Just Commentary September 2014

Vol 14, No.09 September 2014

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

STATEMENTS

THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE’S “HOLY WAR” AGAINST THE ISLAMIC

STATE (ISIS): NATO’S ROLE IN THE RECRUITMENT OF ISLAMIC

TERRORISTS

By Michel Chossudovsky

. MH-17 ‘INVESTIGATION’:SECRET AUGUST 8TH

AGREEMENT SEEPS OUT

BY ERIC ZUESSE...................................................P 4

.THE TRUTH ABOUT IS BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................P3

. JEWISH SURVIVORS OF NAZI GENOCIDE CONDEMN

THE MASSACRE OF PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

BY COUNTERCURRENTS...................................P 10

.WHAT’S NEXT FOR ISRAEL, HAMAS AND GAZA

BY NOAM CHOMSKY............................................P 15

. FERGUSON: NO JUSTICE IN THE AMERICAN POLICE

STATE

BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS...................................P 19

.AMERICA STARTED THIS UKRAINE CRISIS

BY WILLIAM PFAFF................................................P8

While NATO leaders in Newport Wales

debate the Atlantic Alliance’s role “in

containing a mounting militant threat in the

Middle East”, it is worth recalling that in

2011 at the outset of the war in Syria, NATO

became actively involved in the recruitment

of Islamic fighters.

Reminiscent of the enlistment of the

Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy

war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan

war, NATO headquarters in Brussels in

liaison with the Turkish High command,

according to Israeli intelligence sources, was

involved in the enlisting of thousands of

terrorists:

“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our

sources report, is a campaign to enlist

thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle

East countries and the Muslim world to fight

alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish

army would house these volunteers, train

them and secure their passage into Syria.

(Debkafile, August 31, 2011 emphasis

added).

Confirmed by Israeli intelligence News,

NATO played a key role in the delivery of

weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in the

Aleppo region bordering onto Turkey:

NATO and a number of European

governments, most significantly the UK,

have started airlifting heavy weapons to the

Syrian rebels poised in Aleppo to fend off a

major Syrian army offensive, according to

debkafile’s exclusive military sources. They

disclose that the first shipments were landed

Monday night, June 17 [2013], and early

Tuesday in Turkey and Jordan. They

contained anti-air and tank missiles as well

as recoilless 120 mm cannons mounted on

jeeps. From there, they were transferred

to rebel forces in southern Syria and Aleppo

in the northwest. (Debkafile, June 18, 2013)

“Terrorists R Us”

Ironically, President Barack Obama and

Prime Minister David Cameron (who is

hosting the NATO Summit in Wales), have

asserted that they “will not be cowed by

barbaric killers”:

“We will not waver in our determination to

confront the Islamic State … If terrorists

think we will weaken in the face of their

threats they could not be more wrong.”

(Barack Obama and David Cameron,

Strengthening the NATO alliance, op ed

published in the London Times, September

4, 2014, emphasis added)

But these “Barbaric Killers” were created

.SIX MONTHS AFTER MH370, BOEING & INMARSAT

NEED TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES

BY NILE BOWIE.........................................................P 6

.EUROPE AWAKE

BY FRED DALLMYER............................................P10

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

continued from page 1

L E A D A R T I C L E

continued next page

by the Western military alliance. They are

serving the strategic interests of the U.S.,

Britain, not to mention Israel.

“They are Our Terrorists“. Without the

terrorists, the “Global War on Terrorism”

would fall flat.

The Obama-Cameron narrative borders on

ridicule. It is not only absurd, it is criminal.

What they are proposing is an all

encompassing NATO mandate to “Go after

Terrorist Entities” which they themselves

created as part of an insidious intelligence

operation to destabilize and destroy both

Syria and Iraq.

British and French Special Forces have been

actively training Syria opposition rebels from

a base in Turkey.

Israel has provided a safe haven to Al Qaeda

affiliated rebels including ISIS and Al

Nusrah rebels in the occupied Golan Heights.

Netanyahu has met up with jihadist leaders

in the Golan Heights. The IDF top brass

acknowledges that there are “global jihad

elements inside Syria” supported by Israel.

Lest we forget, Al Qaeda was at the outset

a creation of the CIA. Who is behind the

ISIS terrorists? The mainstream media is

mum on the subject, despite mountains of

evidence that they are creations of the

Western military alliance.

