Archive | January 4th, 2011





Gaza Two Years Later: The roof of my house

Jan 04, 2011

Sarah Ali


I used to love the roof of my house. Well, not anymore.

There is a bunch of kids in the middle, all gazing at some round glittering objects. Appointing himself as the referee of the game, my little cousin declares the beginning of the match. A young boy starts. His pupils start to get bigger and sharper as he measures the angle. His looks are focused on his target. He professionally flicks the little marble out of his fist with the tip of his tiny thumb. “YES,” he shouts. And the scuffle commences. His competitor, making an oath of divorce, claims that he who won had cheated. Then trying to accept the fact that he lost, he swears it was noting but a fluke by an amateur. Enraged, he quits the game and promises he would be taking revenge the next time they assemble to play.

The kids of the neighborhood always wondered why this group preferred the roof over the street. “The roof is much nicer,” my cousin used to simply reply.

That’s one reason why I loved the roof. I loved the spirit, and I loved the marbles. A year has passed. The kids don’t come over much often these days. The place no longer sounds like their warmhearted spot, let’s say. Had he survived the war, my cousin would have been 12 years old by now. And here I am, selfishly mourning over my stupid roof while others had lost their lives!

There in the corner stands a pigeons’ chamber. My parents have always argued whether to keep it or not. My mother used to complain about the “bad smell” and the “filth” the chamber caused. She, however, was fair enough to always praise the beauty of the doves. At that day, we all cried, mom included. There was too much blood to bear. We came to conclude that not only humans’ but also birds’ blood can be aching to see or to smell. Though the place is pretty dark in here, but now I can clearly see some feathers blowing here and there each time the puff hits what remained of the chamber. I only wish I could touch the feathers.

I don’t know how they get water to reach houses in other countries, but in Gaza, you have a tank on the roof supplying your house with water. Our tank has been leaking for ages. The plumber is always busy (don’t get surprised, for in Gaza, everyone is busy all the time), so we had to live with the water leaking from the barrel. Well, that had its advantages no doubt. The withered lawn under the tank began to get green when the leak first started. No wonder why my brother was sluggish and didn’t want the plumber to come take a look; he must have loved the green lawn. BANG..BANG.. the tank is not leaking anymore. It’s not even there. The lawn slowly dies. I desperately need to go irrigate it.

I used to study on the roof when I was a school-student. I can see my handwriting all over the place: on the water tanks, on the chamber’s wall, on the railing of the roof. One year passed, and the handwriting started to fade. The things on which I used to write are no longer there. I eagerly want to go scribble something. I wish I could do so.

I wish I could one day go up to sit in the roof and to find that nothing had changed. I am waiting for the day when I go up to find my cousin and his fellows playing marbles. I am waiting for the day when I find the tank leaking and the lawn under it getting green. I am waiting for the day when I find the pigeons’ chamber standing where my father had once built it. I believe I will one day find the roof as lovely as it has always been. I don’t know how or when, but I feel it’s coming, and I know how naïve this sounds.

I can’t but love the roof of my house. I didn’t survive the war, but I believe in miracles. I am praying those who survived would witness one.

Sarah Ali, 19, is a second-year student of English literature at the Islamic University, Gaza. Gaza Two Years Later is a series of posts by Gazan bloggers and writers reflecting on the two-year anniversary of the Israeli attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008/09. You can read the entire series here.

IDF pushes claim that ‘Palestinians lied’ about Jawaher Abu Rahma’s killing

Jan 04, 2011

Philip Weiss


The Jawaher Abu-Rahma case is taking on huge political significance, the international attention given to the 36-year-old woman killed by teargas in occupied Bil’in on Friday, a year and a half after her brother Bassem was struck and killed by a teargas canister fired by the Israeli army in another demonstration against the wall. The Israelis are now actively trying to undermine the story. The human-rights attorney Michael Sfard has responded with this statement:

Lawyer Michael Sfard who represents the Abu Rahmah family rejects these claims categorically. According to him, “Jawahir went a week ago for an examination for a common winter illness. According to people with whom I spoke, she was at the protest on Friday, but not in the first line of demonstrators, and after she was injured by the gas, she was removed to the area of the village houses, and from there was moved to the ambulance. The operational investigation cannot uncover reliable data, and therefore we are demanding a criminal investigation by the military police”

What are these claims? First from Muqata:

Senior IDF military sources briefed an exclusive group of bloggers this evening on the events surrounding this past Friday’s Bilin demonstration and the “alleged tear gassing to death” of a Palestinian woman, Jawaher Abu Rahma.
IDF: We have reason to believe that the death 2 days ago was because of another reason than what the Palestinians are claiming (tear gas inhalation).

And this from Ynet’s Hanan Greenberg:

Did Palestinians lie about death of Jawaher Abu-Rahma?

Two days after reports that an anti-fence protestor died after inhaling tear gas fired by IDF troops, the army says medical information handed over to Israel raises fundamental question marks about the story. According to IDF officials, Abu-Rahma may have not even participated in the protest in question. 

Sources familiar with the material said that unlike similar incidents in the past, the report about Abu-Rahma’s injuries arrived late and contained puzzling details. According to the medical report, there was no clear cause of death, the burial was undertaken via an accelerated procedure, and no post-mortem was performed. The information also reveals that Abu-Rahma was administered an unusual quantity of drugs, used to offer treatment against poisoning, drug overdose, or leukemia. Moreover, her family’s report that she was “hurt by Israeli gas” was not corroborated by any other source.

One of the Israeli claims is that not much teargas was used. But Jewish Voice for Peace’s twitter feed clearly contradicts that claim– it was “raining” gas–as do Lisa Goldman’s feeds posted here the other day. We’re awaiting updates on the case. 

Gaza Two Years Later: From beneath

Jan 04, 2011

Rawan Yaghi


I didn’t even know if my eyes were open.

After a big mess everything seemed so calm I could sense the dust covering my face, the only part I could feel. I could feel my breath hitting one of the bricks of my room’s floor. Air found its way through everything surrounding my body. Silence was all I could hear.

My arms trapped somewhere under the wooden edges of my bed, my toes, my legs, my hair, they all were jailed and penalized not to move. I was afraid. I waited and waited trying to recall all the joyful events in my life, as my mother once advised me to do so when I’m afraid, though they were few: My elder brother’s big wedding, my grandmother coming from Hajj and bringing me a doll singing, the last Eid when I got my biggest Edeyya ever, my mother bringing us home a new baby after me. I wonder if that was a happy event for me, but I could certainly see the joy my parents had looking at that little thing.

My breath firmly came back to my face touching it as to comfort me and tell me that everything will be ok. A minute later I started crying, though. And only then I realized that my eyes were closed, for I could feel my wet eyelashes. It did not matter; opening them and closing them were thoroughly the same. I cried so much that my tears mixed with the dust on my face felt like mud at the edges of my face. I must have been bleeding, since a killing pain started growing in my chest with the growing of my weeping. I tried to move in order to stop the pain. Only one muscle, I found out that something very sharp, extremely strong, calmly was standing through my skin. I stopped crying. I waited. I bled.

Rawan Yaghi, 17, is a secondary school student in Gaza. She blogs at Gaza Two Years Later is a series of posts by Gazan bloggers and writers reflecting on the two-year anniversary of the Israeli attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008/09. You can read the entire series here.

Gaza Two Years Later: I waited 23 days to cry, and two years to write

Jan 04, 2011

Fidaa Abu Assi


What a miracle! Two years elapsed and I am still capable of taking another breath of life! Who ever expected I would be writing this right now in the same Gaza, the very same place that was being entirely knocked down two years ago? Do I have to be grateful? Am I lucky enough to survive such a gruesomely unforgettable war to keep recalling it each year? Or would I be luckier if I was among the dead –definitely not the wounded- in order to be spared the torture of living its horrible memories over and over again? I expected a relieving answer from none.

If I happened to be asked to chronicle its events, I wonder what I would probably have to write about. Would it seem weird if I said I had seen nothing of most what I heard? Yet, I still insist I witnessed it all; every single second I had to suffer. How ironic! Yes I know. We underwent 23-relentless days of intensive punishments and collective genocide; days of heavy bombardment and white-phosphorous shelling; and days of tight restrictions and grave aggression. No electricity. No television. No connection. No contact. Our cries, our screams, our pleas couldn’t be heard in a such abandoned warzone-like area. The whole world seemed to suddenly turn its back on us.

As our cellphones were almost out of power, the only connection to the outside was the transistor radio. The shelling was targeting every living thing but we couldn’t figure out who and what the target was. The radio helped in updating us only with the death-toll, giving the number of the dead bodies. With everything based on anticipations, nothing was certain.

Since the hell had broken loose in Gaza, we were locked in our house, actually crammed only in one room, the smallest and the middle, leaving the largest and avoiding the wall-to-wall rooms which could be of a dangerous exposure to the explosions. Actually, that was my dad’s suggestion, thinking we would be protected this way from any harm and that we could all be altogether, offering support & warm to one another since each one of us, while holding each other’s arms, seemed to be shivering, either out of cold or out of fear.

