Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza

Israel get weapons from everyone and their dog.

This is unbelievable. All of the countries are also violating International Laws as well.

Hamas has little to nothing in comparison to Israel.

The difference is staggering.

Shame on those who supply grossly, massive, amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction to Israel.

Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza Fueling Conflict

Both Israel and Hamas used weapons supplied from abroad to carry out attacks on civilians. This briefing contains fresh evidence on the munitions used during the three-week conflict in Gaza and southern Israel and includes information on the supplies of arms to all parties to the conflict. It explains why Amnesty International is calling for a cessation of arms supplies to the parties to the conflict and calling on the United Nations to impose a comprehensive arms embargo.

Introduction

With fragile ceasefires now in place in Gaza and southern Israel, the full extent of the devastation caused in recent weeks is becoming increasingly clear. Amnesty International researchers visiting Gaza and southern Israel during and after the fighting found evidence of war crimes and other serious violations of international law by all parties to the conflict.

In the three weeks following the start of the Israeli military offensive on 27 December, Israeli forces killed more than 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza, including more than 300 children and many other civilians, and injured over 5,000 other Palestinians, again including many civilians. Israeli forces also destroyed thousands of homes and other property and caused significant damage to the infrastructure of Gaza, causing a worsening of the humanitarian crisis arising from the 18-month blockade maintained by Israel. Some of the Israeli bombardments and other attacks were directed at civilians or civilian buildings in the Gaza Strip; others were disproportionate or indiscriminate. Amnesty International has found indisputable evidence that Israeli forces used white phosphorus, which has a highly incendiary effect, in densely populated residential areas in Gaza, putting the Palestinian civilian population at high risk. Israeli forces’ use of artillery and other non-precision weapons in densely-populated residential areas increased the risk, and the harm done, to the civilian population.

During the same period, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups continued to fire indiscriminate rockets into residential areas of southern Israel, killing three civilians.

Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate attacks are war crimes.

Amnesty International is calling on the United Nations, and the Security Council (SC) in particular, to establish an immediate independent investigation into allegations of war crimes and other serious violations of international law committed by all sides to the conflict and for those found responsible to be brought to justice in order to ensure accountability. The organization notes and welcomes the investigation established by the UN Secretary-General into attacks on UN installations in Gaza but considers this insufficient, and that an independent international investigation must be held into all allegations of war crimes and other violations of international law by all the parties to the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel. As well, Amnesty International is calling on the UN, notably the Security Council, to impose an immediate, comprehensive arms embargo on all parties to the conflict, and on all states to take action individually to impose national embargoes on any arms or weapons transfers to the parties to the conflict until there is no longer a substantial risk that such arms or weapons could be used to commit serious violations of international law.

Amnesty International is deeply concerned that weaponry, munitions and other military equipment supplied to Israel have been used by Israeli armed forces to carry out direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate. Amnesty International is also concerned that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have been firing indiscriminate rockets, supplied or constructed of materials supplied from outside Gaza, at civilian population centres in southern Israel.

Misuse of conventional arms by Israeli forces

Hundreds of civilians taking no part in the hostilities, including over 300 children and more than 100 civilian police cadets who were not directly participating in the hostilities, were killed in attacks by Israeli forces against the Gaza Strip. Civilian homes and other buildings, including medical facilities, schools and a university, were also damaged or destroyed by Israeli air strikes and artillery and other attacks — artillery is an area weapon, not one that can be used with pinpoint accuracy, and so should never be used in densely-populated civilian areas.

Amnesty International researchers, including a weapons expert, found various fragments and components from munitions used by the Israeli army during the three-week military offensive launched on 27 December. They include fragments of artillery shells (white phosphorus, high explosive and illuminating), tank shells, mortar fins, highly incendiary white phosphorus-impregnated felt wedges, anti-tank mines and a range of live and spent bullets casings of various calibres – including 7.62 mm, 5.56 mm and the larger .50 calibre.

The information below describes the types of munitions and military equipment used during the conflict that Amnesty International has documented, including in circumstances which violate international humanitarian law and, in some cases, may amount to war crimes.Amnesty International called on the Israeli authorities to disclose the weapons used by their forces in Gaza so that medical staff would be adequately informed to treat victims of the conflict.

Air delivered munitions

Amnesty International found remnants of air-delivered munitions — ranging from fragments of 20mm cannon and Hellfire and other missiles fired from helicopters and unmanned drones, to large fragments of large laser-guided and other bombs dropped from F-16 warplanes, as well as pieces of rocket motors, circuit boards and other electrical components of the missiles. Fragments from these bombardments are all over Gaza – on the streets, in school playgrounds, in hospitals and in people’s homes. Fragments from one 500lb bomb contained the inscription ‘For use on MK-82 fin guided bomb’ and the markings 96214 ASSY 837760-4. The cage code 96214 indicates that this fin was produced by the US company Raytheon. A US government solicitation notice dated 22 October 2001 for ‘bomb spare parts’ included AFG Fin, Raytheon part number 837760-4.

Fragments from a MK-82 bomb ©Amnesty International

By the rubble of the American School in Gaza, Amnesty International delegates spoke to the father of the school guard, Mahmoud Mohammed Selmi Abu Qleiq, who was killed when Israeli F16 aircraft bombed the school campus. Hundreds of homes were completely destroyed as a result of bombardments by F-16 aircraft.

At the northern end of the al-Shati (Beach) refugee camp in Gaza City, Amnesty International visited the Abu ‘Eisha family. Five members of the family – three children and their parents – were killed on the night of 5 January, when an Israeli aircraft dropped a bomb which struck and partially destroyed the house. The following day, 6 January, another Israeli F-16 bombardment killed 23 members of the al-Daya family, most of them children and women, as they slept in their home in the Zaytoun district of Gaza City. When Amnesty International delegates visited the ruins of the house two weeks later, several of the dead were still trapped under the huge pile of rubble.

Anti-Tank Mines

An Israeli anti-tank mine with Hebrew markings ©Amnesty International

On Wednesday 28 January, at the home of the Mardi family in Atatra, where 20 members of the family lived, Amnesty International delegates found one of the anti-tank mines that was used by Israeli soldiers to blow up the family’s house on 4 January. The mine was damaged but had failed to explode. The family said that they had found another such mine, wholly unexploded, which had been removed by the local police. The mine, like others – exploded and unexploded – found by AI delegates in the rubble of other destroyed houses, bore Hebrew writing and serial numbers. Though designed for use against tanks, these mines are easily adapted to other purposes through the addition of an explosive charge and fuse. Israeli soldiers have previously confirmed to Amnesty International that these anti-tank mines have long been used to destroy Palestinian houses, most often in the West Bank but also in Gaza.

Artillery and Mortars

During the three-week military campaign Israeli forces made extensive use of artillery including 155mm white phosphorus shells (see below White Phosphorus) in residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians. Homes, schools, medical facilities and UN buildings — all civilian objects – took direct hits from Israeli artillery shelling. Artillery shells are for use on conventional battlefields and are not capable of pinpoint targeting. Yet in Gaza they were fired into densely-populated civilian residential areas.

In an UNRWA primary school in Beit Lahia, where 1,600 people were sheltering from the fighting, an artillery carrier shell hit a classroom on the second floor where 35 people were sleeping at 6am on 17 January. Two brothers, aged five and seven, were killed and 14 others were injured, including the boys’ mother, whose leg had to be amputated. Two days after the incident Amnesty International delegates found remains of 155 mm white phosphorus artillery shells and still smouldering remains of white phosphorus at the school.

Eleven days earlier, on 6 January, mortar shells fired by Israeli forces had landed in the street outside another UNRWA school in Jabalia, killing at least 41 people, among them 10 members of one family.

White Phosphorus

There is evidence that white phosphorus was used by Israeli forces across Gaza. Amnesty International came across many white phosphorus 155mm artillery carrier shells throughout Gaza with markings M825 A1 — a US-made munition. These are the same markings of the 155mm white phosphorus shells photographed in Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) stockpiles (see section Arms supplies to Israel below).

Several white phosphorus artillery shells hit the UNRWA field operations headquarters in Gaza City on 15 January, causing a large fire which destroyed tens of tons of humanitarian aid, including, medicines, food and other non-food items. Amnesty International delegates who visited the site found the marking PB-91K018-035 on the fragments of one of the artillery shells which is the lot number and indicates that they were assembled by Pine Bluff Arsenal (PB) in 1991 (91) in October (K).

A white phosphorus carrier shell ©Amnesty International

Amnesty International found that the Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely-populated civilian residential areas in and around Gaza City, and in the north and south of the Gaza Strip. The organization’s delegates found white phosphorus still burning in residential areas throughout Gaza days after the ceasefire came into effect on 18 January – that is, up to three weeks after the white phosphorus artillery shells had been fired by Israeli forces. Amnesty International considers that the repeated use of white phosphorus in this way in densely-populated civilian areas constitutes a form of indiscriminate attack, and amounts to a war crime^.

White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. When each 155mm artillery shell bursts, it releases 116 wedges impregnated with white phosphorus which ignite on contact with oxygen and can scatter, depending on the height at which it is burst (and wind conditions), over an area at least the size of a football pitch. In addition to the indiscriminate effect of air-bursting such a weapon, firing such shells as artillery exacerbates the likelihood that civilians will be affected. When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen. It can contaminate other parts of the patient’s body or even those treating the injuries.
A 16-year-old girl, Samia Salman Al-Manay’a, was asleep in her home in the Jabalia refugee camp, north of Gaza City, when a phosphorus shell landed on the first floor of the house at 8pm on 10 January. Ten days later, from her hospital bed, she told Amnesty International that she was still experiencing intense pain due to the burns to her face and legs. “The pain is piercing. It’s as though a fire is burning in my body. It’s too much for me to bear. In spite of all the medicine they are giving me the pain is still so strong.”

Amnesty International has seen documents written during the Israeli military offensive on Gaza by the office of the Israeli army Chief Medical Officer and Medical Field Operations headquarters. A document signed by Colonel Dr Gil Hirschorn, head of trauma in the office of the army’s Chief Medical Officer, states: “When the phosphorus comes in contact with living tissue it causes its damage by ‘eating’ away at it. Characteristics of a phosphorus wound are: chemical burns accompanied by extreme pain, damage to tissue … the phosphorus may seep into the body and damage internal organs. In the long run, kidney failure and the spread of infection are characteristic … In conclusion: a wound by an ordnance containing explosive phosphorus is inherently dangerous and has the potential to cause serious damage to tissue.”

Another document entitled “Exposure to White Phosphorus,” prepared by Medical Field Operations HQ and sent from the Health Ministry, notes that “most of the data on phosphorus wounds stems from animal testing and accidents. Exposure to white phosphorus is highly poisonous, according to many lab experiments. Burns covering a small area of the body, 12-15 percent in lab animals and less than 10 percent in humans, may be lethal as a result of its effects, mostly on the liver, heart and kidneys.”

In addition to the danger posed by the incendiary effect of white phosphorus, the artillery shells themselves continued to pose lethal threat after they dispersed the white phosphorus, as they continued on their trajectory and in many cases smashed into home full of civilians.

In Khuzaa, east of Khan Younis, in the south of Gaza, Amnesty International delegates found white phosphorus artillery carrier shells, both whole and in fragments, in several homes in a densely-populated residential area. In one home, they found the fragments of another 155mm artillery carrier shell which had killed 47-year-old Hanan al-Najjar, a mother of four. She and her family had fled their home and were staying with relatives in a residential area well inside the town. On the evening of 10 January an artillery shell penetrated the roof of the house and travelled through two rooms, breaking up in the hall, where a large fragment hit Hanan in the chest, almost severing the upper part of her body. She was killed instantly. In the patio of the house, Amnesty International delegates found an artillery shell (illuminating round) and in a nearby house they found another whole artillery carrier shell which had crashed through the wall and landed on the young couple’s bed, where a baby had been sleeping only minutes earlier.

Illuminating artillery shells

Amnesty International delegates encountered 155mm M485 A2 illuminating shells used by the IDF which had landed in built up residential areas in Gaza. These eject a phosphorus canister, which floats down under a parachute. At least three of these carrier shells were found which had landed in people’s homes. These shells are yellow and one had the following markings: TZ 1-81 155-M 485 A2. TZ is a known marking on Israeli ammunition.

An artillery carrier shell which ejects a canister for illumination ©Amnesty International

At the home of journalist Samir Khalifa, in the Zaitoun district of Gaza City, Amnesty International delegates found a 155mm artillery shell which had smashed into his fourth floor apartment at 6am on 10 January, striking the room next to where he and his wife and children usually slept The family escaped harm as they were sleeping downstairs with the grandparents.

Flechettes

Flechettes are not specifically prohibited under international humanitarian law. However, their use in densely-populated civilian areas in Gaza contributed to unlawful killings of and injuries to civilians. Flechettes are 4cm long metal darts that are sharply pointed at the front, with four fins at the rear. Between 5,000 and 8,000 of these darts are packed into 120mm shells which are generally fired from tanks. The shells explode in the air and scatter the flechettes in a conical pattern over an area about 300m long and 100m wide. Flechette rounds are designed to be used against massed infantry attacks or squads of troops in the open and obviously pose a very high risk to civilians when fired in densely-populated civilian residential areas, as deployed by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.

Amnesty International investigated several deaths and injuries of civilians in Gaza caused by flechettes in January. In one case, on 4 January 2009, an ambulance arrived about 15 minutes after a missile strike in Beit Lahiya that apparently targeted five unarmed young men. The ambulance was hit a few minutes later by a tank shell filled with flechettes. Two paramedics were seriously wounded in the incident and one of them, Arafa Hani Abd-al-Dayem, later died.

The following morning, Israeli forces fired several flechette shells into the main road near the Abd al-Dayem family home in ‘Izbet Beit Hanoun, to the south-west of the town of Beit Hanoun. Two people, a child and a woman, were killed and several others were injured. Sixteen-year-old Islam Jaber Abd-al-Dayem was struck in the neck by a flechette. He was taken to the hospital’s intensive care unit but died three days later. Mizar, his brother, was injured in the same attack and still has a flechette lodged in his back. Nearby, 21-year-old Wafa’ Abu Jarad, who was pregnant, her two-year-old son, her husband, and her father and brother-in-law were all injured by flechettes in the courtyard of their home. Wafa’ Abu Jarad died of her injuries two days later.

Amnesty International has previously documented Israeli forces‘ use of flechette rounds in Gaza resulting in the killing of children. The manner in which shells containing flechettes were used by Israeli forces in Gaza — fired in densely populated civilian areas – violates the international law prohibition on indiscriminate attack. Prior to their use during the recent military offensive, the last known incident when flechettes were used in Gaza was on 16 April 2008, when Israeli soldiers fired a flechette tank shell at Reuters journalist Fadel Shana, while he was filming the tank, killing him and three other unarmed civilians, including two children.

In 2001, Jane’s defense publication quoted an Israeli military source, who stated: “The Israeli military obtained these weapons from the USA after the 1973 war and we have thousands of old shells in warehouses…The weapon is not regarded as reliable or effective and gunners have a difficult time in aiming this properly.”

Tank Ammunition

The markings on the base of one tank round found by Amnesty International delegates in Gaza at the destroyed house of the Abu ‘Ida family indicated that it was a 120mm M830 High Explosive Multi Purpose Cartridge made in the USA.

Base of tank cartridge found by Abu Abdullah Abu ‘Ida outside his house ©Amnesty International

Amnesty International delegates found fragments from 120mm tank rounds all over Gaza, including in homes where these munitions had killed children and other civilians. Tank rounds are precision munitions. The killings of so many civilians, many in their homes, indicates that these munitions were — at best — used in a reckless or indiscriminate manner. In Jabaliya, north Gaza, at the home of Dr Izz al-Din Abu al-’Eish, a gynaecologist who works in an Israeli hospital, Amnesty International delegates found fragments of the two 120mm tank shells which were fired by Israeli soldiers into the bedroom of Dr Abu al-’Eish’s daughters on the afternoon of 16 January. Three of the doctor’s daughters and his niece were killed on the spot and another daughter and niece were seriously injured.

Missiles from UAVs — or “drones”, helicopters and aircraft

Three paramedics in their mid 20s — Anas Fadhel Na’im, Yaser Kamal Shbeir, and Raf’at Abd al-’Al — were killed in the early afternoon of 4 January in Gaza City as they walked through a small field on their way to rescue two wounded men in a nearby orchard. A 12-year-old boy, Omar Ahmad al-Barade’e, who was standing near his home indicating to the paramedic the place where the wounded were, was also killed in the same strike.

Amnesty International went to the scene of the incident with the two ambulance drivers who had accompanied the paramedics and who had witnessed the attack and met the child’s distraught mother and found the remains of the missile that killed the three paramedics and the child. The label read “guided missile, surface attack” and the USA is mentioned as the weapon’s country of origin. This AGM 114 Hellfire missile, usually launched from Apache helicopters, was produced by Hellfire Systems of Orlando,a Lockheed Martin/Boeing joint venture, under a contract with the US Army’s Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama which uses the number DAAH01-03-C-0106 on its contracts.

Label on the remains of a missile that killed three paramedics and a child ©Amnesty International

Amnesty International found evidence of missile components, including Hellfire AGM 114, from the air attack on the police cadet parade that took place on 27 December 2008. One of the electrical components had “made in France” written on it.

Cube-shaped shrapnel

Amnesty International delegates in Gaza also found evidence of the use of a new type of missile, seemingly launched from unmanned drones, which explodes large numbers of tiny sharp-edged metal cubes, each between 2 and 4 mm square in size. This purpose-made shrapnel can penetrate even thick metal doors and many were seen by Amnesty International’s delegates embedded deep in concrete walls. They appear designed to cause maximum injury and, in some respects, seem to be a more sophisticated version of the ball-bearings or nails and bolts which armed groups often pack into crude rockets and suicide bombs. The signature of these new missiles, in addition to the deadly tiny metal cubes, is a small and deep hole in the ground (about 10 cm or less in diameter and up to several metres in depth) and a small quantity of shrapnel made of very thin metal, seemingly from the missile’s casing.

An X-ray of a young man who had been injured in one of these missile attacks, which killed a dozen youths and injured several others, showed the tiny metal pellets still embedded in his thigh.

A 13-year-old girl who was asleep in her bed; three primary school-age boys who were carrying sugar canes; two young women on their way to a shelter in search of safety; a 13-year-old boy on his bicycle; eight secondary school students who were waiting for the school bus to take them home; an entire family sitting in the courtyard of their home, and many others were all killed in attacks with these missiles.

Dense Inert Metal Explosives (DIME)

There have been reports of the use by Israeli forces of DIME munitions in Gaza. Amnesty International researchers in Gaza were not able to confirm the use of such weapons but they interviewed doctors who described treating patients with injuries that could be consistent with the use of DIME weapons.

According to the military publication, Jane’s Intelligence Defence Review, DIME munitions contain high explosives mixed with a powdered, high-density metal such as tungsten, a design which reportedly”improves the blast impulse and lethality near the detonation point (near field) but reduces the more distant (far field) effects.”

DIME munitions are not specifically prohibited under international law. However, as a relatively new weapon, there are questions about their long-term health consequences, which require further study. It is suspected by some scientists that embedded weapons-grade tungsten alloy shrapnel rapidly causes cancer in rats and, while it is not known whether the rate of inducement would be equivalent in human beings, further studies are required into the effects, and risks posed to humans exposed to it, of weapons-grade tungsten shrapnel.

Some medical doctors in Gaza described attending victims who had unusual wounds that might have been caused by DIME weapons. Patterns of injury include limbs severed in a sharp amputation-like manner, with wounds looking as if cauterized and with little or no bleeding; very deep burns; and unexplained deterioration and deaths of patients with seemingly light injuries. Doctors are finding it difficult to treat these patients because of uncertainty about the nature of the munitions which caused the injuries.

Amnesty International is calling on the Israeli authorities to disclose the weapons and munitions used by their forces in Gaza, in order to facilitate treatment of the injured. The organization believes further studies are required before it can be determined whether the use of DIME munitions is lawful under international law. If it were determined that such weapons cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, or if they violate the provisions of the Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I to the Convention on Conventional Weapons) of 10 October 1980, then their use even against combatants, not only civilians, would be prohibited.

Unlawful use of indiscriminate rockets by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups

Palestinian armed groups affiliated to Hamas and to other Palestinian factions (including the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s party) have been launching rockets into towns and villages in south Israel. Although most of these rockets fall in empty areas, they have caused the deaths of several Israeli civilians, injured scores and caused damage to civilian property. In some cases these rockets have failed to reach Israel and have fallen inside Gaza, and some have killed and injured Palestinian civilians. In January 2009, as an increasing number of Palestinian rockets hit Ashkelon, Israeli officials reported that up to 40 percent of the city’s 122,000 inhabitants had left their homes temporarily to stay in other parts of Israel. Sderot and villages in the area have also been similarly affected.

The rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups cannot accurately be directed at specific targets especially at longer distances. They include rockets described as Grads (Russian generic names which may indicate specific (Grad 122mm) calibres, or generically describe multiple-launched rockets) which have a range of about 35km, and home-made short range “Qassam” rockets (another generic name). The military publication Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor has described the “Qassam” rockets as: “inaccurate, short-range and rarely lethal”. According to Jane’s the “Qassam” is a Palestinian improvised artillery weapon. Amnesty International delegates visited Sderot and Ashkelon police stations, where they saw the rockets which have struck the towns and surrounding areas, including Grads, Qassams and Quds. The latter two are very crude, rusty 60, 90, or 120mm pipes about 1.5 metres long with fins welded onto them. They can hold about five kilograms of explosives as well as shrapnel in the form of nails, bolts, or round metal sheets which rip into pieces on impact. They have a range of up to 20km, but cannot be aimed accurately. Grad rockets are more professionally built and according to Israeli Police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld are smuggled into Gaza, not produced locally there.

According to the Israeli army, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched 643 rocket attacks on Israel between 27 December 2008 and 11 January 2009. See the table for more information:

Fueled IDF Reports of Number of rocket attacks by Hamas

27 December 2008 — 11 January 2009

TOTAL: 643

Seven Israeli civilians were killed in 2008 by rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups from Gaza into communities in south Israel. Three of the victims were killed in separate attacks on three consecutive days, on 27, 28 and 29 December 2008.

Fifty-eight-year-old Beber Vaknin was killed when a rocket fired from Gaza hit his apartment building in Netivot on 27 December 2008. The following day, on 28 December a 27-year-old Bedouin, Hani al-Mahdi, was killed and 16 of his co-workers were injured when a Grad rocket missile launched by Hamas militias from Gaza exploded at a construction site in the town of Ashkelon, where the group worked. A third Israeli, Irit Sheetrit, aged 39, was killed the following day, on 29 December 2008 when another Grad rocket hit the centre of the town of Ashdod. As with the attack of the previous day, Hamas also claimed responsibility for the attack.

Amnesty International has repeatedly called on Hamas and all other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza to stop firing indiscriminate rockets against towns and villages in southern Israel, and continues to do so.²

Arms supplies to Israel

Israel is a significant manufacturer of conventional arms, falling within the top 10 of arms exporters in the world, but also relies on imports of military equipment, parts and technologies. For example, Merkava-4 tanks produced in Israel have used diesel engines assembled in the USA incorporating components produced in Germany.

Since 2001, the USA has been by far the major supplier of conventional arms to Israel based on the value of export deliveries of all conventional arms including government to government as well as private commercial sales. US foreign military sales to Israel have continued on a large scale (see Appendix 1). The US authorities reported to the UN that the USA commercially traded $1,313 million in “arms and ammunition” to Israel in the years from 2004 to 2007, of which $447 million was traded in 2007. Israel did not report this trade to the UN. These figures for US trade would normally exclude gifts of military equipment and associated or “dual use” equipment and technologies. In addition to this trade, the USA has provided large funding each year for Israel to procure arms despite US legislation that restricts such aid to consistently gross human rights violators.

Since 2002, during the Bush administration, Israel received over $21 billion in US military and security assistance, including $19 billion in direct military aid under the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Put simply, Israel’s military intervention in the Gaza Strip has been equipped to a large extent by US-supplied weapons, munitions and military equipment paid for with US taxpayers’ money.

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act stipulates that “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” which includes “acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.” Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act authorizes the supply of US military equipment and training only for lawful purposes of internal security, “legitimate self-defense,” or participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations or other operations consistent with the U.N. Charter. However, under the US Export Administration Act, security assistance may be provided if the President certifies that “extraordinary circumstances” exist, so Section 502B is circumvented. The Leahy Law, named after the senator who introduced the amendment to US legislation, prohibits the USA from providing most forms of security assistance to any military or police unit when there is “credible evidence” that members of the unit are committing gross human rights violations. Assistance can resume if the government in question takes “effective measures” and, under the Pentagon’s interpretation of the law, if the foreign government filters out the “few bad apples” in that particular unit, security assistance can continue.

On 16 August 2007, the US and Israeli governments signed a 10-year agreement for the provision of $30 billion in US military aid. Full details of the package were not disclosed; however, it is reported to include a new generation of F-35 fighter jets, advanced bombs, and laser-guided missiles. This military aid package, amounting to $3 billion per year, represented a 25 percent increase of the US annual military aid appropriation to Israel of $2.4 billion. Israel was already the largest recipient in the world of US military aid before the proposed increase. Even after the start of the current conflict and reports of serious violations of international humanitarian law by the IDF in Gaza, the US authorities continued to authorize large consignments of US munitions, including white phosphorus munitions, to Israel.

Other major arms exporting states such as France, Germany and the UK have been exporting far less to Israel than the US since 2004 but nevertheless these exports appear significant. According to the EU’s 2008 report on arms export licences, published in December for the 2007 calendar year and consolidating the accounts that Member States must annually submit, 18 EU Member States authorised a total of 1,018 such licences to Israel worth €199,409,348. France, Germany and Romania were the top three exporters. France issued export licences worth €126 million, Germany authorised €28 million and Romania €17 million. Export authorisations from states do not necessarily correspond to actual arms export data in any one year for a variety of reasons, but licence authorisations do show the willingness of governments of exporting States to equip Israel’s armed forces. Actual annual arms export data from the EU to Israel until the end of 2007 are shown in the table below.

Under Criterion 2 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, Member States are supposed to “deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression” or “be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law”. The term “internal repression” “includes, inter alia, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, summary or arbitrary executions, disappearances, arbitrary detentions and other major violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Across the EU, only 28 export licences were refused as a result of human rights, internal security or regional stability reasons.

As a result of political pressure in some EU countries concerned about the conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, nine EU states including Sweden now claim not to export any arms to Israel and states such as Italy and the UK have claimed to restrict their exports of conventional arms overall, but sometimes such exports to Israel consist of components or transit trade. Nonetheless export data show that such states have exported infantry weapons, military vehicles and components for arms sent to Israel.

Other significant suppliers of military equipment to Israel since 2001 are (in alphabetical order) Austria, Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Korea and Spain. The Netherlands and Greece have been major transit countries for military equipment sent to Israel. Albania, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Brazil, Colombia, and India are reported to have been in the top 20 commercial suppliers of arms and ammunition.

International obligations regarding conventional arms transfers

The UN Security Council, in Operative Provision 6 of Resolution 1860 (2009), of 8 January 2009, called on Member States “to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to … prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition…” According to the 1996 United Nations Guidelines for International Arms Transfers, the term “illicit arms trafficking is understood to cover that international trade in conventional arms, which is contrary to the laws of States and/or international law.”

The responsibility of all states to prohibit international arms transfers that will facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights derives from their obligation not to participate in the internationally wrongful acts of another state. The principle is stated in Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in terms which reflect customary international law, binding on all States. Article 16 states: “A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.” General international law prohibits conduct that involves patterns of blatant abuse and complicity in such a pattern of blatant abuse. The expression “gross” or “serious” violation of human rights is commonly used to convey a sense of scale, evoking both the number of violations and the gravity of their consequences for the victims. It also suggests a measure of intent.

The table below shows the USA and EU suppliers of conventional arms to Israel, including government to government transfers and commercial sales — up to the most recent period publicly available.

Actual Export of US and EU conventional military equipment to Israel for the period 2004 to 2007:

USA USD
2004 1,204,413,883
2005 2,634,108,000
2006 2,487,285,000
2007 1,529,306,000
Total 7,855,112,883
FMS USD
2004 1,203,995,000
2005 1,523,885,000
2006 1,285,861,000
2007 1,269,031,000
Total 5,282,772,000
DCS USD
2004 418,883,000
2005 1,110,223,000
2006 1,201,424,000
2007 260,275,000
Total 2,990,805,000

Bulgaria EUR
2006 249,445
Total 249,445

Czech Republic EUR
2004 821,000
2005 1,289,000
2006 261,000
2007 2,442,820
Total 4,813,820

France EUR
2004 17,300,000
2005 12,808,032
2006 21,358,751
2007 7,998,720
Total 59,465,503

Germany EUR
2004 417,000
2005 477,000
2006 14,000
2007 770,000
Total 1,678,000

Greece EUR
2005 558,858
2006 88,606
2007 29,640
Total 677,104

Italy EUR
2004 161,780
2005 220,095
2006 42,588
2007 444,670
Total 869,133

Netherlands EUR
2005 3,253,083
Total 3,253,083

Poland EUR
2005 508,819
Total 508,819

Romania EUR
2004 3,154,943
2005 3,395,240
2006 6,809,454
2007 7,631,156
Total 20,990,793

Slovakia EUR
2005 304,656
2006 205,506
Total 510,162

Slovenia EUR
2004 435,818
2005 233,544
2006 492,150
2007 1,138,180
Total 2,299,692

Spain EUR
2004 35,257
2005 273,728
2006 441,335
2007 1,515,934
Total 2,266,254

UK GBP
2005 582,071
2006 3,572,788
2007 6,315,960
Total 10,470,819

This shows actual exports of military equipment as reported by the USA and EU governments. The value of the deliveries is shown in the different currencies as reported. Statistics are compiled differently by states. There is no available data for 2008. The above has been compiled, with the exception of the USA, in alphabetical order of the countries named.

