By Jonathan Cook

10 March, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Canada Park: As spring sets in early, Israelis have been pouring into one of the country’s most popular leisure spots. Visitors to Canada Park, a few kilometres north-west of Jerusalem, enjoy its spectacular panaromas, woodland paths, mountain-bike trails, caves and idyllic picnic areas.
A series of signs describe the historical significance of the landscape, as well as that of a handful of ancient buildings, in terms of their Biblical, Roman, Hellenic and Ottoman pasts. Few, if any, visitors take notice of the stone blocks that litter sections of the park.
But Eitan Bronstein, director of Zochrot (Remembering), is committed to educating Israelis and foreign visitors about the park’s hidden past – its Palestinian history.
“In fact, though you would never realise it, none of this park is even in Israel,” he told a group of 40 Italians on a guided tour this past weekend. “This is part of the West Bank captured by Israel during the 1967 war. But the presence of Palestinians here – and their expulsion – is entirely missing from the signs.”
Zochrot also seeks to remind Israelis of the Nakba, the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during Israel’s creation in 1948.
Its tours are not popular with most Israelis, suggesting, he says, how far they still are from understanding the territorial compromises needed to reach the kind of peace agreement with the Palestinians currently being promoted by the new US administration.
An impressive building a short way into the park, signposted as a Roman bathhouse, is all that is recognisably left of a Palestinian village once known as Imwas, itself built on the ruins of the biblical village of Emmaus.
There are traces of a cemetery, as well as scattered rubble from the village’s houses, a coffee shop, a church, two mosques and a school.
The 2,000 Palestinians living there, along with the 3,500 inhabitants of two other villages, Yalu and Beit Nuba, were expelled as the Israeli army captured this area of the West Bank from Jordan. Today, they and their descendants live as refugees, mostly in East Jerusalem and near Ramallah.
In place of the three villages, a park was created by an international Zionist organisation, the Jewish National Fund, paid for with $15 million in charitable donations from Canadian Jews.
The park entrance is only a minute’s drive from the busiest motorway in the country, linking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Similar parks across Israel have been established on the ruins of other Palestinian villages but, in those cases, the destruction was a result of the war of 1948 that founded Israel. Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian, has referred to this massive erasure of Palestinian history as state-organised “memoricide”.
But Canada Park is far more sensitive for Israel because it lies outside the country’s internationally recognised borders. The Palestinian inhabitants’ expulsion, Mr Bronstein said, was a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing of villagers who put up no resistance.
“We have photographs of the Israeli army carrying out the expulsions,” he told the group of tourists, holding up a series of laminated cards.
Yosef Hochman, a professional photographer, captured scenes that included columns of fleeing Palestinians carrying possessions on their heads, army officers arguing with an elderly woman who refuses to leave her house and bulldozers moving in to destroy the villages.
According to Mr Bronstein, the wrecking spree can be explained by the Israeli army’s failure in the 1948 war to capture the area, which juts out into what is today Israel and was once known as the Latrun salient.
“In 1948, Israeli commanders regarded conquest of the salient as vital for widening the safe passage from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They were desperate to make amends in 1967 when they got a second chance.”
Uzi Narkiss, a leading general in the 1967 war, vowed that the Latrun salient would never be returned. Establishing Canada Park was Israel’s way of secretly annexing the territory, Zochrot says.
Since 2003, Mr Bronstein has been demanding that the Jewish National Fund post additional signs highlighting the park’s Palestinian history.
The Roman bathhouse, he notes, is visible only because the foundations were subsequently excavated. For centuries, the structure – a shrine to Obeida Ibn al Jarah, an Arab warrior who helped conquer Palestine in the seventh century – served as an important Palestinian holy place.
The Jewish National Fund and the Civil Administration, the military government in the West Bank, agreed to post two new signs, marking the centres of Imwas and Yalu, only after Zochrot petitioned the courts. The experiment in openness was shortlived, however. After a few days, black paint was used to conceal part of the sign at Imwas, and soon afterwards both signs disappeared.
“We were told that scrap-metal dealers were probably responsible for stealing the signs,” Mr Bronstein said. “That’s a little hard to believe, since the official signs close by are there to this day.”
Zochrot is considering widening its campaign by alerting Canadian donors to the fact that their money has been used – in contravention of international law – effectively to annex a section of the West Bank to Israel. Mr Bronstein believes many are unaware of the use their donations have been put to.
He is preparing to take the Jewish National Fund back to court to demand it replaces the missing signs and erects similar signs in parks inside Israel to commemorate the Palestinian villages razed by the army after the 1948 war.
According to Zochrot, 86 Palestinian villages lie buried underneath JNF parks. A further 400 destroyed villages had their lands passed on to exclusively Jewish communities. Zochrot’s several hundred activists regularly select a destroyed village, taking Palestinian refugees with them as they place a handmade sign detailing the village’s name in Arabic and Hebrew. Within days, the signs are removed.
But Mr Bronstein said he believes signs erected by official bodies may have a greater impact in opening Israeli minds.
“In a recent newspaper interview, a senior JNF official admitted that it would be hard to stop our campaign,” he said. “Slowly we believe Israelis can be made to appreciate that their state exists at the expense of another people. Only then are Israelis likely to be ready to think about making peace.”

By Ghali Hassan

19 February, 2009
Countercurrents.org

The establishment in 1948 of a Zionist state on Palestinian land is often seen as constituting the greatest danger to world peace. Yet, Western powers led by the U.S. continue to support and defend Israel’s militarism and war crimes in Palestine. What has changed is the nakedness of Israeli war crimes and Western endorsement of Israeli’s Zionfascism.

Imagine an open-air prison with 1.5 million defenceless Palestinian refugees was attacked from the air, the land and the sea by a powerful army using missiles, artillery shells, cluster bombs and white phosphorus delivered by U.S.-supplied F-16s war planes, Apache helicopter gunships and tanks. Just after Christmas 2008, the Israeli Zionfascist army embarked on a three-week deliberate and indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza Concentration Camp in occupied Palestine. The extent of Israel’s premeditated aggression was a war crime for the world to see. The so-called “International Community” blamed the Palestinians for Israel’s aggression and endorsed Israel’s mass murder of innocent Palestinians as “self-defence”.

The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza has put the Palestinian toll at more than 1,350 killed. As always, most of the victims were innocent civilians – including 500 dead children, 130 women and 100 elderly people. At least 5,500 Palestinians (half of them children) were severely wounded, and the ongoing blockade of Gaza is making the task of treating the wounded very difficult.

The mass murder began as school children were switching classes and leaving schools to go home in the world’s most densely-populated Concentration Camp. Schools were destroyed with their students were inside. More than two hundred people were killed in the first few minutes of the attack. A total of 13 Israelis were killed, three of them were civilians, 10 of them soldiers, and four of the soldiers were killed by ‘friendly fire’.
Israeli soldiers – known for their cowardice –, used Palestinian civilians as human shields to protect them from the lightly-armed Palestinian Resistance. Amnesty International revealed that Israeli soldiers in Gaza often occupy Palestinian houses and keep the civilians as hostages in the first floor and on the roof, ensuring that the civilians will be killed first. The houses were later destroyed with their inhabitants were inside.

The deliberate destruction of vital Palestinian infrastructure is a war crime. Overall, thirty educational institutions, thirty-four health facilities – eight hospitals and twenty-six clinics – and ninety two mosques were damaged or destroyed in the Israeli attack. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and made homeless. It was an unnecessary and deliberate war crime against a defenceless population. The Hamas-led democratically-elected government a one-sided ceasefire and was/is ready to continue on an agreed truce.