Israeli bombs and shells came from every direction in a frenzy of violence. With each astonishing sound, one would close the eyes and say” God God! Am I the target?” Our ears were functioning very attentively. I wished I were deaf. I couldn’t bear the roaring sounds of helicopters overhead which it seemed it would never leave the sky. I couldn’t stand the constant barrage of explosives which I thought would be the cause of my imminent deafness. Our eyes could peek out of the windows to see the air was full of fire, smoke and debris.

We didn’t know what happened there. We heard tens and dozens were killed but we had seen none. We heard people screaming in panic but we could hardly know who the deceased was. We were prisoners in our houses. We couldn’t even run for our lives since every single spot and creature were targeted. No place was safe even at home. With much fear that we would be the next victims, we waited anxiously our turns to finally come in so the effects of such traumas would wear off the moment we died out.

Out of my scattered and shattered memories, one thing I remember very well is that I wasn’t told that the war was over; I just had the feeling it was. I spent the 23-days in total silence which was constantly broken by the sounds of the Apache or F-16. But I myself was completely silent, lost in thoughts, wishing not to be the only survivor among my beloved family. The very thought of it chilled my blood within me.

Whosoever saw me thought I was resilient and strong enough to bear all of its atrocities with a deafening silence. In fact, I wasn’t. I was coward enough to having wished to be dead as soon as possible so I could rest in peace in my grave if I couldn’t find peace at my home. Twenty-three days and I shed no single drop of tears. This sent my dad into a series of questions. “Is she alright?”, my dad implored my mum, “why doesn’t she look affected?” My mum kindly thought I wasn’t afraid. To their great disappointment, I was. Fear tightened around my chest and it almost killed me. I was frightened by the thought of losing you, mum. I was selfish enough to pray not to be tormented by the loss of my mum and it didn’t cross my mind that she would even be more tormented by my loss. I should have prayed that we should all die together.

When it was over, I could fake my resilience no more. I do remember that two nights after the war, I woke up to find myself crying heavily. That time I hadn’t fought back my tears. I simply couldn’t. I wanted to release all my pent-up emotions so I broke down in tears. I could no longer contain myself. My mum was awakened by my pathetic sobs. So anxious was she that she didn’t know what she had to do. She took me in her warm lap trying to soothe away my fear. Clutching her arm, I bitterly wept. With bated breath she asked “have you waited 23-days to cry?” I didn’t know under what categories I should have classified my tears. Tears of survival? Tears of suppression? Tears of injustice? Tears of negligence? I didn’t care. I became better off since then, however.

As my mum once wondered if I waited 23 days to cry, I am now wondering whether I’ve been waiting 2 years to write. Perhaps I didn’t want to keep the memory of this tragedy alive; I wanted to forget to help me move on, but the world, in order to move on, shouldn’t forget this. Not only does this date mark the genocidal Gaza war but it also debunks the international conspiracy of silence.

Fidaa Abu Assi, 22, is an English Literature graduate from the Islamic University of Gaza. She blogs at Gaza Two Years Later is a series of posts by Gazan bloggers and writers reflecting on the two-year anniversary of the Israeli attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008/09. You can read the entire series here.

Israeli spoof of brainwashing — in kindergarten

Jan 03, 2011

Pamela Olson


This is adorable. And telling. And hilarious. Not the salmon!

Habibi Chomsky

Jan 03, 2011



Noam Chomsky on “delegitimation” at truthout:

While intensively engaged in illegal settlement expansion, the government of Israel is also seeking to deal with two problems: a global campaign of what it perceives as “delegitimation” – that is, objections to its crimes and withdrawal of participation in them – and a parallel campaign of legitimation of Palestine. 

The “delegitimation,” which is progressing rapidly, was carried forward in December by a Human Rights Watch call on the U.S. “to suspend financing to Israel in an amount equivalent to the costs of Israel’s spending in support of settlements,” and to monitor contributions to Israel from tax-exempt U.S. organizations that violate international law, “including prohibitions against discrimination” – which would cast a wide net. Amnesty International had already called for an arms embargo on Israel. The legitimation process also took a long step forward in December, when Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil recognized the State of Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), bringing the number of supporting nations to more than 100.

Baby steps (State Department is ‘aware’ of killing involving tear gas at protest)

Jan 03, 2011

Philip Weiss


From the State Department today:

QUESTION: Were you aware of this protest that happened at Ambassador Cunningham’s house? At his residence in Tel Aviv over the weekend, a bunch of protestors tried to, quote-un-quote, “return teargas canisters” that were fired at them that led to the death of a protestor.

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not, actually.

QUESTION: Okay. The reason I ask is that the Israeli police say that some of the teargas canisters were still active and that they were treating it as an attack on a diplomatic facility.


QUESTION: Can you —

MR. CROWLEY: — we certainly support the investigation. I mean, I am aware of the episode in terms of the teargas, but I’m not aware of the protests. But I’m – we understand it’s being investigated.

QUESTION: Do you – so you – I’m sorry, you’re aware of the protest at the Ambassador’s residence or —

MR. CROWLEY: No, I do understand that there was teargas that was led off in conjunction with a protest – I didn’t know the location of the protest – and that I believe at least one person was killed as a result of that. And I believe it’s being investigated.

QUESTION: Well, this was – this is – there are two separate incidents.


QUESTION: There’s the one where the teargas was fired and then there was this one in front of – can you —

MR. CROWLEY: I did not know anything about the other —

QUESTION: Okay. Can – is it possible to check to see if you guys are treating this as an attack on one of your diplomatic facilities?


Signposting the occupation

Jan 03, 2011

Eleanor K



My senses let me down.

On Friday 31 December – the day Jawaher Abu Rahmah was murdered by the Israeli army – I thought I smelt manure in the village of Bil’in, but it was the skunk truck (The Boesh), used by the Israeli military to crush peaceful protest. Back in 1994 I thought I lived in one nation called Israel, with an Arab minority – no one had told me about the military occupation and I failed to see it. That year I witnessed one minor and one major event: on a Saturday morning near the Damascus Gate (Bab al-Amoud) in East Jerusalem, a jeep brakes abruptly as a young Arab man jumps out of the back; two soldiers give chase, hit him with a blunt weapon and drag him back into the vehicle, which then drives on. I watched it happen and I didn’t like it, but I didn’t know what it meant.

On 25 February that year, newspaper vendors near and within the Old City thrust images of a massacre into my face; I learn that a Jewish settler and medical doctor Baruch Goldstein has entered the Ibrahim mosque in Hebron and opened fire on worshippers before being beaten to death. I looked at the gruesome photos and winced, feeling sorry for the Arabs, but I still didn’t understand. What I could not see with my own eyes did not occur to me at 18 years old: that I was witnessing a brutal occupation of an indigenous people called the Palestinians.

The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ was entirely alien to me, and ‘occupation’ was only familiar to me from history lessons on the Nazi occupation of France. The family I worked for in Tel Aviv certainly did not tell me. Instead, they only warned me each weekend to be careful in Jerusalem because “it is full of Arabs” and “they are like animals”. As the child of British liberal, middle class parents, I dismissed this as the vulgar racism and populist sentiment of the barely educated lower middle-class.

The year 2010/11: “Look over here, I want to show you, can you see the settlement of Har Gilo, can you see the Israeli-only road and tunnel; can you see the new construction of the wall just below?” M. always insists on pointing out all the signs of the occupation during our walks through Beit Jala, and sometimes I think it’s unnecessary, yet I have missed so many signs before.

Last week during my bespoke tour of West Jerusalem, O. asked me if I had seen The Russian Compound leased by the Israeli state, also used as a detention and GSS interrogation centre holding many Palestinian political detainees. I had walked past, around it, perhaps sensed the rings of barbed wire in the periphery of my vision, but I had not been told its purpose, so no, I had not really seen it. T, a Jewish Israeli activist now in her 60s who was born in Tel Aviv, tells me she used to walk to school with a group of friends through a ruined Palestinian village and not ask who had lived there before.

Present-day Tel Aviv has been cleansed of almost all obvious signs of Palestinian presence and dispossession except for the omnipresent young Israelis in military fatigues who serve the occupation but whose olive green uniform signals to most of the public, simply – and absurdly – benign, patriotic duty. Traveling to Bil’in from Tel Aviv, or leaving al-Quds to visit surrounding areas I see other signs – ordinary road signs in Hebrew, transliterated into English and Arabic.

They are signposting war crimes: the illegal settlements beyond the 1949 armistice ‘Green’ line that proliferate, indeed flourish. What kind of criminal signposts his or her own crime? Where a hand-made sign or a placard would have little legitimacy in the eyes of a public distrustful of amateurishness and the absence of recognizable branding, mass produced government ministry signs with the purported mandate of informing the public give comfort to the Israeli and foreign driver and pedestrian.