Major commercial suppliers of infantry weapons, munitions and armoured vehicles, and aircraft to Israel

Based upon customs data submitted by states to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (Comtrade) the US accounted for 95 percent of all commercial sales – which are those sales made directly to Israel by manufacturers to foreign recipients falling within the broad UN customs category 891 of “arms and ammunition” between 2004 and 2007 amounting to a total recorded value of over US$1.3 billion. Other major suppliers in this category were Serbia and Montenegro (in 2004), Poland, Romania, Serbia (since 2005), South Korea, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Finland and Austria.

The table below shows the top 20 arms suppliers to Israel by value in US$ according to this UN customs category of “arms and ammunition”, code 891. UN data is not yet available for 2008.

Top 20 Arms and Ammunition Deliveries to Israel between2004-2007 measured in US$
USA	1,312,909,556
Serbia and Montenegro (2004 only)	8,626,560
Poland	7,455,679
Romania	6,757,241
Serbia	6,331,138
Korea, South	5,864,486
Slovakia	5,415,005
Czech Republic	4,491,753
Finland	4,138,731
Austria	4,015,987
Italy	3,187,896
Brazil	1,983,166
Bosnia-Herzogovina	1,880,499
Germany	1,531,000
Colombia	1,496,192
Albania	1,255,415
India	1,052,680
Spain	952,725
Netherlands	784,714
UK	754,367
Canada	707,384

A note on UN Comtrade data

No useful information is submitted by States to the UN Comtrade database on the quantity or exact types of military equipment or munitions transferred. The only indicator of the size of the shipment(s) is the value in US$. Also, not all States report or report reliably to the UN and do not necessarily report their trade statistics for each and every year. However, UN Comtrade data can be used to ask governments about the exact nature of these deliveries, what equipment they exactly covered, what quantity, who the end-user is and what is the intended end-use. Nonetheless, the UN data does show which States are the main suppliers of arms to Israel.

Aircraft and Helicopters

Over the years, the US has also supplied Israel with US-made F-16 combat aircraft, Apache AH-64 helicopters and Black Hawk UH-60 combat helicopters.

According to the most recent data available submitted to the UN Register on Conventional Arms by the US government, during 2007 the US exported to Israel one M577A2 Command armoured combat vehicle; 18 F-16D combat aircraft; and 50 LAU-129 A/A launcher missile launchers. In 2006, the USA exported to Israel 21 F16 aircraft in 2006 and 42 Bell AH-1F Cobra. The Bell AH-1F Cobra gunship incorporates the 2.75 inch rockets fired from 7-tube M158, 19-tube M200, 7-tube M-260, or 19-tube M261 rocket pods, the M65 TOW missile system and the M197 20mm gun.

Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles

According to the UN Comtrade database the following countries are the top five suppliers of equipment under the category of ‘tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles’ code 89111.

Top 5 suppliers of armoured fighting vehicles between 2004-2007 in US$
USA	540,900,776
Romania	5,819,346
Slovakia	901,676
Korea, South	530,775
Kazakhstan	197,861

Ammunition

According to the UN Comtrade database, the US was the largest commercial supplier of “munitions of war” under the code 89129 to Israel between 2004-2007 with US$480 million – 98% of all commercial sales in this category.

Top 10 deliveries of ‘munitions’ 2004-2007 in US$
USA	480,814,850
Finland	4,093,348
Korea, South	4,048,761
Germany	823,000
Serbia30	760,635
Poland	393,587
Albania	387,169
Serbia and Montenegro (2004 only)	376,681
Romania	329,150
Estonia	185,772
UK	8,048

According to research by Amnesty International and International Peace Information Service (a NGO based in Antwerp), Serbian and Bosnian companies have in recent years exported large quantities of small arms ammunition and components, as well as artillery shell and mortar components to Israeli companies that supply such weapons to the IDF. Such exports have been sanctioned by the governments of Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzogovina.

The primary Israeli importer of small arms ammunition components and finished products from the Balkans is the company Israeli Military Industries (IMI). During 2005 and 2006, IMI imported millions of rounds of 5.56 calibre ammunition from the Prvi Partizan factory in Serbia. IMI also ordered 45 million rounds of 5.56 calibre ammunition compatible with IDF assault rifles from a Bosnian factory in September 2005. IMI continued to import massive quantities of IDF compatible ammunition from Serbia. IMI is the leading small arms supplier to the IDF. See below for information on small arms and light weapons.

Rockets and Missiles

Israel typically uses the AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles which are fired from the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. The armament of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter consists of the 2.75 inch (70mm) Hydra rockets carried in 19-tube rocket pods and the M230 30mm chain gun. The US supplies these to Israel as the table below shows.

Proposed US Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress 2005-2008 (DSCA)
Date	Source	Quantity	Description
30/10/07	Transmittal 08-07	2,000 14 1,000 200 500 100	Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missiles TOW 2A Fly-to-buy Missiles AGM-114K3 HELLFIRE II Missiles AGM-114L3 HELLFIRE II Longbow Missiles AGM-114M3 HELLFIRE II Missiles PATRIOT Guidance Enhanced Missile Plus (GEM+)
09/09/08	Transmittal 08-87	28,000 60,000	M72A7 66mm Light Anti-Armor Weapons (LAAWs),M72AS 21mm Sub-Caliber Training Rockets.

Bombs

The table below shows proposed US supplies of the GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ and other bombs to Israel between 2005 and 2008.

Proposed US Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress 2005-2008 (DSCA)
Date	Source	Quantity	Description
29/04/05	Transmittal 05-10	100	GBU-28 bombs that include: BLU-113A/B penetration warhead, WGU-36A/B guidance control unit, FMU-143H/B bomb fuze, and BSG-92/B airfoil group guide. Also included are: support equipment; testing, spare and repair parts; supply support; publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support.
20/04/07	Transmittal 07-21	3,500	MK-84 (Tritonal) general purpose bomb units
03/08/07	Transmittal 07-32	10,000 1,500 2,000 50	MK-84 live bombs; MK- 82 live bombs; BLU-109 live bombs; GBU-28 guided live bombs
09/09/08	Transmittal 08-82	1,000	GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB1)

The US Department of Defense contracted Boeing in September 2006 to incorporate focused lethality munition (FLM) technology into small diameter bombs. According to the table above 1000 GBU-39s were ordered in September 2008 by Israel. There are reports that the FLM uses DIME technology.

Artillery shells including white phosphorus shells

During the Gaza conflict, photographic evidence emerged of the Israeli army using stocks of white phosphorus smoke shells. Amnesty International has identified the pale blue 155mm rounds, clearly marked with the designation M825A1, as an American-made white phosphorus munition. White phosphorus is also marked in the US list of munitions due to be carried on a ’ship of shame’ from the USA to Israel — see section on “US arms ships” below.

The table below shows government-to-government sales’ notices for the shipment of artillery munitions from the US to Israel:

Proposed US Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress 2005-2008 (DSCA)
Date	Source	Quantity	Description
30/10/07	Transmittal 08-07	150,048 8,000 30,003 100,000 5,000	M433 40MM High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) CartridgesM930 120MM Illuminating CartridgesM889A1 81MM High Explosive Cartridges with M935 FuzesM107 155MM High Explosive Artillery RoundsM141 83MM Bunker Defeat Munitions

Israeli companies such as Soltam Systems have also purchased large quantities of key mortar and artillery shell components from Bosnia & Herzegovina. Soltam Systems is a leading supplier of artillery and mortar shells to the IDF.

Small Arms and Light Weapons

Israel makes its own pistols, assault rifles (Galil and Tavor), machines guns and other light weapons, while such items in the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian groups are usually former USSR types smuggled in from unknown sources.

The US has been a large supplier of firearms and light weapons to Israel. Many Israeli soldiers can be seen carrying M4 carbine assault rifles. According to EU reports for exports to Israel during 2007, Bulgaria and Poland issued licences for small arms and/or light weapons worth over €2 million, with Germany, Spain, Slovenia and the UK approving small amounts of less than €500,000.

The top five suppliers to Israel of ‘military weapons’ (under the code 89112 in the UN Comtrade database) have been:

Top 5: 2004-2007In US$
USA	31,181,225
Albania	868,246
Netherlands	420,360
Mexico	115,080
Croatia	47,342

Electronic Equipment

The EU’s 2008 consolidated report on arms exports lists “electronic equipment specifically designed or modified for military use” with licences for export to Israel approved by France (€89 million) and Germany (€5 million) during 2007. In addition, France approved the export of €22 million of “imaging or countermeasure equipment for military use”. The US is also thought to be a major supplier of such equipment.

Components

According to the UN Comtrade data, the US was the largest commercial supplier of “parts and accessories for military weapons and non-military weapons” to Israel. Between 2004 and 2007 the US exported US$151 million-worth of such parts and accessories – 97% of all commercial sales in this category. Other suppliers include: Austria which shipped $3,045,131 worth during the same period; the Netherlands $361,841; the UK $279,565 and the Czech Republic $116,304. The table below shows proposed government to government transfers from the US to Israel:

Proposed US Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress 2005-2008 (DSCA)
Date	Source	Quantity	Description
03/08/07	Transmittal 07-32	10,000 2,500 500 1,000 10,000 10,000	Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) tail kits; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK-82 warhead; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK-83 warhead; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK- 84 warhead; FMU-139 live fuze components; and FMU-152 live fuze components.

The UK is also coming under increasing scrutiny about the export of components. Amnesty International remains particularly concerned about the exports of UK components that may have been incorporated into military systems used by the IDF. The introduction in 2002 of revised UK guidelines for the control of exports of components for incorporation in military systems were specifically intended to allow the export of UK components to the USA for incorporation in military equipment such as F-16 combat aircraft and Apache combat helicopters which were known be exported to the Israel. The UK has also licensed components for a wide variety of military equipment directly to Israel. Details contained within UK government reports do not allow for a meaningful assessment of the end-user of this equipment, but Amnesty International has concerns that some of this equipment, particularly components for UAVs and naval equipment, may have been exported to Israeli military forces and used for serious violations.

In addition, numerous credible sources, including company promotional literature, established defence industry journals and sources from within the Israeli military have stated that a UK company provides the engines for the Hermes 450 pilotless “drone” UAV aircraft manufactured in Israel by Elbit systems. The Hermes 450 UAVs are currently operated by the IDF as well as other armed forces. It has been widely reported that the Hermes 450 UAV uses a ‘UEL AR-80-1010′ engine manufactured by a company based in Lichfield. The initial version of the aircraft was reportedly powered by an ‘AR741′ engine, also produced by the Lichfield company, when at the time the IDF were the only users of the Hermes 450 .

A spokesperson for Elbit Systems has denied these claims, stating that whilst the UK company does provide engines for Hermes 450s that are destined for export, the UK company does not provide the engines for any of the drones used by the Israeli armed forces. Amnesty International is not alleging any illegality on the part of UK companies, nor suggesting that any of its exports have not been authorised by the necessary export licenses from the UK government.

UAVs have been extensively used in combat operations by the IDF in Lebanon and Gaza . The claims have been strongly Denied by Elbit systems, the Israeli manufacturer of the Hermes 450, who have stated that UK engines are only used in variants manufactured for export and not used by the IDF. Amnesty International-UK has written to the UK government to seek assurances that it has not licensed components for use in UAVs and that it has undertaken sufficient end-use monitoring to ascertain that UK engines are not and have not been used in UAVs operated by the IDF. Government officials have admitted that they are unable to say whether UK engines have been incorporated into drones used by the IDF. MPs are calling for a full account into arms exports to Israel. The lack of a robust end-use monitoring and verification system hampers public and parliamentary scrutiny of UK arms supplies, especially where it concerns the transfer of components that are incorporated into military equipment.

According to the Canadian NGO Ploughshares, Canadian-built components are also included in many US weapons systems that are exported to Israel.

Special Fuels

Under the Foreign Military Sales program the US government regularly provides the Israeli government with various fuels: EN590 diesel fuel and JP-8 jet fuel. Because of its properties JP-8 is also used in ground-based operations, for example armoured vehicles. See appendix two for a table showing fuel contracts for the Israeli government between 2002 and 2008.

Current US arms ships

Since early December 2008, the US Military Sealift Command has been organizing three large deliveries by sea of military ammunition and high explosives, including explosives with white phosphorus, from the US base at Sunny Hill, North Carolina, to an Israeli port near Gaza.

On 4 December 2008, the USA’s military shipping service, Military Sealift Command, issued a request to charter a commercial cargo vessel to move a very large consignment of “containerized ammunition and other containerized ammunition supplies” from Sunny Point, North Carolina — the location of a US Military Ocean Terminal – to Ashdod in Israel. The contract was awarded on 8 December 2008 to a German shipping company, Oskar Wehr KG GmbH, and the cargo was due to be loaded in North Carolina on 13 December 2008.

The US military tender request indicated an extremely large quantity of ammunition and associated supplies: the first planned shipment consisted of the equivalent of 989 standard (20ft) shipping containers of cargo, and required the ship to carry at least 5.8 million lbs (around 2600 metric tons) of ‘net explosive weight’, a measure of the explosive content of the cargo. The ship was placed under the tactical control of the US Sealift Logistics Command for the duration of the voyage, and was required to have up to 12 US armed forces personnel on board.

On 31 December 2008, just four days after the start of Israel’s attacks on targets in Gaza, a second request was issued by the US Military Sealift Command for a ship to transport two further shipments of ammunition from Astakos in Greece to Ashdod, Israel. These shipments were to comprise 157 and 168 standard shipping containers of ammunition with a net explosive weight of nearly 1 million lbs. The ‘Hazard Codes’ of the cargo indicate that the cargo would include articles containing white phosphorus.

Planned US munitions shipments to Ashdod (Israel), according to US tender documents:

	From	Loading date	Latest Arrival Date in Ashdod	Cargo Size (equivalent no. of 20ft shipping containers)	Net Explosive Weight (lbs)
Shipment 1	Sunny Point, NC, USA	13 Dec 2008	?? (42 day charter)	989 containers	5,800,000
Shipment 2	Astakos, Greece	18-19 Jan 2009	22 Jan 2009	157 containers	971,575.9
Shipment 3	Astakos, Greece	25 Jan 2009? [latest arrival date in Astakos]	29 Jan 2009	168 containers	973,164.3

Transport tenders for these second and third shipments were cancelled on 9 January. However, a US military spokesperson confirmed on 12 January that they were still seeking a way to deliver these shipments, likewise destined for the Israel stockpile. US forces have also previously transferred ammunition consignments between vessels at sea around the Greek mainland and Crete.

According to Amnesty International research with the NGOs TransArms and the Omega Research Foundation, on 20 December 2008, the first delivery of 989 containers was taken from North Carolina in a container ship, the Wehr Elbe, owned by Oskar Wehr KG. This arms ship entered Gibraltar on 28 December, but the German firm told Amnesty International that its ship did not unload the arms in Israel. According to maritime tracking facilities, the Wehr Elbe sailed off the coast of Greece near Astakos for several days then disappeared off the radar on 12 January reportedly after the Greek Government refused to grant permission to tranship the munitions to Israel. The Wehr Elbe has a capacity of over 2,500 20 ft shipping containers and thus has the capacity to load the first shipment of ammunition in North Carolina, load the other shipments in Astakos, and sail on to Ashdod. As of 27 January, according to maritime tracking facilities, the ship’s last port of call was Augusta, Italy. As of 17 February, the ship has not subsequently docked anywhere.

According to a report from Reuters on 9 January 2009, a US naval spokesperson stated that the delivery was “to a pre-positioned U.S. munitions stockpile in Israel in accordance with a congressionally authorized 1990 agreement between the U.S. and Israel…This previously scheduled shipment is routine and not in support of the current situation in Gaza.” However, the portion of US Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) maintained in Israel is the War Reserve Stocks for Allies — Israel (WRSA-I) stockpile. According to information provided to Congress in 2003 by the US Department of Defense, this is a “separate stockpile of U.S.–owned munitions and equipment set aside, reserved, or intended for use as war reserve stocks by the U.S. and which may be transferred to the Government of Israel in an emergency, subject to reimbursement.”

Arms supplies to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have smuggled small arms, light weapons, rockets and rocket components into Gaza, using tunnels from Egypt into Gaza; this weaponry has been acquired from clandestine sources. “Katyusha” rockets are originally Russian-made, but those being used by Palestinian fighters are unlikely to have been acquired directly from Russia. Such imports and holdings are on a very small scale compared to those of Israel. A rocket arsenal that provides an offensive or deterrent capability similar to that fielded by the Lebanese group Hizbullah during the 2006 war with Israel is beyond the reach of Palestinian militant groups.

It is reported by Jane’s Defence Weekly that Hamas has an estimated rocket arsenal of 3,000, primarily locally made, short-range rockets: the Qassam 1, 2 and 3. The longer-range rockets are purchased abroad and smuggled into Gaza via Egypt. These include the 122mm Grad rocket, originally Russian-made, the Iranian-made 220mm Fadjr-3, and allegedly also Chinese-made rockets smuggled from Sudan. The explosives used in the warheads is either manufactured locally from fertilizer or smuggled into Gaza through tunnels or from the sea.

Over the years several arms shipments allegedly en route to Gaza are reported to have been intercepted by Israeli or Egyptian security forces. In May 2006 the Israeli Navy said it had intercepted a Palestinian fishing boat with 500kg of weapons grade TNT. The Egyptian police said they recovered 1,000 kg of explosives in Sinai — 30 km from Gaza – in October 2006. Also, in 2008, several large caches were reportedly recovered: Egyptian police uncovered a cache in May 2008 containing 500kg of TNT500 metres from the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza. In late May 2008, an Egyptian police official told the Associated Press news agency that the Egyptian authorities had found ammunition boxes, RPGs and anti-aircraft missiles apparently bound for Gaza some 80 km south of Rafah.

The table below estimates the Hamas rocket arsenal :

Type	Range	Warhead Payload	Origin
Qassam-1	3 km	0.5 kg	Locally made
Qassam-2	6-10 km	5-7 kg	Locally made
Qassam-3	10 km	10 kg	Locally made
122mm Grad	20 km		USSR/Russia, various
220mm Fadjr-3	40 km	45 kg	Iran
122mm	40 km		China

According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, Hamas is in the possession of several home-made anti-armour rockets: the Al-Battar, the Banna 1 and Banna 2.

There have been several reports that Iran has provided military equipment and munitions, including rockets, to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups but Amnesty International has not seen any evidence to verify these allegations.

Recommendations

• Impose UN SC arms embargo – Impose immediately a comprehensive UN Security Council arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that weapons or munitions and other military equipment will not be used to commit serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This must include ensuring that alleged violations are thoroughly and impartially investigated and accountability, with any persons who are found responsible being brought to justice in fair trials.

• Suspend All Arms Transfers – Act immediately to unilaterally suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions, as well as those which may be diverted, to Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. The suspension should include all indirect exports via other countries, the transfer of military components and technologies and any brokering, financial or logistical activities that would facilitate such transfers.

• Accountability – Establish without delay thorough, independent and impartial investigation of violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the Israeli attacks which have been directed at civilians or civilian buildings in the Gaza Strip, or which are disproportionate, and Palestinian armed groups’ indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian centres in southern Israel. Amnesty International has collected evidence of possible war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. There must be full accountability for such crimes. Where appropriate states must be ready to initiate criminal investigations and carry out prosecutions before their own courts if the evidence warrants it.

• Support for the Golden Rule on Human Rights – Actively support the establishment of an effective global Arms Trade Treaty that includes the “Golden Rule” on human rights and international humanitarian law to avoid and minimise the recurrence of arms supplies contributing to such serious violations — the Golden Rule promoted by Amnesty International and other NGOs is that all States will prevent the transfer of arms, including military weapons, ammunition and equipment, where there is a substantial risk that the arms are likely to be used for serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.

Public Document

International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK

Appendix One: Proposed US Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress 2005-2008

Date	Source	Quantity	Description
29/04/05	Transmittal 05-10	100	GBU-28 bombs that include: BLU-113A/B penetration warhead, WGU-36A/B guidance control unit, FMU-143H/B bomb fuze, and BSG-92/B airfoil group guide. Also included are: support equipment; testing, spare and repair parts; supply support; publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$30 million.
20/04/07	Transmittal 07-21	3,500	MK-84 (Tritonal) general purpose bomb units, testing, support equipment, spares and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$65 million.
03/08/07	Transmittal 07-32	10,000 2,500 500 1,000 10,000 1,500 2,000 50 10,000 10,000	Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) tail kits; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK-82 warhead; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK-83 warhead; PAVEWAY II full kits for the MK- 84 warhead; MK-84 live bombs; MK- 82 live bombs; BLU-109 live bombs; GBU-28 guided live bombs; FMU-139 live fuze components; and FMU-152 live fuze components. Also included: Containers, bomb components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel training, training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements. Total value could be US$465 million
24/08/07	Transmittal 07-37	30 500	RGM-84L BLOCK II HARPOON Anti-Ship missiles with containers andAIM-9M SIDEWINDER Short Range Air-to-Air Infrared Guided missiles, spares and repair parts for support equipment, training, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is US$163 million.
24/08/07	Transmittal 07-43	200	AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air (AMRAAM) missiles, containers, components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel training, training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements. The estimated cost is US$171 million.
30/10/07	Transmittal 08-07	2,000 14 1,000 200 500 100 150,048 8,000 30,003 100,000 5,000	Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missiles TOW 2A Fly-to-buy Missiles AGM-114K3 HELLFIRE II Missiles AGM-114L3 HELLFIRE II Longbow Missiles AGM-114M3 HELLFIRE II Missiles PATRIOT Guidance Enhanced Missile Plus (GEM+) M433 40MM High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) Cartridges M930 120MM Illuminating Cartridges M889A1 81MM HE Cartridges with M935 Fuzes M107 155MM HE Projectiles M141 83MM Bunker Defeat Munitions Also, includes non-MDE cartridges, projectiles, charges, fuzes, containers, spare and repair parts, test and tool sets, personnel training and equipment, publications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, Quality Assurance Team support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$1.329 billion.
09/06/08	Transmittal 08-42	25	T-6A Texan aircraft, Global Positioning System (GPS) with CMA-4124 GNSSA card and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System (INS) spares, ferry maintenance, tanker support, aircraft ferry services, site survey, unit level trainer, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$190 million.
09/09/08	Transmittal 08-62	3	PATRIOT System Configuration 3 Modification kits to upgrade 3 PATRIOT fire units to Radar Enhancement Phase 3 (REP-3) and Classification, Discrimination and Identification Phase 3 (CDI-3). Non-MDE includes: communication support equipment, tools and test equipment, integration and checkout, spares and repair parts, installation and training, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is US$164 million.
15/07/08	Transmittal 06-63	4	Littoral Combat Ships (LCS-I variant): Hull, and all mechanical and electrical functions. Each ship will be equipped with: 2 MK-41 Vertical Launch Systems, 8 cells for each system; 1 Close-In-Weapon System, Block 1A, 1 Enhanced HARPOON Launching System with launchers; 2 MK-32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes; Communications and Sensors; Link 16; COMBATSS-21 with SPY-1F(V) and MK-99 Fire Control System; or Ship Self-Defense System. Also includes design and integration services, hardware and software, spare and repair parts, test and tool sets, personnel training and equipment, publications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$1.9 billion.
30/07/08	Transmittal 08-76	9 6 9 9 9 9 4 10 4 3 1 2 10 5	Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 United States Air Force (USAF) baseline aircraft including USAF baseline equipment and Block 7.0 Software;Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 spare engines;AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems (includes three spares) ;AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning Receivers (includes three spares);AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems (includes three spares) ;AN/AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE III Special Operations Suites (includes three spares) ;spare AN/ARC-210 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS);spare Secure Voice Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Radios ; spare Secure Voice High Frequency Radios ; spare AN/AAR-222 SINCGARS and Key Gen (KV-10) Systems ; KIV-119 Non-standard Communication/COMSEC equipment ; ARC-210 Non-standard Communication/COMSEC equipment ; External Pylons and Fuel Tanks ; Internal Israeli Tank Modification Kits ; Also included are spare and repair parts, configurations updates, communications security equipment and radios, integration studies, support equipment, aircraft ferry and tanker support, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logisticis US$1.9 billion.
09/09/08	Transmittal 08-82	1,000 150 30 2 7 1 2 12 3 2	GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB1), BRU-61/A SDB1 Mounting Carriages, Guided Test Vehicles, BRU-61/A SDB Instrumented Carriages, Jettison Test Vehicles, Separation Test Vehicle, Reliability and Assessment Vehicles, Common Munitions BIT and Reprogramming Equipment with Test Equipment and Adapters, SDB1 Weapons Simulators, and Load Crew Trainers. Also includes containers, flight test integration, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$77 million.
29/09/08	Transmittal 08-83	25 (+50 optional)	25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft with an option to purchase at a later date an additional 50 F-35 CTOL or Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft. All aircraft will be configured with either the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines or General Electric-Rolls Royce F-136 engines. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Flight Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; unique systems or sovereign requirements; reprogramming center, Hardware/Software In-the-Loop Laboratory Capability; External Fuel Tanks; and F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also includes: software development/integration, flight test instrumentation, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is US$15.2 billion.
09/09/08	Transmittal 08-87	28,000 60,000	M72A7 66mm Light Anti-Armor Weapons (LAAWs),M72AS 21mm Sub-Caliber Training Rockets, spare and repair parts, support equipment,publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is US$89 million.

Appendix Two: US Foreign Military Sales Fuel Contracts for Israeli government 2002-200⁸

Award No.	Awardee	Description	Source
SP0600-08-D-0495	Valero Marketing & Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas	$45,978,408.00 fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract for fuel. Using service is the Government of Israel. The date of performance completion is Aug. 13, 2008	Defense Contracts, No. 562-08 (3 July 2008)
SP0600-06-D-0506	Refinery Associates of Texas, Inc., New Braunfels, Texas,	a maximum $22,556,374 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for diesel fuel. The using service is foreign military sales — Israel. The other location of performance is Compagnie Industrielle Maritime SNC, Le Harve, France. This is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity type contract. The date of performance completion is July 31, 2006.	Defense Contracts, No. 707-06 (25 July 2006)
SP0600-06-D-0542	Valero Marketing & Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas	a maximum $36,781,780 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for JP8 jet fuel for the government of Israel. The date of performance completion is Jan. 30, 2007.	Defense Contracts, No. 669-06 (14 July 2006)
SP0600-05-D-0453	Valero Marketing & Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas	A $103,331,200 fixed price with economic price adjustment type contract for fuel for the government of Israel. Performance completion date is expected to be December 31, 2005.	Defense Contracts, No. 1216-04 (29 November 2004)
SP0600-05-D-0451	ExxonMobil Fuels Marketing, Fairfax, Va.	A maximum $32,306,080 fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for USG of EN590 and EN 228 for Foreign Military Sale to Israel. Performance completion date is Dec. 31, 2005.	Defense Contracts, No. 229-05 (4 March 2005)
SP0600-04-D-0452	ExxonMobil Fuels Marketing, Fairfax, Va.	A $24,314,094 fixed price with economic price adjustment for fuel for Foreign Military Sale (Israel). Performance completion date is expected to be March 1, 2005.	Defense Contracts, No. 965-03 (19 December 2003)
SP0600-04-D-0454	Valero Marketing and Supply Company, San Antonio, Texas	A $7,093,519 fixed price with economic price adjustment type of contract for fuel for the government of Israel. Performance completion date is expected to be November 30, 2003.	Defense Contracts, No. 817-03 (4 November 2003)
SP0600-03-D-0457	Valero Marketing and Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas	A $87,199,890 fixed-price with economic-price adjustment type contract for JP8 and EN590 fuel for the government of Israel. The performance completion date is January 30, 2004.	Defense Contracts, No. 618-02 (5 December 2002)
SP0600-02-R-0552	Valero Marketing and Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas	A $6,922,338 fixed price with economic price adjustment type contract for JP8 jet Fuel for the Government of Israel. Performance completion date is scheduled for October 2002.	Defense Contracts, No. 464-02 (12 September 2002)
SP0600-02-D-0502	Valero Marketing and Supply Company, San Antonio, Texas	A $8,744,537 fixed-price with economic price adjustment type contract for 10,500,000 USG of EN590 for the Government of Israel. Performance completion is expected to be April 30, 2002.	Defense Contracts, No. 164-02 (5 April 2002)

Source

Plus Israel also possesses over 200 Nuclear Bombs.

Early next week the report heads to the floor of the US Congress and the UN General Assembly, and we’re expecting continued pressure to have this important document roundly dismissed.

The continued attacks on the Goldstone Report prevent accountability for the civilian victims before, during and after the attack on Gaza — both Palestinians and Israelis — and shred the rule of law.

Israel decided not to cooperate with the investigation and now claims that the report and its results are biased. Worse yet, Israel claims that the report negates its right to defend its population, when in reality, all the report does is insist that such a defense take place within the bounds of international law.