Today, much of Gaza is without food, water and electricity. In addition, as a result of the destruction of most of the Palestinian farmland during the Israeli attack, the people of Gaza are facing a food crisis. UN and Palestinian sources estimated that 60 per cent of agriculture industry has been completely wrecked by the Israeli attacks, which followed the two years genocidal blockade of Gaza – imposed after Hamas was democratically and fairly elected to represent the Palestinian people.

Despite the nakedness of Israel’s crimes, Western leaders are united in their support for Israel’s Zionfascism. The U.S. Congress, a club fro wealthy Zionists and pro-Israel lobbyists, voted overwhelmingly to support Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian children. The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representative voted to support and endorse Israel’s massacre of Palestinians with a vote of 100-0 and 430-5 respectively. During the Israeli attacks on Gaza, the U.S. shipped 3,000 tons of weapons to Israel. This is on top of the $ 3 billion American tax payers paid to Israel. Israel The U.S. Congress seemed undeterred by Israel’s use of banned weapons – white phosphorus and Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) bombs which generate micro-shrapnel that burns and destroys everything within a four-meter radius – indiscriminately and illegally – in violations of international law and U.S. law – in overcrowded areas of Gaza.

The European Union States praised Israel’s conduct of war crimes and provided clear endorsement for further bloodshed accusing the Palestinian of “overwhelming responsibility” for Israel’s aggression. Instead of condemning the aggressor, they blamed the victims. The hypocrisy of European leaders is that they failed to hold Israel accountable for violations of international human rights law. Shimon Peres, Israel’s fascist president was given 25 minutes at the Davos World economic Forum to justify the massacre of Palestinian children by telling a pack of lies. Israeli Zionfascist leaders were overwhelmed by Europeans “extraordinary support for the state of Israel and their concern about its security” as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed during the attack on Gaza.

It is important to note that European States silence on Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights and Israel’s Zionfascist occupation of Palestinian land make them complicit in Israeli war crimes. The Palestinian people in Gaza are in a large fortified Concentration Camp, and the Palestinians in the West Bank are confined to disconnected Nazi-like ghettos under the worst colonial-apartheid system of control. Furthermore, European states complicity in Israel’s collective punishment is the same criminal policy used by the Nazis in occupied Europe during the Second World War.

As Hasan Abu Nimah, the former Jordanian representative to the UN writes; “If [the European States] do not want Palestinians to resist, why do they not themselves confront the aggressor and force an end to the occupation, siege and dispossession?” Europeans’ inaction and endorsement of Israeli war crimes “are signs of a moral weakness and corruption unparalleled since Europeans stood by silently at stations and watched as their compatriots were loaded into Nazi trains”, added Abu Nimah.
The pretext that Israeli is “defending itself” from Palestinian rockets attack is a lie. Israel’s attack on Gaza has nothing to do with responding to Palestinians firing rockets. The rockets were the Palestinian only form of protest against Israel’s murderous occupation. In short, Israeli attacks against the Palestinians are asymmetric massacre carried-out by the world’s fourth-largest army.

According to Michael Mandel, a professor of Law at York University in Toronto, Canada, Israel case of “self-defence” is fraud. If Israel is concerns about “defending itself” against the Palestinians, it can do so peacefully by ending the occupation of Palestinian land and stop the daily murder of Palestinians. Israel’s attack – like all previous Israeli acts of aggression – is against any hope of peaceful settlement. It is worth noting that the German Nazis used the pretext of “self-defence” to justify pre-emptive violence and military occupation.

If the German Nazis accused of using “gas chambers” (still disputed accusation) to kill civilians, Israeli Zionfascist leaders used all kinds of banned weapons, including bombs that incinerate people alive. It is reported recently that the new U.S.-supplied weapon is being tested on the Palestinians in Gaza. It was a classic case of naked Zionfascism. As the atrocity in Gaza shows, Zionfascism become more naked in recent years. It follows in the footsteps of fascism: the obliteration of Palestinian identity and the annexation of Palestinian land.

With complete monopoly on violence, successive Israeli leaders from David Ben-Gurion to Ehud Olmert and everyone in between have always targeted civilians. “Our policy has been to attack civilians,” indiscriminately and deliberately, said one Israeli leader. ”The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful: we must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price”, said former Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon in 2002. Sharon was merely defined Israeli policies in Palestine: a naked Zionfascism.

The Israeli Zionfascist army principle is: “if you continue killing Palestinian civilians for long enough, the world will accept it”. In 1978, Israeli Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur told the media: "Since 1948 until today, we have been fighting against a population that lives in villages and cities”. Commenting on Gur’s blunt statement, the Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff wrote: “[T]he Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously ... the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets... [but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck.” Furthermore, former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in response to Israeli terrorist attacks; “The picture that emerges is of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes [e.g. the Nazi regime] which neither Mr. [Menachem] Begin nor I would dare to mention by name.” (See: Edward S. Herman, The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda. South End Press, 1982). The adoption of Nazi-like policies by Israeli leaders since the creation of Israel is designed to terrorise and instil fear among the general Palestinian population and intimidate the Palestinian Resistance.

Professor Richard Falk, a law scholar at Princeton University and the UN special rapporteur called for an independent inquiry into Israel's violation of international humanitarian law. Falk, a Jew, compared Israel's aggression against the besieged Palestinian in Gaza to "the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto" which included the starvation and murder of innocent civilians by the German Nazis. Falk added the “the UN Charter and international law does not give Israel the legal foundation for claiming self-defence” against defenceless people.

"My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians", Sir Gerald Kaufman (MP) told the British House of Commons Debate on Gaza. The use of the “Jewish holocaust” and the use of the “anti-Semitism” cliché by Zionists aimed at not only to cover-up Israeli war crimes but also at intimidating and silencing critiques of Israeli war crimes.
The exploitation of the “Jewish holocaust” guilt and the use of the “anti-Semitism” cliché by Zionists and supporters of Israeli war crimes are invoked in order to keep Zionfascism alive. Zionfascism flourishes in a political climate of violence and hatred. It sustains itself by promoting and encouraging Jewish “anti-Semitism”.

It is worth noting that, Israeli Zionfascist leaders are openly claiming to represent all Jews. In other words, everything that Israel does, it does it in the name of all Jews. In fact Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians are strongly supported and demanded by major Jewish organisations. Indeed, the recent mass murder of Palestinian in Gaza had overwhelming support from Israeli Jews, major Jewish organisations and Jews world-wide. In a letter to Ehud Olmert in 2007, the former Sephardic grand rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu stated openly; “there is absolutely no moral prohibition against indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launching”. Hence, if there is Jewish “anti-Semitism”, it is a reaction to Israeli war crimes in Palestine. The reality, there is no Jewish “anti-Semitism”; there is widespread and systematic anti-Arabs/anti-Muslims racism, Islamophobia.

To Israel’s pleasure, Islamophobia is now infecting most non-Islamic countries, including the U.S., Europe and Australia. Israeli Zionists have been promoting and “exploiting the wave of Islamophobia in the U.S. and Europe, to engage them in this war on the Palestinians, doing their part in suffocating, starving, and weakening the Palestinian people, as Israel caries its mission of destruction”, wrote the late Israeli scholar Tina Reinhart.