Today, as I write this, the signs of occupation are too clear to me; I want to go to al-Quds for the afternoon but I would have to take a bus through a military checkpoint and I need a day without seeing an Israeli military uniform and without witnessing further outrages to human dignity: outrages and war crimes that are perpetrated so casually and defended so unthinkingly by a coalition of the willfully ignorant and defiantly racist. At the Tel Aviv protest against the murder of Jawaher on Saturday, I hold up a borrowed sign: ‘Jawaher Abu Rahmah, 36, killed by Israel’, a driver shouts back: ‘She shouldn’t have been demonstrating’.

We need to be educated before we can read the signs of Israeli occupation. I fantasize about how an illegal settlement might be signposted if the Israeli state were not the driving force behind the settlement of Palestinian land – a war crime under International humanitarian law. Perhaps it would be black spray on cardboard and it would read: ‘Come and live here – it belongs to us, not the Arabs. Tell your friends too. We have called it ‘Holy Mount of Ancient Something Beautiful’ “. Visually suspect as well as recognizably criminal.

Goldberg’s next war sure sounds a lot like his last one

Jan 03, 2011

Philip Weiss


Four months back, Jeffrey Goldberg published a long piece in the Atlantic called “The Point of No Return,” making the Israeli case for the United States to attack Iran in Never-again terms: Iran is threatening the existence of “the Jewish people,” Israel is bound to act if the U.S. fails to, the U.S. will do a better job. The piece has stirred a lot of discussion. Goldberg has gone on national media and panels at thinktanks to promote these bellicose ideas.

But no one has pointed out that the piece makes the same argument Goldberg marshaled eight years ago for the U.S. to attack Iraq, that time with an article in the New Yorker magazine under the headline, “The Great Terror.”  Iraq too was bent on the destruction of the Jewish people, and was developing a nuclear weapon to do so.

The language in the pieces is eerily similar. The last time the concentration camp Goldberg invoked was Bergen-Belsen. This time around it’s Auschwitz.

Both times the enemy is “three years” away from going nuclear. Last time:

He [August Hanning of German intelligence agency] does not equivocate. “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,” he said. 

This time:

Iran is, at most, one to three years away from having a breakout nuclear capability (often understood to be the capacity to assemble more than one missile-ready nuclear device within about three months of deciding to do so).

The last time round Goldberg was flat wrong.

“The Great Terror” stated that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, and the article was cited by both Bush and Cheney as proof of the threat posed by Iraq (Muhammad Idrees Ahmad has told me). As it turned out, Saddam Hussein didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction and didn’t attack Israel and wasn’t making a nuclear warhead or an aflatoxin/chemical/biological one and wasn’t importing canisters of mysterious nerve gases, as Goldberg had affirmed. But meantime, the U.S. was at war with Iraq, in some measure because of the bad ideas that Goldberg proliferated, and we and the Iraqis and its neighbors are still suffering the consequences.

This time around, the question is, Why is anyone listening to Goldberg? Why are prestige news organizations giving him the microphone?

But let’s compare similarities in the casus belli pieces.

In both cases, Goldberg turned Koran scholar to support his views. Last time, Saddam’s rage against the Kurds was based in part on

a chapter in the Koran that allows conquering Muslim armies to seize the spoils of their foes. It reads, in part, ‘Against them’—your enemies—‘make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah…’

Now Iran is the problem, Goldberg writes that “the depth of official Iranian hatred of Israel and Jews” can only be explained by looking to

a line of Shia Muslim thinking that views Jews as ritually contaminated, a view derived in part from the Koran’s portrayal of Jews as treasonous foes of the Prophet Muhammad.

In both cases, Goldberg alarms readers with Holocaust-tinged fears that a Muslim country is planning to wipe Jews out.

[T]he experts say, Saddam’s desire is to expel the Jews from history

That was last time. And this time—

[A] nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.

The last time Saddam was the first leader since “the Holocaust” to use poison gas to “exterminate” women and children, and Goldberg cited an expert on Iraq with Holocaust fears.

as a child she lived in Germany, near Bergen-Belsen. “It’s tremendously influential in your early years to live near a concentration camp,” she said. In Kurdistan, she heard echoes of the German campaign to destroy the Jews.

This time around it’s the Shoah, and the camp is different, but the lesson of destruction is the same:

Many Israelis think the Iranians are building Auschwitz… “Iran represents a threat like the Shoah,” an Israeli official who spends considerable time with the prime minister told me….

“In World War II, the Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us. Six million were slaughtered. Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation.“

All the talk of annihilation from Israelis. In fact, Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf has shown here, Goldberg echoed the hysteria of one element of Israeli society to justify the idea of the U.S. going on another Middle East joyride so as to forestall the Israelis from doing so.

The views of Israeli generals and senior officials in the Defense Department on Iran are of great interest, but they should be put in the right context. There are many in Israel who don’t see Iran as an existential threat, or, more precisely, they don’t see it as a different threat than those Israel faced in the past. There are even more who think that the risk in attacking Iran is far greater then the possible benefits. Israeli Generals have a tendency for creating mass hysteria.

The seamless stoking of hysteria is the most obvious impression one gets from reading Goldberg’s two casus belli pieces in sequence: Goldberg’s paranoia exists out of time; the very same themes and lines about the destruction of Jews appear several years apart, shifted from one enemy to the other (much as the State Department 60 years ago was the anti-Semitic enemy in his book Prisoners…).

Why is Goldberg still taken so seriously? The answer has to do with the strength of the Israel lobby inside the American establishment. That is how a former Israeli soldier–Goldberg immigrated to Israel in the 80s then came back a few years later– hops from one prestige magazine to another.

Indeed, Goldberg’s core concern, which also extends seamlessly eight years from the first piece to the second one, from Iraq to Iran– is not the fear of destruction, but of Israel losing hegemonic power in the Middle East. I have held out the two most similar and important phrases in the pieces for last, the phrases that reflect this root concern:

[T]here is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them [nukes] soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the balance of power in the Middle East”

Goldberg warned the last time. And this time:

The challenges posed by a nuclear Iran are more subtle than a direct attack, Netanyahu told me….“You’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area”.

Does America want to go to war to preserve Israel’s power edge in the Middle East?

J Street asks: ‘What if Israel Ceases to be a Democracy?’ (Pssst…it never was)

Jan 03, 2011

Matthew Taylor


Another J Street fundraising pitch lands in my inbox:

Matthew —

“What If Israel Ceases to Be a Democracy?” was the provocative headline of a must-read Monday blog post by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg imagining the unthinkable in Israel…

His concern? What if Israel’s citizens, in the face of failing peace efforts, the march of settlements, growing anti-democratic trends and religious extremism, choose its Jewish character over its democratic values?

But Israel is not now, and never has been, anything other than a pretend democracy. Apparently J Street is worried that the pretense will come to an end (and for some reason wants me to give them money, to help stave off the impending public relations disaster). But it’s too late: Haaretz reports that only 17% of the Israeli public prioritizes “democracy” over “Jewish state.”

Oh, and J Street opposes free speech calls to cut off Israel’s taxpayer-funded supplies of U.S. guns:

J Street Seattle calls on the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign to reconsider its advertising campaign that will run later this month. The ads accuse Israel of utilizing U.S. aid to commit war crimes. This only serves to inflame tensions and promote division and confusion, rather than to point the way towards a productive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But it’s true! Israel does use U.S. aid to commit war crimes!

These guys are like the annoying family member who says, “Oh, yeah, we really should get Uncle Larry into rehab, he’s drinking too much,” and then hands Uncle Larry a blank check to go get drunk at the bar. Instead of insisting on rehab! And then blocks the rest of the family’s efforts to cut off Joe’s supplies!

Dear Jeremy Ben-Ami: The day you start saying we should end Israel’s supply of land confiscation-enabling armaments is the day you have my support. Until then, your emails go to “spam.”

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER


Jan 3, 2011  

Nazi’s says Palestinian’s death at checkpoint caused by ‘misunderstandings’


Ashkelon rally targets Arabs who ‘seduce girls’


New study: Fallujah birth defects reach epidemic levels


Reporter behind WMD claims calls Assange ‘bad journalist’

Zio=Nazi extends family reunification ban

2011 year of US economic apocalypse?


‘US, Zio=Nazi behind Sudan conflicts’


Despite sanctions, Iran exports surge 


Iran says Bushehr plant nearly ready to join power grid


AIPAC Protests Disclosure of Secret Files

“Zio=Nazi Spying Network” Uncovered in Egypt Days Before Church Blast

Zio=Nazi soldiers kill another Palestinian


Palestinian FM: Chile, Paraguay to recognize Palestinian state in coming weeks


They Invented a Religion to Steal a Land from Its Owners


Opposition groups urge Jordanian government to severe ties with Nazism


Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here

Posted in UKComments Off on NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS



January 2, 2011

by Enver Masud



Hard evidence exists that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — the laws of science refute the official account of 9/11

by Enver Masud

On December 17, 2010, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura — former Governor of Minnesota, examined the “idea that a missile or explosives — not a hijacked jetliner — damaged the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  I agree, and first wrote about it a few years ago.

I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”

I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.