The truth is that the Goldstone Report is a well-researched, fair-minded report. It accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the attack on Gaza, and it calls on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible, independent investigations or face the International Criminal Court.

The United States and other countries are repeating the same lines, and have exerted great diplomatic pressure to kill the report.

The US Congress is getting ready to pass a resolution next week calling on President Obama to do everything he can to bury the Goldstone Report. The UN General Assembly will vote on it. Israel might launch its own investigation, if it is pressured enough to do so. And if it does, our task will be to ensure that the investigation is comprehensive, impartial, and aimed towards addressing, punishing and preventing future human rights abused – and not at changing the laws of war such that another blatant assault on civilian life and property as the Gaza war will ever become acceptable under international law.

The UN Goldstone report is a well-researched, fair-minded report. Israel and Hamas must conduct credible, independent investigations on war crimes and possible crimes against humanity or face the International Criminal Court. We demand accountability for all victims, respect for the rule of law, international law and human rights.

Go HERE To Sign Petition

Or contact Representative Directly.

The Goldstone report must not be shoved aside. It is important to all of us. If these kind of crimes can be perpetrated on those in Gaza and disregarded it can be perpetrated on anyone in any country including ours.
This is a crime against all of us not just those in Gaza. The International Laws must be respected for all our sakes.
Scream at your representatives.
Senators of the 111th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/general/ co…enators_cfm.cfm
Contact the White house
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
Pass it on. War Crimes and Crimes against humanity must not go unpunished.

">

Depleted uranium was found in Gaza victims by Norwegian Doctors.

LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Weapons must pass four tests in order to determine that they are legal under international law. The tests are:
(1)TEMPORAL TEST. Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.
(2)ENVIRONMENTAL TEST. Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.
(3)TERRITORIAL TEST. Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.
(4)HUMANENESS TEST. Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanely. Depleted uranium weaponry fails all four tests. For that reason it is illegal under all Treaties, all agreements and all war conventions.

At least 18 countries are thought to have weapon systems with DU in their arsenals. These include: UK, US, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India and Taiwan. Many of them were sold DU ammunition by the US while others, Including France, China,Russia, Pakistan ,UK and India are thought to have developed it independently.

Related Articles

Rabbi’s are just as abusive as those from any other Religions/ a list of offenders many are child molesters

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

New report highlights Israeli exploitation of migrant workers

South Africans who fought for Israel in war on Gaza can be prosecuted for War Crimes

A Palestinian student has been handcuffed, blindfolded and forcibly expelled to the Gaza

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

New report highlights Israeli exploitation of migrant workers

October 30 2009

Migrant workers in Israel’s agriculture sector are among the most exploited, according to a 28 October report by Kav LaOved, an Israeli NGO campaigning for the rights of disadvantaged workers in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Ninety percent of such workers work more hours than allowed under Israeli law, without overtime payments, said the report, which has been presented to members of parliament.

The report summarizes hundreds of complaints by agricultural workers and dozens of inspections by Kav LaOved volunteers at work sites around the country, and paints a grim picture of systematic exploitation and severe violations of workers’ rights in the agricultural sector.

Hanna Zohar, Kav LaOved director, said the workers, mostly Thai, are completely unaware of their rights.

“Having paid US $8-10,000 to work in Israel, they are prime material for abuse by the farmers, as they are afraid to lose their jobs and not able to pay off the loans taken to cover these payments to the middlemen,” Zohar said.

The launch of the report has been timed to coincide with the current campaign by farmers for additional permits for migrant workers, and is intended to further public debate on the issue.

Farmers have been demonstrating for more permits in recent weeks and there have been violent clashes with the police.

Some 30,000 migrant workers are employed in the agricultural sector, mostly from Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka and some from the Palestinian Authority, according to Kav LaOved and official figures from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour.

The Thai workers come from rural areas after paying middlemen in Thailand and Israel, and most work in remote and isolated locations, unaware of their legal rights, according to Kav LaOved’s research done in the past year.

The report said it is common practice in many agri-businesses to dock leave, and some employers give workers only one day off a month.

Employers who withhold passports – strongly condemned by the legal authorities – are still commonplace, according to Kav LaOved and Moked, another NGO which campaigns for the rights of migrants.

Since the beginning of 2009, 10 percent of agricultural workers (2,950) have been injured, the report said.

Harsh living conditions

Evidence of harsh living conditions and demeaning treatment crop up routinely in Kav LaOved’s inspection reports.

At a visit to one farm, IRIN found some workers living at a potato crop disposal site, in a small, stifling container. Workers told IRIN they cannot leave as they must pay off huge debts in their home countries.

The Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour spokespersons’ unit said: “The department of foreign workers has been investigating private manpower and building cooperatives to prevent [the] charging [of] migrant workers sums that exceed those allowed by lawâEuro¦ In 2009, dozens of licenses were revokedâEuro¦ We ask Kav LaOved to work jointly with the attorney in charge of foreign workers’ rights in the ministry, Iris Maayan, and allow the different enforcement factors in GOI [Government of Israel] offices to work more efficiently. The issue is of great importance for the Ministry.”

Source

Migrant caregivers in Israel – report to the UN Migrant Workers Convention
by: Kav LaOved

Migrant caregivers in Israel:

problems and recommendations

General background

All elderly and disabled Israeli citizens who meet disability criteria set by the Israeli National Insurance Institute are allowed to employ a domestic migrant caregiver with National Insurance subsidy. The number of permits available to employ migrant caregivers in Israel today stands at about 55,000. It is illegal to employ domestic migrant workers other than as caregivers. Most migrant caregivers in Israel come from south east Asia (Philippines, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal), and some from eastern Europe (former soviet union, Romania). The vast majority of migrant caregivers in Israel are women.

The legal status of migrant workers in Israel depends on their active employment by a person with a migrant caregiver employment permit. Workers who lose their work due to dismissal, quitting or employer death must find new legal employment within at most 90 days or leave the country. As will be explained below, most employers prefer to bring new migrant workers from abroad, rather than employ a worker who is already in Israel. The result is that the number of migrant workers who entered Israel with a legal migrant caregiver visa, and whose maximum period of legal work in Israel (63 months) has not expired, is 10,000-40,000 higher than the number of available permits (55,000). Migrant caregivers who have lost their legal status are usually employed illegally in domestic work.

Since the beginning of 2009 the employment of migrant caregivers must be arranged through a certified Israeli migrant caregiver placement agency, which shares with the employer the responsibility for the rights of the migrant caregiver. These agencies cooperate with overseas agents to recruit workers.

Problems

1. Brokerage fees

Migrant caregivers in Israel are charged a brokerage fee typically ranging between $6,000 and $13,000 in order to get a legal migrant caregiver visa. This charge is illegal according to Israeli law, but no effective enforcement is conducted to prevent it. This money is shared between recruiters in countries of origin and Israeli job brokers.

Brokerage fees encourage brokers to bring new paying workers from abroad, rather than assign to work migrants already in Israel. This creates a surplus of migrant caregivers in Israel, which enables reduction of wages and exploitation.

Brokerage fees force workers to go into debt. The interest rates are high gray market rates, and many workers mortgage their property to raise the money. Failure to repay the debt puts the life and livelihood of the worker and her family in danger. This debt, therefore, prevents workers from returning to their countries of origin before earning enough money to repay the debt, even if it means working illegally.

1. The binding arrangement

Migrant caregivers in Israel must be actually employed by a permit carrying employer to retain their legal status. Migrant workers are thus bound to their employer, and work termination means a threat of deportation. This arrangement was declared a “modern form of slavery” by Israel’s High Court of Justice already in 2006, but the State has not essentially changed this arrangement. Last year the State was found guilty of contempt of teh court.

For further information on the legal status of migrant workers in Israel see:

http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/media-view_eng.asp?id=2275, http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/media-view_eng.asp?id=2263

1. Fraud and labor rights violations

The high brokerage fees are an incentive to bring migrant caregivers into Israel even if there is no work awaiting them. This results in the type of fraud called “flying visa”: a worker is brought into Israel legally, but the broker who brought her does not provide her with work. Given the surplus of migrant caregivers in Israel, the worker is unlikely to find alternative employment, and risks losing her legal status and being deported before repaying her debt.

Another kind of fraud is “open visa”: an employer who has a migrant worker employment permit, but who does not actually require the service, registers a migrant caregiver as legally employed for a fee and/or services, while the worker actually makes a living by other means (usually illegal cleaning or au-pair work for other employers). If authorities expose this fraud, the worker will lose her legal status and be deported. This fact allows employers to extort ever increasing sums of money for the “open visa” they provide, and sometimes leads to debt bondage situations, where migrant workers keep getting into debt to hold on to their visa.

The reality of a surplus of migrant caregivers in situations of debt and threatened loss of legal status forces workers to accept illegally low salaries, withheld pay, non payment of social benefits and forced overtime. Workers are sometimes forced to do work that’s not related to their job description, such as cleaning for family members. In some cases workers must accept poor lodging and food, confinement, threats and violence, and some workers are even forced to provide sexual services. Such circumstances may amount to trafficking and forced labor.

State enforcement mechanisms are usually highly inefficient. Investigations are poorly conducted due to low prioritization and lack of adequate, reliable and objective translation services (this extends to courts as well). Sanctions are rarely set on employers; if sanctions are set, they are usually restricted to fines too small to deter offenders. Confiscation of migrant worker employment permits of abusive and delinquent employers is extremely rare. This means that repeated offenders can continue employing migrant caregivers.

While crimes against migrant workers are not properly tried and sanctioned, Israel invests in a 200 inspector task force to hunt down and deport migrant workers who lost their legal status, including those who lost it due to fraud, exploitation and abuse

This encourages further abuse of migrant workers, as employers can count on the victims being deported, rather than confronting them in court.

For further information concerning crimes against migrant workers and inadequate enforcement see: http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/media-view_eng.asp?id=2337,

http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/media-view_eng.asp?id=2094

1. Suitability for work

Some workers come to work in Israel as caregivers, but speak no English or Hebrew, and are therefore unable to communicate with most prospective employers. These workers are likely to lose their jobs and legal status, and find themselves deported and in debt. Some workers are not physically strong enough to lift and move heavy patients. These workers are also less likely than others to find legal employment, and therefore risk deportation.

2. Work load and overtime

Migrant workers in Israel are usually paid for 8 hours of work per day. In fact, most of them are either employed or on call for 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. The legal status of overtime and on-call hours is not resolved, and the issue is deliberated at the High Court of Justice.

The lack of clear definitions of work, overtime and on-call hours leads to situations where some workers are forced to actively work to exhaustion, caring for several family members and cleaning large households. The situation is aggravated where migrant caregivers have to care for more than one patient who requires constant care (such as a married couple of disabled people in a poor health situation).

3. Health, safety and social security

Most migrant caregivers in Israel are employed or on call 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. The intimate circumstances of domestic work make the boundaries between employer and employee vague. This may result in positive family-like relations, but can also deteriorate to sexual harassment and exploitation.

Migrant caregivers are often left alone with a single care patient, and have no access to friends and community life. Sometimes they are strictly prohibited from leaving the home where they work except to accompany their employer to receive medical care. This puts great mental stress on migrant caregivers. The result is a higher than usual rate of mental problems and nervous breakdowns, which in rare occasions result in violent treatment of helpless patients.

Many migrant workers have to lift heavy patients several times a day, and carry them between the bed, chair, toilet, bath and car or taxi. This puts great strain on the worker’s muscles and back, and leads to severe injuries that may result in permanent damage.

The mandatory health insurance for migrant workers in Israel is far inferior to the insurance provided to Israeli citizens and residents by law, and expires if a worker becomes incapable of working for three months or longer. In such cases insurance companies can send the worker off to her country of origin, where adequate care may not be accessible. Many insurance companies prefer this solution over actually covering costly medical care.

Workers’ right to social security is very limited, and is covered only partially by the National insurance law, even if workers reside in Israel for many years. Pension rights, social security and health insurance are not coordinated in bilateral agreements between Israel and countries of origin. This results in lack of continuity of insurance coverage.

4. Family

Migrant workers in Israel may work in Israel legally for up to 63 months. If they continue working for the same employer, they can continue working indefinitely. Nevertheless, migrant workers do not gain the right for family reunification regardless of their duration of stay.

In fact, if the Interior Ministry finds that a migrant worker has a close relative working in Israel, or has coupled with another migrant worker (whether actually married or not), one of the related workers will lose their legal status and be deported. Relatives of migrant workers can’t even travel to visit the workers in Israel. Migrant workers who have children lose their work permits and must leave Israel within 3 months of giving birth. For further information see: http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/tal/No%20state%20for%20love.doc

Migrant workers require permission from employers to visit their country of origin. Without such permission, the worker might not be allowed to return to Israel, even if she has not completed the maximum period of 63 months of work. Employers sometime refuse, as they would require replacement care. As a result some patients must choose between continuing their work in Israel and visiting a dying relative or attending a family occasion.

5. Residency and citizenship

Migrant workers, even if they reside lawfully in Israel for many years, do not have the right to acquire permanent legal status in the country. As a result, workers may face deportation after two decades or more of lawfully residing in Israel, if their employer passes away or the employment relationship is otherwise terminated.

Israel does not see itself in any way bound to recognize migrant workers’ children right to gain lawful status in the country. As a result, a group of migrant workers’ children reside in Israel without documented status, which severely restricts their access to basic rights.

Recommendations:

1. As long as a worker’s legal status is linked to her active employment, employers can extort migrant workers to accept exploitation and abuse. The legal status of migrant workers must be completely independent from their work situation, and they must be free to choose their employer from among those allowed to employ migrant workers.

2. Exuberant brokerage fees lead to debt bondage and force workers to accept exploitation. The recruitment of migrant workers must therefore be taken away from private brokers and handled by State agents or international agents such as the IOM. Close scrutiny must be taken to prevent corruption and illegal collection of brokerage fees.

3. The State must share in the responsibility to provide workers with employment opportunities. If the number of workers allowed legal entry for work in a specific sector exceeds the number of prospective legal posts, migrant workers must be allowed to work in other sectors, or provided with unemployment benefits.

4. Mass deportation of migrant workers encourages their exploiters to force workers into illegal situations and have them deported, rather than confront the workers’ legitimate claims. Enforcement must therefore prioritize protection of the human and labor rights of migrant workers, severely sanction abusive employers, and revoke the migrant worker employment permits of repeated offenders. Enforcement agents must have access to adequate and reliable interpreters.

5. Work load, overtime and on call time must be well defined for domestic work, so that general work time laws can be applied.

6. Migrant workers’ health and safety must be protected by adequate insurance, which covers extended disability, and subject to social worker scrutiny.

7. Migrant workers must be allowed enough free time and mobility to associate with their friends and conduct healthy community life.

8. Migrant workers’ right to family life must be acknowledged, especially when a worker remains in the country of destination for an extended period of time. Long term migrant workers and their families must have access to permanent residency and citizenship.

9. There must be active and efficient bilateral cooperation between countries of origin and Israel aimed at protecting workers from exploitation and abuse through all stages of their migration, from recruitment to repatriation. In particular, social security and health insurance must be rendered continuous, and the recruitment process must verify that workers can communicate with prospective employers and are physically able to do the required job.

10. Israel must sign and ratify and obey the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and the members of their Families.

Source

Recent Articles

Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza And Petition to support the Goldstone UN mission Report

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Chicago: Protesters tell Ehud Olmert what they think

Lebanon: Monday night Explosion/ Israel in violation of Resolution 1701

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Israeli War Criminals, think they are above the law

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Poll: Should Israel be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Iran approves Uranium exchange plan

October 29, 2009

Iran has agreed to a plan to export its reserves of enriched uranium to have them processed into nuclear fuel rods, but it wants further negotiations over some details.

The news comes from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was speaking on Thursday on national TV.

“We welcome the fuel exchange, nuclear cooperation, building of power plants and reactors and we are ready to cooperate,” he said.

He added that Tehran’s commitment to the deal is a response to the international community’s abandoning of the “politics of confrontation” over Iran’s nuclear dossier.
However, once again, Ahmadinejad said the Islamic Republic will not give up its rights to have nuclear power. “As long as this government is in power, it will not retreat one iota on the undeniable rights of the Iranian nation,” the Iranian president declared.

Iranian negotiator Ali Asghar Soltanieh has delivered Tehran’s response to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna. He also announced that some “important technical and economic amendments” to the draft agreement have been proposed by Iran. However, no further details have been made public yet.

According to Iranian media reports, Tehran will want two changes to the initial plan. Firstly, the Iranians will offer to transfer their low-enriched uranium abroad in small portions rather than all at once. The second modification would insist on transferring enriched fuel back to Tehran’s research reactor soon after every batch of low-enriched uranium is sent abroad.

The question is whether the international community and the IAEA would agree to such amendments.

According to the initial deal – which was sponsored by the IAEA and negotiated between Iran, Russia, France and the United States last week – most of Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium will be shipped to Russia for further enrichment. France will then produce fuel rods from the material, using American technology.

Iran needs fuel rods to run a research reactor built in the country before the Islamic Revolution. Its current fuel load will soon run low.

Meanwhile, the IAEA monitors returned Thursday after visiting Iran’s recently revealed uranium enrichment facility, known as Fordo, near the town of Qom. The inspectors are now preparing a report on their findings which will be announced in November. The fact that the Iranians did let the inspectors into the facility, which was kept secret up until September 21, is seen as Tehran’s readiness to cooperate.

Thursday’s news relaxes tension over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has insisted that it is purely for peaceful purposes, but several countries including Israel, the United States and Great Britain suspect that Iran wants to make a nuclear weapon.

Western powers have called for imposing harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic and there have even been speculations of a possibility of Israel launching a preemptive strike against Iran. Russia, however, has insisted on a diplomatic approach to the problem and negotiations.

Source

Considering what Israel and NATO have done they should be the ones being sanctioned.  They are the ones polluting the planet with Toxic, Poisonous, Radiation not Iran.

Israel, the United States and Great Britain are all guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Anything they say is irrelevant until they clean up their own Nuclear weapons and have those who are responsible for war crimes charged and jailed.  Until then their word means absolutely nothing. They are hypocrites.

Iran has not started any wars as the above three, nor have they killed millions of people. NATO is not innocent either.

Recent Articles

NATO bombings: Aftermath takes toll on Serbia, now left with DU Poisoning

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

NATO bombings: Aftermath takes toll on Serbia, now left with DU Poisoning

October 27, 2009

There’s a ticking time bomb in Serbia, where doctors have reported a sharp increase in cancer deaths among locals and claim this could be linked to NATO’s use of depleted uranium shells during the 1999 bombings.

Serbia is a beautiful country, but it appears to be dangerous to live in. After NATO used depleted uranium munitions there during the 1999 bombing campaign, military experts from Belgrade have registered an increased radiation level and claim the area is highly contaminated.

The Radojkovic family believe they are the victims of the Alliance’s military operation called ‘Merciful Angel’.

The family’s youngest son Nikola was just five years old when an air strike hit his family village.

“I remember nine bombs dropped on that day – they targeted a TV tower just a kilometer away. I was playing in the backyard at that time. The first strike made me fall over. After the second strike I held on to a tractor. A shock wave raised both me and the vehicle,” recalls Nikola Radojkovic, a victim of fallout from depleted uranium missiles.

The family thought that was the end, but the real battle was yet to come – the battle to save the boy’s life.

Eight years after the bombing, Nikola felt he had something like a fish bone stuck in his throat. Surgeons extracted two tiny pieces of shrapnel. Later, a tumor appeared there which continues to grow. Doctors believe the two things are related.

”We had three operations here in Serbia, three more in Germany – it cost 40,000 euros. Almost every family here helped us. Now the doctors say we have to do two more operations to stop the tumor’s growth, and we need 20,000 euros more,” says Dragon Radojkovic, Nikola’s father.

In 2000, NATO disclosed that depleted uranium weapons were used during its mission to bring peace to Kosovo. The Pentagon couldn’t hide cancer deaths among NATO soldiers who were serving in the region.

Doctor Nebojsha Srbljak was among the first to raise the alarm. In 2001 he registered an unprecedented increase in cancer patients.

”There is no other place in the modern world where so many people and so many young people – aged between 30 and 40 – die from cancer. Blood and lung cancer are most widespread,” says Dr. Srbljak, Head of the Merciful Angel NGO.

In an animal hospital in the south of Serbia, one of the most-bombed regions, there is evidence of something going wrong.

“Over the last 10 years, I have seen many two-headed calves, six or eight-legged lambs and other anomalies among animals. Mutation is a normal thing, but when there are so many cases – it’s a symptom. Our nature is sick. And certainly – it has to do with depleted uranium usage,” says Miodrag Milkovic, a veterinarian.

Ten years after NATO bombed the former Yugoslavia, the consequences are felt almost everywhere in Serbia. And as it takes billions of years for uranium to decay, the shadow of the ghost of the merciful angel will hang over the region virtually forever.

Source

This is a list of countries that have US Nuclear Weapons.

Depleted Uranium Fall out in Middle East. This is an older map so it has expanded because of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It does send a message of how far the Radiation can go however.

Add to the DU Contamination the Two thousand Nuclear test conducted around the world. Is it any wonder why we all are getting Cancer and other Radiation related illnesses. In Testing  the US is the number 1 offender.

Fall out in the US from testing. So now imagine how far the Fallout spread in the above map.

DU Fallout  has the same affects as Nuclear Fall out and spreads through out the regions it is used.

NATO does this everywhere they go. They have done this for years.

The US is one of the worst offenders and the weapons they sell to other countries contain DU.

Cancer: NATO’s time bomb in the Balkans

March 24, 2009,

Tuesday marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the three-month NATO bombing campaign of the former Yugoslavia – and a decade later, the wounds of the war are still felt.

Throughout the areas which have been affected by NATO bombings, hundreds of people are dying of cancer. Experts say that this may be a result of uranium shells being used.

A little cemetery in Bratunac, Eastern Bosnia became the final resting place for a number of cancer victims. A local resident, who preferred to remain anonymous, gave RT the names of some who are buried there. He says they all died of cancer.

Djoko Zelenovic, who worked in the local military repair factory, died from the disease at the age of 65. The 35 year-old mother of two small children also rests here.

There used to be no more than one or two funerals a year in this small Serbian village in Eastern Bosnia. Since NATO dropped bombs on Sarajevo in the summer of 1995, the number has climbed to as many as one or two deaths a month.

Nikola Zelenovic’s parents are buried here. He says they were healthy until the NATO bombings and is now spearheading an investigation.

Nikola says that “my family lived throughout the war years in the town of Hadjici. My father was working in one of the factories there when NATO bombed it. His health problems started soon afterwards. He died from lung cancer. My mother died a year and a half after him from Leukemia. My parents were never sick before.”

Starting on March 24th, 1999, for three months NATO bombed Serb targets in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. Four years earlier its forces had bombed Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Their aim was to end the fighting between Serbs and Albanians who lived in the areas.

But they left a time bomb behind them. In the years that followed, hundreds of people living in the areas that were hit have died of cancer

In Kosovo, the number of cancer patients has grown three times over the last ten years, while in Bosnia-Herzegovina, already more than a thousand people have died from cancer.

Doctor Slavko Zdrale has treated several cancer patients over the past years and boldly advances theories on the subject:

He told RT that “a few years ago we started noticing that there was as many as five times the number of people dying of different kinds of cancer as compared to the number of people who had been sick before the war.”

“We worked out that 90% of them came from areas NATO had bombed and from areas where ammunition with uranium was used. Nobody in the international community took much notice until Italian soldiers who were stationed in those areas started dying from cancer-related illnesses.”

In Pale, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the war crimes court is recording evidence of an increased number of cancer patients. The court says that the pieces of ammunition found in the bombed areas had a much higher level of radiation than is internationally allowed. Investigators are convinced that this radiation is the underlying cause of cancer.

Simo Tusevljak, the coordinator of the Research and documentation of war crimes, stated that “we believe that this was a deliberate attempt by NATO forces to kill as many people as possible. It was also a chance for the West to test new weapons.” .

“But there is nothing we can do,” he added. “We cannot file any complaint against NATO because all those involved have diplomatic immunity. A NATO soldier can kill and never be prosecuted. But perhaps one day some senior officials from NATO who ordered the bombings will be prosecuted. I believe the order came from high up.”

NATO hasn’t commented on the claims and has dismissed Serbian and Italian investigations.

There has been no other independent research conducted on the subject.

The little cemetery in Bratunac is already full. But locals fear the number of cancer victims will continue to grow for at least the next fifty years, or for as long as it takes for the air to clean.

Ten years after the NATO bombings, the alliance still has a lot to answer for. But no matter when those answers come (or whether they will come at all) they will be too late for the cancer victims.

Source

These are the very people who complain about Iran, but have been using radiation to kill all around the world.

Israel used American weapons in Gaza. They also used Bunker Busters. Both are radioactive in nature.

Innocent citizens get cancer and other illnesses related to radiation  or their children are deformed. Thanks to wars.

The worst offenders NATO.  They should clean up their act.

Iraq was bombarded by it during the first Gulf War and now has more yet again from the recent war.

Afghanistan is riddled with DU and Radiation from the Bunker Busters.

Radiation Poisoning the slow enduring gift of DEATH.

More  on the Radiation

‘Hush’ over Afghan mission must end/Testing for radiation

109 Italian Soldiers Dead So Far From DU In Iraq

ROME, Italy (AGI) – According to the Italian Military Health Observatory a total of 109 Italian soldiers have died thus far due to exposure to depleted uranium.

The observatory stressed the fact that 41 pct of active personnel casualties relate to disease. According to Domenico Leggiero at the Military Health Observatory, “The total of 109 casualties exceeds the total number of persons dying as a consequence of road accidents. Anyone denying the significance of such data is purely acting out of ill faith, and the truth is that our soldiers are dying out there due to a lack of adequate protection against depleted uranium”.

Leggiero pointed out the fact that the Senate has to date failed to establish a probe committee on this matter: “it is proof of a worrying lack of oversight on matters which are frankly dramatic”.

Members of the Observatory have petitioned a urgent hearing “in order to study effective prevention and safeguard measures aimed at reducing the death-toll amongst our serving soldiers”.

War “Pollution” Equals Millions of Deaths

Related Articles

(Afghanistan 1) A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words

Doctors report “unprecedented” rise in deformities, cancers in Iraq

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

This is a rather long story. It began a few years ago.  Russian is not to blame for the problems caused by the US ans Israel.

October 26, 2009

Figured it was about time to get to this. Considering how the US ans Israel have been  using the media in bombarding you with Iran misinformation.  Iran is doing nothing wrong.  Just like Russia did nothing wrong. But that certainly was not what you were told by the main stream media.  So if you have the time and the inclination read all the stories provided and you will have an education on how the US and Israel manipulate and lie. How they use others to achieve their goals of domination over other countries and use the media to brainwash the public.

Education is one of the best weapons any of us can have.

Obama and the new administration are still using many of the same tactics against Iran.

Israel well that never changes.

So now to the Georgian Russia war

Yes Israel and the US were behind it all. I will try to put it all as simply as possible.
So once upon a time: Before Obama was elected

The Puppet Masters decided  Georgia’s  Leader should be President Saakashvili.
August 21, 2008

The controversy over the Georgian surprise military attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia on 8.8.08 makes a closer look at the controversial Georgian President and his puppet masters important. An examination shows 41 year old Mikhail Saakashvili to be a ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied to not only the US NATO establishment, but also to the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The famous ‘Rose Revolution of November 2003 that forced the ageing Edouard Shevardnadze from power and swept the then 36 year old US university graduate into power was run and financed by the US State Department, the Soros Foundations, and agencies tied to the Pentagon and US intelligence community.

Mihkail Saakashvili was deliberately placed in power in one of the most sophisticated US regime change operations, using ostensibly private NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) to create an atmosphere of popular protest against the existing regime of former Soviet Foreign Minister Edouard Shevardnadze, who was no longer useful to Washington when he began to make a deal with Moscow over energy pipelines and privatizations.
Saakashvili as mafioso President

Once he was in place in January 2004 as Georgia’s new President, Saakashvili proceeded to pack the regime with his cronies and kinsmen. The death of Zurab Zhvania, his prime minister in February, 2005, remains a mystery. The official version—poisoning by faulty gas heater—was adopted by American FBI investigators within two weeks of the killing. That has never seemed credible to those familiar with Georgia’s gangland slayings, crime, and other manifestations of social decay. Zhvania’s death was followed closely by a functionary of the Premier’s apparat, Georgi Khelashvili, who allegedly shot himself the day after his chief’s demise. The head of Zhvania’s research staff was later found dead as well.

This is how new Regimes are formed by the US in other countries.

This tactic has been used many times in many countries.  The above is just a small excerpt from the article. For the rest of the story, on how they do it,  go here.

Recently the same attempt, using the same tactics were  made in Iran.

Oh Gee what a shocker. Like anyone who knows a fragment of US/Israeli tactics would have figured that out from the onset. Most however believe the propaganda spoon fed to them by the  major Media.

The same media lashed out at Russia for stopping Georgia. Russia was the bad guy, ya right. Russia was anything but the bad guy. They did not start the war. They were actually defending South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia’s attack.

Israel ‘needs Georgia for Iran strike’
LONDON, August 26 2008

Columnist Ian Brockwell says the US is interested in Georgia because it borders Russia, has a pipeline that is intended to transfer oil to Israel, and most importantly is a country that can be used in an attack against Iran.