Meanwhile, Western media one-sided coverage and complicity allow Israeli Zionfascist leaders to commit and get away with all kinds of war crimes. As the atrocity unfolded, the BBC refused to broadcast a charity appeal for to raise emergency funds for the Palestinian people in Gaza is just a case in point of media bias. The BBC alleges that broadcasting the appeal could compromise its impartiality. According to the BBC, supporting Palestinian children is anti-Israel propaganda that the BBC is working hard to eliminate. No one can be accused of being biased against Israel murderous occupation and injustice. Israel is an occupying power practising genocidal policies in Palestine. The BBC is not impartial and the excuse does not withstand a moment’s of scrutiny.

The BBC is a Zionfascist propaganda organ promoting Western militarism and colonialism. The BBC has always distorted reality on the ground in Palestine and has covered-up Israeli atrocities. It is a pro-Israel Zionfascist propaganda mouthpiece. The BBC main aim is to protect Israeli-Western criminals and murderers against the interests of defenceless Palestinian victims. The BBC’s mantra is to portray Israel as a victim of “terrorism” despite overwhelming evidence which shows that Israel is the leading terrorist state. For the BBC, defenceless people are “militants” and resistance against murderous occupiers is “terrorism”.

It is important to remember that during the U.S.-NATO criminal attacks on Serbia, the BBC played a critical propaganda role to justifying and covering-up Western war crimes. Furthermore, the BBC complicity in the Iraq’s Genocide and the ongoing murderous Occupation remove any claim of “impartiality”. Why the BBC remain silent while Israeli Zionfascist leaders used Gaza as “test laboratory” for new weapons? Until the BBC begins to uncover Israeli war crimes in Palestine and put and end to its anti-Arabs/anti-Muslims imperialist propaganda, its claim of “impartiality” is fraud.

Finally, since Israeli Zionfascist leaders declared a unilateral “ceasefire”, more than a dozen innocent Palestinians have been murdered. Hamas is reportedly offering a year-long truce if Israel withdraws from Gaza and lifts its blockade. However, Israeli Zionfascist leaders are not interested in peace because peace could lead to peaceful settlement that Israeli leaders are not interested in. They preferred aggression and expansion to peace and security. They have engineered and used provocation in order to launch acts of aggression. Credit is due to the Palestinians for dealing with the equivalent of Nazi war criminals.

In fact, Israeli leaders have just made it clear that Israel is not going to live up to the ceasefire until Hamas returns a captured soldier, Gilad Shalit who was captured as POW. He could have been killed during the Israeli attack. Israeli leaders are now using him as a bargaining chip. His release is the latest Israeli pretext to reject peace. How about Israel releasing more than 10,000 Palestinian men, women and children who were kidnapped and taken hostages by Israel? They are subjected to daily torture and horrendous human rights abuses at the hands of Israeli agents and interrogation criminals. As always, Israel is not interested in peace. It prefers violence and occupation.

“Today, Israel could have security, normalization of relations, and integration into the region. But it very clearly prefers illegal expansion, conflict, and repeated exercise of violence, actions that are not only criminal, murderous and destructive but are also eroding its own long-term security”, writes the American linguist Noam Chomsky. Instead of confronting its murderous history, Israel continues on the path of aggression, murder, ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Today, Israel is the most extremist and racist society. It is ruled by one of the most corrupt and violent quasi-military political establishments. Its politics are Zionfascist politics, and its policies are colonial-apartheid policies.

Israel’s Zionfascism is the greatest threat to world peace and security. Its real aim has always been military domination and the obliteration of the Palestinian nation. It is time for people to stop acting like outsiders. The alternative is the global resistance campaign that includes boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) to defeat Zionfascism in pursuit of peace and Palestinian independence.

By Franklin Lamb

19 February, 2009
Countercurrents.org

"Whatever will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in leaving Gaza,"

Shimon Peres to members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 2/18/09

"You take my water. Burn my Olive Trees. Destroy my house. Take my job. Steal my Land. Imprison my Mother. Bomb my country. Starve us all. Humiliate us all. But I am to blame: I shot a rocket back".

Sign carried near Hyde Park Corner during a demonstration in London on 2/15/09 by a Member of the British Parliament
Ain el Helwe Palestinian Refugee Camp,Sidon, Lebanon: : Israeli President Shimon Peres has participated in shaping the policies of Israel for most of its existence. His Washington Post Op-Ed last week billed as 'a peacepartners prod' to the Obama administration, evidences a major disconnect within the government of Israel concerning what is urgently required for that country's increasingly unlikely long-term survival.

According to a CIA study currently being shown to selected staff members on the US Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Israel's survival in its present form beyond the next 20 years is doubtful.

The Report predicts "an inexorable movement away from a Two State to a One State solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

To President Peres' chagrin, the Executive Summary states that "during the next fifteen years more than two million Israelis, including some 500,000 Israeli citizens who currently hold US green cards or passports will move to the United States. Most Israelis not in possession of these documents will receive 'expedited waivers'. The Report claims that " Alongside a decline in Jewish births and a rise in Palestinian fertility, approximately 1.6 million Israelis are likely to return to their forefather's lands in Russia and Eastern and Western Europe with scores of thousands electing to stay, depending on the nature of the transition."

In his Washington Post Op-ed piece President Peres desperately attempts to salvage a two state solution from a one, a three or even a four 'state' arrangement. He appears to realize that a two state solution is seriously jeopardized unless Israel dramatically and quickly changes course. With the tacking to the right in Israel and the likely make up of the next government once Peres selects Livni or Netanyahu in the next few days, and given the swelling mood among the occupied in favor of another Intifada, Peres plaintively asserts to the Obama administration that "a two states is the only realistic solution".

Peres instructed the American people and their government three times in his Op-Ed brief for a two state solution, that Israel is "the land of my forefathers'. He laments that the CIA predicted One State Solution would "Undermine Israel's legitimacy and the internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers."

Peres knows that his forefathers had no connection whatsoever to Palestine as is the case with more than 95% of the Zionists who swept into the area over the past century and demolished close to 600 villages while expelling a majority of the native population. Historians have established that most arriving Jews were in fact Slavic converts to Judaism without any historical or genealogical nexus to Palestine or Hebrew tribes in the area.

Against the historical backdrop of the past century of nearly global rejection of colonialism, his claim of settled international acceptance of "Israel's legitimacy" is a major stretch. "Legitimacy" is what the conflict continues to be about-- whether a 19th Century colonial enterprise can violently uproot and massacre an indigenous population taking over a land declaring God promised it to them, as they terrorize and expel the local inhabitants. Contrary to Peres' claim of Israel as a 'legitimate State', there is no internationally recognized right for Israel to exist on stolen land without the consent of the dispossessed. Peres assures his American benefactors that Israel's legitimacy is based "in international law or morality". In point of fact, both International law and morality require the right of return of those whose lands were taken and lifting the brutal occupation. Surely Peres is aware, as the CIA Report asserts, that a majority of the 192 countries which make up the membership of the United Nations would vote this evening to establish one State of Palestine if given the chance.

The Report concludes that what went wrong will be debated for many years. In essence the problem was the premise, that a 'chosen people' with no link or rights to a land could impose a state by force. Many Middle East observers believe that the Two State solution is essentially over, but for the packing, finger pointing and assuredly more violence.

Increasingly repelled by Israeli crimes, the international community is moving toward the majority position of Palestinians and is coming to believe that the realistic solution to the Middle East conflict is one State, secular, multicultural, democratic, and based on one person one vote.

Peres is loath to accept One State and claims, in promoting a two-state solution, that he has "personally witnessed the remarkable progress we have made with the Palestinian Authority in recent years".

Does he AS in mind the increasing bantusization (what Chomski calls " unviable fragments") the ever snaking apartheid wall and other barriers, the illegal outposts which increased yet again last year? The blockade of and depraved slaughter in Gaza?