According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

In April 2002 I wrote an article voicing doubts about the official account of 9/11, and on March 7, 2005 rebutted the official account of 9/11 in an article “What Really Happened on September 11 at the Pentagon” — among the most visited at The Wisdom Fund website (

Most of what Jesse Ventura revealed on December 17, 2010, and more, is described in my March 7, 2005 article, and expanded upon in my September 11, 2010 article “Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’” (original with exhibits, sources).

On September 12, 2001, news media had to have known that something was amiss when at the Dept. of Defense News Briefing “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″, were not even mentioned, and reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

Eventually, when the security camera video of “Flight 77″ was released by the Pentagon it included only one frame showing something — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” — moving parallel to the ground about 100 yards in front of the Pentagon.

This is the U.S. government’s evidence to support its claim that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and establishment news media have shown little interest in further investigation.

Indeed, the government’s own records — Pentagon transcripts, official reports, flight data recorder, and the laws of science belie “The 9/11 Commission Report”.

September 11, 2001: CNN News Report

Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

McIntyre continued, “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzer’s show) that he had been taken out of context.

Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed “an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter” confirms McIntyre’s account.

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Flight 77 is alleged to have struck the Pentagon at 9:38.

A diagram (derived from the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”, Figure 7.9) indicates a “Slab deflected upward” which is consistent with either an explosion below the slab, or an upward blow by a hard object.

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) — former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence — stated in a video interview, “I don’t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.”

Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: “No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”

September 12, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugher responded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher reponded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.”

The transcript reveals that reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

This year, the transcript of the September 12, 2001 News Briefing was removed from the DoD website.

September 15, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.

‘Pentagon Building Performance Report’

In January 2003, the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology released the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”.

Page 35 of this report reads: “An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.”

Had a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, its wings would probably have been found outside the Pentagon. But these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

Photographs, and CNN’s Jamie McIntyre confirm this fact.

Page 36 of this report reads: “The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.

This implies that whatever struck the Pentagon, couldn’t have been a Boeing 757.

Page 39 of this report reads: “Most likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building. Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building.”

As previously noted, these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

From the preceding it is clear that the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” — prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute, and released by the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology — contradicts the official account of 9/11.

‘Arlington County After-Action Report’

The “Arlington County After-Action Report” describes the occurrence of an event at the Pentagon minutes before the alleged strike of Flight 77, and the presence of Fort Myer Unit 161 at the Pentagon prior to impact.

Annex A, Page A-4 of this report states: “Captain Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received burns and lacerations. . . . Captain Gilroy called the Fort Myer Fire Department, reporting for the first time the actual location of the crash.”

Did Fort Myer Unit 161 go the Pentagon following an explosion — prior to the alleged strike of Flight 77?

It is consistent with the reporter’s question at the September 12 News Briefing, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”?

It is consistent with April Gallop’s sworn complaint that “she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

It is consistent with military affairs journalist Barbara Honegger’s account of “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Fort Myer Unit 161′s arrival at the Pentagon to put out a fire prior to the strike by “Flight 77″ is not consistent with the official account of 9/11.

‘American Airlines’ Flight Data Recorder

Pilots for 9/11 Truth state: “video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder data released by the NTSB” (National Transportation Safety Board) pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. The “Pentagon Building Performance Report” states (page 14): “A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.”

On page 35 of this report we’re told, “The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab.”

However, the NTSB animation (January 2002), according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, shows an aircraft flying north of the Navy Annex, not leveling off, and being too high to have hit the Pentagon.

When confronted with this discrepancy, NTSB Chief Jim Potter said: “I have no comment on the existence of the discrepancies.”

Eyewitnesses state categorically that a plane (which they believed was Flight 77) flew north of the Citgo gas station (now the Navy Exchange) located west of the Pentagon on South Joyce Street at Columbia Pike, rather than flying south of the gas station as stated in official reports.

G-Force Would Have Destroyed the Boeing 757

Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclude: “Arlington’s unique topography and obstacles along American 77 ‘final leg’ to the Pentagon make this approach completely impossible”.

Flight 77 is alleged to have flown over Columbia Pike and the Virginia Department of Transportation communications tower located 1143 yards west of the Pentagon before striking the Pentagon at “530 miles per hour”.

The antenna on the VDOT tower has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111). The ground elevation of the Pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.

This path would have taken Flight 77 south of the gas station at the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. Joyce Street, and over the intersection of Columbia Pike and Virginia Route 27.

Flight 77 would then have been over Pentagon grounds with about 500 feet remaining to level out and to strike the Pentagon “slightly below the second floor slab” at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”.

The Columbia Pike and VA-27 intersection presents a roughly 20 feet tall barrier in the alleged path of Flight 77.

According to the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” (page 14), “The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.”

Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity, at the point that it would have to transition from its downward flight to level flight.

With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have leveled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-27. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77″ — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of “Flight 77″ below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to the top of the VDOT antenna.

With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. “11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apart” they wrote.

Impossible: Damage Path and Flight Path Aligned

With Flight 77 alleged to have struck the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, the flight path and the damage path cannot possibly form a straight line.

Flying at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees” the Boeing 757′s starboard wing would have struck the west wall of the Pentagon before the port wing. This would cause the aircraft to veer to the right, and the damage path would be in line with the aircraft’s new heading — not with the aircraft’s heading prior to impact (assuming — miraculously — the plane was able to penetrate the C Ring).

However, the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” Figures 6.2 and 6.6 show that the flight path and damage path (damage path also illustrated in the “Arlington County After Action Report”, page 23) do form a straight line extending from the center-line of the fuselage of the aircraft to where the “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”.

The flight path and damage path depicted forming a straight line in Figures 6.2 and 6.6 violate the laws of science. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77″ — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Therefore, what looks like a puff of smoke — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” in the security camera video, cannot possibly be a Boeing 757.


To conclude, the official account of Flight 77 — supported only by one frame from a security camera showing a puff of something approaching the Pentagon — is contradicted by the transcripts of Pentagon News Briefings conducted on September 12 and 15; by the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”; by the “Arlington County After-Action Report”; by the FBI’s exhibit on phone calls from Flight 77; and by the Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB.

The official account of Flight 77 contradicts the laws of science. Flight 77 could not have withstood the calculated G-force when it would have had to level out — about 100 yards before striking the Pentagon — with “the top of the fuselage of the aircraft . . . no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground”. The flight path of a Boeing 757 traveling at “530 miles per hour”, striking the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, and the resulting damage path inside the Pentagon cannot possibly form a straight line as depicted in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

On September 10, 2001, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon “cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions”. It is alleged that the section of the Pentagon destroyed on September 11, 2001 housed records of DoD spending, and the personnel for monitoring that spending.

Enver Masud, an engineer, served as Acting Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch at the U.S. Department of Energy, set up and directed the Operations Review Division at the Iowa Commerce Commission, and has consulted for the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank in Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia. His book “9/11 Unveiled” is a free download at The Wisdom Fund —




January 2, 2011

by Gordon Duff 


By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

“…it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.”

When CFR Director, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most feared power brokers in Washington or anywhere else, openly attackedWikileaks as an intelligence operation, siding with Jeff GatesDr. Alan SabroskyWilliam Engdahl, Lila Rajiva, Gordon Duff and so many others of the independent alternative media, Wikileak’s days were numbered.  The failed UFO scare, whatever it was supposed to do, has backfired, putting a bullet in the heart of Wikileaks.

After a “bang up” start, the Iraq helicopter video, Wikileaks spent its credibility supporting Israel and attacking, not only the Islamic world but the United States as well, in a clearly biased and “ham-handed” manner.

As Dr. Alan Sabrosky puts it:

“The one striking exception in all of this global tour de farce <sic.> is the Middle East. Certainly, even aside from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s fulsome praise of Binyamin Netanyahu, what is said and what is not, represent the message Israel and its partisans in the US Government (itself heavily Zionist and “Israel First” in orientation) want the world to hear, believe and accept. The message coming across in the US diplomatic cables could have been designed and drafted by Avigdor Lieberman, and who knows? It may have been…”


This year’s holiday drama was the “wiki-fiasco.”  Last year it was the “crotch bomber” and the “Times Square Fizzler.”   In the end, both disappeared into the shadows, exposed, “debunked, ” phony as a “three dollar bill.”  The Detroit “crotch bomber” and the “fizzler,”  as with the FBI’s “exploding Christmas tree” “skit” in Oregon, staged “media events,” patsies, all with the same smell, “false flag” theatre timed to influence world events.

Our only questions about Assange, failed “leaker” and over-exposed “celeb” is whether  he was ever real.  If he was, and he may well have been, what happened to Wikileaks is a crying shame.

Three weeks before, Zbigniew Brzezinski had said that Wikileaks was a deception operation by an intelligence agency.  Assange named the mechanism for the deception, admitting in fact that what was leaked had, in reality, nothing to do with Wikileaks.  Wikileaks was, in Assange’s own words, the New York Times.