According to his article in the American Chronicle, the Bush Administration has been looking for an excuse to attack the Islamic Republic so that it can take possession of the country’s oil and give Israel a share in Iranian crude by transferring it through Georgia. Source

Well there is another Shocker they want the oil. Well that certainly isn’t anything new.

So now we know the How, Why and Who of a few things.

So now the US and Israel have Georgia in their slimy paws.

War With Russia Is On The Agenda

August 26, 2008

By Paul Craig Roberts

Russian peacekeepers, together with Georgian ones, had been stationed in South Ossetia since the early 1990s. On orders from Mikheil Saakashvili, the American puppet “president” of Georgia, the Georgian peacekeepers turned their weapons on the unsuspecting Russian peacekeepers and murdered them.

This action by Saakashvili, elected with money from the neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy, an election-rigging tool of US hegemony, was a war crime. In truth, the Russians should have hung Saakashvili, as he is far more guilty than was Saddam Hussein. But it is Russia, not Saakashvili, that the US media has demonized. Source

As we see Russia was defending itself. What else would you have them do?  The Media did demonize Russia as they demonize anyone they attack.

This covers their lies and sucks the public into believing the lie,  but fortunately the truth does in the end come out. Well most of the time. Sometimes years to late.

The US and Israel in this case are also  war criminals, as is the Georgia.

They all conspired to commit a crime.So now we have established who the real Criminals are.

Russia claims proof of genocide

August 26, 2008

RUSSIAN investigators say they have proof Georgian forces committed genocide in their attack on the rebel region of South Ossetia this month.

“It has been fully established that between August 7 and 12, Georgia’s armed forces invaded the territory of the unrecognised republic with the aim of fully annihilating the Ossetian ethnic group living in South Ossetia,” Investigative Committee head Alexander Bastrykin.

“They spared no one. We found a woman who had been killed with a shot to the head. She was eight months’ pregnant. Her unborn child died too,” he said.

Mr Bastrykin was summarising the results of an ongoing investigation into the Georgian attack on the Moscow-backed rebel enclave, which prompted Russia to pour troops and armour into its southern neighbour.

Mr Bastrykin did not say how many South Ossetian civilians were killed, but a senior local prosecutor last week said 133 civilian deaths had been confirmed in South Ossetia and that the toll was likely to grow.

Russian officials earlier backed up the genocide accusations by saying up to 2000 of South Ossetia’s population of 70,000 had been killed.

Source

From August 29, 2008

Putin smells a US rat in Georgia crisis

What was a top national security aide to Vice President Dick Cheney doing in Georgia shortly before Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s troops engaged in what became a disastrous fight with South Ossetian rebels – and then Russian troops? Source

Seems to me there were quite a few Rats behind this. The infestation started long before the conflict. It started with the US/Israeli coup in Georgia.

War in South Ossetia: Georgia started it 

October 1 2009

The responsibility for a war between Georgia and Russia in August last year in which 850 people were killed and over 100,000 fled their homes turns on one key point. Was a Russian invasion of the breakaway province of South Ossetia already under way on the night of  August 7 when Georgia opened fire? Had Russian tank columns passed through the strategic Roki tunnel, between North and South Ossetia, as Tbilisi claimed? Or did Georgia fire first, with an artillery and rocket barrage on Tskhinvali, as Russia maintained?

In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, an exhaustive investigation by the European Union yesterday found in Russia’s favour. It laced its judgment with caveats. It found that there had been an influx of volunteers and mercenaries through the tunnel in early August, and that the Russian air force attacked targets outside the disputed zone long before they admitted to doing so. But on the central issue the report found there was insufficient evidence for a large-scale Russian incursion before the morning of 8 August. Nor could it be verified whether Russia was on the verge of a major attack, and nor could Georgia’s actions be justified under international law.

The fact-finding mission, headed by the Swiss diplomat and old Caucasus hand Heidi Tagliavini, was not one-sided. It condemned Russia for its disproportionate response to the Georgian assault, for allowing the ethnic cleansing of Georgian villages, and for attacking another disputed territory well away from the conflict, the upper Kodori valley in Abkhazia. These findings are important, and not just because the conflict is still continuing: more than a year on, around 35,000 people have yet to return to their homes, and they probably never will. They are important because they chronicle an event that does not have a single cause, and therefore not a single solution. At the time, Russian military action was taken as exhibit A in the orthodoxy that an oil-rich Moscow could not accept retreat from empire and was destined to impose its will on its weaker neighbours by recreating a mini-USSR. Former victims of Soviet power such as Poland and the Baltic states argued then that Nato should stand up to a reassertive Russia, by accepting Georgia and Ukraine into the western military alliance. They still do.

The Caucasus is more complicated than that. The ability to jump in front of a CNN camera does not confer on the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, the gifts of a democrat. Nor is Russia the sole aggressor in a region of ancient disputes. This report should induce caution among those who come to premature judgments about Russia’s relationship with its near-abroad.

Source

The power of the Israel Lobby is an important component of keeping Americans in the dark. Recently I watched a documentary that demonstrates the control that the Israel Lobby exercises over Americans’ view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The documentary is available here:

Related Article

Fallout of US agression

Russia will place missiles in Baltic region a response to US missile defence plans

Jeffry Picower died: Biggest beneficiary of Bernard Madoff’s fraud

October 25 2009

MIAMI

Palm Beach billionaire Jeffry Picower, described as the biggest beneficiary of Bernard Madoff’s fraud, died on Sunday after he was found lying at the bottom of the pool at his home, police said.

Emergency services were called to the oceanside mansion after Picower, 67, was pulled from the pool by his wife and a housekeeper and he was later pronounced dead, the Palm Beach Post reported quoting police and Fire Rescue officials.

Police were investigating the death as a drowning, the newspaper said. It reported he was not breathing when he was pulled from the pool and paramedics worked unsuccessfully for 20 minutes at the scene to try to revive him.

Picower and his wife, Barbara, were friends of Wall Street financier Madoff, who is serving a 150-year sentence after pleading guilty to running a $65 billion Ponzi scheme.

The trustee handling the Madoff fraud case, Irving Picard, said in court documents filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York late last month that Picower, newly listed as one of the 400 wealthiest Americans by Forbes magazine, was complicit in the fraud.

Part of Picard’s filing said: “Based upon the trustee’s investigation to date, Picower was the biggest beneficiary of Madoff’s scheme, having withdrawn either directly or through the entities he controlled more than $7.2 billion of other investors’ money.”

Picower was being sued for the $7.2 billion, $2 billion more than the trustee in the case demanded in May.

He was listed 371st and worth $1 billion on the latest published Forbes list.

Picower started out as an accountant and lawyer and then made money investing in the medical sector.

He and his wife headed a philanthropy, the Picower Foundation. The foundation closed when the Madoff fraud unraveled last December.

A spokeswoman for the Picowers’ attorney, William Zabel, has rejected Picard’s accusations against Picower as “false and outrageous claims … based on a misreading of the purported ‘facts’.”

She said the Picowers initiated discussions to reach a settlement with the trustee, who is winding down Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Picard, who is leading a global search under the Securities Investor Protection Act to recover money for thousands of defrauded investors, has collected about $1.5 billion, but has sued for some $15 billion.

The case is Irving H. Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC v. Jeffry M. Picower 09-01197 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

(Reporting by Pascal Fletcher and Grant McCool, editing by Chris Wilson)

Source

Related

Bank billions at risk from Wall Street Fraud

Bernard Madoff tipster Harry Markopolos assails SEC

Series of errors allowed Bernard Madoff to keep trading

UK: Council’s pension fund ‘caught up in Bernard Madoff’s Wall Street fraud’

Madoff house arrest ordered as European banks reel

Madoff victims threaten legal action

Madoff investor found dead of possible suicide, authorities say

Study Shows 151 Members of House and Senate Get the “Public Option” 55 are opposed to it for you/Call them

New Weiner Study Shows 151 Members of House and Senate Get the “Public Option” Now

Weiner Calls on GOP Opponents of the Public Option to Give Up Their Medicare

WASHINGTON, DC—A new study by Representative Anthony Weiner (D – Queens & Brooklyn), member of the Health Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Caucus on the Middle Class, revealed that 151 members of the House and Senate currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care – Medicare.

On the list of recipients are 55 Republicans who have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.

Weiner said, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”

The list of congressional recipients of Medicare who also oppose the public option is below:

Rep. Ralph M. Hall,
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett,
Rep. Sam Johnson,
Rep. C.W. Bill Young,
Rep. Howard Coble,
Sen. Jim Bunning,
Sen. Richard G. Lugar,
Rep. Don Young,
Sen. Charles E. Grassley,
Sen. Robert F. Bennett,
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers,
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch,
Sen. Richard C. Shelby,
Rep. Jerry Lewis,
Sen. James M. Inhofe,
Rep. Ron Paul,
Rep. Henry E. Brown,
Sen. Pat Roberts,
Sen. George V. Voinovich,
Sen. John McCain,
Rep. Judy Biggert,
Sen. Thad Cochran,
Rep. Harold Rogers,
Rep. Dan Burton,
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon,
Rep. Frank R. Wolf,
Sen. Christopher S. Bond,
Rep. Michael N. Castle,
Rep. Joe Pitts,
Rep. Tom Petri,
Sen. Lamar Alexander,
Rep. Doc Hastings,
Rep. Cliff Stearns,
Rep. Sue Myrick,
Rep. John Carter,
Sen. Mitch McConnell,
Sen. Jon Kyl,
Rep. Phil Gingrey,
Rep. Nathan Deal,
Rep. John Linder,
Rep. Kay Granger,
Rep. John L. Mica,
Rep. Walter B. Jones,
Sen. Jim Risch,
Rep. Ed Whitfield,
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner,
Rep. Virginia Foxx,
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite,
Sen. Saxby Chambliss,
Sen. Michael B. Enzi,
Rep. Elton Gallegly,
Rep. Donald Manzullo,
Rep. Peter T. King,
Rep. Ander Crenshaw,

Source

These 55 are the ones who need to hear from the public they want the Public Option too.

If it is good enough for them it’s good enough for you.

All Americans should have the same “Public Option” their elected Leaders have.

These of course are probably the ones who get tons of money from insurance companies at election time.

Find you Elected Official

How dare they oppose giving it to Americans, when they themselves use it.

Do check the comment on this thread. The poster  has left some very vital information pertaining to this post.

The Bill is 1990 pages long.  It’s long read. They are attempting to stop the pre-existing condition problem,  insurance companies have been using against people.

The Public Option part is on page 211

The Bill on Health Care

New Pro-Israel Lobby Group Formed

Who speaks for America’s Jews? J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts’ grip on Congress

Boost for J Street as Obama adviser attends conference, but Israeli ambassador will be staying away

Members of Congress signed up by the score when they were invited to this weekend’s “pro-Israel” conference. But then the faxes and emails started to roll in, denouncing the organisers as “Jewish Stalinists”, the “surrender lobby” and terrorist sympathisers.

Some members of Congress scuttled for cover, admitting they had little idea what the organisation behind the conference – an upstart Washington lobby group called J Street, which wants to turn US policy on Israel on its head – stands for.

But Washington is learning fast. J Street – the name plays on the first letter of Jew, and that many of the big Washington lobbying firms are on the city’s K Street – was launched at the beginning of last year as a “pro-Israel and pro-peace” group, to general ridicule from the big beasts of the Israel lobby, which have kept a grip on Congress for decades.

They predicted that J Street and those who launched it – Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, and Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Israeli cabinet ministers and one of the authors of the Geneva peace initiative – would be swiftly marginalised as a niche group backed by obscure peaceniks with little influence.

But the organisation opens its first national conference in Washington tomorrow with a stamp of legitimacy from a White House that is clearly sympathetic to its view. General James Jones, Barack Obama’s national security adviser and one of his point men on Israel, is to make a keynote speech. About 140 members of Congress have pledged their support, even after others backed away, and former Israeli cabinet ministers and generals will be in attendance.

But perhaps the best measure of its impact is the fury that has greeted the organisation’s rise.

The Israeli ambassador has refused to attend the conference, while the traditional pro-Israel lobby has accused J Street of being “obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel” and a “disreputable pseudo-pro-Israel organisation”.

“They’re going hysterical,” said Levy. “They said no one would want to hear what we have to say: that American Jews are fed up with being told we’re for bombing Iraq and bombing Iran and we’re against the hard concessions necessary for peace in Israel. Now they’re trying to discredit us.”

On the face of it, J Street stands for what the rest of the pro-Israel lobby stands for: peace, a two-state solution and a secure Israel. The very wide divide is over how to get there.

At the heart of the battle is who speaks for America’s Jews and what it means to be pro-Israel.

For decades, groups from the Zionist Organisation of America to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) have claimed to be the voice of the largest Jewish community outside Israel advocating unflinching support for the government in Jerusalem.

But in recent years, Aipac, the ZOA and other groups have drawn closer to the hard right in America, particularly the neocons and Christian evangelical organisations, as the conflict in Israel is framed largely in the context of terrorism while hardline governments pay little more than lip service to peace and a Palestinian state.

Levy says J Street was born out of a belief that many American Jews are now alienated from those who claim to speak in their name.

“A community that is very, very liberal, votes 78% Obama, overall a community that prides itself in the role it played historically in the US in advancing civil rights, was suddenly being identified with the most illiberal reactionary regressive policies advocated by groups that claimed to be doing this in the name of American Jewry and the name of Israel, making alliances with these dreadful people on the far-right of American politics,” said Levy.

“What we had a hunch about, and was proven when J Street was launched, is that there is this very large constituency of Jewish Americans who do care about Israel and who are cool identifying themselves as pro-Israel. But their pro-Israelness is about the need for Israel to be at peace with its neighbours to gain security, not by being an ongoing expansionist presence. In fact, that endangers Israel.”

J Street swiftly found followers – it claims 110,000 now – and funders. The organisation hoped to raise $50,000 (£31,000) for campaign contributions to sympathetic candidates in last year’s congressional elections. In fact it brought in $600,000 in individual donations, which it directed to 41 candidates. Thirty-three of them won, although J Street is quick to acknowledge that its support was not decisive.

The organisation has brought in much more to fund its lobbying work, much of it five- and six-figure sums from Jewish philanthropists, although it has also been criticised for taking money from Muslims and Arabs.

For years Aipac successfully defined “pro-Israel” to Washington politicians as meaning unflinching support for whatever government sat in Jerusalem, and whatever its policies. The lobby group saw its core role as keeping the military aid flowing and ensuring that Washington did not force Israel’s hand in ending the conflict with the Palestinians.

Aipac took the position that it was all very well for the US to offer the framework for negotiation and to mediate where necessary, but that the final agreement could only be reached by the two sides on the ground.

So when Obama laid down a marker to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, demanding a freeze on settlement construction, Aipac rounded up 70 members of the Senate to urge him to back off.

J Street has alarmed the Israeli government and its supporters in Washington by taking a very different tack. The group argues that if the two sides cannot reach a deal then the US should cajole Israel and the Palestinians towards an agreement, even if that means pressing the Jewish state to give up more than it wants.

Some J Street activists believe that is what Obama wants to do and they want to help him by building a constituency for action among sympathetic Jews across America.

That’s a tall order, made all the more difficult by the resistance of vested interests targeted especially at discouraging members of Congress from dealings with J Street.

A barrage of attacks has been launched in recent weeks in conservative magazines, on influential blogs and by well-funded organisations across America.

One that has gained the widest attention has been led by Lenny Ben David, a former Israeli diplomat who for 25 years served on Aipac’s staff, where his job was to dig out information to discredit Israel’s critics.

In the Jerusalem Post, Ben David derided J Street as Obama’s “toy Jews”.

He has been digging into Ben-Ami’s background in a PR firm that also dealt with Arab governments, and looking into some of J Street’s funders, whom he describes as “Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans” – and therefore inherently anti-Israeli. Ben David has said that accepting donations from individuals with links to the Arab world or human rights organisations critical of Israel shows it to be against the Jewish state.

Stand With US, a group set up to counter growing disillusionment with Israel among young Jews in the universities, distributed letters to members of Congress planning to attend the conference saying “J Street frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives” such as criticising the assault on Gaza. It also accused the organisation of demonising Jewish settlers in the occupied territories and said that some of J Street’s funders had ties to Arab governments or Iran.

Some members of Congress, aware of the power of groups such as Aipac to mobilise against them, have had second thoughts and backed away.

Ben-Ami hit back in an email to supporters last week. “They’re working the phones, calling the offices of every one of the 150-plus members of Congress … to frighten them away from associating with J Street. The most infuriating part is that their thuggish smear tactics are having an impact – already five members of Congress have pulled off of our host committee,” he wrote.

By the end of this week the number of withdrawals was closer to 15 and it is likely to rise further. Most are Republicans but some Democrats have backed away too, including New York’s two Senate members, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate and chair of the foreign affairs committee, has also pulled out of a major speech, although his office denies it is under pressure and says he will do his best to attend the conference at some point.

J Street was forced to pull a poetry session from its cultural programme amid uproar on rightwing blogs over the poet Josh Healey, who likened Guantánamo to Auschwitz and compared Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Aipac officially denies that it has any role in the assault on J Street, but those at the forefront are close allies of the lobby group, from the conservative Weekly Standard magazine (once dubbed the “neocon bible”) to the Zionist Organisation of America.

“If you look at this it’s hard not to see this as a concerted, co-ordinated campaign,” said Levy. “We know that’s how the right wing works. There’s a nexus of funders, there’s a nexus of people who sit on each other’s boards. They’re all very close to Aipac.”

The frenzy of denunciations almost certainly played a role in discouraging the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, from accepting an invitation to address the J Street conference, on the grounds that certain of the group’s policies “could impair Israel’s interests”.

Oren, who recently gave up American citizenship in order to become the Israeli envoy, is sophisticated and well attuned to the American Jewish community and so it is thought likely that he would have seen the advantage in engaging with J Street. But the pressure for him to refuse the invitation was fierce and the decision was made easier by J Street’s public stand with Obama against Netanyahu on the end to settlement construction.

At times J Street has misjudged the situation and drawn fire from its friends, most notably when it was seen as failing to distinguish between Israel’s motives and those of Hamas in its criticism of the assault on Gaza this year.

That drew the wrath of one of America’s most prominent liberal Jews, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, who called J Street “morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naive”.

Levy says the pressure won’t work. “There are people in Israel who understand they’ve got a significant problem. Israel is alienating Jewish communities around the world,” he said. “They risk losing young people, saying that Israel is not part of who I am.

“We’re trying to say we can still embrace Israel, have a constructive critical dialogue to try and advance our vision of what Israel needs to be. And I think there are Israelis who are strategically far sighted enough to understand that if you alienate J Street you’re setting Israel up for a huge problem.”

Powerful voices

Much of the legislation that emerges from the US Congress is heavily influenced by lobby groups wielding huge budgets for campaign contributions and advertising that can be turned for or against a legislator. But money is not all that matters.Possibly the most influential lobby group consists of retirees and their organisation, the American Association of Retired People, which has 30 million members who are more likely to vote than most Americans. Its voice has recently been heard on healthcare reform.

Religious groupings, particularly Christian evangelicals around the anti-abortion movement, hold considerable sway over politicians from some parts of America, as does the National Rifle Association, which works to limit gun control legislation by playing on fears that any new limitation on the right to carry weapons is a first step to a ban on all guns.

The NRA is particularly powerful in the south, where few political candidates dare to upset it.

Oil companies, trade unions, the aviation industry, drug manufacturers and the insurance industry all use money to considerable effect on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

On foreign affairs, there is no more powerful an organisation than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which has locked most of Congress into unquestioning support for the Israeli government with few members willing to incur the wrath of a lobby that has proven able to destroy political careers.

Other groups have seen their influence wane in recent years, notably the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida.

Source

I hope they are better then American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

They certainly cannot be trusted.  J Street is a threat to AIPAC.  They must be or there wouldn’t be such a fuss.  J Street demonized already.

Typical Zionist propaganda will be hard at work. They destroy anything good.

AIPAC should have been put out of business years ago.

They also do not speak for the Majority of the Jewish community.

They speak only for Zionist Israel.

FRANKLIN, LAWRENCE ANTHONY, an intelligence analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, Iran desk, held a Top Secret clearance with access to sensitive compartmented information.

The FBI filed criminal charges against Franklin  May 3 2005, accusing him of passing, from 2002 to 2004, classified military information about Iran and Iraq to two pro-Israel lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, and to an Israeli diplomat.

Rosen and Weissman were senior staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying organization. Their own prosecution in the same case was novel in that neither held security clearances that required them to protect U.S. classified information.

Franklin pleaded guilty in October 2005 to three felony counts in exchange for his cooperation and the government’s willingness to drop three other charges. He was sentenced in January 2006 to 12 years and seven months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

This relatively lenient sentence reflected the judge’s impression that Franklin had been driven by a desire to help, not damage, the US. Franklin was not to begin his sentence until after legal proceedings against Rosen and Weissman were completed, at which time his sentence might be reduced.

Meanwhile, Franklin remained free on bail.

On  May 1 2009 prosecutors announced that they were abandoning the charges against Rosen and Weissman and then, on  June 12 2009, Franklin’s sentence was reduced to probation, with 10 months of home confinement.

BBCnews.com  January 20 2006, “Pentagon Man Jailed Over Spying”

New York Times  December 1 2006, “Former Military Analyst Gets Prison Term for Passing Information”

Federation of American  June 23 2008, “Court Narrows Scope of Appeal in AIPAC Case”

Scientists

Washington Post May 1 2009, “Charges to be Dropped Against Two Former AIPAC Lobbyists”

Washington Post  June 12 2009, “Sentence Reduced in Pentagon Case”

There is an old saying if there is one there are more.

This just tells us how far they go to get information.

I don’t think the AIPAC Lobbyists should get off the hook. They are as guilty of spying on the US,  as the one who gave the information to them.  They are equally guilty.

No one from AIPAC has ever helped the US, they help only Zionist Israel.

AIPAC have destroyed much of what use to be good about America.

Good Luck J Street you will need it.

CBS 60 Minutes Exposing Israeli Apartheid

On Sunday, January 25, CBS 60 Minutes aired an amazing segment exposing Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians. The piece is by Senior CBS Foreign Correspondent Bob Simon, who is Jewish living outside Tel-Aviv and produced by Robert G, Anderson

British UN nuclear expert may have been murdered, police say

Mystery deepens over Vienna UN death

November 1 2009

By David Rogers

A British nuclear expert who fell from the 17th floor of a United Nations building did not commit suicide and may have been hurled to his death, says a doctor who carried out a second post-mortem examination.

Timothy Hampton, 47, a scientist involved in monitoring nuclear activity, was found dead last week at the bottom of a stairwell in Vienna.

An initial autopsy concluded that there were “no suspicious circumstances”. But it is understood that Mr Hampton’s widow Olena Gryshcuk and her family were deeply unhappy with that verdict.

Now a doctor who undertook a second post-mortem examination on behalf of the family believes she has found evidence that Mr Hampton did not die by his own hands.

Professor Kathrin Yen, of the Ludwig Boltzmann Forensic Institute in Graz, Austria, which specialises in traumatology research, told the Mail on Sunday she had more tests to complete on Mr Hampton, who had a three-year-old son with Ms Gryshcuk.

But she said one possible theory was that Mr Hampton was carried to the 17th floor from his workplace on the sixth floor and thrown to his death.

Professor Yen used new forensic techniques to detect internal bruising caused by strangulation which would not be visible to the eye.

She told the Mail on Sunday : ‘In my opinion, it does not look like suicide. My example is that somebody took him up to the top floor and took him down.

“At the moment I don’t have the police reports. We did a CT scan. From the external exam, I saw injuries on the neck but these were not due to strangulation.”

It is expected to take three weeks for blood test results to come back. Austrian police said they believe Mr Hampton committed suicide.

He had been working for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) at the UN building and the Austrian Times has been told that Mr Hampton may have been involved in talks discussing nuclear testing in Iran. The UN has strongly denied the claims, although Mr Hampton’s title – processing engineer – meant he was “part of the team maintaining and operating the International Data Centre Division application software to generate and distribute data products and services to CTBTOs 182 Member States”.

This meant he was responsible for monitoring a vast array of technical data from hundreds of monitoring stations around the world in the hope of discovering any illegal nuclear activity – including Iran. In fact although CTBTO officials were reluctant to admit it, of the 300 plus monitoring stations set up globally there are at least two in the geographical area of Iran sending data back to Vienna.

In addition both the CTBTO and the IAEA that organised the recent Iran talks are in the same complex – the IAEA occupies A and B buildings while the CTBTO is in E building – both are covering the same subject matter.

Mr Hampton’s body was discovered last Tuesday at about 8am. Friends said it was usual for him to work late into the night. His widow, an inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was working in Japan when her husband died.

A source close to the family said life had not been easy for Mr Hampton, who was often away from his wife and son.

But the source added that he was ‘not the suicide type’. He said: ‘Tim was rather introverted. He changed his life many times.’

Trained in Britain as a bio-chemist, Mr Hampton worked in a bio-lab before moving into construction.

He then worked on nuclear test-ban projects before joining the UN in 1998, said the CTBTO.

The IAEA, an independent and separate organisation, inspects nuclear plants worldwide and is based in the building next to the CTBTO in Vienna.

Under a year ago, an American died at the IAEA in strikingly similar circumstances, his body being found at the bottom of a stairwell.

A UN spokeswoman said an investigation into that case continues, though Austrian police have concluded it was suicide.

She said: “This might have been a copycat thing in the CTBTO.”

Source

October 22 2009

Brit UN nuclear expert may have been murdered, police say

By Thomas Hochwarter

A British nuclear energy expert who plunged 40 metres to his death at the United Nations’ (UN) building in Vienna may have been murdered, police said today (Thurs).

Timothy Hampton died on the spot on Tuesday after falling from a 17th floor window at the Vienna International Centre (VIC) – one of the UN’s three headquarters.

The UN confirmed the death of the 47-year-old – who was involved in disarmament negotiations with Iran as a member of the UN’s Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) – but refused to give any further information on the circumstances of the fatality.

A police spokesman told the Austrian Times today that investigators had not ruled out murder as no suicide note has been found.

“Whenever there is a case where others may have been involved we will investigate all the possible scenarios. Murder is one possibility, suicide another,” the spokesman said.

He added investigators were waiting for the result of an autopsy.

UN staff told the Austrian Times yesterday that there had been a similar case just recently in which an employee died when he fell from a similar height at the landmark buildings in Vienna-Donaustadt.

Source

British nuclear expert dies in 40-metre plunge

By Thomas Hochwarter

Police are investigating after a British nuclear energy expert involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme fell 40 metres to his death from a UN building in Vienna.

Officials announced today (Weds) that the man – named as Timothy Hampton – died on the spot yesterday after a fall from the 17th floor at Vienna International Centre (VIC), one of the United Nations’ (UN) main headquarters along with New York, Nairobi and Geneva.

Authorities said the 47-year-old man – a member of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) – had joined the UN’s current talks with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Investigators refused to reveal any further information on the case but said they ordered an autopsy.

Speaking to the Austrian Times, Anne Thomas – a press spokesperson at the UN in Vienna – said: “All I can confirm is that a male staff member of the CTBTO was found dead at the bottom of a stairwell in the E Building at the Vienna International Centre at 8.30 on Tuesday morning.

“Vienna police are investigating the incident and there is nothing else we can say,” she added.

UN staff told the Austrian Times that there had been a similar case recently in which an employee died when he fell from a comparable height.

Source

Oddly enough Vienna is where Canadian passports were stolen from to use in an assassination attempt of Khalid Mishal by Mossad agents.

Iran is right about US ,UK, Israel backed Jundallah/ 3 very good videos included

Nasa scientist accused of trying to sell secrets to Israel’s Mossad intelligence service

Nasa scientist accused of trying to sell secrets to Israel’s Mossad intelligence service

Former Nasa scientist accused of trying to sell secrets to Israel’s Mossad intelligence service

By David Usborne,

October 21 2009

A leading American scientist who once had access to top-secret materials related to national defence and atomic research appeared in court yesterday after being charged with attempting to pass classified materials to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.

Stewart Nozette, 52, a former Nasa scientist who worked on the Reagan administration’s Star Wars missile shield programme, faces a lengthy criminal complaint. The document details a meticulous sting operation that began when an FBI agent contacted him by telephone early last month posing as a Mossad agent. Dr Nozette and the agent subsequently held two meetings, allegedly striking deals to divulge secrets in exchange for cash.

If convicted on the charges of attempted espionage, he could face a sentence of life in prison.

“I don’t get recruited by Mossad every day,” Dr Nozette allegedly told the FBI agent at their first clandestine meeting in a Washington hotel, unaware that every word of their conversation was being taped. He added, “I knew this day would come.” Asked why he had been so sure of that, he responded, “I just had a feeling.”

The day he didn’t see coming was Monday, when agents put in him handcuffs at the Mayflower Hotel, just steps from the White House, where he had arrived imagining he was about to have another meeting with the men from Mossad. They were in fact the men from the FBI’s counter-espionage unit.

“This case reflects our firm resolve to hold accountable any individual who betrays the public trust by compromising our national security for his or her own personal gain,” Channing Phillips, acting US attorney for the District of Columbia, said after the arrest.

David Kris, US assistant attorney general, said: “The conduct alleged … is serious and should serve as a warning to anyone who would consider compromising our nation’s secrets.”

A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr Nozette has had a stellar career. According to a former colleague, the Stanford University aerospace professor Scott Hubbard, he worked on the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defence Initiative, in what Mr Hubbard told the AP news agency “was leading-edge, Department of Defense national security work”. He has also been credited with helping to find water on the moon.