Or does President Peres have in mind this week's announcement by outgoing Prime Minister Olmert that Israel has the right to keep building in large West Bank settlement blocs, including Efrat, by adding 423 acres so that 21,000 more residents can join the current 9,000, according to Efrat mayor Oded Revivi? Olmert claims its part of the annexation that will be considered in a future final peace deal with the Palestinians.

President Peres, has passed nearly a lifetime devoted to undermining prospects for a viable Palestinian state and offering a wink and nod to the building of more than 430 colonies while offering lip service to the 'peace process'. His 'Message to the American People' fails to communicate what the Israeli and Palestinian public knows well about the real nature of the Two State option he has in mind and which he considers to be " the best resolution to this age-old conflict." Both populations know that the Two State option that long time politician Peres has consistently run on, is the Yigal Allon Plan.

The Allon scheme to expel the Arab population from Palestine has been Peres' electoral platform during his campaigns in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1987 and it shaped Israel's settlement policies from 1967 - 1977. Peres worked to make the Allon Plan part of the 1978 Camp David agreement and 1993 Oslo Accords.

As the American public begins to stir from its long slumber on the Question of Palestine and hopefully dramatically changes its Middle East policy, it should consider that the Peres favored 'moderate' Allon Plan continues to be Israeli policy. As formulated by its author and adhered to by successive Israel governments, it contains the following "moderate" elements:

¡P Seeking "maximum land with minimum Arabs;"

¡P annexes approximately 40% of the West Bank and Gaza, taking the choicest parts;

¡P Dispossess Palestinians from land Israel wants for Jews.

After Israel's attack in 1967, Allon presented to the cabinet a solution to the Arab problem. The Allon Plan called for annexing the following areas: "a strip of land ten to fifteen kilometers wide along the Jordan River; most of the Judean desert along the Dead Sea; and a substantial area around Greater Jerusalem, including the Latrun salient" The plan was crafted to include as few Arabs as possible in the area claimed for Israel and included building permanent colonies and army bases in these areas.

The two state solution that Peres is trying to sell the American public and administration is a Palestinian 'state' in 76.6% of the West Bank, carved up into sealed enclaves, with the largest of the 430 plus settlements/colonies remaining in place under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would take another 13.3% outright and continue to occupy the remaining 10.1% for a period of up to thirty years. During this period Israel would continue building new and expanding current settlement/colonies. The above percentages do not include the subtracted East Jerusalem and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea. In point of fact the 76% offer is based not on 100% of the occupied territories, but merely those parts that Israel was willing to discuss. Consequently, the "just and moral solution" President Peres favors would amount to slightly less than 16% of historic Palestine being given to those driven from their homes and land.

Peres claims Israel has worked tirelessly for peace. Yet the record is clear that Israel has only worked tirelessly for expansion at the expense of the indigenous Arab population while obstructing more than two dozen 'peace initiatives' over six decades, while targeting the Palestinian people, culture, and economy.

Peres claims in his Op Ed that Libyan leader Qadaffi agrees with Israel it deserves Palestine and that "this is salient in his fundamental and central premise that the Jewish people want and deserve their homeland." Peres takes Qadaffis' words out of contest and misrepresents his thesis which in fact calls for one State shared by both peoples. Qadaffi insists that the Middl East welcomes Judaism but not racist Zionism. It is the latter which underpins the founding of Israel and which has led to history's condemnation..

As the President of Israel seeks yet more indulgence and largesse from the American taxpayers and the Obama administration, there is something he can do to shore up waning trust and waxing disillusionment with the two state option. He can announce immediately that he fully accepts UN Security Council Resolution 242 and advocates the removal of all settlements and the total withdrawal of the Israeli military from the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel's President urges the American people and government to, "commit our most concerted effort to allow two states to flourish." Unless he and his fellow leaders of Israel are prepared, without further delay, to commit to a complete withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 armistice line, in a serious effort at peace, Israel will continue to lose American and International support and One State is the likely future for Palestine.

Israeli President Peres can avert his eyes from reality, but the Obama administration and the American people cannot afford this fatal delusion.

Challenges the entire official version of September 11 attacks.

Book Details:

Author : Thierry Meyssan
Publisher : Carnot USA
Language : english
Paperback 240 pages
ISBN : 1592090265
Dimensions (en cm) : 2 x 15 x 24

Book description:

In The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan sheds new light on the 9/11 Pentagon and WTC crashes.
- The New York Fire Dept. has asked for an independent enquiry, owing to the fact that Tower 7 did not collapse because of the plane crashes, and explosions were heard.
- In Washington, the façade of the Pentagon was damaged along 19 meters, but a Boeing’s wingspan is at least 38 meters. Yet, no debris were found on the Pentagon’s lawn.
These, along with many other findings, challenge the entire official version of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Supported by independent aeronautical experts, Thierry Meyssan’s inquiry into the events of Sept. 11 sheds new light on the overlooked evidence, the contradictory testimonies, and the Pentagon’s refusal to allow an independent enquiry into the crashes.
Further, the trail of disturbing evidence leads us into Afghanistan, and into the very heart of the United States’ war machine.

La vérité sur l’effondrement des 3 tours du World Trade Centre

FICHE TECHNIQUE

• Auteur : Victor Thorn
• (postface Le Réquisitoire supplétif - La Destruction du World Trade Center - de David Ray GRIFFIN)
• Éditeur : Éditions Demi-Lune
• Collection : Résistances
• Langue : français
• Format : Broché - 224 pages
• ISBN-10 : 2-9525571-3-6
• EAN-13 : 9782952557139
• Dimensions (en cm) : 15 x 23

L'AUTEUR

Victor THORN, journaliste et homme de télévision, animateur de radio, fondateur des éditions Sisyphus, il est aussi l’auteur d’ouvrages sur le nouvel ordre mondial et l’Amérique avant le 11 septembre. Ce livre choc est son ouvrage le plus récent.

RÉSUMÉ

Le Procès du 11 Septembre est le résultat de plus de trois ans d’enquêtes menées sans relâche de manière indépendante par de nombreux journalistes, chercheurs et organisations, pour savoir ce qui est survenu (et ce qui n’est jamais arrivé) à New York ce jour-là.

Le Procès du 11 Septembre détruit de façon systématique et formelle le mythe selon lequel les tours jumelles furent détruites du simple fait des impacts des avions-suicides et des incendies qui les ont suivis, occasionnant ainsi le meurtre de près de 3 000 personnes en ce jour fatidique.

Les découvertes présentées dans cet ouvrage révèlent une conclusion totalement différente et passablement plus effrayante sur ce qui s’est réellement passé à Ground Zero ; une vérité si intolérable qu’elle ne peut demeurer plus longtemps ignorée ou tue. Les mensonges du gouvernement s’effondrent à leur tour sur leurs propres fondations.

« Victor THORN prouve sans l’ombre d’un doute que la version officielle sur l’effondrement des tours est un mensonge. »

David Ray GRIFFIN.

Hitler Yesterday Israel Today

THE GRANDCHILDREN OF HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS FROM WORLD WAR II ARE DOING TO THE PALESTINIANS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM BY NAZI GERMANY …

BUILDING WALLS & FENCES TO KEEP PEOPLE IN PRISON

CHECK POINTS NOT TO ALLOW PEOPLE BASIC FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

ARRESTS & HARASSMENTS

DESTROYING HOMES & LIVELIHOODS

GIFTS (WITH LOVE) FROM THE CHILDREN OF PEACE-LOVING & CIVILIZED COUNTRIES

The war between the rich and well armed, democratic Western countries (mainly USA, UK, France, Israel) and the peoples of the Arab world has been in progress since the end of the First World War. It has been mainly fought on the lands of the Arabs. It has been fought directly with military force or indirectly with economic sanctions and with the support of puppet governments that serve the interests of the West and their companies. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have died in this war. Most of these deaths remain unreported in the Western media and unmourned.