23 year old Jonathan Azaziah in his exhaustive analysis, Wikileaks is Poison:  Deconstruction of the Myth, not only closes the case on Wikileaks but on those in the media who have been complicit in the deception.  The deception program, you can’t call it anything else, running interference for Wikileaks has two edges, defense by “shills” and attacks by “assets.”  Not only articles and broadcasts in defense of Assange but “half-hearted” attacks from the hated and discredited like Joseph Lieberman, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, are also part of the defense of Wikileaks, part of the “game warfare” used to sell deception as fact, myth as truth.


As Council on Foreign Relations Director,  Zbigniew Brzezinski,  too big a target for Abe Foxman’s infamous “Antisemitism” smears, had to be discredited, thus a campaign in the “alternative media” was begun.  In this piece by Alexander Cockburn, whose online blog “Counterpunch” has been suspiciously oblivious to Wikileak transgressions, we see attempts to blame Brzezinski, who left public service in 1981, nearly 30 years ago, for today’s debacle in Afghanistan.

“The U.S. began the destruction of Afghanistan in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, started financing the mullahs and warlords in the largest and most expensive operation in the CIA’s history until that time. Here we are, more than three decades later, half-buried under a mountain of horrifying news stories about a destroyed land of desolate savagery, and what did one hear on many news commentaries earlier this week?”

When Brzezinski “outed” Wikileaks as a government spy organization, defending Wikileaks as an “intelligence asset” required discrediting Brzezinski, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR.  No “mainstream media” is safe in attacking the all powerful CFR, the epicenter of the world’s power establishment, headed by David Rockefeller.

The orchestrated aspect of this attack and the litany of carefully timed attacks on Wikileak “debunkers” and Assange accusers by supposed members of the alternative media, particularly those whose “muckraking” manages to secure mainstream media exposure, sites and blogs that are uniquely well financed and sponsored while others less “sensitive” to Israel’s “needs” are boycotted and hacked  and “spammed” continually.


The saddest part of all, ADL (Anti-Defamation League) head, Abe Foxman, issued a personal press release accusing Wikileaks critics of “Antisemitism.”  Foxman really shot himself in the foot on that one.  Only a week before, Julian Assange tried explaining the painfully obvious pro-Israel slant of Wikileaks.  He blamed the press, claiming that they censored Wikileaks.  This is the good part.  He didn’t say they censored their own reporting but that they censored the Wikileaks “dumps’ themselves out of “sensitivity” to the needs of Israel.

By that time, the stories about the Assange arrest had began to look a bit theatrical, the articles attacking Assange’s accusers, stating they were tied to CIA plots, Illuminati groups and Freemasons got wilder and wilder.  Then the ADL stepped in, hoping to spend their last shred of credibility to save what Brzezinski named, an intelligence operation.  All that the ADL and Foxman accomplished was to convince any doubters that Wikileaks was managed from Israel, something Assange, in his own statements and writings had made pretty obvious by then.

The ADL’s attempt at throwing its “credibility” behind Assange failed as the ADL has no credibility.  One of the primary activities of the ADL is suppressing news stories of Jewish Americans caught spray painting Antisemitic slogans on synagogues. The number of such reports can’t be cataloged, as they are purged from the internet and even newspaper archives.  The tactics used are infamous, the ADL playbook.


In December, Wikileaks “leaked” to the press that they held “cables” discussing UFOs.  Soon after, they “leaked” that that other documents, some proving that America was, not only using adapted UFO technology but was engaged in large scale military operations against “fleets” of UFOs over the “Southern Sea” were going to be made public.

In fact, in an interview with the Guardian, Assange said the following

“…it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.”

A quick check of “Yahoo” results for “Wikileaks UFOs” yields 153,000 results, including promises of UFO releases by Wikileaks published by the UK Telegraph, MSNBC, India Times, CBS News, Guardian and many more.

When expanded on, however, in usual “wiki-fashion,” selected emails and calls to media “favorites,” the claim by Assange of “references to UFO” became something more sinister, references to a wide scale invasion of earth, a UFO takeover of human civilization.

As with the reputed UFO invasion itself, the Wikileaks “space alien” material has also failed to “materialize.”  Instead, Assange, with the assistance of Abe Foxman and others, “select” others, have mounted a defense of Wikileaks, attempting to deflect the deluge of skepticism that has developed with revelations about Assange and his “sensitivities” for Israel.

What kind of insanity would have driven this exhibition of bad judgement?

One day Julian Assange tells the world to hide under their beds from fleets of flying saucers and the next day he pretends it was all a joke?


The unreported and unspoken message of Wikileaks has always been justification for a war on Iran.  Whatever curiosity one could find in the material, the crux of Wikileaks always comes back to that same point.

If as Brzezinski and so many others imply, that Wikileaks is psychological warfare, in reality, a new form of global terrorism, aimed at destabilizing governments, perpetuating conflicts, justifying increasing world tensions, exploiting well known duplicity, not to inform but with calculated bias, is Assange more a “combatant” than a spy? 

If, as we are seeing, Wikileaks is a form of military attack by, not a group of “truth tellers” but a nuclear armed state, such as Israel, one with a history of using deception and worse, can Wikileaks be called “terrorism?”  Is Assange a terrorist?  Is Wikileaks a real and proven threat, less ethereal than Al Qaeda?

Truth is truth.  Partial truth told with bias to influence world events leading to destabilization, leading to war, encouraging terrorism, done on behalf of an intelligence agency is not even propaganda, it is war, as much as a car bombing of a church or a video of a sniper’s bullet killing an American soldier in Iraq.   In fact, Wikileaks, if you think about it enough, has the smell, the odor and flavor of those bin Laden video and audio tapes, the ones released years after this death in December 2001.

The end purpose of all these things, these acts of war, all the same.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on WHY WIKILEAKS DIED



January 3, 2011

by Veterans Today

Wikileaks and the UFO: Response to Gordon Duff

Zahir Ebrahim


January 03, 2011

Hello UFO fans, and anti-fans,

I would not so easily dismiss UFO absurdities as comrade Gordon Duff has done in his New Year’s 2011 article: WHY WIKILEAKS DIED:

‘The failed UFO scare, whatever it was supposed to do, has backfired, putting a bullet in the heart of Wikileaks.’

If you use political science to understand this absurdity, it does not appear to be an absurdity at all, but a very important unveiling of the new ‘big lie’ that has been a long time in the making beginning with Orson Wells’ dramatization in New York in 1947 of H. G. Wells ‘War of the Worlds’! That social engineering project prototype to study mass behavior was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, as it later came out.

Here are some excerpts from my earlier works which actually situate UFOishness in the overarching context of “imperial mobilization” towards cementing world government.

But before reading further, just reflect on what has already been achieved in Wikileaks by mentioning UFO in the same breadth as other core-axioms of empire. Just as the hectoring hegemons have re-implanted the seeds of mythical “Osama Bin Laden” is alive and planning the demise of the Western world now from his new perch in Iran-Pakistan, they have also, formally, planted the seed of what they previously cultivated only vicariously through television shows and movies, Alien Invasion.

So, let me begin with this clip of former American President-actor Ronald Reagan at the United Nations podium in 1987. It is the first minute of Zecharia Sitchin’s ‘Are We Alone In The Universe?’ documentary (and also reflect how is it that novelist Zecharia Sitchin gets so much press and publication time peddling UFOs and the seeds of Secular Humanism and his books are bestsellers, when the only superlatively genuine scholar of the goy, Eustace Mullins, died without even any mention in the mainstream press?). Watch.

This is what I wrote over a year ago in: Tutorial: The Brilliant Construction of World Order – Or a children’s bedtime story :

‘Whereas, the poor monetary reformer fighting the fabricated financial crisis, already the underdog and resourceless in going against an entrenched financial oligarchy with infinitely deep pockets, is also outwitted by the sheer magnitude of the Hegelian design for Global Governance. The momentum created by the disparate crises spanning the gamut of global financial meltdown, global warming, global pandemic, global war on terror, is insurmountable enough. Imagine if the next global crisis after global food panic and global crop failure, is alien sightings and landings!

It will be the coup de grace for bringing the fractious humanity finally together in one-world government “if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet.” As President Ronald Reagan had read out loud from his script at the United Nations podium in 1987: “we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world”:

Coming soon to your local friendly skies, complete with the ‘messiah’ and the ‘mahdi’ descending from the heavens on the wings of dove, or the chariots of fire, in their final return to save the now united mankind against the common threats. Maybe there is something to this ‘dajjal’ story, the ‘false messiah’ lore after all! Brought to you courtesy of NASA’s Universal Holographic Satellite Projection System.’

Finally, a reference to Project Camelot and its bizarre focus on UFOs. Below is a link to my more detailed deconstruction of what is going on with so much obsession of dissent-space with bizarredom which make no rational sense unless viewed through the lens of diabolically fabricating “beneficial cognitive diversity”, myth constructions, and finally, the realization of these myths by physical enactment, just as they enacted the “searing”event of 9/11 which split the world into the “before” and the “after” epochs. I had even cautioned Project Camelot in my Email Conversation with Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot about Wikileaks on the political science service to empire they were perhaps unknowingly being put to:

‘Witness how Wikileaks brouhaha infected even the most outlandish among dissent: Project Camelot. There is no genre of dissent more dissenting than these folks; they search for Aliens, Annunaki, UFOs, as the prime-mover forces behind the psychopathic drive for globalism of the hectoring hegemons! Speak of introducing “beneficial cognitive diversity” with “cognitive infiltration”, this menagerie takes the cake for the political science of immanent dialecticism – with no feigned apologies to Kerry Cassidy who appears to be most sincere in her endeavors.