Between 1989 to 2006, he was often afforded security clearances that were as high as “top secret”, according to a statement from the Justice Department. That gave him “frequent access to classified information and documents related to the US national defence”.

In those years he worked variously for the White House’s National Space Council and for research bodies for the Energy and Defence departments. In 2000, he set up his own non-profit company which sometimes advised the US government on developing advanced technologies. From 1998 until last year he received payments as a technical adviser to an aerospace company that was wholly owned by the Israeli government. The complaint does not accuse Israel of any complicity in the case.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that authorities became worried about possible espionage activity by Nozette after an investigation in 2006 that looked at whether he submitted false expenses claims.

Alarm bells were further sounded when he travelled abroad earlier this year, leaving for an unidentified country with two computer memory sticks, and returning without them.

It was on 3 September, the complaint says, that he was first contacted by the FBI agent claiming to be with Mossad. During their first hotel meeting, Dr Nozette allegedly acknowledged that he no longer had direct access to national secrets, but pointed to his head and said “it’s in” there, implying that there was much in his memory he could divulge. That, he allegedly went on, would include information about what the “US has done in space”.

At one point in that meeting, the question of remuneration was raised by Dr Nozette. “Well, I should tell you my first need is that they should figure out how to pay me,” he said, adding: “They don’t expect me to do this for free.” He also asked for an Israeli passport.

The two men agreed on a post-office box in Washington that they would use for further communication. In the following weeks, Dr Nozette allegedly took a total of $11,000 in cash in return for initial fragments of information, including answers to what he thought was a Mossad questionnaire, and an encrypted hard drive.

The complaint said that the FBI had video evidence of Dr Nozette leaving a manila envelope in the post office box.

The materials he passed on before his arrest late on Monday afternoon included information “classified as both ‘top secret’ and ’secret’ that concerned US satellites, early-warning systems, means of defence or retaliation against large-scale attack, communications intelligence information, and major elements of defence strategy”, the Justice Department said in its statement.

Source

More information on Stewart Nozette

Jonathan Pollard Stole almost a million Documents for Israel.

Israel Cabinet split over calls for war inquiry

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Glenn Beck

Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Aired November 17, 2006

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Benjamin Netanyahu, elected prime minister in Israel in May 1996 in Israel’s first direct election. As prime minister, he combined fighting terror with the advancement of the peace process. Through his three-year term, the number of terror attacks drastically decreased.

In the U.S., he’s been credited for his central role in changing American policies on international terrorism. Now, he’s come out with a bold, new statement: urging the world to pay attention to Iran and warning we could be facing World War III.

Powerful, influential, and frighteningly honest, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tonight faces honest questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Welcome to the program. On Fridays, this show breaks every rule. Well, it kind of does that all week. We spend an hour talking about one person, one thing, one item. This week, the focus of our program has been our special, which was on Islamic extremism. We wanted to spend an hour with a gentleman who knows it extraordinarily well, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hello. Welcome, sir.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Hello. Good to be with you.

BECK: This program and this particular hour, we spend time asking just sometimes I think politically incorrect questions. I’m a regular American shmoe that quite honestly, right before 9/11 — and I don’t mean any offense, sir — but Israel and the Palestinians, everybody who’s been arguing for so long, as a typical American before 9/11, I was like, “Oh, you know what? Just set it out — you can all just fall into the middle of the sea and it doesn’t matter to me, because you’re always fighting.”

Now 9/11 happened. I thought, “Gee, maybe I should pay attention to this.” And many Americans did and saw, “Wait a minute. There’s trouble.” But now that’s changing even more, and you said something in Los Angeles that I’m so grateful that somebody’s finally saying, that this is World War III, this is Germany 1938.

Could you explain that?

NETANYAHU: Iran is Germany, and it’s 1938, except that this Nazi regime that is in Iran, that’s a religious kind of fanaticism, but it wants to dominate the world, annihilate the Jews, but also annihilate America. Remember, we’re the small Satan. You’re the big Satan.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: We’re just the first way station en route to you. So there is this fundament fanaticism that is there. It’s a messianic cult. It’s a religious messianic cult that believes in the Apocalypse, and they believe they have to expedite the Apocalypse to bring the collapse of the West.

BECK: See, nobody is saying — why isn’t George Bush saying this? Why is it nut jobs like me who is saying this? Why isn’t the media bringing this stuff out?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think they’re getting around to it, but it has to be explained. And that’s why I appreciate the opportunity to say it. But if I had to offer an analogy — you know, Glenn, I was looking for an analogy to try to explain to Americans what it is that is so dangerous about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. You remember those crazy people in Waco, Texas?

BECK: Yes, David Koresh.

NETANYAHU: David Koresh?

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: So imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America’s allies, wanting to take over the world’s oil supply.

If the lunatics escape from the asylum, that’s one thing. But if they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, that’s another. And this is that kind of cult. It’s the cult of the Mahdi, a holy man that disappeared a thousand years ago. And the president of Iran believes that he’s supposed to — he was put here on Earth to bring this holy man back in a great religious war between the true Muslim believers and the infidels. And millions will die in this Apocalypse, and the Muslim believers will go to heaven.

That’s dangerous, if they have nuclear weapons to realize this fantasy. And that is where the world is coming to. Now, people said that of Hitler in the 1930s. They said this man has a mad ideology, very fanatic, very dangerous, and if he gets his hands on a military power, he would use it. Hitler did use it, but Hitler developed atomic weapons, tried to develop them only after embarking on the world conflict.

Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is first trying to develop nuclear weapons and then going about his mad fantasy of global conflict. So he has to be stopped. I think when you have something as fanatic and as dangerous as this, the question now is not whether he should be stopped, but how’s he going to be stopped?

BECK: I was in the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C., and one of the more powerful rooms for me was the room where they have all of the newspapers up on the wall and all of the headlines. And to me, what stuck out was, Hitler was very clear, very clear. Basically, he was saying, “Take the Jews before I kill them.” And everybody was in denial.

Now, let me play devil’s advocate with you. We’ve heard nut jobs, especially in Iran, for a very long time. What makes you say we should take this nut job at his word? Why is this guy different than what we have seen with religious fanatics that are really only interested in power and not interested in the Apocalypse?

NETANYAHU: Well, I was getting this question in the 1990s, and I said that the West really doesn’t understand militant Islam. So I wrote a book in 1995, and I said that, if the West doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center.

Other nut ideologies don’t do that, but militant Muslims do, and they are competing. They have two strains: the Sunni type, led by Al Qaeda, who have done the World Trade Center; the Shia types, led by Iran, who want to top that by having nuclear weapons with which they can dominate the world, ultimately bring down America.

We’re merely the first target. They hate us because we’re you, and we’re the first station, in the Middle East. They hate Israel because it represents America. They don’t hate America because of Israel, because we’re part and parcel of that same free, to their minds, hated hedonistic civilization.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: So I think the real problem is: Do we let this fanatic regime, this messianic cult of the Apocalypse, get their hands on atomic weapons? I think it’s folly.

And I don’t think it’s just an Israeli question any more so than Hitler was just a Jewish question. Hitler started with the annihilation of the Jews, but pretty quickly moved on to threaten the entire world. And America woke up late, after 6 million Jews died.

But in our case, you know, we don’t have to wake up dead in order for people to realize that he threatens America. We want to both defend ourselves, defend the Jewish state, certainly, but also defend America and free civilization against people who would extinguish our freedoms and our lives.

BECK: I am amazed at the parallels of World War II, just it is incredible, all the way down — you hear people say all the time, “Well, it’s the Jews. It’s Israel. They’re causing the problem. They’ve done all these horrible things, yadda, yadda, yadda,” just as though Hitler used the Europeans and saying, “Well, it’s the Versailles treaty, and it’s this, and it’s that.” That was a mask to bring in the real point of Hitler.

NETANYAHU: Well, let me ask you a question, you know, because people really don’t get this. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and the cult that he represents, they couldn’t care less if we made a deal with the Palestinians or we didn’t. As far as they’re concerned, the only deal possible is the elimination of Israel. And even that would merely remove an obstacle on the way to Europe and on the way to the United States. Israel could disappear, and it wouldn’t make a difference.

BECK: So…

NETANYAHU: Because they’re out to get you; they’re not out to get us. We’re simply standing in their way. They’re not interested in Israel, per se. They’re interested in bringing down Western civilization, led by the United States. That’s why you’re the great Satan, and we’re just the little Satan.

BECK: Tell me what the world looks like if we don’t act.

NETANYAHU: If you don’t act, it means that it will be the first time in the history of the world that a totally unstable, globally mad regime will have atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

This means, a, that they will dominate the Middle East very quickly. They will make the Persian Gulf an Iranian pond. They will control the world’s oil supply. And they will probably use the weapons, first against my country, and then to intimidate or threaten Europe. They want to control the world.

Now, eventually, they’ll be brought down. How many millions will have to die for that? How many cities will be wiped out before the Western world and civilization realizes that this is not a local problem, that this is their problem, that it’s directed against them, directed against you?

BECK: OK. When we come back — we have to take a break — but when we come back, I want you to answer my father’s question. My father told me on the phone a couple of weeks ago, “You know what? We’re the United States of America. Nobody can defeat us. Stop. It’s not that big of a problem.”

And the second thing I want you to address is, how long do we have before we are right on the front lines?

Back with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with a full hour with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, about the situation we’ve been talking about all week. Before we broke, I told you that I was on the phone with my father, and he says, “You know, you’re talking about this scary stuff. Glenn, we’re the United States of America. Nobody can come in here and destroy us.” And I said, “Dad, if people don’t wake up, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

Please convince my father and others like him that that is a possibility.

NETANYAHU: What your father says is absolutely true in the case of deterrable powers. The Soviet Union had enough firepower to destroy the United States, but they realized that you would destroy them, so they were deterred. They were not suicidal.

But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That’s why you didn’t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city would not exist today?

BECK: Oh, it would be gone.

NETANYAHU: Where does your father live?

BECK: Seattle.

NETANYAHU: No, that’s far away, but they could get there, too, right? And Seattle could disappear, because they’re not deterrable. That’s the whole point.

If they were a normal power, a normal regime, without this crazy messianic cult of death, the idea that millions have to die in order for their particular Islamic messiah to come, millions have to die, and the sooner the better, in their view, because they have this cult, that’s what makes them so dangerous, if they acquire nuclear weapons to realize it. So your father is right if you were dealing with the Soviet Union…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … or with Russia, or with China, or with India. None of the powers that have nuclear powers today have this zealotry, this mad ideology, but Iran does. So if Iran acquires it, and they think that you are their worst nemesis, we’re just an underling, we’re just your subordinate, we happen to be a small Satan, a small appendage of America.

But their goal is to reverse a thousand years of history. The rise of the West, the rise of America. This was the mistake of history that has to be corrected through this Apocalypse. Don’t wait for them to realize this; don’t let this David Koresh in Tehran get his hands on atomic weapons so he can test out his theories on us or on you.

BECK: OK. I had a conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week. And when you’re on his program, you don’t usually disagree with him, because he’s a pretty bright man. And he said, “Glen, I think this is coming, and I think we’ve got — and the world is going to change within the next 15 years.” And I said, “I hate to disagree with you, but I think we may have three.” How long do we have before it is just too late to wake up?

NETANYAHU: There are different estimates, but they all hover between the two- to four-, five-year range, and we may be wrong. We were wrong about North Korea. And it turned out that they could get…

BECK: But North Korea, when you say North Korea, you know, North Korea, we said it’s unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. I think when you — you know, we saw those pictures of that mountain where they tested. I think, when we see the ground rise up in Iran, I think when you see that they’ve successfully tested a nuclear weapon, I don’t think they say, “Hey, well, I’m going to wait for the U.N. to tell us” — I think they make a call to us and say, “Get all of your stuff and get out of the Middle East,” and then game on.

NETANYAHU: Yes. And, well, they’ll go a lot further than that, I can tell you.

BECK: Well, yes.

NETANYAHU: How long will it take? The estimates could be wrong. I was referring to the fact that people thought that North Korea would take longer to produce a device, first device. And here, we think — we don’t know — the official statement give by the chief of Israeli intelligence — and I can say this because it was publicized — it was said in our foreign affairs and defense committee in our Knesset, our parliament, he said it will take them anywhere up to three years to cross all the nuclear technology threshold, and then it takes about a year or two to weaponize.

But this at most would give us five years. It could very well be next year. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is boasting that he’s on the express train.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: Yesterday, the international atomic agency commission two days ago found enriched plutonium traces in Iran, which means that they’re moving ahead towards making that weapon. Again, that weapon is aimed at my country. I want to be, as you say, complete open…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … divulgence. How do you call it?

BECK: You want to be cards face-up on the table.

NETANYAHU: Absolutely, yes. I’m worried about the survival of my country, but so is Czechoslovakia.

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: It was engulfed, and the Jewish people were engulfed by Hitler. So what? That was on the path towards engulfing the world. And when you have this religious fanatic cult, you do not let it, hating the United States, wanting to bring down the United States, and anything associated with it, like Israel, you do not let these fanatics get their hands on atomic bombs.

BECK: People…

NETANYAHU: And tell your father that they’re not deterrable. That’s the main problem: They’re not deterrable.

BECK: People have said that I was nuts when I said, before we went into Iraq, it is about Iraq. This is about Iran, right, wrong, and why?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re right. I think in the larger – there’s a pecking order here. I think Afghanistan was the first one. It dispatched Al Qaeda. You got the right to do. By getting Iraq, you got Libya. Libya dismantled its nuclear program.

But Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were essentially neighborhood bullies, very dangerous, very, you know, poisonous, but you could either bring down their dictatorship or force them to become reborn, OK, as Gaddafi was trying to be. They are not suicidal.

If you got Iran, you would have folded the entire chain down and you would have eliminated the most virulent and the most dangerous of the lot. This is a regime that seeks to influence a billion people worldwide, a billion Muslims. Now, granted, they’re not going to influence a billion Muslims, but suppose they influence 10 percent. That’s 130 million or over 100 million people.

And it’s not merely the ability to incite radicals in every Western capital, or in anywhere from San Francisco to Bali, Indonesia, and Bali and even north, south, anywhere. It is that they will have the nuclear weapons to back up terror. They’ll have terror with a nuclear umbrella, so the terror that we’ve seen will be on a scale we haven’t seen. And the greatest terror of all is that they may actually use atomic bombs against our cities and our countries.

BECK: OK. More with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a minute. And we get to Iraq and also why so many Jewish people here in America vote for the Democrats.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome back to the program. We’re spending a whole hour with ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel. Are you going to run again?

NETANYAHU: Yes.

BECK: Good. Let’s talk a little bit about Iran — I’m sorry, about Iraq. First, honest question: Are you afraid of us? Are you afraid that we’re going soft?

NETANYAHU: Maybe in the short term the United States could have some setbacks. In the long term, the free peoples always win, you know? But the question is: At what cost?

BECK: That really wasn’t the question. I’ll let you escape.

NETANYAHU: Well, come on…

BECK: I’ll try one more time. Are you afraid we’re…

NETANYAHU: I got out of that one.

BECK: We are now proposing a phased redeployment, which, if you would translate, would be cut and run. What happens if we get out of there?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re going to find it a lot more difficult than you think, because what happens when you run, when you cut and run, from terror, terror has this unfortunate quality of chasing you. This is, however, an American decision you make.

BECK: Yes, but a lot of people believe that if we just — you know, they haven’t stood up. I don’t think most people understand the fear that people live under of these kooks that are, you know, beheading people. But they’re saying, “If the Iraqis want it so bad, they should step up for it and we will leave them, because most people think that, well, it’s their responsibility.”

NETANYAHU: Look; I won’t get into a debate on Iran — Iraq, rather, because in a way I think it sidelines the main argument. What you decide to do — it’s an American decision…

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: … whether you leave in phases, you leave with a timetable, you leave with no timetable, you stay in Iraq, OK, either way, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons next door, you lose Iraq. Not only do you lose Iraq, you lose the entire Middle East, and you lose control of the world oil supply, and your cities come under a nuclear threat of a crazy, fanatic regime.

So the question is: Why is the American debate exclusively focused on Iraq when you should look next door? And the last thing you should do — whatever you decide on Iraq, I would give one piece of advice: Do not mortgage that solution to the Iranians. Do not get into a situation where you are giving the Iranians any kind of license to develop their nuclear program in exchange for anything that they do with you in Iraq, do or not do.

You should stop the Iranian nuclear program because it is a great threat to the security of the world and the security of the United States.

BECK: Let me give you my biggest fear. My biggest fear is — we only have one minute? Let me state it, and then I want to come back, because I want to hear your full answer on this.

My biggest fear is that you’re being set up, that Israel is going to – - we’re not going to do anything about it. The rest of the world is already starting to talk, “Hey, let’s talk peace with Iran. Let’s bring Iran and Syria in as partners for peace,” which is absolutely insane. You will be sitting in a position saying, “OK, well, we can’t deal with it”. You’ll go in and do something about it, and then the whole world will turn and say, “It’s Israel. We were close to peace.”

NETANYAHU: Yes, well, that’s what they said about Czechoslovakia when they sacrificed it for Hitler and they thought they’d have peace in their time, and the Munich Accords. And it turned out to have been merely feeding the wolf and wetting its appetite.

But I’ll tell you one thing: Somebody has to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

BECK: OK, I want to get to that. We have to take a quick break. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, talking a little fear-mongering here with Glenn Beck. What a surprise.

We ended with my belief that you’re being set up to make your — because you’re going to — well, let me ask you. Are you going to make a move, if nobody else does, on Iran? Do you feel that you would have to make a move if nobody else does to stop them?

NETANYAHU: If that’s the only option. It has to be stopped. And if it means saving the life of the Jewish state and another 6 million Jews who live in Israel, then the answer is yes, because we reserve the right to live.

The Jewish people are not going to be set up again for a second Holocaust by a man who denies the first Holocaust as he prepares our mass annihilation. What would you do? Suppose somebody said, “We’re going to bomb America. We’re going to destroy America.” And you sit back and you say, “Oh, he doesn’t mean it.” And he prepares, and he does mean it. Are you going to sit back and let him do it?

BECK: I got to tell you, I’ve said this many times before — no offense, Canada, because I know we’ve got a lot of Canadian listeners, but you’d be toast. I mean, if we had somebody sitting on our border saying the same thing, that people on your border are saying, oh, we’d roll over him or her with a steamroller.

But what does that mean? I mean, let’s say you go in. They’re so far underground. Do you, a, have the capability of doing this? And, b, if you did, what does that do to the Middle East and the whole world?

NETANYAHU: I think that it’s not particularly useful to discuss these kinds of questions. I would say that there’s a time factor. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes, the more firepower you need.

The earlier you do it — and you may even — the earlier you do it, you can actually avoid the need for military action. If you had, for example, a concerted international effort, you could probably get Iran to back off. But the longer you wait, the more you have to get into the harder options and the harder the options become.

And I think that that is unfortunate. But you asked me, what will the world look like if action were taken against Iran by us or by you? Would they retaliate? Yes, of course. But they wouldn’t have nuclear weapons to retaliate with. You do not want them to have these atomic bombs.

BECK: I get that. I get that. I’m with you. However, you know, when you say — if you go in and take it…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: … and people will rise up — you know, I was talking to James Baker, and I said, you know, how much trouble is Europe in? We think of these — oh, well, we’ll just be able to, you know, rely on our European allies. My gosh. If the Muslim extremists that are in the center of those cities all throughout Europe ever decide to rise up and connect, the armies of Europe are going to be busy in Europe doing guerrilla warfare street to street.

NETANYAHU: But, you know, it’s an interesting question. There are Muslim communities interspersed now throughout the world and throughout Europe, as well. Many of them, most of them are peaceable people.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: OK? But there’s an extremist core. The extremists core gets more extreme as the two virulent strains of militant Islam get more and more powerful. When they knock out the World Trade Center, they get new adherents. When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they get more adherents.

So the Muslim communities around the world are looking at it. They’re sitting in the bleacher, and they’re looking at this, and they’re saying, “Who’s winning, the West, the forces of civilization as we understand it, or the militants?” If the militants appear to be succeeding, then the ability to recruit more radicals in Europe and elsewhere, in the United States, grows. So it’s important…

BECK: Well, that’s because they have an understanding that the reason why they are still living the way they are with sticks and stones is because they haven’t been militant enough in their own religion, that they haven’t submitted enough to Shiva law, et cetera, et cetera.

NETANYAHU: Not true. I think it`s actually the other way around. I think that, if they see them winning, then they say, “Ah, Allah is with us. That means that the direction of extremism has a future.”

What you want to do is actually create despair in the militants. You want to create despair that nothing will succeed; you will never defeat the West. Even if we have setbacks, the free societies, this pro-realistic, free societies that we have, we’ll defeat you. Your way of this pre- medieval, crazy creed that you have, it’s not going to govern the world. There’s no chance that it will govern the world, because the free societies are much tougher than you think.

When they think that, they can’t recruit. When they think the opposite, they do recruit. It’s very important that they understand they’re going to lose and early.

BECK: OK. Now, we’ve talked about millions of people possibly dying in World War III, and nuclear holocaust, and another Holocaust for the Jews, but now let me get to the tough question.

NETANYAHU: That was the easy part?

(LAUGHTER)

BECK: That was the easy part. Here’s the tough question. I am so frustrated — and I said you were going to be on. I got so much e-mail from people asking me the same question that we can’t figure out.

Why is it that it seems as though conservatives are the ones that are the most strong on the protection of Israel, we are the most — that we’re the strongest in defense, and yet so many Jews here in America are so on- fire liberal and they side with the people, the politicians who are ready to just give away the candy store?

I don’t understand it, and so many Americans don’t. What is it that they can’t see who’s willing to stand up and think it’s important to defend Israel?

NETANYAHU: There is a difference of opinion, obviously, on what is the right sort of defense. And I’m not going to get into that. I mean, Jewish-Americans…

BECK: I told you it was going to be the hard question.

NETANYAHU: … Jewish-Americans are loyal Americans. They just have a different…

BECK: No, no, no, no, I’m not saying…

(CROSSTALK)

NETANYAHU: They have differences among them. You know, some of the most staunchest conservatives in the United States are Jewish, and some of the most staunchest liberals are Jewish, so there are different views. I have enough in my politics in Israel not to get into…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Sure, not to get into ours.

NETANYAHU: … American politics. And I have enough Jewish politics in Israel, by the way, more than you can imagine.

BECK: Then let me go here on politics where I think you’re a little freer to talk, the United Nations. Holy cow, I don’t understand the United Nations. I don’t understand — I don’t even understand — when I went to Israel for the first time, it was after 9/11, and I really wanted to understand.

And I went to Israel, and I went up to the Israeli-Lebanon border. And I was standing there, and I saw a billboard with beheaded Israeli soldiers and underneath, in Hebrew, it said something along the lines of, “Sharon, your dogs die here.” And it was one of the most shocking — I’m an American — one of the most shocking things I had ever seen. And it was sitting next to a little, like, pillbox area, and it had two flags. It had the Lebanese flag…

NETANYAHU: And the U.N. flag.

BECK: … and the U.N. flag.

NETANYAHU: Right.

BECK: What does that say to you?

NETANYAHU: It says to me that the U.N. is a pretty good separation between consenting adults. If you have two governments who want to make peace between them and they put an U.N. tripwire basically symbolizing their agreement to make peace, then the U.N. works.

Anywhere where you have real combat, anywhere where you have real enemies, anywhere where you have a crazy outfit like Hezbollah, which is really a proxy for Iran that we’re talking about, then the U.N. is fairly useless. It doesn’t really get the job done, and that billboard was a perfect example.

BECK: I don’t mean to be crass here, but they were meat shields for Hezbollah over the summer. They were…

NETANYAHU: Well, you know that we had this whole war in the summer. And Lebanon was ignited by the kidnapping of a few of our soldiers.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: The previous…

BECK: Which seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

NETANYAHU: Well, the previous kidnapping took place — there was a previous kidnapping of three of our soldiers by Hezbollah, and the U.N. was there. You know what the U.N. did? They photographed it.

So what are they going to do, bring bigger cameras to photograph it, and to have bigger billboards? I mean, this is not — I think the U.N. is of limited value. It started out as a wonderful idea, but the U.N. is a reflection of its components. And if there’s not enough political will to actively face down the extremists, the radicals, the murderers, the killers in the world, then the U.N. can’t really do the job. It`s left to the free societies to do it, unfortunately.

BECK: Then let me go here. We’re going to have to take a break, but when we come back I want the ask you about political will. There were a lot of us rooting for Israel over the summer and saw the way the war was fought and the saw the concessions made and were horrified. Your answer to that here in just a second.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sir, I watched the fight this summer with great interest, and it didn’t take me very long to figure out — I watched the events unfold. And within just a couple of days — and, again, I’m a rodeo clown — but it took me a couple of days to go, “Wait a minute. This is all about misdirection. This is all about Iran.”

And for you to lose that war was pretty significant. And I don’t know if you perceive it as a loss, but it certainly was a shift of perception by the rest of the world. You seemed to be the “drive them all the way back to Saudi Arabia” kind of act. Did you perceive that as less than stellar?

NETANYAHU: It certainly wasn’t a victory. I think basically the war was not won because we lacked a strategy, and the strategy’s a very simple one. We faced about 5,000 Ebola, which are really Iranian forward infantry with missiles, when you — in a war, in order to win, you take overwhelming force, with the firepower and mobility. You move very quickly at the enemy’s weakest point. That’s basically how you win wars.

And in our case, we went with almost the same number of troops against right into their gun sites. Not smart. We should have come from the behind, if you will, with 10 times the force.

BECK: So you would say that it was a lack of strategy. It wasn’t your catching our politically correct disease? You’re not fighting a war for media or anything like that?

NETANYAHU: I think the decisions, the strategic decisions were flawed. No, the people fought, even under bad strategy, the Israeli soldiers fought very, very well.

BECK: No, no, I don’t mean — yes, yes, yes. I don’t mean that. I mean…

NETANYAHU: … and ultimately defeated any Hezbollah that were there. But in order to crush an enemy, you have to find his weak point and apply maximum force, and that wasn’t done. And there’s a whole range of commissions now examining in Israel why it wasn’t done. But I think it was basically a problem of strategy and leadership.

BECK: Can either of us win against a foe that understands how to use media, how to manipulate it…

NETANYAHU: Yes, we can win. Of course we can win. We could have won that war. And the next time they do it, you know, if I have anything to do with it, I can guarantee you that the results will be different.

And I think the people in Israel have that power. The soldiers have that power. They have that fighting spirit and ability. But even the best of soldiers need to have the right guidance, the right direction.

And so I wouldn`t give up on the free societies, but we always learn. In history, we see that the free societies, they always get it at the end. But the question is: Do they need what Churchill called a jarring gong of self-preservation? You sort of have to be woken up from your stupor, from your sleep to realize that you’ve got a new Hitler around the block and you have to take action. Do you let him first demolish a few countries and a few millions of peoples?

I hope not. I hope that we have the ability to learn something from history. And certainly, I think that we’re facing a juncture of history unlike any other, where primitive religious creeds are trying to acquire the weapons of mass death. That has never happened before, because nuclear weapons have been around only for half a century. And now the most primitive creed on Earth is trying to get the most advanced weapons on Earth.

And we’d better wake up. We’d better hear the jarring gong of self- preservation and act to preserve our lives, our cities, our children, and our civilization in time.

BECK: What is a sign that people can recognize here? What is it that you — the first sign that you said, back in Israel in the day and you went, “Oh, boy, that’s not good.” What is the sign that may be just beginning to hit over here, that people can recognize over here, and say, “Oh, wait a minute. I have noticed that.” Do you remember the first signs you saw over Israel?

NETANYAHU: I think the most important thing to understand is that — you know the best sign of how dangerous things are? That the president of Iran is not even trying to fake it.

You know, normally, if he wasn’t as fanatic as he is, he’d say, “Well, you know, yes, I think we could recognize Israel if it made the right concessions to the Palestinians.” He’d play along; he’d play the game. He’d say, “We’re not really developing nuclear weapons. We just want nuclear energy for peace.” You know, he’d say all that.

But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying — and listen to him carefully. He’s saying, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the map. The Holocaust didn’t happen. America’s the great Satan. Iran will have the power to reshape history.”

Now, a normal person would not say that. An insane person says that. In the 1930s, an insane person wrote in a book called, “Mein Kampf,” “My Struggle,” and that was Adolf Hitler. He said exactly what he would do. He was stark-raving mad, but he communicated.

You asked for a sign? That was a sign, 300 pages of signs, OK? Ahmadinejad every day is writing a page. He’s saying what he’s going to do. That’s the best sign. That tells you that there’s a fanaticism at work here which is not even calculating. He’s just going to do it. And let’s not enable him to do it. Let’s stop him.

BECK: It is interesting to me that “Mein Kampf” is “My Struggle.” Jihad is “my struggle.” Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last break, you said that Islam is the most primitive religion.

NETANYAHU: I didn’t say that.

BECK: You didn’t say that?

NETANYAHU: No. I said that militant Islam is a primitive religion.

BECK: How much of…

NETANYAHU: Most Muslims are not part of this crazy creed.

BECK: OK.

NETANYAHU: You know, just like you have crazy creeds and crazy cults in Christianity or in Judaism, you have people who are crazy. The difference here is that here you have a crazy cult that is a small percentage, but these are very large numbers when you talk about a billion people. And it’s very violent, very violent, and it may get its hands on nuclear weapons. That’s the reason we’re discussing it.