NATO’s Criminal Agenda

What we are dealing with is a criminal

agenda under NATO auspices. The

evidence amply confirms that the US and

Britain in liaison with the Atlantic Alliance

have relentlessly supported both the

creation as well as development of an

Islamic Terror Network which now

extends from the Middle East and North

Africa into sub-Saharan Africa, South and

Southeast Asia.

And now Obama and Cameron, whose

governments are the architects of the

Islamic State, are calling upon the Atlantic

Alliance as well all on the governments of

the 28 NATO member states to endorse

the bombing campaign on Iraq and Syria

as part of a“counter-terrorism” operation.

The ISIS brigades are “intelligence assets”

supported by US-NATO-Israel. They will

not be the object of the bombings. Quite

the opposite.

Image: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

Shakes Hand with a wounded Al Qaeda

Terrorist in occupied Golan.

What is envisaged as part of the propaganda

campaign is to use the “threat of the Islamic

State” as a pretext and justification to

intervene militarily under a “humanitarian”

“Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) mandate.

The civilian population will not be protected.

Under this diabolical military-intelligence

operation, The Islamic State (ISIS) brigades

with Western Special Forces within their

ranks are slated to be “protected”.

The War on Syria

From the outset of the war on Syria in

March 2011, member states of the Atlantic

Alliance as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia and

Qatar have (covertly) supported the

terrorists –including al Nusrah and the ISIS–

with a view to destabilizing Syria as a nation

state. These actions were implemented in

liaison with NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The process of recruitment and training of

mercenaries had been sub-contracted to

private security companies operating out

of the Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Reports point to the creation of training

camps in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates

(UAE).

In Zayed Military City (UAE), “a secret

army is in the making” was operated by Xe

Services, formerly Blackwater. The UAE

deal to establish a military camp for the

training of mercenaries was signed in July

2010, nine months before the onslaught of

the wars in Libya and Syria. (See Manlio

Dinucci, A Secret Army of Mercenaries for

the Middle East and North Africa, Il

Manifesto. 18 May 2011)

Moreover, confirmed by CNN, security

companies on contract to NATO member

states were involved in training Syrian

“opposition” death squads in the use of

chemical weapons:

“The United States and some European allies

are using defense contractors to train Syrian

rebels on how to secure chemical weapons

stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official

and several senior diplomats told CNN

Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

NATO Supported the Terrorists in Libya

From the outset of NATO’s 2011

“humanitarian war” on Libya, the Atlantic

Alliance was working in close liaison with

the “pro-Al Qaeda brigades” led by “former”

Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) leader

Abdul Hakim Belhhadj (Debka, Pro-Al

Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli

strongholds seized by rebels, August 28,

2011 )


3

S T A T E M E N T

continued next page


STATEMENTS

Abdul Hakim Belhhadj received his military

training in a CIA sponsored guerrilla camp

in Afghanistan. He constitutes a CIA

“intelligence asset” operating in the Libyan

war theater. A 2011 report suggested that

he had some 1,000 men under his

command. (Libyan rebels at pains to distance

themselves from extremists – The Globe

and Mail, March 12, 2011)

THE TRUTH ABOUT IS

The US-NATO coalition is arming the

Jihadists. Weapons are being channeled to

the LIFG from Saudi Arabia, which

historically, since the outset of the Soviet-

Afghan war, has covertly supported Al

Qaeda. The Saudis are now providing the

rebels, in liaison with Washington and

Brussels, with anti-tank rockets and

ground-to-air missiles. (See Michel

Chossudovsky “Our Man in Tripoli”: US-

NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists

Integrate Libya’s Pro-Democracy

Opposition, Global Research, 3 April 2011)

5 September 2014

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-

winning author, Professor of Economics

(emeritus) at the University of Ottawa,

Founder and Director of the Centre for

Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal

and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website.

Source: www.globalresearch.ca/

By Chandra Muzaffar

The Islamic State (IS) has been roundly

condemned by everyone. It deserves to be.

It deserves to be condemned because of its

barbaric brutality and its harsh cruelty. It

deserves to be condemned because of its

collective massacres and its individual

murders. It deserves to be condemned

because of its oppression of Shias, of

Christians, of Yazidis. It deserves to be

condemned because of its degradation of

women. It deserves to be condemned

because of its distortion and perversion of

Islamic law.