Surely there are magical aliens flying around in UFOs under the command of the Annunaki fighting Zeus-like epic battles of the gods, or like those scripted in the Gita, using humankind as their patsy genetically engineered children-proxies. But this confabulation is also akin to the fabled Ali Baba flying on his magical carpet who miraculously pulled off 9/11 with box-cutters from its squirrelish perch in Afghanistan, and the people of America still eagerly “United We Stand” against that threat. It is not inconceivable, and is in fact entirely empirical, that the greater agenda going forth is to unite all the peoples of the world against a super Ali Baba++.’

There is nothing absurd and random in anything which comes out of imperial behaviorists who are today masters of inculcating voluntary servitude among the public. Aldous Huxley had aptly summed the agenda of the oligarchy way back in 1961:

‘You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.’ — Aldous Huxley, 1961 speech at UC Berkeley, minute 04:06

The rulers can “United We Stand” the masses upon any absurdity, if they can get them to believe it. This is Machiavelli 101: Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science!

Let’s not forget political science when examining the overarching purpose of Wikileaks, which prima facie appears to be steeped in only absurdities otherwise.

And most importantly, let’s also not forget Hegelian Dialectic – the interplay of opposites, often fabricated, to synthesize a greater whole. I would view Brzezinski’s otherwise absurd role in going against empire on Wikileaks in that fabricated mold, just as he did in February 2007 when he came out against the Bush Administration in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (PDF).

All these are merely the successive Hegelian mind-fcks to make modernity “look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality,” brazenly argued by the CFR author in his famous 1974 article Hard Road to World Order, as the best method to create the “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece”!


Zahir Ebrahim | Project

A version submitted as comment, January 03, 2011:

Posted in Politics1 Comment



January 3, 2011

by Robert L. Hanafin 

National Geographic – Peace: The Biography of a Symbol turned 50

I was researching material to make a decent first article with a look ahead to 2011, when I was inspired by listening to a PBS program Sunday morning to write a story about mainstream, and now public media, promoting an image of there not being more of aPeace Movement.

The Peace sign has now turned 50, but are the stars aligned in 2011 to ignite a Peace Movement?

I had another article set aside for just this moment that I will submit separately in my next post. These will be the words and views of a retired Army Major General, but the timing for his words is perfect. He presents his views for why there isn’t more of a Peace Movement though that may not have been his original intent. What he says in his article,Ideals Versus Interests, is not only THE TRUTH, but what mainstream media, even public media like PBS is missing (maybe intentional, maybe unwittingly).

My wife and I watched the PBS program Religion and Ethics Newsweekly this morning. At the close of the program the panelists were asked this question by the host looking ahead to 2011,

“I have been wondering with respect to Iraq and now Afghanistan why there was no peace movement—not more of a peace movement. Do you think with Afghanistan, as we begin to come out of there, that there will be such a thing?.”

The panelist from the Brookings Institute came up with a very safe and diplomatic response sounding more like a political talking point than a knowledgeable answer. However, he did raise valid points that still deserve some thinking about and debate.

His response to the question was, “I think going into Afghanistan there was very broad support when we started because many people, except for pacifists and a few others who have legitimate reasons for opposing all wars, most people thought this was kind of a just war response, so you didn’t have a big opposition.”

He sounded somewhat hesitant in his response as if intended to divert from the real answer(s), or appeared to lack knowledge and showed plain ignorance of the real answers.

There is no debate in my mind that there IS NOT a Peace Movement on the scale of the  anti-Vietnam War movement, but this PBS program actually did and end run around the real reasons that there is not more of a Peace Movement.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired, U.S. Civil Service-Retired, Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor, Veterans Today News Network


PBS: Except for Pacifists and a Few Others with Reasons for Opposing All Wars, Most People Thought Afghanistan was a Just War.

Here is an excerpt of what was said, readers need to go to the last few paragraphs before closing the program,

BOB ABERNETHY (Host): I have been wondering with respect to Iraq and now Afghanistan why there was no peace movement—not more of a peace movement. Do you think with Afghanistan, as we begin to come out of there, that there will be such a thing?

EJ DIONNE (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution) : I think going into Afghanistan there was very broad support when we started because many people, except for pacifists and a few others who have legitimate reasons for opposing all war, most people thought this was kind of a just war response, so you didn’t have a big opposition. I think now a lot of people say God, this is a terrible mess. I don’t have a good answer coming out of it, and I think that sort of undercuts what might otherwise be a big peace movement.

ABERNETHY: Thanks, E.J., our time is up. Many thanks to Kim Lawton of Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, Kevin Eckstrom of Religion News Service, and E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution. That’s our program for now. I’m Bob Abernethy.

I’m only using this public TV program as an example of how not only mainstream media, but even public media, strives to avoid answering hard questions about war and down playing any Peace Movement be there one or not.

Readers only need to go to the link for the PBS Program Segment Look Ahead 2011 and note that out of all 11 graphics used (to include the Tea Bag Movement) there was not one photo of the periodic Peace Protests since 9/11 – not even the White House Protest of 16 December to see just how downplayed the Peace Movement really is. In fact, most of the photos used with this transcript pretty much covered the growing ultra-conservative movements as they downplayed the Peace movement.

The response that “except for pacifists and a few others who have legitimate reasons for opposing all war, most people thought this was kind of a just war response,” is not only misleading but down right ignorant of the facts as articulated by retired Major General Dennis Laich. He states the real answer as to why there’s not a Peace Movement on the scale of the Vietnam anti-war movement in the my next post – One Cannot Compare the Vietnam anti-war Movement to the Peace Movement today.

My take on there not being more of a Peace Movement is almost the same as Major General Laich’s.

Mr. Dionne focuses only on one aspect of any Peace Movement when he says, “except for pacifists and a few others who have legitimate reasons for opposing all war[s],” but the answer is more complex than that. His response is not only one aspect of any Peace Movement, but he’s got it all wrong, because not all activist in the Peace Movement are pacifists nor do they oppose ALL WARS.

For example, Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) that I’m a member of makes it quite clear that WE are not pacifistby definition of our career paths and having love ones in harms way in wars our entire family does not support. We are certainly NOT a  “few others who have legitimate reasons for opposing all war[s].”

MFSO is very straight forward about not being pacifists or pure anti-War:

“Are you pacifists?

Our members have diverse opinions about war and political beliefs.  However, we all have in common a determination to support our loved ones in the military.  We stand united in opposition, not to war in general, but to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the basis that theyareunjust wars which the U.S. waged based on lies.”

In my view, Veteran and Military Family related Peace groups that are not pacifists  must unite with groups who are pure anti-war and oppose all wars. Who else can we unite with to achieve “more of a Peace Movement?”

However, I hope and pray that fiscal conservatives will finally wake up in 2011, connect the dots on the costs of war, and the U.S. economic melt down. I believe that it is only a matter of time before they do along with a growing number of American voters and the public in general. One need only look at the unsuccessful Independent Presidential run of Libertarian minded Congressman Ron Paul in 2008. Ron Paul took an anti-war position not based on moral or ethic reasons alone but mainly on economic-political reasons.

I project Ron Paul will be back as an anti-War candidate in 2012, but the question remains could he be trusted anymore than Obama to END THE WARS?

There are other complex reasons what Peace movement does exist is not recognized publicly despite more aggressive Peace activism as the actions taken against the Obama White House on 16 Dec 2010 protests led by Veterans for Peace (VFP) when over 100 Peace Activists chained themselves to a White House fence.

Most every Peace activist action taken since 9/11 has been ignored (a media blackout on anything negative about the wars has tended to intensify now that they are Obama’s Wars. President Obama gets nowhere near the media fallout that President Bush rightfully got although their popularity polls both plummeted.

I can’t say for certain if there will be an increase in Peace Movement actions over 2011, but one thing I can guarantee is unless such actions get violently radical (not advocating such mind you)  or as noisy as the Tea Bag Movement, most actions for Peace will continue to be ignored (blacked out) or downplayed by mainstream media, and a shift in course at PBS towards only covering positive aspects of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.

This of course makes mainstream and public media no more than an extension of our government, especially Pentagon, propaganda apparatus.

Anyway, my family has taken PBS out of our Last Will & Testiment.

Posted in USAComments Off on PBS: WILL THERE BE A PEACE MOVEMENT IN 2011?



January 3, 2011

by Veterans Today

WMR has learned from a long-time Republican Party consultant that the CIA used Sweden to launder the transfer to Wikileaks of carefully screened and redacted State Department cables and the subsequent release of the cables to pre-selected corporate news media entities. Sweden was chosen because of its so-called “press freedom and freedom of expression” traditions in an effort to make the release of the cables by Wikileaks appear to be unconnected to a covert CIA and Pentagon psychological operations program designed to place further controls on the Internet.