BECK: All right, only time for one e-mail here. This is from Michelle in Ohio. She says, “I am just an average, middle-class mom and wife in America. What can I do to fight this extremist terrorism? I try to stay informed by listening to Glenn’s show and reading, but I feel helpless.”

So many Americans feel this way. They don’t know what to do.

NETANYAHU: Well, they shouldn’t feel helpless, because the difference between this, what’s happening now and the 1930s, is that, at the time, America was an isolationist power and didn’t operate on the world stage. So as we were facing the tremendous fanaticism and destructive power of Hitler, there was no one to face up to him. France and Britain at the time did not have the kind of leadership or the kind of power to stop him.

The fortunate thing is that, in the first half of the 20th century, the dominant power in the world is the United States. And citizens like the one that wrote in do have power. You have representatives. You have a voice. You have Internet and you have congressmen and senators. Make your views known.

If citizens in a free society rise up, in a society like America rise up, and they say, “We want to act in time while action can be effective, while the danger can be stopped, before it gets out of hand,” then America will act. And in that sense, I have the confidence that we live in a different age because we’ve already witnessed the horrors of the previous century and we know that we have to stop it. And that’s why it fills me with hope that action is possible.

BECK: We are up against the clock here. I’ve only got 15 seconds, but I want to thank you, sir. And thank you for joining us for this hour. And thank you for your service to, not only your country, but, I believe, the rest of the world, as well.

NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.

BECK: Thank you.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

END

Source

Sounds like the Ranting of  “Pure Hate”.

Now if this were said of Israel I bet the Zionists would be going mad. They would be screaming from the roof tops. They would be ranting and raving and screaming in the streets.  They would freak.

They would be horrified, but since it was Benjamin Netanyahu it’s OK.

Well it isn’t OK.

Israel has over 200 Nuclear Bombs.

Iran has zero Nuclear Bombs.

Israel has committed war crimes galore.

Netanyahu is saying Iran is Germany in the time of Hitler.

Funny it doesn’t seem like Iran has been attempting to take over anything.

Israel on the other hand has been attempting to take over countries all around them for years.

But whatever turns his crank.

This is Israels New Leader.

Would you want him as your leader?

I certainly wouldn’t want him as my next door neighbor.

An Israeli Scholar has already bragged,

“We Could Destroy All European Capitals” he also said all Palestinians should be deported etc etc.  Deported from their own land???? What is said is pure hate.

The US and Sanctions
The United States has imposed sanctions on Iran for the past three decades since the two countries severed ties in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the US-backed Shah.

Well how dare anyone topple a US backed leader.

Well the US like’s Dictators and and very oppressive regimes.

The IAEA has so far made 25 unannounced inspections of the Iran’s nuclear facilities and has published more than 20 reports — all of which confirm that there has been no diversion of the civilian nuclear program for military needs.

IAEA has not inspected Israels however in spite of UN Resolutions. Even J F Kennedy wanted inspections.

Putin Aide’s Stance
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin underscored Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy.
Talking to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday, Vladimir Yakunin said “Iran has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Nuclear Hydro and Medical Isotopes are peaceful purposes and many countries do the exact same thing.

Iran has also signed the Non Proliferation Treaty and “Israel has not”.

Personally I would feel safer having Iran next door to me then Israel.

I know for a fact,  “Israel would find a way to bomb the crap out of my country”. They have proven that repeatedly over the years.

Iran doesn’t need oil or gas they have their own. They have no need to control anyone else, but the US and Israel do. That is obvious in recent years.  No one can argue that. Both countries are war mongers.  All you have to do is listen to their news casters.

They spew out more hate and propaganda, then Iran could ever dream of spewing.  The interview with Beck says it all.

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers/Legally Israel owns the US Billions

9/11-Twenty Minutes with the President, Video Contest/Win up to $14,000

Last month, Charlie Sheen announced on Alex Jones nationally syndicated radio show that he will sponsor a video contest in order to get the message out about the necessity for a new, independent, and impartial re-investigation of the events of September 11, 2001.

”20 Minutes with the President”

Video Contest.

The winner who has delivered, on time, the best interpretation and execution of this contest will be picked by Charlie Sheen.  2nd and 3rd Place will be determined by Alex Jones.

Prizes: 1st Prize  = $14,000

2nd Prize = $1000

3rd Prize  = $500

Deadline November 15 2009 8PM

For Rules and script

Also very important

Statement of Support

We, the undersigned Families, First Responders and Survivors of September 11 raise our voice with those from across our country and around the world in support of NYC CAN and the establishment of an independent, impartial subpoena powered investigation into the events surrounding the September 11 attacks on our nation.

We believe a new investigation is our only path forward to the answers and accountability every American deserves and our only path back to the moral high ground upon which our great nation was built.

We unite with NYC CAN and the citizens of the City of New York in support of an unbiased nonpolitical rendering of evidence and fact wherever they may lead and ask every American and every concerned citizen of the world, in defense of our nation and in defense of freedom, to join with us today.

Go to  NYCCAN to sign in support of a new Independent Investigation.

Over 800 First Responders have died.

They were lied to.

They were told the air around the fallen towers was safe to breath, when in fact it was not.  Please help them get their new investigation.

The families of those who died and tose who are ill desrve the truth.

The rest of the world also deserves the truth.

Those who died on 9/11 , their families also deserve the truth.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Fire Fighters For 9/11 Truth

Pilots For 911Truth

Political Leaders for 911 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

The Olson Calls on 9/11: Three Official Denials- Might we say he lied.

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

A couple of Quotes

Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret)

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code.  There’s a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked.  It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over.  And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. …

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Eye Witness

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying.  I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft.  I could not have done what these beginners did.  Something stinks to high heaven! Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings?  Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident?  Where is all the luggage?  Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft?  Where are the steel engine parts?  Where is the steel landing gear?  Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

Most of the stories on the site below are not ones you will hear on the main stream media.

Stories about and by First Responders and there are many.

IT WASN’T MUSLIMS

Is Osama bin Laden still alive, Seems the answer is no

Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death?/ A few Israeli Connections to 9/11

Chicago: Protesters tell Ehud Olmert what they think

By Maureen Clare Murphy

October 16, 2009

Approximately 30 activists — mainly students from area universities — disrupted a lecture given in Chicago by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday which was hosted by the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. While Olmert’s speech was disrupted inside the lecture hall, approximately 150 activists protested outside the hall in the freezing rain.

Protesters inside the hall read off the names of Palestinian children killed during Israel’s assault on Gaza last winter. They shouted that it was unacceptable that the war crimes suspect be invited to speak at a Chicago university when his army destroyed a university in Gaza in January. They reminded the audience of the more than 1,400 Palestinians killed during the Gaza attacks and the more than 1,200 killed during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Both invasions happened during Olmert’s premiership.

With interventions coming every few minutes throughout his appearance, Olmert had difficulty giving his speech and often appeared frustrated. At one point he appealed for “just five minutes” to speak without being interrupted.

The demonstration was mobilized last week after organizers learned of the lecture, paid for by a grant provided by Jordan’s King Abdullah II. Within hours an appeal was issued, urging those concerned with Palestinian rights to call the university and demand that the lecture be canceled. The call was put out by major community organizations such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)-Chicago, American Muslims for Palestine and the United States Palestine Community Network, as well as solidarity organizations al-Awda, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the International Solidarity Movement, the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago and area campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine chapters at DePaul University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, as well as the Arab Student Union at Moraine Valley.

The security presence at the lecture was severe with university police, the US Secret Service and Israeli security present — many of them visibly armed — with Israeli security checking in those who had registered in advance to attend the lecture. Video and photography was banned inside the hall and media were not allowed to cover the lecture. Despite these restrictions, activists managed to take video inside the hall and drop an eight-foot-long banner from the mezzanine that read “Goldstone” in both English and Hebrew, referring to the recently published UN report investigating violations of international law during the Gaza invasion. One activist was arrested and put in a headlock by a police officer, witnesses said, and released around midnight. Approximately 30 supporters waited for him at the police station while he was detained.

Towards the end of the lecture, Olmert put his hand over his brow and squinted to search out the source of the shout, “There’s no discussion with a war criminal — the only discussion you should be having is in court!” That call was made by Ream Qato, who graduated from the university in 2007, and added, “You belong in the Hague!” Qato told The Electronic Intifada that yesterday’s protest “Set the stage for University of Chicago students and students in the Chicago area … no one should be afraid of speaking out against someone.” She added that the demonstration was significant because “The Palestinian community [in Chicago] for the first time went to a university campus to protest.”

Second-year medical student Afshan Mohiuddin was removed from the hall after she voiced her disapproval at the Harris School dean’s on-stage assertion that Olmert was invited to express his views. “He can do that at the International Court of Justice, not at this university,” Mohiuddin shouted, adding, “[Olmert] belongs in a cage, not on a stage!”

Mohiuddin told The Electronic Intifada that “it was ironic that they searched us [instead of him],” considering that Olmert is suspected of war crimes. She added, “As a University of Chicago student I was upset with the lack of commotion on behalf of the student body before the event … No one has protested the event.”

Mohiuddin’s frustration was echoed in a commentary published by the University of Chicago’s student publication The Chicago Maroon earlier this week, in which third-year student Nadia Marie Ismail decried the lack of protest by the university community towards the Olmert speech. She contrasted this silence with the pressure the Center for Middle Eastern Studies faced after a lecture earlier this year by The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah (who was the first to disrupt Olmert’s speech yesterday), University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Norman Finkelstein, whose lost bid for tenure at DePaul University is attributed to outside pressure by Israel government apologists. “[T]hat University center was put under unprecedented pressure for weeks before and months after the event, with claims that University centers and schools should not host ‘one-sided’ speakers,” Ismail wrote.

Olmert’s lecture in Chicago was one of several scheduled throughout the United States. His speech at the University of Kentucky the previous day was disrupted by activists and met with a protest outside. These demonstrations are part of a wave of notched-up dissent towards Israeli officials implicated in war crimes and racist policy. In 2003, former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky was greeted with a pie in the face by an activist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Last year at the UK’s Oxford University, a speech by Israeli President Shimon Peres was drowned out by protesters outside while students inside the hall disrupted his talk.

One of the organizers of the protest, Hatem Abudayyeh, National Coordinating Committee member of the United States Palestine Community Network, hoped for a larger count of protesters despite the adverse weather. However, he said, “The fact that there’s people around the world who know about it, the fact that PACBI [the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel] sent us a letter of support and endorsement of our action, the fact that there was coordination with the outside protest and the inside disruption — all of these components and aspects of the action made it one of the more successful ones that we’ve done.”

He added, “There is real change happening, whether it’s the international response to the Lebanon war or the international response to the Gaza war. The US is the most powerful country in the world, Israel is a powerful military as well, but the Palestinians have the world on their side.”

Source

From Chicago Tribune

“This is a one-sided conversation,” said Aya Odeh, 19, a Loyola University Chicago student. “I don’t mind listening to what he has to say, but if all he has to say is that we’re wicked people, I refuse to listen to that. “

——————————————————————–

Imagine letting a “war criminal”  give a speech at a University no less.

How dare anyone think this was OK. Welcome him with open arms America?  Are they out of their minds?

Would they let Hitler give a speech?

Some in the US thought it was  a nightmare for children to sing  a song about Obama,  in school, which was really no big deal.  He is after all their President.

But it is fine to let a “war criminal”  give a speech and influence children.

I would not want this man speaking to my children or anyone children for that matter.  I would not even want them in the same room with him.

I don’t think children of any age,  should be exposed to this type of criminal.

So now the US schools are promoting war criminals?

Unbelievable??? But true!

On every level imaginable this is just wrong!

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

TEL AVIV | You could call him Israel’s Patrick Fitzgerald.

October 11, 2009

Like the crusading U.S. federal prosecutor in Chicago, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has built a reputation bringing down politicians.

Although he began his five-year term with a controversial decision to abandon corruption allegations against then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mr. Mazuz has more than compensated by issuing the first corruption indictment against a former prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

Defiant UN backs Israel war crimes report
By Gavin Cordon,

October 16 2009

Britain and France today failed in an attempt to delay a crunch Middle East vote at the UN, amid warnings by Israel that it could derail the peace process.

The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva voted by 25 to six to refer a controversial report accusing Israel of war crimes during the Gaza offensive in January to the Security Council.
Eleven countries formally abstained, however Britain and France did not even take part, having unsuccessfully argued for more time to reach an agreed resolution.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We did not participate in the vote. We were involved in discussions with Israel and the Palestinians about potentially substantive improvements in the situation on the ground and have therefore asked for a delay to the vote.”

Earlier, Gordon Brown held fresh discussions with Israeli counterpart Binyamin Netanyahu after the two men had reportedly clashed over the report by Judge Richard Goldstone earlier in the week.

Mr Netanyahu was said to have been furious after Britain and other European countries warned they would abstain in today’s vote.

In what were reported to be “robust exchanges” over the telephone, Mr Brown was said to have told the Israeli leader that his country needed to hold an independent inquiry into the Gaza offensive if it was to escape censure.

Downing Street would not comment on the earlier conversation, which took place on Wednesday, but the Prime Minister’s spokesman said they had spoken again this morning ahead of the Geneva vote.

“I think the fact that there have been discussions this morning is the important point,” the spokesman said.

“The Prime Minister’s priority throughout these negotiations has been to move the peace process forward.”

As well as urging the Israelis to establish an independent inquiry into the loss of civilian life in Gaza, Britain has been pressing for a reopening of the Gaza crossing and a freeze on settlement building.

Source

How they voted:

In favour (25): Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia.

Against (6): US, Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine.

Absentions (11): Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay.

Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola did not vote.

Well I am sure Israel with either not comply as par usual or they will fabricate a report.

Odds are they will just refuse to comply like everything else.

They don’t even comply with UN Resolutions, just this week they were in violation of Resolution 1701.  They have yet to let weapons inspectors into Israel as well.

Lebanon: Monday night Explosion/ Israel in violation of Resolution 1701

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

Israel warns soldiers of prosecution abroad for Gaza ‘war crimes’/Israels Latin America “Trail of Terror” From January 2009

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives sorted by month/year

Trafigura attempts to silence Norwegian Media/Trafigura charged in Norway

The Minton report:

Minton-rapporten

In the report an expert analyses the Probo Koala waste on behalf of Trafigura. The oil-trader has chosen not to disclose the content of the report to the public. The content of the report shows that the waste contained hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and a wide variety of toxic substances.

The expert writes that the waste in worst case can cause deaths. The analysis is done in September 2006, only a month after the Probo Koala delivered waste in the Ivory Coast, and a month before Trafigura sent the Probo Emu to Norway with identical waste.

Possible gas-chamber

Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, Jon Songstad is shocked by the Minton-report. –If this had exploded without burning, the whole village of Sløvåg could have turned into a gas-chamber.

After the tank-explosion in Western Norway in May 2007, people in the village became ill. They vomited, had severe headaches and chemically red sore throats.

Based on information from the Minton-report, Songstad is convinced that the fire in the tank saved the population. H2S burned in the fire, and prevented deadly concentrations of toxic fumes leaking out.

Sworn to silence

The British newspaper, The Guardian, has also obtained a copy of the Minton-report, but according to a High Court ruling have until today not been allowed to mention it, report on it or in any way disclose that they have the document.

Read the Court ruling here:

Kjennelse The Guardian

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation received the High Court ruling and information about The Guardians situation directly from Trafigura’s Norwegian lawyers. The information and the ruling was sent to us in an attempt to stop us from publishing this report on our web pages.

Communication with Trafigura

Trafigura has not been willing to comment on the content of the report. But on September 15th they sent us this e-mail:

« As mentioned in our e-mail of yesterday, Trafigura finds it improper to answer questions to the media as long as the criminal charges in Norway are still under investigation by Økokrim. However, certain of the additional questions and statements in your e-mail of this morning are biased and can not be left unchallenged. Trafigura is in process of producing a written statement as a response to the questions raised by NRK. We will forward this statement to you during the course of business tomorrow, and kindly ask that you refrain from publishing anything before having had the opportunity to carefully examine the response from Trafigura.
Your questions of today do also reveal the fact that you are in possession of a draft, preliminary expert opinion produced by Minton Treharne & Davies Ltd, and that you appear to be ready to disclose information from this report. Trafigura looks very serious upon this, as disclosing any information from this report would be a clear breach of confidentiality and privilege. The report is clearly privileged and confidential and was obtained unlawfully by whoever is responsible for it coming into your possession.

Please be aware that on Friday of last week, our clients sought and obtained an injunction in relation to this document and information contained in it against the Guardian newspaper and Persons Unknown, pending a further hearing. For your attention we have attached hereto a copy of the Court Order.

In the circumstances, we kindly ask you to confirm that NRK will not disclose or make reference to this expert report or its contents. We might add (although it is not directly relevant to your obligation not to publish a document which has been obtained unlawfully) that the document was, as we say, draft and it is clear from its text that it was produced generically without reference to the underlying evidence. We can also assure you that its generic conclusions have long since been wholly superseded by the analyses of the Probo Koala slops by independent experts.»

• Read more: Coker gasoline – low quality
• Read more: A small pawn in the game

Trafigura charged in Norway

Oil-trader Trafigura is under police investigation in Norway, accused of illegal import of waste. The waste was brought to Norway on the Probo Emu in 2006, and is identical to the waste that Trafigura shipped to the Ivory Coast on the Probo Koala.

The Norwegian police have been investigating Trafigura for more than a year and a half, but so far nobody in the company has been willing to give statement or answer questions from the Norwegian police.

– We are surprised, and have the impression that Trafigura is not interested in assisting in the investigation, says Hans Tore Høviskeland, head of prosecution in Økokrim.

Source

Well I am glad Norway isn’t letting Trafigura dictate, what can or cannot be reported.

Petition/E-mail the UK Government in Protest of Gag orders on the Press

UK: Press Banned from Reporting on Parliament/Trafigura

Pollution Reports including Top 100 Corporate Air Polluters 2008 in US and around the world

Lebanon: Monday night Explosion/ Israel in violation of Resolution 1701

October 16 2009

There are various versions as to what happened, but is seems the investigation of the explosion is not finished as of yet.
So much of everything being reported is just  guessing,  for the moment.

What really happened is not really known.

Apparently there was an explosion at the home of  of a Hezbollah figure named as Abdel Nasser Issa, in the village of Tayr Filsi.

The cause of the explosion could be anything.  The investigation as of today is still not finished.

Israel said they had a drone flying over the area which is a violation of Resolution 1701.

They just happened to have a drone flying over at the time of the explosion or shortly there after.

What a coincidence. Could this be a set up so Lebanon doesn’t get the seat.

It just happens that apparently Lebanon to get a  Security Council seat. Could this be a ploy so Lebanon doesn’t get the seat? What wonderful timing.

Would Israel be happy about that? No of course not.

Italian Peace keepers are in the area keeping a watchful eye on the area.

These photo’s do not tell me anything. They say much,  of nothing in fact.

It certainly isn’t evidence of anything.

Their caption below the picture

Footage from an Israeli drone shows a group of men carrying objects, purportedly weapons, to two trucks which are then driven to a village about 2.5 miles away. The irregular-shaped, flat-roofed building seen on the right of the frame is the house where the explosion occurred. (Image: IDF spokesman’s office)

I got the Photo from this report.

It is obvious to me one can’t see much of anything,  so this photo proves absolutely nothing. To say they are carrying weapons is absurd.

To say they are carrying rockets again is absurd.

To say they are carrying anything in particular, using these photos would be again absurd.

You can not see with any clarity, that they are carrying anything.

I even enlarged it, way big and still saw nothing in particular, well except it looked a bit photo shopped, but could not see anything really.

So if this is the type of proof Israel is using against Lebanon,  it is absolutely  ridiculous. This proves nothing. It doesn’t even prove there was in fact an explosion.

I don’t see any evidence in the photo there had been an  explosion or the after math of one.

Here is the Israeli Video, it’s not so clear either? Could be a corps or two for all we know.  I certainly wouldn’t say it was a rocket. Maybe it is but maybe it is just shutters.

For sure we know Israel broke the law. Violated the Air space and Resolution 1701. They have incriminated themselves.

I see no evidence of an explosion even.

OK I just looked at the video for the tenth time, I didn’t see anyone covering anything on the truck. They were on the truck. Could be an injured person they were taking care of,  or anything.

The last part of the Video is even a bit off it is much different in quality then the first part.  There is also on the top and left side Gray parts like why. And a thick black line, why? How odd. Taken by the same camera I presume. There is also a target thingy in the center on the last part which is missing from the first part of the Video. The coloring is also much different.

Even the video makes no sense. I smell a rat.

Something is definitely  not right.

I watched it 10 times and still haven’t got a clue what is on the trucks.

Could even be a rolled up carpet. It does seem that whatever they are carrying is rather light as well.

For all we know the entire video was a fabrication. Israel is a master of fake passports, why not photos and videos?

There are many reason why an explosion can happen.

Even if there was an explosion, that doesn’t mean it was a munition that caused it.

What we probably know for certain is there have been numerous reports about this event. All Reported Israel took photo with a drone, which is a violation of Lebanon’s  Air space and Resolution 1701.

It is Israel who is saying these people are moving weapons, without any real evidence.

So to add to the violation, they may also be lying to the world.

Do I believe there accusations, not based on the evidence I have read or seen.

I think I will wait until the investigation is finished.

Jumping to conclusions based on an illegal activity on part of
Israel,  is like believing a murder when he said the devil mad me do it.

For all we know if there was an explosion Israel could have planted a bomb. They have been known to do that before.

Maybe they were trying to assassinate  Abdel Nasser Issa.

Now knowing what I know, that would be closer to  the truth. That would be so much easier to believe.

Assassination is one of Israels pass times. Among other things.

Newest Update:  Still nothing conclusive as of yet.

Strugar: UNIFIL, LAF inspect sites related to Teirfelsay incident

October 16, 2009

UNIFIL Director of Political and Civil Affairs Milos Strugar told the National News Agency on Friday that UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) conducted an investigation in the Deir Qanoun River village, where equipment related to the Teirfelsay incident was retrieved.

He also said that the LAF assisted UNIFIL with the investigation, facilitating the latter’s access to locations relevant to the investigation.

The LAF also confiscated a truck inside a garage in the village and is currently inspecting it. They also found what is believed to be the door to the Teirfelsay storage facility.

Teirfelsay was the site of a Monday night explosion that resulted in the injury of a Hezbollah member identified as Abdel Nasser Issa.

Source

Hezbollah says Israeli ‘rocket’ pictures were metal shutters

October 15, 2009

Hezbollah on Thursday denied Israeli pictures, which showed rockets being removed from the south Lebanon home of one of its activists, insisting the images merely portrayed metal shutters.

The Israeli army on Tuesday released film taken by a drone, saying it showed rockets being taken away from the home of Abdel Nasser Issa in Teirfelsay village after a rocket exploded in his house.

“The supposed rockets recorded by Israeli spy planes are in reality were only the metal shutters at the place where the Teirfelsay explosion occurred,” Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station reported.

The station broadcast pictures taken in daylight, it said, showed men outside a garage putting a rolled up metal shutter into a truck, watched by a Lebanese soldier and two troops from the UN’s peacekeeping force UNIFIL.

The scene was filmed at Deir Qanun el-Nahr, a place near Teirfelsay Al-Manar said.

Israel has repeatedly accused Hezbollah of rearming, and an Israeli army spokesperson claimed on Tuesday night the group has “dozens of arms caches containing hundreds of rockets.”

The pictures from the drone “show how the rockets were transferred to a weapons store in a village four kilometres away,” an Israeli army spokesperson said.

Source

Qassem says Israeli filming of Hezbollah ‘rockets’ is real attack on Lebanon

October 15, 2009

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said the Israeli film taken by a drone and released by the Israeli army, which said the footage showed rockets being taken away from the home of Abdel Nasser Issa in Teirfelsay village, where a rocket exploded earlier, was a “real attack on Lebanon.”

He said the Israelis themselves admitted they had sent a drone and filmed the area,  Israel’s action is a violation of Lebanese airspace and of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Qassem called on the foreign affairs ministry to use this film to call on the international community and punish Israel.

Source

There are tons of reports on this story but what I see is Israel attempeting to sway public opinion against Lebanon and Iran.

They want another war,  so they can kill even more people.

They have breached many UN Resolutions,  this is just one more.

They certainly have done everything imaginable to discredit the UN Mission Report on the war in Gaza,  this is just one more way to manipulate the world.

This is yet another distraction to take the heat off their war crimes.

The propaganda machine is hard at work once again.

From November 21 2008/Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty

">

These photo’s on the other hand say it all.

Photos of Lebanon War 2006

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (2): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (3): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (4): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (6) A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (5): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Israels Latin America “Trail of Terror”

Petition/E-mail the UK Government in Protest of Gag orders on the Press

Please Sign Petition and/or E-mail the UK Government in Protest of Gag orders on the Press.

This is for UK Citizens only. This is in view of the Trafigura Corp who left poisonous toxic waste in Africa. They then attempted to gag the news media.

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

This is absolutely  unacceptable.

Below are two options for all British Citizens.

Take Action protect your press and your right to know what is going on in your country.

The Guardian newspaper has today been served an injunction preventing it from reporting specific proceedings of The House..

The same orders also prevent it informing the public about who sought these orders or report which proceedings may not to be reported.

Such injunctions are an abuse of legal process and hard won principles by commercial litigants hiding their activities from appropriate public scrutiny.

Such abuses of the law should not be permitted to continue, and specifically not in the context of the activities of The House.

The public has an absolute right to know the activities of its representatives within The House and, in particular, it has the right to know the proceedings of The House within the chamber. The media at large should have a similar and absolute right to report those activities.

We request and petition that the freedom of the press and other media to report the proceedings of The House at all times be enacted into law.

Please sign the petition or pass it on to your British friends.

Protect Our Free Press: Stop the Gag

Tell your MP to stand up for the media’s right to report on politicians in Westminster: e-mail them in two minutes, now.

The Guardian newspaper was temporarily prevented from reporting Parliamentary business in Westminster: one the most serious threats to media freedom in the UK in memory. Worse still, we know now that the gag was to shield the reputation of a major multinational company, coming under pressure on its environmental track record.

The Guardian have fought for their right to report on Parliament and won, but now we must tell our MPs to make sure this can never happen again.

Journalists need to be free to scrutinise our elected politicians. Without a free press, it’s unlikely we would have heard about the expenses scandal or the shady dealings over the start of the Iraq war. We can’t let corporate interests threaten journalists’ right to report the news.

If we all contact our MPs and urge them to challenge the laws that meant that reporting on Parliament could be gagged, we can make sure this never happens again. E-mail your MP now, in less than two minutes.

E-mail UK Government

Please pass this on.

Thank You for taking the time.

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

After the bombing, drug addiction strikes Gaza
Under siege and grappling with joblessness, factional violence and the aftermath of war, Gazans are turning to pills as they seek to escape reality. Donald Macintyre speaks to a mental health group struggling to help addicts

October 14  2009

Abu Ahmed lived through last winter’s Gaza war in a daze. Though the district where he lives was invaded by Israeli ground forces and came under heavy fire, including the use of white phosphorus shells, he felt little fear. For by then, the 45-year-old unemployed father of 10 was popping tablets of the painkiller Tramadol to feed an ever more dangerous habit.”Of course you care about the children but [with the drugs] you forget about yourself,” he explains. “You feel less frightened.”

Manufacturers warn the maximum daily dose of the synthetic opioid should be no more 300mg per day; Abu Ahmed was taking as much as 800mg – in the grip of an addiction which has rapidly spread throughout Gaza over the last two years. As the population struggles to cope with Israel closing their home to the outside world, the sometimes violent power struggles between Fatah and Hamas, and then the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, the Tramadol pills – smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt – have provided a welcome escape from reality.

Mental health professionals say there has been a rise in the drug’s usage in Gaza since the war. The Hamas authorities have tried to crack down on it, but the drug’s severe withdrawal symptoms means it is a seriously hard habit to break. Hasan Shaban Zeyada, a senior psychologist at the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) is convinced that many of the psychological problems underlying the addiction are “the consequence of living in this situation: the siege, internal division and the war”.

Abu Ahmed used to have a good job as a driver. But like an estimated 100,000 other Gazans he lost it when Israel imposed its blockade after Hamas seized control of the strip from Fatah in June 2007. “Before the war the situation was so hard. There was no work, plus I had to take care of 11 people, including my wife. All people could do was sit around in the street and drink tea or coffee.”

Depressed and suffering from headaches, he was offered a Tramadol pill by one of his friends. Several of them were using the drug for its supposed power to improve sexual performance, but for Abu Ahmed it was just a way of relieving the strain of life. “When I took it, I felt very relaxed,” he says.

But Abu Ahmed soon became hooked. Supplies of Tramadol had surged after Hamas militants blew a breach in the southern wall between Gaza and Egypt in January 2008. “You could get it at pharmacies and there were people selling it on the street,” he says. He quickly graduated from taking one pill a day, to three or four and then, though he could ill afford it, as many as eight.

A combination of a doubling in price to around £3.40 for a strip of 10 tablets and a Hamas edict (belated and far from effective) that pharmacies should not sell the drug without a prescription persuaded Abu Ahmed that he had to stop. “I tried to get away from it but I couldn’t. I had a headache, pain in every part of my body. I had to go the bathroom every 10 minutes. I was sweating. Then you take one pill and you feel better of course.”