This war played little part in the lives of the Europeans and North Americans until about 70 years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Around the mid 1980s, Arab groups began attacking Western targets. These included civilian, diplomatic and economic interests in Europe, North America and the rest of the world.

Western governments and their media had previously ignored the suffering, oppression, death and dispossession of millions of Arabs. Now they were outraged. The Arabs were labeled as evil and fanatical. Their religion was insulted and demonized. The people of the West were told that Arabs were attacking the West for no reason. They hated Western civilization, culture and standard of living. They hated freedom and democracy. No historical background to the conflict was given. It was important to keep the real reasons behind the conflict away from the public domain.

Westerners were informed that Arabs were unlike the freedom loving Americans, lacked the culture of the French and had no idea of fair play like the British.

Observers who suggest that Arab attacks on Western targets might have something to do with Western foreign policy or the political situation in the Middle East, are accused of being anti-American or anti-Semitic. The official line is that the attackers are terrorists and had no demands that could be negotiated. In addition, the targets of the terrorists are the entire "civilised" world, rather than the USA and its allies and their interests.

Other countries have joined in the charade. Israel has reclassified its occupation of Palestine as part of the "international war on terror". Russia uses the same rhetoric when crushing resistance to its rule in Chechnya. India uses the "war on terror" to justify its continual occupation and oppression of Kashmir. The USA and UK collude with these world views as it keeps opposition to their policies in the Middle East muted.

Islam, the major religion of the Middle East, is demonized and derided so as to make it easier to treat its people as less than human. All Muslims are judged by the actions of a few extremists. This is the equivalent of judging Western society, Christianity or Judaism by some or all of the following:

• Christian Americans who shoot doctors practicing abortion and who attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in schools;
• The actions and writings of the racist Ku Klux Klan (USA), the British National Party (UK) or the Front National (France);
• Israeli settlers who shoot Palestinains while they are praying in their mosques.

One of the leading terrorist groups is Al-Qaida, lead by Osama Bin-Laden. He makes frequent statements to the West which are not reported. It is useful to keep up the myth that groups like Al-Qaida have no demands that can be negociated with. For this reason I quote some of their statements.

The following statement was made in 2001 as the USA and UK invaded Afghanistan:

"The Palestinian people have been living under the Jewish and Zionist occupation and nobody moves to help them. Here we are as an Arab land, this is a land that has been desecrated. People have come to take its wealth. The American interests are everywhere all over the world. America must know that the battle will not leave this land until America leaves our land. Until it stops supporting Israel, until it stops the blockade against Iraq. The Americans must know that by coming to the land of Afghanistan, they have opened a new page of animosity between us and the forces of the unbelievers. And they must know that the land of Afghanistan and the Mujahideen are being subjected to a full crusade with the objective of getting rid of the Islamic nation."

Al-Qaida is a violent indiscriminate terrorist group. Their language is flowery and full of religious references. Their actions against civilians cannot be condoned. However, the grievances listed above are real and resonate with much of the Arab world - indeed, the Muslim world. Attempting to crush groups like this will not remove the grievances. Only by removing the many injustices perpetrated by the West will groups like this lose support. Only by treating the Arabs as human beings and as equals and not trying to control their land, resources, governments and culture can there be a just and lasting peace.

The message was clearly laid out after the bombing of Madrid (Spain) in March 2004 that killed 200 people and brought "regime change" to Europe:

"Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land and we will stop attacking you. The people of the US allied countries have to put pressure on their governments to immediately end their alliance with the US in the war against terror (Islam)."

A month later, Al-Qaida offered a truce to the countries of Europe:

"I am offering a truce to European countries, and its core is our commitment to cease operations against any country which does not carry out an onslaught against Muslims or interfere in their affairs as part of the big American conspiracy against the Islamic world. Whoever wants reconciliation and the right (way), then we are the ones who initiated it, so stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood."

"Security is a need for all humans, and we could not let you have a monopoly on it for yourselves. People who are aware would not let their politicians jeopardize their security."

"By describing us and our actions as terrorism, you are necessarily describing yourself and your actions. ... Our actions are reactions to your actions that destroy and kill our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine."

Al-Qaida are aware of the economics behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

"This war brings billions of dollars to big companies, either to those that manufacture weapons or those who reconstruct Iraq, like Halliburton and its sister companies. And from here it becomes clear who benefits from the outbreak of wars and bloodshed: war traders and vampires who administer world politics from behind the curtain."

And, of course, there is always Palestine, a continuing sore to the Arabs:

"I plead with the honest people, intellectuals, activists and traders to form a permanent committee to raise people's awareness for the justice of our causes-- on top of which comes Palestine."

Arab and Muslim societies have many problems (like their Western counterparts). They must be allowed to solve their problems and develop at their own pace. If the West is to help it must be as friends and by request; not as colonisers and certainly not by force.

The War on Terror has not just begun - it has just changed location.

It has returned home.

Gaza, December 29 , 2008

300 Killed and more than 1000 wounded -till now- in the savage raids made by Israel on the isolated Gaza strip. As usual, the world controlled politicians are incapable of even to tell the truth about what the criminal state of Israel is doing on the ground! And as usual, the United Stated backs Israel and support it with all means, against some poor people armed only with rocks and light guns, while Israel is using all kind of weapons gifted gracefully by the US over the years...Now, never ask "why do they hate us?" because you have, one more time, the answer for your question.

Jews have made war on their neighbors since their beginnings.  In ancient times they were known as destroyers.  Since their expulsion from Jerusalem in 70 AD the Jews have maintained their nation inside other nations but their primary loyalty is always to the Jewish people, to Israel.  In many places they have allied themselves with the government and acted as tax collectors in other places, such as Russia, they have been the primary force in the overthrow of the government.  Communism was Jewish in origin and Jews occupied positions of great power throughout European communism.  Israel is a religious state that pays the rabbi's salary and grants rights to Jews that are denied to the original inhabitants, the Palestinians.  It is a state that began with ethnic cleansing which continues to this day with our tax money of over 3 billion dollars each year providing the financial basis of all its actions.

For the Jews the people are the nation, the people are Israel, the people are the Divine Whole.  The people, Israel, is pure, the "other", the goim, you and me, are impure.  "The Jews are not a part of a vast Whole which they re-integrate in dying, but they are a Whole in themselves, defying space, time, life, and death. Can God be outside the Whole? If he exists, necessarily he confounds himself with this Whole...Thus Divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the Race - passionnel entity, eternal flame, it is the Divine essence. It must be preserved and perpetuated, therefore the idea of pure and impure was created." (Nomades, Kadmi Cohen, (1929). 