The Wikileaks operation was conducted with the help of two leading Swedish political leaders, both of whom have maintained a long association with the CIA and associated U.S. government entities.

One of the conspirators is Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt who was discovered in high school in Sweden by U.S. Republican Party operative Karl Rove. Rove, a former executive director of the College Republicans, was, in the early 1980s, a GOP campaign consultant who also began conducting overseas operations for the International Republican Institute (IRI) after its founding in 1983 as an overseas outreach branch of the Republicans –thanks to funding from the CIA-connected US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the State Department.

In 1983, the same year the IRI was founded, Reinfeldt joined the Moderate Youth League, the youth wing of the Swedish Moderate Party, with Rove’s encouragement. Just as Rove had used political chicanery in 1973 to defeat two opponents –Robert Edgeworth and Terry Dolan — to be elected chairman of the College Republicans, Reinfeldt ousted Moderate Youth League chairman Ulf Kristersson at the league’s convention in Lycksele in 1992. Reinfeldt, the leader of conservative insurgents, garnered 58 votes to 55 for Kristersson, who represented the party’s libertarian wing.

After the defeat of the Moderate Party government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt in 1994, Reinfeldt, in Rovian fashion, began to criticize the party leader. Reinfeldlt was also a strong critic of the modern Swedish welfare state. In 2003, Reinfeldt became Moderate Party leader and in 2006 his right-of-center coalition defeated the Social Democrats making Reinfeldt the Prime Minister.

One of Reinfeldt’s closest advisers is Moderate Party member of parliament and avid anti-communist Council of Europe parliamentary official Goran Lindblad. Lindblad has been fond of offering political asylum and sanctuary in Sweden to dissidents, but not just any dissidents, only those that support an agenda in concert with the agenda pushed by the likes of Freedom House of New York and George Soros’s Open Society Institute, neo-con contrivances that oppose any form of communism, whether in China or Cuba, or any left-wing socialist governments for that matter — the very same agenda promoted by Wikileaks.

Although it is not certain that Lindblad helped lay the groundwork for the invitation to Wikileaks’s founder Julian Assange to move his operations — and his quarter million State Department cable cache — to Sweden, there is yet another connection between a Swedish politician involved in the Assange criminal investigation for sex crimes in Sweden and the CIA.

Assange’s two female accusers’ legal representation in Sweden is being handled by the law firm Borgström & Bodstrom. The Bodstrom on the law office shingle hanging in Stockholm is Thomas Bodstrom, the Swedish Justice Minister from 2000 to 2006 in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Goran Persson. From 2006 to October 2010, Bodstrom was chairman of the Swedish parliament’s Justice committee. After losing his chairmanship, Bodstrom moved in  November 2010, along with his family, to northern Virginia — just as the Wikileaks “story” unfolded. The Social Democrats refused to grant Bodstrom a leave of absence while maintaining his parliamentary seat.

Bodstrom resigned his seat. WMR has learned from the Republican Party source that Bodstrom, upset over the decision of the Social Democrats, is now in negotiations with Reinfeldt and the Moderates to switch parties. And, we have learned, the CIA is quietly grooming Bodstrom, a former Swedish soccer star, to be a future Prime Minister of Sweden for the conservative Moderate Party.

Bodstrom’s colleague in the Persson cabinet was Par Nuder, the Minister of Finance, who also spent a large part of his youth in Israel. At the same time the Bodstrom family moved to Virginia, Nuder joined the consultant-lobbying firm of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Albright Stonebridge Group, which she heads along with former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger and former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH). Another executive at Albright Stonebridge is former Bill Clinton foreign policy adviser Wendy Sherman, who also serves on the Defense Policy Board under Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Bodstrom is also an author of legal thriller novels and he has been called the “John Grisham of Sweden.”

Bodstrom’s father is Lennart Bodstrom, the Foreign Minister in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Olof Palme from 1982 to 1985. The elder Bodstrom was criticized for not heeding warnings that Soviet submarines were operating in Swedish waters and he survived a rare no-confidence motion against him in the parliament.

However, WMR has learned that it was the CIA, which had arranged for U.S.-supplied Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) technology to be transferred to neutral Sweden and Langley did not want details of the system’s capabilities to be tipped off to the Soviets. Lennart Bodstrom’s ploy was to suppress the story of Soviet submarine activity to protect CIA and Swedish intelligence “sources and methods.” WMR has learned that Lennart Bodstrom’s policy of non-engagement on Soviet submarines in Swedish waters was the result of a personal request by then-Vice President George H. W. Bush.

Bodstrom’s law partner is Claes Borgstrom, Sweden’s former Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and an avid, some would call it extremist, supporter of feminist causes. Borgstrom has been representing the two women who have accused Assange of sex crimes while he was in Sweden. One of the women, Anna Ardin, described as a “Christian feminist” has apparently left the country for the Palestinian West Bank and there are reports that she is no longer cooperating with the Swedish deputy prosecutor for Gothenburg, Marianne Ny. WMR has also learned that Bodstrom has had a close relationship with Ny.

The other woman who charged Assange is Sofia Wilen. It has been charged by some in Sweden that both women accusers were part of a carefully-arranged plot to bring sex charges against Assange in order to discontinue the Wikileaks Swedish asylum operation after the ultimate purpose was served: a major international news event designed to provide increased support for governments around the world, including Sweden, the United Kingdom — where Assange is now free on restricted bail — and the United States, to place draconian curbs on the Internet.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written


for several renowned papers and blogs.

Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows.  He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.




January 3, 2011

by Raja Mujtaba 



By Air Commodore Sohail Malik, PAF

Since coming into existence, the Pakistani nation has had its fair share of trials and tribulations.



The strategicgeographical location and fast emerging geopolitical scenarios have been the imposing determinants on its policies and direction. Notwithstanding our weaknesses as a nation, the people of Pakistan have undoubtedly given a good account of themselves by displaying resilience, perseverance, and unwavering determination in the face of imposed hardships.

Air power in the 21st century has emerged as the decisive factor in modern day warfare and is the most effective element of the military. A fighter aircraft, being the primary platform of air power, has held the key to success in most, if not all modern war scenarios. However, while potent military arsenal deters foreign aggression, it is the indigenous military capability that truly provides a dependable and sustained defence both during peace as well as war. Nations desirous of pursuing an independent foreign policy with minimal external influence thus need self‑sufficiency in production, operation, and maintenance of their military equipment. The spiraling cost of inducting off‑the‑shelf modern weapon‑systems is also supportive of this option.

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, established in the early 1970s with the aim to create an indigenous facility for overhauling aircraft and aero‑engines has contributed significantly towards PAF’s operational readiness over the years by optimizing aircraft availability. The set‑up gradually flourished, leading PAC into manufacturing of a small trainer aircraft by establishing the Aircraft Manufacturing Factory (AMF).

The factory has gathered experience of manufacturing over 300 Mushshak / Super Mushshak primary flight trainer aircraft and of producing structural assemblies of K‑8 Advanced Jet Trainer. Success on these and other similar projects afforded the confidence to the decision makers to venture into manufacturing a fighter aircraft at PAC. On the other hand, Kamra Avionics & Radar Factory (KARF), which was already producing Radar Warning Receivers and Griffo‑7 Airborne radars for the F-7P aircraft since 1996 was naturally suited to the production of JF‑17 avionics.

The primary aim of the JF‑17 co‑production project is to establish the capability for the agreed work‑share and to sustain a production rate commensurate with PAF’s operational requirements. In order to produce its share of work, AMF is establishing the capability to manufacture, assemble, and test this modern fighter aircraft.

The capabilities being acquired represent the cutting edge of technology, have broad industrial applications, and are in most cases unprecedented in Pakistan in terms of capability and capacity. In the field of avionics development, self‑reliance has been achieved by acquiring complete Integration‑technology. Setting up facilities for the avionics production at KARF was again a huge task, involving development of infrastructure and induction of a large number of equipment items.

In the JF‑17 program, first milestone in manufacturing was achieved with the capability of sub‑assembly work in Jan 2008. In planning for the JF‑17 project, the sub‑assembly manufacturing was preferred as the beginning step in view of the previous experience from production of Karakoram‑8 jet trainer. After the readiness of necessary infrastructure, human resource, and the administrative framework, the final assembly and flight‑testing commenced in June 2009. On 23 November, in the same year, the first indigenously assembled JF‑17 aircraft rolled‑out from the Aircraft Manufacturing Factory of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex. This capability achievement phase was completed in May 2010 during which six aircraft were produced and handed over to PAF.

The next phase planned to commence in the near future is the manufacturing of piece‑parts for which final preparations are at hand. On the avionics co‑production side, nine systems are being co‑produced while another three have been indigenously developed in Pakistan. The in‑country production stands at 30% of the package in numbers and more than 50% in terms of value. PAC remains committed to enhance this figure in the next phase. 