It was about six weeks after that that Abu Ahmed– who has a history of drug abuse with hashish – turned, on the advice of a friend, to the GCMHP, the pioneering Palestinian organisation started in 1990 and still directed by the territory’s leading psychiatrist and civil society spokesman Dr Eyad Sarraj. With the help of counselling from the group’s trained therapists, as well as controlled and decreasing doses of alternative drugs like Avitan, he has stopped taking Tramadol. At the height of his addiction, Abu Ahmed was going without eating for up to three days and his weight dropped to 58 kilos (just over nine stone). Now it is back up to 85.

“They [the GCMHP] made me feel I was in safe hands,” explains a grateful Abu Ahmed, adding that the agency arranged for food aid for his family while he was recovering. “They showed respect. And they came to my house to tell my family how they should cope with me when I became nervous and angry.”

Yet for all its high professional standards, the organisation cannot help more than a minority of addicts. Although some unofficial estimates put the number of drug addicts as high as many thousands, the GCMHP’s Mr Zeyada, who trained in Tel Aviv University, will not, as a scientist, hazard a figure. But he says there is a shortage of mental health provision in Gaza and that “GCMHP cannot take responsibility for the whole community”.

Although there has been improvement in mental health awareness in the territory, many residents in socially conservative Gaza baulk at the idea of seeking treatment for psychological problems. “The level of stigma is so high,” he explains. Instead, many patients go to their GPs reporting physical problems like headaches, back or abdominal pain, and the doctors, “because of a lack of knowledge about psychological disorder,” simply prescribe analgesic drugs – of which Tramadol is a prime example – and “after a while the patients become addicts or abusers”.

Operation Cast Lead has been over for nine months, but the return to a state of siege, with unemployment at a record 45 per cent, has left a sense of “helplessness and powerlessness” among residents, compounded by the fact that there is no guarantee the war will not be repeated.

For women, the sense that they exist only to serve their children and husbands makes them especially vulnerable to depression – and use of medication like valium and xanax. For men, the feelings of powerlessness and loss of masculinity are all too often caused by an inability to protect their children in war or provide for them in relative peace. “For a father who cannot fulfil the basic needs of his children it is not easy, especially in a society like Palestinian society,” says Mr Zeyada.

Many young people, he adds, are also vulnerable. “They don’t have hope, they cannot do anything for the future. They are disappointed, depressed, helpless and powerless. They can’t find a job, they can’t plan for the future, or [afford to] get married.”

Until three weeks ago 21-year-old university student Mohammed, who had first taken the occasional Tramadol pill in 2006 after failing his high school exams, was on a daily dose of 1,000mg per day, increasingly alarming his family as he sat at his computer all night and slept all day. “You are in another world,” he says. “Even when people keep criticising you, you don’t feel angry.”

In his first month of rehab, Mohammed explains that his addiction reached crisis point when his father, who used to work in Israel and is a passionate believer in university education for his children, was tipped off about his habit. There followed a climactic row last month in which his father threw him out of the family house in northern Gaza, telling him: “If you want to go back to study, and be committed to Islam, then I will help you get out of this problem. If you don’t want to be helped, then I will take you to the [Hamas] police and that’s it.”

Mr Zeyada says another factor is the deep split between Fatah and Hamas, which there appears, once again, little hope of healing. Not only does it divide individual families, but for many Gazans it compromises their proud Palestinian national identity with a divisive factional one which makes them especially sensitive to criticism and hostility from political opponents. There are even cases from school playgrounds of conflict breaking out between children favouring (for non-political reasons) a particular colour T-shirt: yellow (Fatah) or green (Hamas).

Abu Ahmed agrees: “Even in one home you have Fatah and Hamas. That is a big problem.” But now that he feels much better, he looks back on the depression that he believes turned him to Tramadol. “Look,” he says. “Even if a person kills someone, he can still sleep at night. If he goes out and steals something, he will still sleep. But if you have children and you can’t find work to give them what they need, then you can’t sleep.”

Tramadol: ‘Full body blanket’

* Tramadol is a powerful painkiller with a narcotic effect. A single 200 mg dose can leave users sedated for much of the day so time passes quickly.

* One user described it as like being wrapped in a “full body blanket” where problems are not solved but the “volume is turned down a notch”.

* It has similar effects to opiate painkillers such as pethidine inducing sleepiness, a lack of inhibition and a sense of wellbeing.

* Because it is not an opiate, it is not controlled as closely and may be easier to obtain.

* Tolerance builds quickly and users need increasing doses to obtain the same effect. Heavy users report forgetting chunks of the day.

Source

They would be suffering from many of the things soldiers suffer from Post Traumatic Stress, Depression, and other mental illnesses as well as physical  injuries. The aftermath of war comes with a extremely long list of illnesses.

They have every reason in the world to turn to drugs.

The trauma they have suffered is horrendous.

This should come as,  no surprise to anyone.

">

UN to debate Goldstone report after Abbas U-turn

Israeli War Criminals, think they are above the law

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Boycott Israel Information from Israelis who are not happy with the ocupation

BOYCOTT ISRAEL CAMPAIGN

Boycott Israel Information

The making of Israel’s Apartheid in Palestine

Pollution Reports including Top 100 Corporate Air Polluters 2008 in US

The Toxic 100: Top Corporate Air Polluters in the United States

Rank	Corporation	Toxic score (pounds released x toxicity x population exposure)	Minority share of health risk	Low-income share of health risk
1	E.I. du Pont de Nemours	285,661	36.0%	17.3%
2	Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)	213,159	32.0%	22.5%
3	Dow Chemical	189,673	42.7%	13.%0
4	Bayer Group	172,773	24.3%	6.8%
5	Eastman Kodak	162,430	26.2%	13.4%
6	General Electric	149,061	32.4%	13.4%
7	Arcelor Mittal	134,573	61.6%	24.9%
8	US Steel	129,123	36.8%	17.8%
9	ExxonMobil	128,758	69.1%	25.4%
10	AK Steel Holding	101,428	7.9%	17.8%
11	Eastman Chemical	98,432	9.9%	25.4%
12	Duke Energy	93,174	20.3%	16.9%
13	ConocoPhillips	91,993	34.7%	15.1%
14	Precision Castparts	87,500	15.8%	9.8%
15	Alcoa	85,983	20.3%	15.2%
16	Valero Energy	83,993	59.9%	12.8%
17	Ford Motor	75,360	24.6%	11.7%
18	General Motors	73,248	29.5%	19.8%
19	Goodyear	67,632	27.3%	11.2%
20	E.ON	65,579	21.6%	15.6%
21	Matsushita Electric Indl	65,346	54.6%	15.7%
22	Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold	63,911	62.1%	13.2%
23	Apollo Mgt. (Hexion Specialty Chemicals)	63,880	40.2%	13.1%
24	Avery Dennison	62,740	37.7%	14.8%
25	BASF	60,984	31.9%	13.3%
26	Owens Corning	59,609	42.6%	9.7%
27	Dominion Resources	58,642	29.3%	15.9%
28	Allegheny Technologies	58,375	8.3%	14.2%
29	BP	54,336	54.7%	11.3%
30	Honeywell International	50,417	42.1%	13.1%
31	International Paper	49,385	30.6%	16.2%
32	Ashland	43,492	30.7%	18.9%
33	Constellation Energy	42,972	35.5%	11.2%
34	Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG)	41,773	57.0%	16.5%
35	AES	39,789	29.8%	15.1%
36	Progress Energy	38,027	24.0%	11.2%
37	Nucor	36,963	51.3%	21.2%
38	United Technologies	36,526	30.6%	7.6%
39	Timken	36,047	17.6%	17.4%
40	Berkshire Hathaway	35,285	37.8%	13.2%
41	SPX	34,559	39.8%	11.2%
42	Royal Dutch Shell	34,556	43.5%	13.8%
43	Southern Co	33,577	33.6%	12.5%
44	Allegheny Energy	31,539	10.2%	14.1%
45	American Electric	31,364	9.3%	124%
46	Reliant Energy	30,821	14.0%	10.7%
47	Boeing	30,453	33.7%	13.6%
48	General Dynamics	30,337	69.0%	20.9%
49	Occidental Petroleum	30,069	43.6%	16.9%
50	KeySpan	29,008	53.7%	17.8%
51	Lyondell Chemical	28,591	33.6%	14.9%
52	Sunoco	27,851	33.5%	16.6%
53	Anheuser-Busch Cos	27,032	41.0%	16.7%
54	Ball	25,709	38.5%	14.8%
55	Deere & Co	25,346	19.9%	15.6%
56	Procter & Gamble	25,238	41.2%	16.1%
57	Tesoro	24,708	24.6%	10.0%
58	Temple-Inland	24,537	47.0%	20.1%
59	Pfizer	24,508	38.3%	19.8%
60	Rowan Cos.	24,389	46.2%	21.6%
61	Leggett & Platt	23,870	28.2%	12.6%
62	Northrop Grumman	23,798	56.6%	22.6%
63	Weyerhaeuser	22,708	23.0%	17.1%
64	Rohm and Haas	22,489	40.9%	16.5%
65	Tyco International	22,115	32.7%	9.3%
66	Terex	21,730	17.3%	9.4%
67	Corning	20,942	17.6%	12.6%
68	Exelon	20,811	33.6%	13.6%
69	Fortune Brands	20,583	19.5%	8.0%
70	FirstEnergy	20,441	16.8%	10.0%
71	Suncor Energy	20,378	45.3%	12.9%
72	Crown Holdings	19,447	30.5%	14.3%
73	Masco	18,572	6.7%	12.0%
74	ThyssenKrupp Group	18,133	21.7%	12.1%
75	Textron	17,443	33.6%	13.6%
76	Sony	16,426	12.5%	5.3%
77	Mirant	16,337	42.4%	9.2%
78	RAG	16,080	52.9%	18.4%
79	Alcan	15,231	10.8%	12.1%
80	Huntsman	15,119	47.7%	20.4%
81	Bridgestone	14,952	15.9%	10.1%
82	Danaher	14,621	23.9%	15.7%
83	PPG Industries	14,300	23.2%	13.0%
84	Hess	13,687	66.5%	26.4%
85	Akzo Nobel	13,453	58.6%	25.2%
86	Dynegy Inc.	13,439	25.6%	10.1%
87	Federal-Mogul	13,435	28.0%	13.6%
88	Stanley Works	13,196	32.1%	10.2%
89	Komatsu	13,132	30.9%	19.2%
90	Saint-Gobain	13,012	38.6%	16.7%
91	PPL	12,972	11.6%	8.0%
92	Caterpillar	12,924	24.2%	11.0%
93	Smurfit-Stone Container	12,868	29.9%	12.0%
94	Siemens	12,649	32.8%	12.8%
95	MeadWestvaco	12,465	40.9%	18.3%
96	Marathon Oil	12,454	33.0%	14.3%
97	Emerson Electric	12,258	13.1%	15.1%
98	Northeast Utilities	11,115	11.7%	7.9%
99	National Oilwell Varco	11,042	78.0%	26.5%
100	Dana	10,638	36.2%	17.6%
	Toxic 100 firms	4,713,588	34..%	15.2%
	Other 500-list firms	459,798	31.1%	13.3%
	Non-500-list firms	9,403,595	35.2%	15.5%
	All Firms	14,576,982	34.8%	15.3%
	U.S. population	–	31.8%	12.9

Source

Death Tolls from Wars Estimates include civilian and military casualties, and indirect deaths from conflict-related famine, disease, and disruptions as well as violent deaths.

Pollution Reports including Top 100 Corporate Air Polluters 2007 in US

Pollution Reports including Top 100 Corporate Air Polluters 2002 in US

The World Bank and IMF in Africa

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

Alberta Oil Sands a Pollution Nightmare/ Air car videos at the bottom of the page.

Privatization, Pollution and Free Trade, WTO

Pollution Costs Trillions Annually

US Air Testing Bombs

Uranium Mining, Grand Canyon now at Risk, Dangers, Pollution, History

Depleated Uranium Information

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human experiments and WMD

The world’s worst radiation hotspot

How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster

A Few of the World’s most polluted places

New US gov’t study shows mercury in fish widespread

UK: Press Banned from Reporting on Parliament

By Alex Massie

Tuesday, 13th October 2009

This time, perhaps even the lawyers have gone too far. It’s hard to recall, even in the long history of appalling gagging orders, a more disgraceful injunction than this:

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Remarkable, even by the appalling standards of our libel laws and addled judiciary. This appears to be the question in, er, question:

From Parliament.uk, “Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Tuesday 13 October 2009″

(292409)
61
N Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

And this is a report on how the oil company Trafigura tried to cover up pollution in Africa.

This country’s libel laws have been a disgrace for years and one can only hope that egregious abuses of an already abusive system persuades folk that, dash it, something must be done.

UPDATE: The Twitterverse is going mental for #trafigura and I suspect that by the time all this is over far more people will be aware of the controversy swirling around Trafigura’s African adventures than would have been the case had they kept quiet and not attempted to silence the press. Combatting this sort of bullying, however, is one thing the blogosphere is good at.

UPDATE 2: There is, at the time of writing, no mention of this story on the BBC’s website. Why on earth not? (There is now – and of course, as commenters point out, Newsnight has covered Trafigura’s African exploits before. And been sued for their troubles. So my criticism of the Corporation was somewhat unfair. Mea culpa.)

UPDATE 3: 1.20pm: Carter-Ruck have abandoned their attempt to prevent the reporting parliamentary proceedings. The Twitterati and the Blogoshpere have prevailed in the great Battle of Trafigura. But it is ridiculous that such a battle for such an elementary press freedom had to be fought in the first place. The Lib Dems are quite right to call for a parliamentay debate on this.

Source

Guardian gagged from reporting parliament

David Leigh

October 13  2009

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

The Guardian has vowed urgently to go to court to overturn the gag on its reporting. The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: “The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a Kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself.”

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that “whatever comments are made in parliament” can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: “Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of ‘Colonel B’, granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of ‘national security’. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published.”

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes’s battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, “it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to”.

Source

September 14, 2009

Following press reportage about dumping off the coast of Africa, Waterson & Hicks, a UK law firm acting for Trafigura, a multi-national oil and commodity trader, ordered and received this confidential report (the so-called “Minton report“) into toxic dumping practices by its client along and on the Ivory Coast.

Trafigura drops bid to gag Guardian over MP’s question
By David Leigh
October 13 2009
• Web users publish details of legal issue raised in parliament
• Labour member asked about injunction over toxic waste case

The Guardian editor on the affair of the ’super-injunction’ preventing the paper reporting a parliamentary question Link to this audio

An unprecedented attempt by a British oil trading firm to prevent the Guardian reporting parliamentary proceedings collapsedtoday following a spontaneous online campaign to spread the information the paper had been barred from publishing.

Carter-Ruck, the law firm representing Trafigura, was accused of infringing the supremacy of parliament after it insisted that an injunction obtained against the Guardian prevented the paper from reporting a question tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly.

Farrelly’s question was about the implications for press freedom of an order obtained by Trafigura preventing the Guardian and other media from publishing the contents of a report related to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.

In today’s edition, the Guardian was prevented from identifying Farrelly, reporting the nature of his question, where the question could be found, which company had sought the gag, or even which order was constraining its coverage.

But overnight numerous users of the social networking site Twitter posted details of Farrelly’s question and by this morning the full text had been published on two prominent blogs as well as in the magazine Private Eye.

Carter-Ruck withdrew its gagging attempt by lunchtime, shortly before a 2 pm high court hearing at which the Guardian was about to challenge its stance, with the backing of other national newspapers.

MPs from all three major parties condemned the firm’s attempt to prevent the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. Farrelly told John Bercow, the Speaker : “Yesterday, I understand, Carter-Ruck quite astonishingly warned of legal action if the Guardian reported my question. In view of the seriousness of this, will you accept representations from me over this matter and consider whether Carter-Ruck’s behaviour constitutes a potential contempt of parliament?”

The Commons question reveals that Trafigura has obtained a hitherto secret injunction, known as a “super-injunction”, to prevent disclosures about toxic oil waste it arranged to be dumped in west Africa in 2006, making thousands of people ill.

Farrelly is asking Jack Straw, the justice secretary, about the implications for press freedom of a high court injunction obtained on 11 September 2009 by Trafigura “on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura”.

The Guardian is still forbidden by the terms of the existing injunction, granted by a vacation duty judge, Mr Justice Maddison,
to give further information about the Minton report, or its contents. Last month, Trafigura agreed to pay more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast, for “flu-like symptoms” they might have suffered following the dumping. The oil traders continue to deny that the waste could have caused serious or fatal injuries.

The use of “super-injunctions”, under which commercial corporations claim the right to keep secret the fact that they have been to court, has been growing. Anonymity is also increasingly being granted to individual litigants.

Last week, an anonymity order was overturned at the supreme court under which Mohammed al-Ghabra, an alleged al-Qaida financier named in official UN and Treasury publications, was to be known only as G. A further pending supreme court case involving an MI5 officer’s memoirs is currently only known as “A v B”.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, said yesterday: “I’m very pleased that common sense has prevailed and that Carter-Ruck are now prepared to vary their draconian injunction to allow reporting of parliament. It is time that judges stopped granting ’super-injunctions’ which are so absolute and wide-ranging that nothing about them can be reported at all.”

Carter-Ruck, whose partner Adam Tudor has been representing Trafigura, issued a press release conceding: “The Order would indeed have prevented the Guardian from reporting on the Parliamentary Question which had been tabled for later this week.” But the firm said the Guardian’s reporting on the issue had been “highly misleading”.

The firm added: “There is no question of Trafigura seeking to ‘gag’ the media from reporting Parliamentary proceedings, and the parties have now agreed to an amendment to the existing Order so as to reflect that.”

The previous night, Carter-Ruck had written to the Guardian saying: “The threatened publication would place the Guardian in contempt of court … please confirm by immediate return that the publications threatened will not take place.”

At Westminster , the Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris said there was a need to “control the habit of law firms” of obtaining secrecy injunctions, and his colleague David Heath told the Commons a “fundamental principle” was being threatened: that MPs should be able to speak freely and have their words reported freely.

On the Conservative side, David Davis, former shadow home secretary, criticised the rising use of “super-injunctions”, in which the fact of the injunction is itself kept secret.

He said courts should not be allowed to grant injunctions forbidding the reporting of parliament.

Bercow said the issue could be raised formally as a matter of privilege, but he understood the injunction had been lifted.

Farrelly told the Guardian afterwards: “The issuing by the courts of so-called super-injunctions is rightly controversial and a matter of growing concern. That is why, using parliamentary privilege, I tabled these questions.

• “The practice offends the time-honoured ‘rule against prior restraint’, which safeguards freedom of expression in this country.
• “It also fails to protect whistleblowers acting in the public interest. The huge legal bills involved in fighting cases, too, have a chilling effect on legitimate investigative journalism.
• “So often, the beneficiaries are big corporations. The fact that the press is also barred from reporting the existence of these gagging orders is doubly pernicious.”

Source

Congratulations goes out to all those who helped protect the freedom of the press.  We must never let Corporations, dictate what the press can or cannot report.

The Judge who ordered the Gag Order should be repremanded.  What he did was wrong in every sense of the word.

The Guardian and every other news agency has the right to report what goes on in Parliament and  report on what bad Corporations are doing.

In this case Trafigura was responsible for deaths of many people and the cause of illness among even more.  This company certainly has overstepped it bounds.  They full well knew the toxic waste would cause damage to people and the environment and yet they dumped it anyway.

They are guilty of murder and gross negligence.

They are the criminals,  not the news media who wants to report what they did.

Again kudos to all who helped put this corporation and the law firm in it’s proper place.

1. The Corporation
2. The Law Firm
3. The Judge

All should be reprimanded.

This is an absolute abuse of power.

This is an absolute attack on

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. The public’s right to be informed

Super-injunctions should not be tolerated.

This just enables corporations criminal activities.

All Citizens have the right to know what is going on in their Governments. They work for us the people.

We have the right to know every detail of what they do.

They are our employees.  As the Boss I am appalled.

When you work for me,  you report to me, whether I voted for you or not. You still work for me the citizen.

Governments do not work for Corporations, nor do they work for their own self interests.

They work for WE the PEOPLE.

No bloody Court orders gagging, my press will be tolerated.

That is just criminal in itself.

That should not even be a debate.

Our rights are being stomped on. ….

By Criminal Corporations no less.

Corporations rights do not, top our rights as Citizens.

Free Trae Agreements have given them far to much power.

That power should be removed.

From September 18 2009

How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster/Trafigura  E-Mails

Other Corporate polluters in US and other countries

Israeli War Criminals, think they are above the law

War Criminals Are Becoming The Arbiters Of Law

By Paul Craig Roberts

October 12, 2009

The double standard under which the Israeli government operates is too much for everyone except the brainwashed Americans. Even the very Israeli Jerusalem Post can see the double standard displayed by “all of Israel now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report”:

“This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We’re entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

“That’s the way it’s always been, that’s the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

“And there are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as ‘disproportionate.’

“We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

“Deliberately.

“Why? Because we’re better than them. Because we’re a democracy and they’re a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they’re out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

“The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.”

A person would never read such as this in the New York Times or Washington Post or hear it from any US news source. Unlike Israeli newspapers, the US media is a complete mouthpiece for the Israel Lobby. Never a critical word is heard.

This will be even more the case now that the Israel Lobby, after years of effort, has succeeded in repealing the First Amendment by having the Hate Crime Bill attached to the recently passed military appropriations bill. This is the way the syllogism works:

It is anti-semitic to criticize Israel. Anti-semitism is a hate crime. Therefore, to criticize Israel is a hate crime.

As the Jerusalem Post notes, this syllogism has “moral clarity.”

Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, stepped into the hate crime arena when he told Israel Army radio that the Goldstone report on Israel’s military assault on Gaza contains “some very serious details which need to be investigated.” A year from now when the Anti-Defamation League has its phalanx of US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutors in place, Sawers would be seized and placed on trial. Diplomatic immunity means nothing to the US, which routinely invades other countries, executes their leaders or sends them to the Hague for trial as war criminals.

In the meantime, however, the Israeli government put Sawers and the UK government on notice that British support for the Goldstone Report would result in the destruction of the double standard that protects the West and Israel and create a precedent that would place the British in the dock for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“London,” declared the Israeli government, “could find itself in handcuffs if it supports the document [the Goldstone report].”

Once the DOJ’s hate crime unit us up and running, “self-hating Jews,” such as leaders of the Israeli peace movement and Haaretz and Jerusalem Post journalists, can expect to be indicted for anti-semitic hate crimes in US courts.

Source

To criticize Israel for it’s war crimes is not anti-semitic. The Israeli leaders will try to say that but they are war criminals and war criminals are just that criminals.

The US has been criticized for it’s war crimes because they are crimes.

If you commit a crime expect to be punished for it whether you are black,  white,  green,  orange, Catholic,  Protestant or Jewish.  It makes no difference.

When the Churches were accused of crimes against aboriginal they tryed with all their might to cover up their crimes as well. The thought becasue they were churches they too were above the law.

No one is above the law.

Israel has commited war crimes and crimes against humaity.

The self defense  ploy is just that a ploy. They are not victims they are criminals,  just like a man who beats his wife and blames her for the beatings.  It’s always her fault you know.

Israel is no victim. They are like the abusive man,  the perpetrator.

They do not speak for all Jewish people. There are many Jewish people who disagree with what they are doing. They do not all support Israel. That is just an Israeli fantasy.  It is a lie.  Not all of the Jews in Israel think the the Goldstone report is wrong,  many think it is right on.

Israeli Leaders are promoting a lie as usual.

Criminals of course will lie to protect themselves.  That is rather common.

One must remember if you are in Israel and you disagree or protest against the Governments crimes,  you can and will be thrown in jail.

They even try to shut down organizations who are telling the truth.

The leaders will do whatever it takes to keep the truth from coming out and punish those who try. Freedom of speech as long as you agree with everything the Leaders say that is.

They even throw their own children, in jail if they refuse to join their military.

Some Democracy that is.

Their history of terrorism should speak volumes.

They also do not abide by UN Resolutions.

They expect everyone else to but,  they think they don’t need to.

">

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Legally Israel owes the US Billions

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

Call on A.G. Holder to Launch a Full-Scale Investigation of the “Torture Memos”

Call on Attorney General Eric Holder to uphold the Constitution and the law by releasing the OPR report and authorizing a full investigation of those who ordered, designed, and justified torture. Only then can the nation truly move forward.

Anyone in the World can sign this petition.

No one should be above the Law.

People in other countries are tried,  convicted and punished for these crimes.  The US should not now, or ever be exempt.

The Laws should apply to all,  the US included.

Go here to sign

Spanish judge resumes torture case against six senior Bush lawyers

Back in March, Judge Garzón announced that he was planning to investigate the six prime architects of the Bush administration’s torture policies — former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; John Yoo, a former lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who played a major role in the preparation of the OLC’s notorious “torture memos”; Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy; William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department’s former general counsel; Jay S. Bybee, Yoo’s superior in the OLC, who signed off on the August 2002 “torture memos”; and David Addington, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

Fall issue of War Crimes Times

Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan/War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity And Genocide In Iraq

Is Osama bin Laden still alive, Seems the answer is no

by David Ray Griffin

October 10 2009

Is Osama bin Laden still alive? I have dealt with this question in a recent little book entitled Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?  The present essay summarizes the main points of this book.

Since the transference of power from the Bush administration to that of Barack Obama administration, the question of whether bin Laden is dead or alive has become more important.

Although George W. Bush famously said that he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive,” he made clear that he was not serious about this. Besides stating that he was not concerned about bin Laden, he demonstrated this by diverting most of America’s military resources to Iraq. Bush could, of course, be unconcerned about bin Laden because he knew that, besides the fact that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11,  he was probably dead anyway.

I do not know what President Obama and his people think about these matters, but their rhetoric presupposes that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and is still alive.

In November 2008, for example, a Washington Post story said:

“President-elect Barack Obama . . . intends to renew the U.S. commitment to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. . . . ‘This is our enemy,’ one adviser said of bin Laden, ‘and he should be our principal target.’”

In his White House address of March 27 of this year, President Obama said:

“[A]l Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. . . . [A]l Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.”

Obama has appealed regularly to these intelligence estimates, which have invariably claimed that bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, somewhere along its border with Pakistan. This claim has been used to justify the extension of US military activity into Pakistan, with the result that people now speak of the “AfPak war.”

One way to argue against this war is to point out that, if these intelligence experts do not even know whether bin Laden is alive, they certainly cannot know where he is and what he is thinking.

There are, to be sure, other good arguments against the this war, and many critics are making these arguments. But to point out that bin Laden is almost certainly dead provides an argument that goes to the heart of the publically articulated rationale for this war.

Of course, another way to argue against this war would be to point out that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. But even though our own FBI has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” a large part of the American population has been conditioned to reject all revisionism about 9/11 out of hand. As we saw recently with “the Van Jones affair,” people are considered unfit for public service if they once signed a document suggesting that the official account of 9/11 might not be fully true.

My little bin Laden book is primarily for people who, besides assuming that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, also believe that the AfPak war is justifiable because we need to prevent him from planning another attack. Many such people will turn against the war if they become aware of convincing evidence that bin Laden is almost certainly dead. There is considerable evidence for this conclusion.

This evidence is of two types: objective evidence and testimonies.

Objective Evidence that Bin Laden is Dead

The objective evidence includes the following facts:

First, up until mid-December 13, 2001, the CIA had regularly been intercepting messages between bin Laden and his people. At that time, however, the messages suddenly stopped, and the CIA has never again intercepted a message.

Second, on December 26, 2001, a leading Pakistani newspaper published a story reporting that bin Laden had died in mid-December, adding:

“A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement . . . stated . . . that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial.”

Third, bin Laden had kidney disease. He had been treated for it in the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, at which time he reportedly ordered two dialysis machines to take home. If you have ever wondered what bin Laden was doing the night before the 9/11 attacks, CBS News reported that he was being given kidney dialysis treatment in a hospital in Pakistan.  And in January of 2001, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said – based on a video of bin Laden that had been made in either late November or early December of 2001 – that he appeared to be in the last stages of kidney failure.

Fourth, In July of 2002, CNN reported that bin Laden’s bodyguards had been captured in February of that year, adding: “Sources believe that if the bodyguards were captured away from bin Laden, it is likely the most-wanted man in the world is dead.”

Fifth, the United States has since 2001 offered a $25 million reward for any information leading to the capture or killing of bin Laden. But this reward offer has produced no such information, even though Pakistan has many desperately poor people, only about half of whom have been supportive of bin Laden.

Testimonial Evidence that Bin Laden Is Dead

In addition to this objective evidence, we had considerable testimony in 2002, from people in position to know, that bin Laden was dead, or probably so. These people included:

•          President Musharraf of Pakistan;

•          Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s counterterrorism unit;

•          Oliver North, who said: “I’m certain that Osama is dead. . . And so are all the other guys I stay in touch with”;

•          President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan;

•          Sources within Israeli intelligence, who said that any new messages from bin Laden were “probably fabrications”;

•          Sources within Pakistani intelligence, who “confirmed the death of . . . Osama Bin Laden” and “attributed the reasons behind Washington’s hiding news on the death of Osama Bin Laden to the desire of the hawks of the American administration to use the issue of al-Qaida and international terrorism to invade Iraq.”

For this reason, perhaps, the stories about the demise of bin Laden largely came to an end in the latter part of 2002, when the United States was gearing up for its attack on Iraq. From then until now, there have been few such stories.