Read the words of their Holy Scripture, the Talmud.  Baba Mezia, 114b "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d): "God created them [Jews] in the form of men for the glory of Israel . But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him." (Talmud)

Read the Words of one of the founders of the state of Israel: "The image of the world...as traced in my imagination -- the increasing influence of the farmers and workers, and the rising political influence of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the U.S.S.R. as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (A truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents." (David Ben Gurion)

The Jew Samuel Roth wrote about it in his book "Jews Must Live". What the Jew really wants and expects to achieve through the instrumentality of the Hebrew school is to cultivate in his son the sharp awareness that he is a Jew and that as a racial Jew-apart from all the other races-he is waging an old war against his neighbors. (more)

The Jews form an Ethnic Intelligence Apparatus in any nation in which they exist in any numbers to pursue the aims of their people/nation, Israel and to fight against the enemies of Israel.  They do this today in America.  Do you doubt this Ethnic Intelligence Apparatus?  Turn on your television.  Check out the news and shows.  Watch Wolf Blitzer turn to Schnecher and Ali Kashvili, all Jews, then there's Mike Wallace and Leslie Stahl, Heraldo Rivera and Barbara Walters.  And: William Safire, Alan Colmes, A. M. Rosenthal,   Charles Krauthammer,   Martin Perez,   Daniel Pipes,   Dick Morris,   Lawrence Kaplan,   William Kristol,   Robert Kagan,   Mortimer Zuckerman,   David Gelernter,   John Podhoretz,   Mona Charen,   Morton Kondracke,   Sid Zion,   Yossi Klein Halevi,   Norman Podhoretz,   Jonah Goldbern,   Jeff Jacoby,   Rich Lowry,   Seth Lipsky, Irving Kristol,   John Fund,   Ben Wattenberg,   Lawrence Kudlow,   Alan Dershowitz,   David Horowitz,   Jacob Heilbrun,   Michael Ledeen,   Uri Dan, Thomas Friedman,   Richard Cohen, Avishai Margolit,   David Remmick,   Eric Alterman to name a few. More info @ Jews in the Media Who Rules America? Read about the changes the Jews made at the Canadian media company CanWest.  CanWest-Israel.  Read about the Newhouse Media Empire, or read about the power of Jews in the media in England.

     Remember Ariel Sharon's famous words in an argument with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres over Israel's continued use of violence:  "Every time we do something, you tell me Americans will do this and will do that.  I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel; We the Jewish people control America and the Americans know it."  Why did he make such a statement ???

"The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American public opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, owned respectively by the Sulzbergers, Meyers, and the Pulitzers, (all Jewish families)."  Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II, 1978, pp. 218-219

  Look behind the push to the War in Iraq and you will find a number of Neo-con Jews including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Elliot Abrams.  A surprising number have been investigated for spying for Israel. 

     In the assault on Christmas Jews are not referred to as Jews they are referred to as secularists.  MSM (main stream media) can ignore it but Jews lead the assault on Christianity while making certain American tax money goes to support the religious state of Israel.  The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it is somewhat divided.  (Joseph Sobran)  (Jews and Christianity)  Most Christians have no knowledge of Jewish scripture and attitudes toward Christians.  "According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other to idolatry and contempt of rabbinical authority." In punishment of this blasphemy, His fate is to be immersed boiling excrement forever.  Dr. Israel Shahak (more)

Take a look at Jews in business and Jews in Porn.

We are facing the biggest problem of the world: the existence of Israel and the Zionist movement!!

While the mass media talks about terror and terrorist groups as a creation of  Muslims and Islam; The table above shows us exactly the opposite of what we may hear all the day. 

Source: EU TERRORISM SITUATION AND TREND REPORT 2007

by Sayed Khatab & Gary D. Bouma

Challenging the view of Islamic extremists and critics of Islam, this book explores the very topical issue of Islam's compatibility with democracy. It examines: principles of Islam's political theory and the notion of democracy therein; the notion of democracy in medieval and modern Muslim thought; Islam and human rights; and, the contribution of Islamic legal ideas to European legal philosophy and law. The book addresses the pressing need for a systematic show of an Islamic politics of human rights and democracy grounded in the Qur'an. The West wonders about Islam and human rights, and its own ability to incorporate Muslim minority communities. Many Muslims also seek to find within Islam, support source for democratic governance and human rights.

download the ebook from here

http://rapidshare.com/files/149527815/Dem0_InI5lam.rar

mirror

http://www.filefactory.com/file/acfc00/n/Democ_InIsla_rar

About the writer:

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the head of the Institute for Policy Research & Development of Brighton. His book, The War against Freedom: How and why America was attacked on September 11 2001, is a bestseller which won the highest literary Italian, the Prix de Naples. Graduated from the University of Sussex, there is currently a Ph.D. in International Relations. Political columnist for the BBC, Nafeez Ahmed was elected world expert for war, peace and international affairs by the Freedom Network of the International Society for Individual Liberty in California.

Sum-up

The first book devoted to Nafeez Ahmed September 11, war against freedom, has been acclaimed throughout the world for the accuracy of facts gathered. Published just six months after the attacks, this book was one of the first to highlight inconsistencies and contradictions in the official version presented by the U.S. government.
The new book by Nafeez Ahmed, The War against the truth, contains twice as much information. Among the new documents that support the initial argument of the author, there is an analysis of the Report of the Commission on September 11 and a more thorough examination of U.S. policies vis-à-vis al Qaeda. The last book Ahmed Nafeez offers an invaluable documentation to those that lack of correlation between the facts and the official left on their hunger.

 
"This fascinating study and meticulously documented is essential for anyone trying to understand the attack on the World Trade Center ..."

John McMurtry, professor of philosophy, University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

"To date, more objective book about the circumstances and reasons for the attack against America on 11 September 2001 is undoubtedly that of Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - and this is the best ..."

Gore Vidal, romancier et essayiste.

I tried to translate this text from French into English so sorry if it's not very accurate.

There is still no official version of the September 11 attacks in 2001. Aucune enquête judiciaire n’a été ouverte sur les attentats eux-mêmes, ni d’enquête parlementaire d’ailleurs. No judicial investigation was opened into the attacks themselves, or parliamentary inquiry elsewhere. Tout au plus dispose-t-on d’une version gouvernementale explicitée par un rapport rendu par une commission présidentielle. At most are there for a government covered by a report by a presidential commission. Le professeur David Ray Griffin, qui a consacré un ouvrage de référence à l’étude de ce rapport, ya relevé 115 mensonges dont il dresse ici la liste. Professor David Ray Griffin, who spent a reference to the study of this report, there lies 115 noted he stands by the list.

For every lie, see analysis by Professor David Ray Griffin in his book Omissions and manipulation of the Commission of Inquiry. Figures in parenthesis refer to the pages of the book in its original edition U.S.

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the hijackers suspected (including Waleed al-Shehri, the Commission accused of stabbing an air hostess UA11 flight before it crashed on the North tower of World Trade Center) are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta (as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork and private erotic dances - lap dances -) are in contradiction with the Commission's assertions that he had become a religious fanatic (20 -- 21).

 
3. The confusion deliberately created around the evidence that Hani Hanjour was a pilot too incompetent to bring an airliner to crash into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the lists of passengers (flight manifests) made public contained no Arabic name (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never caused the total collapse of a building steel structure, either before or after September 11 (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires of the Twin Towers were not very extensive, nor particularly intense or even very long compared with other fires in skyscrapers (structures) like them who have never collapsed (25-26).
JPEG - 16.7 ko
"Omissions and manipulation of the inquiry commission on September 11"
The book of D. Ray Griffin, in French, is available for sale in the library of Voltaire Network.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the assumption that the collapse was caused by the fire, the South Tower, later hit the North Tower and prey to the flames of lesser intensity, should not have s 'Collapse the first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that building No. 7 of the WTC (which has not been hit by a plane and that was the scene of small localized fires) also collapsed, an event that the Federal Agency for Treatment of Emergency Situations (FEMA) has recognized they can not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (and Building No. 7) presents at least 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition (26-27). 10. The assertion that the core of the structure of each of the Twin Towers was "a well steel vacuum", a statement that denies the presence of 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower, which according the theory of "stacking of floors" (the "pancake theory") Explanatory collapses, should have remained upright into the sky over many tens of meters (27-28).