The JF‑17 co‑production project is one of the most ambitious projects undertaken at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex. The tangible benefits of the JF‑17 program extend beyond the apparent defence outlook to the creation of a highly enabled technological hub in the country. The wide array of diversified engineering facilities presents opportunities to both academia and the industrial sector of Pakistan. The presence of state‑of‑the‑art technology within their reach can greatly enhance the awareness level with minimal additional investment. Experts can research on ways to best utilize the latest technologies available at PAC to the mutual benefit, thus innovatively improving the value‑addition in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan.

The project has afforded more than 4000 employment opportunities, thereby contributing towards the well‑being of people from all over the country. The growth in expertise shall benefit the local industry through consultancy, advice and training. The human resource trained on these technologies at PAC can make valuable contributions to the national skill potential. Over a long period, capitalizing on their high skill level, the human resource can even evolve as an upstream vendor industry.

The fruits of this endeavour are manifested in the form of JF‑17 Thunder aircraft, which is an all weather lightweight aircraft, having an advanced airframe design, high aerial manoeuvrability, state‑of‑the‑art avionics systems, and a wide array of weapons.

Equipped with these features, it can truly be placed in the higher strata of medium‑tech aircraft category. The flexibility of customisation in incorporating the avionics suite would prevent the briskness of technological advancements from outpacing the strategic foresight. The JF‑17 has been designed to stand in good stead in the future and it is envisaged to remain the mainstay of PAF for years to come

The JF‑17 Thunder Programme is a landmark achievement in the quest for realizing a dream through friendly cooperation between two countries. The co‑production of JF‑17, a vital and integral element of the overall programme, is undoubtedly a challenging project undertaken by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in support of the national goal of self‑reliance. The newly established state‑of‑the‑art facilities represent a quantum leap in the technological capability of PAC and shall be a forerunner of even bigger endeavours.

The personnel of PAF draw inspiration from the countless sacrifices rendered by our national heroes and the contribution made towards defence of the motherland. The distinction of belonging to a select group of countries capable of manufacturing a fighter aircraft should indeed be a boost to the national esteem. The people of Pakistan can cherish the JF‑17 Thunder with resounding national pride, as the skies of their beloved motherland shall be guarded by a potent homegrown platform.

Posted from Opinion Maker.




January 3, 2011

by crescentandcross

Jihad el-Khazen


I previously proposed in this column the idea that Muslim scholars should attempt to differentiate between the prophets mentioned in the Holy Quran and the prophets of the Jews who are mentioned in the Torah, since any history student in any major Western university (but not an Arab university) will learn that Jewish history is only an amalgamation of biblical myths about prophets, kings and kingdoms that never existed.

In the simplest possible terms, the Israelis have been looking for their “traces” in Palestine for the last 62 years without finding anything so far, to the extent that Israeli archaeologists have stopped looking in Jerusalem. Moshe Dayan, an amateur archaeologist himself, looked for 13 years in the Sinai for the traces of his “ancestors”, but found nothing whatsoever related to Moses or the Wandering Years.

I am well aware of the sensitivity of this subject, and it is for this reason that I only propose an idea and let the Muslim scholars – and I mean Muslim archaeologists and historians and not theologians – to confirm or deny what I and my son studied, in an American and a British university respectively.

Israel’s advocates are so insolent, meanwhile, or obscene, that they actually forge and falsify a modern history that we have lived and seen ourselves. It is thus no wonder that they invented a religion to steal a land from its owners. Recently, I followed four episodes on a U.S. Likudnik website which relied on a French Likudnik website as its source, and which concluded that the child Muhammad al-Durrah was not shot dead by Israeli soldiers while in his father’s lap in Gaza in 2000 and that the footage that the French television and the world media carried, showing the child and his father, was not true.

I suffice myself with the above on that subject, and move on with the Israeli peace advocate Uri Avnery, and his article published on August 16, 2009, which was inspired by a dispute between Palestinian residents of Acre and the Jews there, following a decision by the government to remove all Arab names and keep the (fabricated and falsified) Jewish names which are to be written in Hebrew. Thus, for example, Jerusalem became Urshalim. In Acre, the Jewish-dominated municipality threatened to destroy the monument of the Muslim diver Issa al Awwam who fought with Salah al-Din…But then if Muhammad al-Durrah did not exist in 2000, then why would they acknowledge Issa al-Awwam who lived 800 years before him?

Avnery cites the Book of Joshua in the Bible, describing it as being ‘genocidal’, which is true, since the book mentions that the Lord told Joshua to kill “both man and woman, young and old”. But despite the events of the Book of Joshua, Avnery says that Acre remained a Phoenician city like the rest of the coast of Palestine.

The writer wonders who came to the land of Canaan first, and replies that the Arabs had conquered the land which they called Jund Filistin (military district Palestine) in 635 A.D, and that they ruled it since then without interruption except during the Crusader period. On the other hand, the Zionist version claims that the land belonged to the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, although the coast was Phoenician. Avnery carries on by saying that despite all the unrelenting efforts over a hundred years, no archaeological evidence has been found that there ever was an exodus from Egypt, a conquest of Canaan by the Children of Israel, or a kingdom of David and Solomon.

The article after that speaks of the “legends” of the Torah about Abraham in Iraq and the exodus from Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, and the other legends of the Bible, “which are taught as actual history”, and then the destruction of the Temple and the “exile” of the Jews and their persecution.

Uri Avnery is neither an Arab nor a Muslim. He is an Israeli who served in the Israeli army before becoming a prominent peace activist, and is also a researcher and an authority on the history of the entire region.

I do not ask the Arabs and the Muslims to approve of anything I said above, but only to ask their scholars to study the subject and then enlighten us all.

If they fail to do so, we might find ourselves reading a history where Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed, where Jesus committed suicide (I cannot even insinuate at what the Talmud says about the Virgin Mary), and where Muslims attacked the Jews in Palestine in 1948 to uproot them from their own country. A history where there were and there are no Palestinians (recall what Golda Meir and other ultra-Zionists said), where Egypt attacked the Negev in 1956 instead of Israel attacking Sinai, where Arab armies attacked Israel in 1967 and so Israel had to respond in self-defense (I swore that I read this in their writings as I read that the United Nations is ‘Muslim’), where Hezbollah invaded Israel in the summer of 2006, and where Hamas attempted to invade Ashkelon two years later. We might also read that Israel did not kill 1500 Palestinian minors in this decade alone, compared to 135 Israeli minors, that B’Tselem’s figures are false and that it is infiltrated or that B’Tselem lies like all peace activists around the world, including Jews, and maybe even that this article itself does not exist except in the readers’ imaginations.





Dear friends,

Western Union is taking critical money from the world’s working poor by charging inflated predatory transfer fees, but they have never faced pressure to lower them. Let’s urgently shame them to stop! Add your voice to the petition for fair fees: 

Sign the petition

This holiday season, Josh, a Kenyan student in the Netherlands, scraped together a year’s worth of savings and sent it home to support 10 struggling family members. Shockingly, the giant money transfer companyWestern Union skimmed off 20% of the cash meant for Josh’s family in fees.

Josh’s story is painfully retold every day, the world over, on a staggering scale — an estimated $44.3 billion worldwide was taken in transfer fees last year! The World Bank recommends that transaction costs not exceed 5% of the total, but Western Union has never faced serious public pressure to lower its crippling charges. 

If we unite in a global outcry now, we can expose its predatory practices and shame them to stop. Let’s call on Western Union to lower its fees to 5% for the poorest countries, and when the petition reaches 250,000 we’ll deliver it to the company’s image-sensitive board of directors. Sign now and then forward this to friends and family: 

Contributions from workers to families across the world dwarf foreign governmental aid every year and provide a vital lifeline to the world’s poorest economies. Slashing the obscene profits of companies like Western Union would dramatically increase assistance flowing into developing countries. Instead, families around the world received far less than they deserved so that Western Union’s CEO could take home $8.1 million in 2009.

The World Bank recommends that transfer companies limit fees to 5% of the amount being transferred, but some banks and companies have astronomical hidden charges. Perversely, the neediest countries coming out of war or disaster suffer the greatest losses, because of transfer companies’ monopolistic privileges and exclusive deals with local banks.

Instead of sustaining lives for family members back home, the yearly savings of men and women laboring in hospitals, construction sites and restaurants end up padding Western Union’s profits. The company funds charity projects to improve its corporate image – but these do nothing to hide the massive inequity that their business model perpetrates. Let’s raise our voices loudly to demand a reasonable transaction fee and help bring immediate benefits to families around the world. Together we can make sure that needy families – rather than CEOs – benefit from holiday giving:

When citizens around the world stand together to protest injustice, we can force back unchecked greed and inequality – as we’ve done together before. Buoyed by the warmth and empathy of the holiday season, let’s make sure that generous gifts arrive where they’re most needed.

With hope and gratitude,



Western Union CEO’s pay more than triples in 2009, Associated Press:

Past Time for Remittance Justice, ACORN International:

World Bank Remittance Pricing resource:


Shoah’s pages


January 2011
« Dec   Feb »