Recently, however, two former intelligence officers have spoken out. In October 2008, former CIA case officer Robert Baer suggested in passing during an interview on National Public Radio that bin Laden was no longer among the living. When Baer was asked about this, he said: “Of course he’s dead.”

In March of 2009, former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla published an essay in the American Spectator entitled “Osama bin Elvis.” Explaining his title, Codevilla wrote: “Seven years after Osama bin Laden’s last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence for Elvis’s presence among us than for his.”

This is an excellent article, with only one serious flaw. In 2007, Benazir Bhutto, being interviewed by David Frost, referred to Omar Sheikh as “the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” Codevilla cited this statement as further evidence that bin Laden is dead. But Bhutto had simply misspoken: She had meant to say “the man who murdered Daniel Pearl,” which is the standard way of referring to Omar Sheikh. That she misspoke was shown the next day, when she told CNN: “I don’t think General Musharaf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is.” Ten days later, speaking to NPR, she reported having asked a policeman assigned to guard her house: “Shouldn’t you be looking for Osama bin Laden?” This flaw aside, Codevilla’s article provides good support for his claim that the widespread belief in bin Laden’s continued existence is not backed up by evidence.

What about the “Messages from Osama bin Laden”?

Many people, of course, assume that there is a lot of evidence that bin Laden is still alive, namely, the dozens of audio tape and video tape “messages from bin Laden” that have appeared since 2001. These tapes provide good evidence, however, only if they are authentic. The longest chapter of my book is devoted to this question.

I show, in the first place, that the technology for making fake audio and video tapes is now so advanced that even experts can be fooled. So although the press regularly tells us that intelligence agencies have authenticated the latest bin Laden tape, it is virtually impossible to prove a tape to be authentic.

It is sometimes possible, however, to prove a tape to be a fake. For example: If the person hired to play bin Laden writes with his right hand; if he is much heavier and darker than bin Laden was in a tape made about the same time; if he has fatter hands and shorter fingers; if his nose has a different shape. And if, in discussing the Twin Towers, he says that the fire melted the steel, whereas the real bin Laden would have known that a building fire cannot melt steel. I am speaking here of the video that was allegedly found by US troops in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in November 2001, which is widely known as the “bin Laden confession video.”

Also obviously fabricated was the “October Surprise” video, which appeared on October 29, 2004, just in time to help George W. Bush get reelected. One clue that it was a fake, aside from its timing, is provided by its language. Bin Laden’s own messages were saturated with references to Allah and the Prophet Mohammed. But in this October Surprise video, Allah was mentioned rarely and the only “Mohammad” mentioned was Mohamed Atta. Also, whereas undoubtedly authentic bin Laden messages portrayed worldly events as cause or at least permitted by Allah, the speaker on this October Surprise video gave a purely secular account of events, even telling the American people: “Your security is in your own hands.”

The most obviously faked video is one that, appearing in 2007, was identical to the October Surprise video of 2004, except that the bin Laden figure now had a completely black beard, leading me to call it the video from “Blackbeard the Terrorist.” Although pundits tried, with straight faces, to explain why bin Laden might have dyed his beard, or put on a fake one, this video was best treated with the respect it deserved by a YouTube video featuring a actor wearing a very long, very black, beard, and saying:

Hello, long time no see. It is me, Osama bin Laden. And no, this not to be confused with just-for-men hair color commercial. . . . I make this video to prove to world that me still alive and kicking.

This video is very funny. But there is, of course, nothing funny about the fact that obviously fake bin Laden videos have been used, and are still being used, to justify the AfPak war, which continues to kill dozens if not hundreds of innocent people each week, including women and children attending weddings and funerals.

Conclusion

If my little book, by showing that bin Laden has probably long been dead, can help shorten this war, it will have served its main purpose.

Its other main point, to which a separate chapter is devoted, is that these fake bin Laden tapes appear to be simply one part of an extensive propaganda operation, in which the US military intelligence is using tax dollars – illegally – to propagandize the American public, with the aim of furthering the militarization of America and its foreign policy.

I hope my little book will stimulate the 9/11 truth movement, along with the anti-war movement in general, to take on more fully the task of exposing this propaganda effort, to which a growing portion of our tax dollars is being devoted.

Source

Related Articles

Pipelines in the Middle East Afghanistan included/ Maps as well

Has Usama Bin Ladin been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?

Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan/ Al Qaida is a CIA  Data base

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

‘Hush’ over Afghan mission must end

(Afghanistan 1) A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words

The Value of a Dead Afghan

This is a very detailed report, absolutely amazing how many countries supply weapons to Israel.  Do check it out and please sign the petition of support.

Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza and Petition to Support the Goldstone UN Mission Report

Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan

Both wars were planned long before 9/11

October 10, 2009

The New American Century

This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War. This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their “cost plus” exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster’s Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire. “A stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I’m sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years. Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial.” – Ken Loach While Massimo Mazzucco’s first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called “Islamic terrorism”. The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called “Project for the New American Century”, published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events. This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War. This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their “cost plus” exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster’s Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had …all »This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present.

The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called “Project for the New American Century”, published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events

This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it.

This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War.

This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan.

This film shows how Halliburton under their “cost plus” exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster’s Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire. “A stunning film.

It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I’m sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years.

Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial.” – Ken Loach While Massimo Mazzucco’s first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called “Islamic terrorism”.

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.

Al Qaeda not a terrorist group  –Just a  Database

‘Al Qaeda’: How the Pentagon/ CIA Made an ‘Enemy’

The Israeli Connection

War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity And Genocide In Iraq

Legal Case Filed Against 4 U.S. Presidents and 4 UK Prime Ministers
October 08, 2009

MADRID: Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq.

This case, naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in defence of their rights and international law.

Iraq: 19 years of intended destruction

The intended destruction — or genocide — of Iraq as a state and nation has been ongoing for 19 years, combining the imposition of the most draconian sanctions regime ever designed and that led to 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, including 500,000 children, with a war of aggression that led to the violent deaths of over one million more.

* Destroying Iraq included the purposeful targeting of its water and sanitation system, attacking the health of the civilian population. Since 1990, thousands of tons of depleted uranium have been dropped on Iraq, leading in some places to a 600 per cent rise in cancer and leukaemia cases, especially among children. In both the first Gulf War and “Shock and Awe” in 2003, an air campaign that openly threatened “total destruction”, waves of disproportionate bombing made no distinction between military and civilian targets, with schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, and historical sites all destroyed.

* Destroying Iraq included promoting, funding and organizing sectarian and ethnic groups bent on dividing Iraq into three or more sectarian or ethnic entities, backed by armed militias that would terrorize the Iraqi people. Since 2003, some 4.7 million Iraqis — one fifth of the population — have been forcibly displaced. Under occupation, kidnappings, killings, extortion and mutilation became endemic, targeting men, women and even children and the elderly.

* Destroying Iraq included purposefully dismantling the state by refusing to stop or stem or by instigating mass looting, and by engaging in ideological persecution, entailing “manhunting”, extrajudicial assassinations, mass imprisonment and torture, of Baathists, the entire educated class of the state apparatus, religious and linguistic minorities and Arab Sunnis, resulting in the total collapse of all public services and other economic functions and promoting civil strife and systematic corruption.

* In parallel, Iraq’s rich heritage and unique cultural and archaeological patrimony has been wantonly destroyed.

In order to render Iraq dependent on US and UK strategic designs, successive US and UK governments have attempted to partition Iraq and to establish by military force a pro-occupation Iraqi government and political system. They have promoted and engaged in the massive plunder of Iraqi natural resources, attempting to privatize this property and wealth of the Iraqi nation.

Humanity at stake

This is but the barest summary of the horrors Iraq has endured, based on lies that nobody but cowed governments and complicit media believed. In 2003, millions worldwide were mobilized in opposition to US/UK plans. In going ahead, the US and UK launched an illegal war of aggression. Accountability has not been established.

The persons named in this case have each played a key role in Iraq’s intended destruction. They instigated, supported, condoned, rationalized, executed and/or perpetuated or excused this destruction based on lies and narrow strategic and economic interests, and against the will of their own people. Allowing those responsible to escape accountability means such actions could be repeated elsewhere.

It is imperative now to establish accountability for US and UK war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Iraq because:

Every Iraqi victim deserves justice.

Everyone responsible should be accountable.

We are before immoral and unlawful acts, contrary to the basis on which the international order of state sovereignty and peace and security rests. Whereas the official international justice system is closed before the suffering of those that imperialism makes a target, through this case we try to open a channel whereby the conscience of humanity can express its solidarity with justice for victims of imperial crimes.

Ad Hoc Committee For Justice For Iraq

Press contacts:
Hana Al Bayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal

34 657 52 70 77 or +20 10 027 7964 (English and French) hanaalbayaty@gmail.com
Dr Ian Douglas, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal, coordinator, International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq

+20 12 167 1660 (English) iandouglas@USgenocide.org

Amanda Nuredin, +34 657 52 70 77 (Spanish) justiciaparairak@gmail.com
Abdul Ilah Albayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal

+33 471 461 197 (Arabic) albayaty_abdul@hotmail.com
Web:
www.brusselstribunal.org
www.USgenocide.org
www.twitter.com/USgenocide
www.facebook.com/USgenocide
Source

‘Hush’ over Afghan mission must end

Afghanistan: Troops Guarding the Poppy Fields

(Afghanistan 1) A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

Has Usama Bin Ladin been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?

The New American Century

Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,

This is a very detailed report, absolutely amazing how many countries supply weapons to Israel.  Do check it out and please sign the petition of support.

Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza and Petition to Support the Goldstone UN Mission Report

Pipelines in the Middle East Afghanistan included/ Maps as well

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

True Lies

The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers

By Richard H. Curtiss
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer

October 03, 2009

For many years the American media said that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid” or that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid.” Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That’s true. But it’s still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America’s foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it’s been going on for more than a generation.

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel’s Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don’t.

The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.

Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel’s 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.

The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby’s principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well funded hate group.

In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.

More recently, FBI raids on ADL’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.

The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.

Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL’s Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.

Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such “enemies” files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called “Terrorism experts,” and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in blacklisting, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC’s “opposition research“ department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.

But this is not AIPAC’s most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers’ fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC’s most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC’s national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.

An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That’s enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.

Even candidates who don’t need this kind of money certainly don’t want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.

There is something else very special about AIPAC’s network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
Hiding AIPAC’s Tracks

In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don’t know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much “hard money” into any candidate’s election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.

Although AIPAC, Washington’s most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can’t hide all of the results.

Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.

Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000–almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.

According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.

Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.

The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel’s 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons

These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for the Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.

As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.

But that’s not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That’s the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that’s $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It’s worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it’s beyond the parameters of this study, it’s worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel’s Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing. (one must add interest on to that as well)

In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it’s a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America’s mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.

Source

">

Legally Israel owes the US Billions

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

UN inquiry finds Gaza war crimes

Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death?/ Israels terrorist activities/Mossad Assasinations

Gaza (6) A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (5): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (4): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (3): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (2): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Poll: Should Israel be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction

October 8 2009

">

Legally Israel owes the US Billions/they also refuse to open up to weapon inspectors as well

Federal Reserve rejects request for public Audit

By  Stephen C. Webster

From September 21 2009

The institution which creates and oversees America’s currency wants to keep a “low profile,” according to a published report on Monday, and may willing to dodge the U.S. Treasury in order to do so.

According to Bloomberg News, the Federal Reserve Bank will not submit to a voluntary public study of its internal structure and methods of governance, as it was requested to do so by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Geithner is the former New York Federal Reserve Bank chairman. The review he requested is part of President Barack Obama’s financial regulatory reforms, which he proposed in mid-June. Part of those reforms would have studied the Fed’s “ability to accomplish its existing and proposed functions” — a proposal the bank’s board of governors appears to have flatly rejected.

“The agency also said that while the report requested by Secretary Geithner and his department has not yet been scrapped, no work has been done on the project, which is due Oct 1,” noted Reuters.

“The institution is trying to keep a low profile,” Vincent Reinhart, a former Fed monetary policy director, told Bloomberg. “To publish a report now invites comment on that report.”

And comments are the last thing the Fed wants right now.

Under fire

The Federal Reserve has been under growing political fire ever since Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) made it a frequent target during his presidential campaign. However, Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank, openly calling for it to be abolished and the U.S. dollar to once again be backed by gold, instead of mere faith.

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy,” Paul said in 2002, according to congressional records. “The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial ‘boom’ followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.”

His bill, House Resolution 1207, which would subject the Fed to a complete audit, has gained significant traction in the U.S. House of Representatives, with over half its members signing on in support of the move. Though mostly Republicans, a large cross-section of Democrats reached across the aisle to support the bill, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, recently told a town hall audience that the Fed will be subjected to a complete audit soon. He predicted the House will pass Paul’s bill — or an amalgam of it, wrapped with other regulatory reforms — “probably in October.”

“A companion bill in the Senate introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has 27 cosponsors,” noted The Hill.

The Fed has also come under fire for refusing to disclose which firms it paid massive bailouts to in 2008 and early 2009, amid the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. A particular amount of interest among lawmakers has focused on the Bank of American – Merrill Lynch & Co. merger, which the Fed facilitated.

The House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, under the leadership of Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), subpoenaed the Fed in June for records relating to the transaction. New York Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo has claimed that, in 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strong-armed BofA into buying Merrill — a move that, if true, could expose Paulson and Bernanke to prosecution. That investigation is under way.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke “has vehemently opposed the idea [of an audit], asserting that it would lead to the politicization of monetary policy by giving Congress an easy way to second-guess any decision the Fed makes,” noted The Los Angeles Times in late August.

That specific argument — that the monetary system is endangered by closer observation of Fed actions — was discounted by Judge Loretta Preska of the Manhattan U.S. District Court, in a ruling that ordered the Fed to disclose which firms received bailout dollars.

While the Fed argued that disclosing who was bailed out on the taxpayer’s dime could be detrimental to the agency’s independence from Congress, Judge Preska wrote that the claim was based merely on “conjecture” and the court remained unconvinced because the Fed had failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate its claims.

“[The] risk of looking weak to competitors and shareholders is an inherent risk of market participation; information tending to increase that risk does not make the information privileged or confidential,” she wrote.

Source

Federal  Reserve  History

To President Obama: Free Mohammad Othman Now

Free Mohammad Now

On September 22, Mohammad Othman was arrested and detained by Israeli soldiers on the Allenby Bridge Crossing, the border from Jordan to Palestine. He was returning from a trip to Norway, where he was advocating for Palestinian human rights. Ask U.S. President Obama to press for his immediate release.

(If you are not in the U.S., consider joining this action alert. Hold President Obama. accountable for his Cairo speech.)
The letter to Obama

Please tell the Israeli authorities to free Mohammad Othman.

He was arrested and detained by Israeli soldiers on the Allenby Bridge Crossing, the border from Jordan to Palestine. He was returning from a trip to Norway, where he was advocating for Palestinian human rights.

President Obama, in your Cairo speech, you have exhorted the Palestinians to seek a resolution to the violent Israeli/Palestinian conflict through the use of nonviolence.

In fact, Mohammad Othman and many other Palestinians have engaged in peaceful protest against the Israeli occupation for many years, in Bil’in, Nil’in, Jayyous and many other places that have lost their land to the wall and the settlements. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has compared them to Gandhi, who managed to overthrow British rule in India by nonviolent means, and to Martin Luther King, Jr., who took up the struggle of a black woman who was too tired to go to the back of a segregated bus.

And yet, protestors in the Occupied Territories face the same consequences: detention, injury, and even death.

Those that travel abroad to advocate their cause are at risk of being unjustly detained when they come back home. This is what happened to Muhammad Srour — an eye-witness at the UN Fact Finding Mission on Gaza — arrested on his way back from Geneva. This is what is happening to Mohammad Othman right now.

President Obama, you must come true to your words in Cairo and defend the right of Mr. Othman to speak up for Palestinian rights.

Thanks.

Mohammad has not committed any crime.

You can also add your  own comments

Two things I would like to see added are The following.

Defence for Children International has a report on the treatment Children  in Israeli prisons it an extremely disturbing report.

Check http://www.dci-pal.org/english/publ/research/CPReport.pdf

Report by  MachsomWatch.org on adults who were charged and incarcerated check  http://www.machsomwatch.org/files/Guilty.pdf

Seems they just keep throwing you in jail  or other means which may include torture, until you plead guilty.

Click here to send your letter to Obama

You can also go here to send a letter to Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

You can also call or write to the President:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

The choice is yours.

Under pressure from US, UN delays action on Gaza war report

Palestinian leaders drop backing for resolution on document critical of Israel and Hamas

October 2 2009

By Rory McCarthy

The UN today put off action on a report criticising Israel’s actions during the war in Gaza after Palestinian leaders suddenly dropped their support for a resolution, apparently under heavy US pressure.

The decision marked a surprising reversal in the Palestinian position which, until now, had backed the findings of the report by the South African judge Richard Goldstone.

Goldstone accused both Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas of war crimes during the three-week conflict.

He was particularly critical of Israel, both for its conduct of the war and its continued occupation of Palestinian territory.

The UN human rights council in Geneva had been due to vote today on whether to pass the Goldstone report to the UN security council for further action.

That vote will now be delayed until the council meets next, in March next year.

Israel had strongly rejected the findings of the Goldstone report as biased, even though it also criticised the actions of Hamas.

The US administration said it had “very serious concerns” about Goldstone’s recommendations, which included a call for the UN security council to investigate and raised the possibility of investigation by the international criminal court and judges from individual countries.

The Palestinians do not have a seat on the 47-member human rights council, but Arab and Muslim countries with council seats had been expected to push for the report to be endorsed.

The Palestinian reversal came after “intense diplomacy” by Washington, which told the Palestinians that going ahead with the vote would harm efforts to restart peace talks with the Israelis, according to diplomats quoted by news agencies.

“The Palestinians recognised that this was not the best time to go forward with this,” the official said.

Some western countries, including the US, were also thought to be concerned about the precedent that would be set by such international investigations into wartime actions.

However, Imad Zuhairi, the deputy Palestinian ambassador in Geneva, said the report “remains alive” and would be debated next spring. The delay “is not a victory for Israel”, he added.

It is understood that the Palestinians had helped draft a motion endorsing the Goldstone report and its recommendations, but that it became clear that the US, Japan and those European countries on the human rights council would not support the motion.

It was then decided to postpone the motion rather than have it voted down or vetoed.

Ghassan Khatib, the head of the Palestinian Authority’s media centre, said the Palestinians still supported the Goldstone report.

“There is no change in the Palestinian position,” he added. “Palestinian officials didn’t backtrack from the position they declared, which is that they expect the human rights council to adopt the report and that the UN should do whatever it takes to ensure the implementation of its recommendations.”

It appeared that the Palestinian leadership was reluctant to lose the chance to return to peace negotiations with Israel and unwilling to try other steps to put pressure on Israel such as international legal action.

Robert Blecher, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, said a similar decision had been taken last week when the Palestinians agreed to meet the Israelis in New York despite Israel’s decision not to accept their call for a full halt to settlement construction.

“This is a further indication that the current Palestinian leadership is not considering any options except for negotiation and in that sense the climbdown, like the climbdown in the meeting in New York city, is not unexpected – just the speed with which it was taken,” he said.

Israel refused to co-operate with Goldstone’s investigations, not even granting him entry to the country.

It then launched an intense diplomatic and public relations operation against his report, particularly after efforts this week in Britain to have an arrest warrant issued against Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister who oversaw the Gaza war.

Yesterday, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said an endorsement of the Goldstone report would “strike a fatal blow against the peace process” and deny Israel’s “right to self-defence”.

Goldstone defended his work against Netanyahu’s criticism, saying: “I think he got wrong what our report is all about.

“He talked about Israel’s right to self-defence. That is not what the report was about.”

He said both sides in the conflict had violated international law by targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, he had told the human rights council that he wanted a “transparent, open investigation” by both sides into the allegations made in his report.

The 575-page report found that some Israelis should face “individual criminal responsibility” and that both sides had committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

The three-week war, which left 1,387 Palestinians dead, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and killed 13 Israelis, triggered criticism across the world.

Source

Seems Israel has threatened a few people to get the
UN to back off. That is so typical.  Seems once again Israel gets off once again  with their murderous activities.
I bet the message was back off or die.

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

A short list of Israeli Terrorist activities around the world can be found here.

Poll: Should Israel be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Legally Israel owes the US Billions

Legally Israel owes the US Billions

Israeli Nukes, US Foreign Aid and the Symington Amendment.
Documents
The following document case file reveals the slow decline of  the policy of “strategic ambiguity” whereby US and Israeli officials deny the existence of the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal in order to continue unfettered US military aid.

Document/File Date Contents

1960 (PDF) CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate released on June 5, 2009.  Israel’s nukes and role in foreign policy “assertiveness.”

“Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence, and assertiveness…Israel would be less inclined than ever to make concessions…”

1963 President John F. Kennedy insists on US inspections of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor in a secret letter to Prime Minister Levi Eskol.

1970 Treaty on the Non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons enters into force.

1976 The US passes the Symington Amendment of  1976. Symington Amendment prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

1977 Glenn Amendment of 1977 calls for an end to aid to countries that import reprocessing technology.

1986 The Sunday Times publishes “The secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal/ Atomic technician Mordechai Vanunu reveals secret weapons production.”

2008 Former president Jimmy Carter names Israel as a nuclear weapons power.

2008 The US Army names Israel as a nuclear weapons power.

2009 AIPAC and ZOA lobby for $2.775 billion in US military aid for Israel

2009 Congress advised (via fax) that US aid is governed by the Symington Amendment.

2009 President Barak Obama advised (via letter) that US aid is governed by the Symington Amendment

Source

June 1976: Symington Amendment Passed Restricting Aid to Nuclear Proliferators

Senator Stuart Symington. [Source: Bettman / Corbis]Legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, is passed by the US Congress to set out the US position on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The legislation, which becomes known as the “Symington amendment,” bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards. Authors David Armstrong and Joe Trento will later comment that this puts “both Pakistan [which is thought to be involved in such trafficking] and the Ford administration on notice that nonproliferation would now be taken seriously.”

The CIA report of 1960 states that Israel is going to build Nuclear Weapons.

From 1976 on, all Aid given to Israel should be returned to the citizens of the US.   Legally speaking.

Israel has fraudulently, been taking aid from the US..

They hid their Nuclear bomb building complex,  from the US as noted by Mordechai Vanunu.

That is a legal opinion.

The US is also breaking their own law by giving Aid to Israel.

That too is a legal opinion.

Reminds me of a Dirty Cop stealing drugs from a bust, then sells it to a Drug Lord who in turn,  sells it to people on the streets and neither one ever get busted.

Both are guilty of a crime.

In this case however the Tax Payer is the one who is being ripped off.

President John F. Kennedy insists on US inspections of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor in a secret letter to Prime Minister Levi Eskol.

He was assassinated. So Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death? Israel came out a big winner /no inspections /more Aid/ability to pursue Nuclear bombs/ And Terrorism

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD/Mordechai Vanunu

Iran Proposes Control System Aimed at Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

Resolution 1887 2009

THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ( NPT ) HTML

From 2001 UN  Israel IAEA

The General Assembly adopted five resolutions on the armed Zionist aggression, namely resolutions 36/27, 37/18, 38/9, 39/14 and 40/6, under the item entitled “Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its
grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international
peace and security”. In the aggregate of these resolutions, the Assembly:

The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern Israel and bordering states such as Lebanon From 1947 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict. In early Security Council practice, resolutions did not directly invoke Chapter VII. They made an explicit determination of a threat, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and ordered an action in accordance with Article 39 or 40. Resolution 54 determined that a threat to peace existed within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, reiterated the need for a truce, and ordered a cease-fire pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter. Although the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII” was never mentioned as the basis for the action taken, the chapter’s authority was being used.

• 1947
  • November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 181: recommending partition of the British Mandate into Jewish and Arab states
• 1948
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 194: conditional right of return of refugees
• 1949
  • May 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 273: admission of Israel to the UN
• 1975
  • March 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379: equating Zionism with Racism
• 1991
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 4686: annulled Res. 3379

1. Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
2. Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes “increasing violence and disorder in Palestine” and requests that representatives of “the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee” arrange, with the Security Council, “a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine…Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately.”
3. Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
4. Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, “it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine.” The Resolutions also “Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine” to stop importing “armed bands and fighting personnel…whatever their origin;…weapons and war materials;…Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine…from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;…refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine.”
5. Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
6. Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
7. Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
8. Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
9. Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
10. Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
11. Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
12. Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
13. Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
14. Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
15. Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
16. Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
17. Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
18. Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
19. Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and “transfer of persons”.
20. Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
21. Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
22. Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
23. Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
24. Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
25. Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid.
26. Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
27. Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
28. Resolution 111: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
29. Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 Apr)
30. Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 Jun)
31. Resolution 127: ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
32. Resolution 138: Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentine complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
33. Resolution 162: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
34. Resolution 171: ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
35. Resolution 228: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
36. Resolution 233 (June 6, 1967
37. Resolution 234 (June 7, 1967
38. Resolution 235 (June 9, 1967
39. Resolution 236 (June 11, 1967
40. Resolution 237: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.
41. Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967: concerning violations of the cease-fire
42. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel’s neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
43. Resolution 248: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
44. Resolution 250: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
45. Resolution 251: ” … ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.
46. Resolution 252: ” … ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
47. Resolution 256: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
48. Resolution 258
49. Resolution 259: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
50. Resolution 262: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.
51. Resolution 265: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan”.
52. Resolution 267: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
53. Resolution 270: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
54. Resolution 271: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
55. Resolution 279: ” … ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.
56. Resolution 280: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
57. Resolution 285: ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.
58. Resolution 298: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
59. Resolution 313: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
60. Resolution 316: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
61. Resolution 317: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
62. Resolution 331
63. Resolution 332: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
64. Resolution 337: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.
65. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
66. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
67. Resolution 340
68. Resolution 341
69. Resolution 344
70. Resolution 346
71. Resolution 347: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
72. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
73. Resolution 362
74. Resolution 363
75. Resolution 368
76. Resolution 369
77. Resolution 371
78. Resolution 378
79. Resolution 381
80. Resolution 390
81. Resolution 396
82. Resolution 398
83. Resolution 408
84. Resolution 416
85. Resolution 420
86. Resolution 425 (1978): ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
87. Resolution 426
88. Resolution 427: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon”.
89. Resolution 429
90. Resolution 434
91. Resolution 438
92. Resolution 441
93. Resolution 444: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
94. Resolution 446 (1979): ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ’serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
95. Resolution 449
96. Resolution 450: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
97. Resolution 452: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
98. Resolution 456
99. Resolution 459
100. Resolution 465: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
101. Resolution 467: ” … ’strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
102. Resolution 468: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
103. Resolution 469: ” … ’strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
104. Resolution 470
105. Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
106. Resolution 474
107. Resolution 476: ” … ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.
108. Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’.
109. Resolution 481
110. Resolution 483
111. Resolution 484: ” … ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”.
112. Resolution 485
113. Resolution 487: ” … ’strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.
114. Resolution 488
115. Resolution 493
116. Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
117. Resolution 498: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
118. Resolution 501: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
119. Resolution 506
120. Resolution 508:
121. Resolution 509: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
122. Resolution 511
123. Resolution 515: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.
124. Resolution 516
125. Resolution 517: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
126. Resolution 518: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
127. Resolution 519
128. Resolution 520: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
129. Resolution 523
130. Resolution 524
131. Resolution 529
132. Resolution 531
133. Resolution 536
134. Resolution 538
135. Resolution 543
136. Resolution 549
137. Resolution 551
138. Resolution 555
139. Resolution 557
140. Resolution 561
141. Resolution 563
142. Resolution 573: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
143. Resolution 575
144. Resolution 576
145. Resolution 583
146. Resolution 584
147. Resolution 586
148. Resolution 587 ” … ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
149. Resolution 590
150. Resolution 592: ” … ’strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.
151. Resolution 594
152. Resolution 596
153. Resolution 599
154. Resolution 603
155. Resolution 605: ” … ’strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
156. Resolution 607: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
157. Resolution 608: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
158. Resolution 609
159. Resolution 611
160. Resolution 613
161. Resolution 617
162. Resolution 624
163. Resolution 630
164. Resolution 633
165. Resolution 636: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
166. Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
167. Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
168. Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
169. Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)
170. Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
171. Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
172. Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for “violence against Palestinians” at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
173. Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
174. Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
175. Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
176. Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
177. Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
178. Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
179. Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
180. Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
181. Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): ” … ’strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
182. Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
183. Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
184. Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
185. Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
186. Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): “. . . ’strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
187. Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
188. Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
189. Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
190. Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
191. Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994)
192. Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
193. Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
194. Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
195. Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
196. Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
197. Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
198. Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
199. Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
200. Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
201. Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
202. Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
203. Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
204. Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
205. Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
206. Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
207. Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
208. Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
209. Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
210. Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
211. Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
212. Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
213. Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000)
214. Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
215. Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
216. Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
217. Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
218. Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that “the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
219. Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
220. Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
221. Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

Over the years nothing has improved.  From Day one Israel has been a problem.

Israel Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act, 2010
Bill HR 3160 IH
Israel will get
$2,828,860,000 That’s almost 3 billion.
Except for 25 million it is all for weapons and the military.
So why do Americans tolerate this?

Search for US Bills here

I just put in Word/Phrase  “Israel” in search box. Exact Match only, All Bills, House and Senate, From 1907 through 2009. Anything with the word Israel in it should come up for you. It is a very long list. An amazing long list.

Related Articles

Poll: Should Israel be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

They also torture children. There two very good reports at this link. PA minister accuses Israel of neglecting prisoners’ health

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words