11. The omission of the statement by Larry Silverstein [the owner of the WTC] that he decided, in agreement with the firefighters, "demolish" (to pull, technical slang) the building No. 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel of the WTC buildings was quickly cleared of the crime scene and loaded on ships abroad before it can be analyzed to detect traces of explosives (30) .

13. The omission of the fact that building No. 7 had been evacuated before the collapse, the official reason given for the rapid clearance of steel [on site] (that some people may still be alive under the rubble) was no meaning in this case (30).

14. The omission of the statement of Mayor R. Giuliani that he had been warned that the WTC was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that Marvin Bush, brother of the President, and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both directors of the company responsible for the safety of the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the West Wing of the Pentagon [that actually hit] was the least likely to be targeted by terrorists of al-Qaeda, for several reasons (33 - 34).

17. The omission of any discussion to determine whether the damage on the Pentagon were consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 traveling at several hundred kilometers per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the facade of the west wing has collapsed 30 minutes after the strike and that the entry hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 (34 ).

19. The omission of any contradictory testimony about the presence or absence of visible debris of a Boeing 757 that either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The absence of any discussion to determine if the Pentagon had a defense system capable missile to shoot down a commercial airliner, although the Commission suggested that terrorists of al-Qaida n'attaquèrent not a central Nuclear because they assumed it would be defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that images from different cameras (including the service station opposite the Pentagon, whose film was confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike) could probably give an answer to what really struck the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of the reference of the Minister of Defense D. Rumsfeld "a missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent approval of the totally unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain in the Sarasota school at a time when, according to the official version, they should take an airplane diverted could have taken the school to target (41-44).

24. The failure to explain why the Secret Service did not request the protection of hunters for [the presidential plane] Air Force One (43-46).

25. Claims that when the presidential motorcade arrived at school [Sarasota], nobody in the audience knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that the Minister of Justice John Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to Sept. 11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers assertion that, based on information provided by FBI agents about planned attacks in southern Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to the Minister of Attorney General John Ashcroft during the 6 weeks before September 11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention that FBI agents had said he was aware of targets and dates of the attacks [terrorists] in advance (51-52).

29. The assertion by a rebuttal circular assumes the matter resolved, that the unusual volume purchases of options on the decline before Sept. 11 did not imply that buyers knew in advance that attacks would occur. (52-57)

30. The omission of reports that the mayor [San Francisco] Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings out to fly on September 11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who was already the most wanted criminal of the United States, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor at the American Hospital in Dubai and received a visit from the local agent of the CIA (59).

32. The omission of articles suggesting that after September 11, the U.S. military deliberately let Osama bin Laden escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including one on the visit by the head of Saudi intelligence to Osama bin Laden to the hospital in Dubai, which contradict the official version that Osama was disowned by his family and his country ( 60-61).

34. The omission of the account by Gerald Posner on the testimony of Abu Zubaydah, that three members of the Saudi royal family (who all mysteriously died eight days apart) financed al-Qaida and had foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11 (61-65).

35. The denial by the Commission to have found evidence of financing al-Qaida by the Saudis (65-68).

36. The denial by the Commission to have found evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to agents of al-Qaida (69-70).

37. The denial, simply ignoring the distinction between private flights and commercial flights, the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the regulations of the airspace in force on that date (71-76).

38. Denied that the Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after Sept. 11 without having been adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley assertion that officials at Q.-G. FBI had seen the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of the fact that FBI agent Robert Wright in Chicago says that the Q.-G. FBI closed its investigation into a terrorist cell, and then tried to intimidate him to prevent him from publishing a book recounting experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that the Q.-G. FBI attempt to sabotage the Coleen Rowley and other agents [FBI] from Minneapolis to obtain a warrant to search the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui (91-94).

43. The omission of the three hours thirty different testify before the Commission by Sibel Edmonds, a former translator at the FBI, according to testimony made public a letter it addressed to the President [of the] Kean, revealed serious concealment on the part of officials FBI in connection with Sept. 11, at the headquarters of the FBI (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the ISI [the Pakistani Intelligence Services], was in Washington a week before September 11, and met with CIA Director George Tenet and other High U.S. officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that Ahmad, the head of the ISI [the Pakistani Intelligence Services] had ordered the dispatch of $ 100,000 to Mohamed Atta before Sept. 11 (104 - 07).

46. The affirmation of the Commission that it found no evidence that a single foreign government, including Pakistan, had financed agents of al-Qaida (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad from his post as head of ISI after the disclosure that he had ordered the sending of money from the ISI Mohamed Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not just al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud (the commander of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), which occurred just after a meeting that lasted a week between officials of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence that the ISI is involved in the abduction and murder of Daniel Pearl, the journalist Wall Street Journal (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, having close links with the ISI and al-Qaeda had a foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11 (114).

51. The failure of the prediction made in 1999 by Rajaa Guluma Abbas, an official of the ISI, that the Twin Towers' collapse '(114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly évoquèrent the attacks of September 11 as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that the Project for the New American Century ( "The Project for the New American Century"), many of whose members became key figures in the Bush administration, published a paper in 2000 saying that a "new Pearl Harbor "would help in obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the U.S. military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who was the chairman of the Committee of the U.S. Space Command and had recommended increasing the budget, used the attacks of September 11 the same evening to ensure such credits (119 -22).

55. The failure to mention that the three men responsible for the failure to prevent the attacks of September 11 (the Minister Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart) were also the three main promoters of the U.S. Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not guarantee adequate security to start construction of its pipelines (oil and gas) from the Caspian basin through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25 ).

57. The omission of the report that representatives of the United States said at a meeting in July 2001 that because the Taliban refused their proposal to develop the construction of a pipeline, a war against them would begin in October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that in his book published in 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that if the U.S. maintains its global supremacy, they needed control of Central Asia, with its vast oil reserves, and that new Pearl Harbor would be helpful to get the accession of American public opinion referred to the imperial (127-28).

59. The omission of the fact that key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had refute for a new war against Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of conversations Donald Rumsfeld on September 11 which showed his determination to use the attacks as a pretext for a war against Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement in the Project for a New American Century that "the need for a strong U.S. presence in the Gulf than about the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The assertion that the protocol of the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) on September 11 the lengthy process required to go through several stages in the chain of command, although the official report of the [Commission] cites evidence to the contrary ( 158).

63. The assertion that these days, only two bases of the U.S. Air Force in the north-east sector of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command Center for Defense Command of the Aerospace North America) Hunters kept on alert and that in particular there were no fighter aircraft on alert at McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of the fact that the basis of the U.S. Andrews Air Force convervait several fighter jets on alert permanently (162-64).

65. The acceptance of dual claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS (North East Air Defense Sector) should call a superior for permission to send fighter since [the base] Otis and that this call necessita eight minutes ( 165-66).

66. The approval of the assertion that the loss of the transponder signal from an airplane makes its virtually impossible for locating radars by the U.S. Army (166 - 67).

67. The assertion that the Payne Stewart interception did not show that the response time of NORAD flight AA11 was extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The assertion that hunters from the base Otis remained nailed to the ground seven minutes after they had been ordered because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The assertion that the U.S. military was unaware of the diversion of the flight UA175 before 9:03, the exact moment when he crashed into the WTC South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation on (a) why NORAD's earlier report that the FAA had notified military diversion of the flight UA175 at 8:43, was now considered false and (b) how this report, s It was false, was published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The assertion that the FAA has installed teleconferencing only from 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that the call was made at about 8:50 and it included the diversion of the flight UA175 (183-84, 186).

