered enough money yet. If Pfizer really wanted it that bad, they could have offered her $1 million for a $300,000 house. If she still said no, up the price until she says yes! How bad does Pfizer want her land?


Private property doesn’t really exist in America, seeing as local, state, and federal authorities can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, as well as charge you money for occupying it.
These authorities can also use various methods to take the land from you altogether. Even if they give you what they decide is “just compensation” it still means the land is not owned by you, because you have no say in whether or not to sell the land, nor in the price.
Hopefully we can work towards a private property system where individuals actually own their land. And then, they would have actual control, like sovereign nations, over their land, and over how they interact with their neighbors.