73. The assertion that the NMCC teleconference, (the National Military Command or National Military Command Center) does not start before 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission in assertion of the Commission that the AA77 has not deviated from its course before 8:54, because previous reports had announced 8:46 (189-90). 75. The failure to mention that the announcement of a jet crash in Kentucky, about the time the AA77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by officials from the FAA and the unity against terrorism FBI to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The assertion that the AA77 flew almost 40 minutes in American airspace towards Washington without being detected by radar of the military (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that he was notified of AA77 at 9:24 was "incorrect" how this erroneous report was made possible date, ie, whether those responsible NORAD lied or were "confused" during almost three years (192-93).

78. The assertion that fighting planes from Langley, which NORAD had initially said they were dispatched to intercept the AA77, were actually deployed in response to an erroneous report from a controller (non - identified) from the FAA that the 9:21 flight AA11 was still in the air and heading to Washington (193-99).

79. The assertion that the military were not contacted by the FAA about the probable diversion of AA77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join the video of Richard Clarke before 9:40, ie after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The assertion that none of the calls failed to coordinate the FAA and military responses to hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials within the FAA and the Department of Defense", although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA Director Jane Garvey as the Minister of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the Chief of the Armed Forces ai (211).

82. The assertion that the Commission did not know who, within the Ministry of Defense, participated in the videoconference with Richard Clarke as Clarke says in his book that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers ( 211-212). 83. The approval of the statement by General Myers that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning the contradictory account of Richard Clarke, that Myers was at the Pentagon and attended the videoconference with Clarke (213-17 ).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's testimony about the timetable Rumsfeld this morning and the statements of Rumsfeld (217-19).

85. The omission of the testimony of the Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta, given the Commission itself, that Vice President Cheney and other [people] in the underground shelter were alerted at 9:26 that an aircraft approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The assertion that Pentagon officials knew nothing of a plane approaching them before 9:32, 9:34 or 9:36, and in any case only a few minutes before the building is affected (223).

87. The acceptance of two contradictory versions about the aircraft that struck the Pentagon: one that describes the execution of a spiral to 330 degrees down (a high-speed dive ") and another in which it 'Is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The assertion that the fighter jets from Langley, who received so-called order to take off quickly to protect Washington against "ghost flight AA11" were nowhere near Washington because they were sent to the ocean by mistake (223-24).

89. The omission of any evidence suggesting that what hit the Pentagon was not AA77 (224-25).

90. The assertion that the military were not informed by the FAA diversion UA93 flight before it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The dual assertion that the NMCC did not monitor the conference initiated by the FAA and therefore was unable to connect the FAA in the teleconference initiated by the NMCC (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service are able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any investigation into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA said, this is not the standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any investigation of why General Montague Winfield not only was replaced by a "blue" (a rookie), Captain Leidig, as Director of Operations NMCC but still gave the command when it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The assertion that the FAA notified (so wrong) the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 the flight UA93 was still in the sky, toward Washington (237).

96. The assertion that the Vice-President Cheney gave no permission to shoot until 10h10 (several minutes after the flight UA93 it was crushed) and that such authorization was not transmitted to the U.S. army before 10:31 a.m. (237 -- 41).

97. The omission of any evidence indicating that the flight UA93 was shot by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The assertion that [the Tsar of the Counter-Terrorism] Richard Clarke not received a request for authorization to fire at 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests he got this request for permission to shoot to 9:50 (240).

100. The assertion that Cheney won only safe underground PEOC [or CPOU Center for Presidential Emergency Operations]) and 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta [Transport Minister] to the Commission itself, that [Vice President] Cheney was in the CPOU before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The assertion that the authorization to shoot down a civilian aircraft should be granted by the President (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr gave the order to shoot down the flight UA93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and other [officers] at NMCC expected that a hunter reaches the flight UA93 ( 252).

 
104. The omission of reports indicating that there were two fighter planes in the sky a few miles from New York and three to only 320 kilometers Washington (251).

105. The omission of the fact that there were at least six military bases with fighters on alert in north-eastern United States (257-58).

106. The approval of the statement by General Myers that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats [to USA] from abroad (258-62).

107. The approval of the statement by General Myers that NORAD had not considered the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to put into perspective the significance of the fact presented in the report itself, or to mention other facts showing that NORAD had indeed considered the threat posed by hijacked airliners being used as missiles (264 - 67).

109. The failure to probe the implications of the question of how the military exercises ( "war games") scheduled that day could affect the military failed to intercept hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods with the attacks of September 11 (269-71).

111. The assertion (presented as to why the military n'obtinrent no information about the hijacked planes in time to intercept) that the FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157 , 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to mention that the independence of the Commission was fatally undermined by the fact that Philip Zelikow, its executive director, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84). (ndt a close associate of Ms. Condoleezza Rice)

113. The failure to mention that the White House initially sought to prevent the establishment of the [formal investigation on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11], then placed many obstacles in his way, as did accord to extremely limited budget (283-85). (ndt: estimated at approximately $ 15 million, when the feature film "United 93" Paul Greengrass took 18, and "World Trade Center" by Oliver Stone 4 times more or 60 million; on the first point, it took 441 days for this commission be created and Mr. Bush suggested that Mr. Kissinger is before the president ... to withdraw under the criticism of public opinion.)

114. The failure to mention that the Chairman of the Commission, most of the other Commissioners, and at least half the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, which boasted that the presentation of its final report had made "without dissent", mentioning that it had been possible only because Max Cleland, the Commissioner most critical of the White House who swore that "it would not be an accomplice of a partial information" had to resign to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank and the White House forwarded his nomination only after it has become very direct in his criticisms (290-291).

I conclude by saying that I concluded my study of what I've come to call "the report Kean-Zelikow" by writing this: In the end, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on September 11, far hunt My suspicions about official complicity served only to confirm them. Why are responsible for drafting the final report engage in such business fraud, if this was an attempt to cover very large crime? (291).

Source: voltairenet.org

2002 | USA vs Afghanistan                            1-0

2003 | USA+Israel vs Iraq                              2-0

2006 | USA+Israel vs Lebanon                      0-3

2007 | USA+Israel vs Iraq (return)               0-2

2007 | USA+ NATO vs Afghanistan             0-1

2008 | USA+Israel vs Iran                              0-1

2008 | USA vs Russia                                      0-1

........ | ..............................                                    .....

All (for now) | USA+Israel vs Free world       3-8

Watch this video of the 75,000 people who joined Barack and his family for a rally in Portland, Oregon. Then take action to help grow our grassroots movement for change.

“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

— Barack Obama, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007

__________________________________________________________________________________  

Shame on you George .W Bush! I'm not used to comment on the US presidential statements or on my own blog here, but this one cannot be ignored. He said at the Israeli "Knesset" that it's ridiculous to think that we can, or we're able to talk with terrorists..So how about the free world? They think that you Mr George .W Bush are a terrorist though they are talking with you! And saying that a particular regime or government is a terrorist or supporting terror Only because the US foreign policy does not like it, is really the lowest level of political stupidity even for the Bush-Cheney government.

   After eight long and deadly years of presence at the white house, We may have been saying that we're used to hear odds incoming from the oval bureau now...but here, the statement is coming from the Knesset, by an US president, attacking an US political candidate for the presidency, and we may find on internet what Israel thinks of Mr Barack Obama...so a question comes in my mind: Who's governing the United States of America?

This comment is personal, and has nothing to do with Mr Obama

__________________________________________________________________________________