Nonetheless, many of those who have

condemned IS do not want to know how

this terrorist outfit came into being in the

first instance. It is a direct consequence of

the Anglo-American invasion and occupation

of Iraq in 2003. In order to anchor itself in

Iraqi society, the occupier zealously sought

to eliminate the power base of deposed

President Saddam Hussein by dismantling

his security forces and emasculating related

Baathist structures. At the same time, the

Shias, the majority population, were

strengthened in politics and the public

services. This heightened resentment among

the Sunnis and led to the formation of militias

among them.

When democratic elections were held in

2005, Shia parties expectedly swept into

power. Shia leaders reinforced their cordial

ties with the Iranian Shia elite —— some

of whom had been their mentors long

before the 2003 invasion. Seeing the

increasingly close bond between the Shias

of Iraq and Iran, the US began to feel that

its invasion of Iraq had enhanced Iranian

influence in that country. Ironically, the US

had strengthened the geopolitical hand of

its adversary! More than the US, Israel

which had also encouraged the invasion of

Iraq in order to get rid of a staunch Israeli

opponent in Baghdad was appalled that Iran,

its other mortal foe, had now expanded its

reach in the region. The Saudi elite and

elites in a number of other Gulf monarchies

and certain other Arab governments also

viewed Iraq –Iran ties with much

apprehension. To add to their apprehension,

the Shia based Hezbollah in Lebanon was

also emerging as a major actor in Lebanon

following its steadfast defence of the nation

against Israeli aggression in 2006. This is

why a Sunni Arab leader warned his fellow

Sunnis of the rise of a Shia arc in West

Asia, centred in Tehran.

These Sunni fears, paralleling US- Israeli

concerns about their dominance over West

Asia, prompted these parties to try to stem

what they perceived as Shia influence in

Iraq by supporting Sunni militias with arms,

intelligence and money. Sunni insurgencies

like Al-Qaeda became stronger and created

a lot of havoc in Iraq, directed mainly at the

Shias. A more radical breakaway group

from Al-Qaeda calling itself the Islamic State

of Iraq and Shams (Syria) (ISIS)

established itself as a tough fighting force

and moved into Syria with the same aim of

ousting a Shia government, namely the

government of Bashar Al-Assad.

In Syria, ISIS has outdone other armed

rebel groups in its insatiable appetite for

violence. ISIS fighters have massacred

Christian communities and beheaded scores

of Shias. With ruthless efficiency they have

captured strategic routes and oil fields. It is

alleged that apart from the spoils of war,

this terrorist outfit is also financed and armed

by some of the same groups that helped

the Sunni insurgents in Iraq between 2003

and 2008. It has even been suggested that

ISIS has deep links with Mossad. After all,

Israel which has conducted at least six

military strikes against the Syrian armed

forces in the current conflict is determined


4

S T A T E M E N T


to oust Assad since he continues to oppose

Israeli control over much of the strategic

Golan Heights in Syria and insists on

protecting his special relationship with

Hezbollah and Iran as part of the resistance

against US-Israeli hegemony over West

Asia.

It is significant that ISIS brutalities in Syria

— like those of the other armed groups —

have only elicited whimpers from the US

and the West. The reason is obvious. They

support the larger aim of these groups which

is the overthrow of Assad. The US and the

West are (or were) on the side of ISIS in

Syria. And yet in Iraq they are against ISIS

which has now renamed itself as IS. What

explains this seemingly glaring contradiction?

If the US has decided to fight IS in Iraq, it

is because it threatens US and other Western

oil companies in the Kurdistan region in the

north. All the big Western oil players —

Mobil, Chevron, Exxon and Total — are in

the region. Kurdistan, according to Robert

Fisk, “accounts for 43.7 billion barrels of

Iraq’s 143 billion barrels of reserves, as well

as 25.5 billion barrels of unproven reserves

and three to six trillion cubic metres of gas.”

Preserving the West’s oil interests in

Kurdistan is intimately connected to yet

another factor. The US and Israel have

always regarded Iraqi Kurdistan as a special

ally. For decades its leadership has helped

to further their agenda in West Asia. In the

2003 invasion of Iraq for instance the Kurds

rendered much assistance to the US and

Britain.

One should not be surprised therefore that

the US has chosen to defend the Kurds

against the IS menace. It is simply a matter

of protecting its geo-economic and

geopolitical interests. Similarly, if in Syria

the US is against Assad, it is because of the

pursuit of its hegemonic design over West

Asia. Since the US will not be able to

eliminate the IS threat to Kurdistan in Iraq

without taking military action against the

IS in Syria, it is now considering launching

military strikes against the IS in certain parts

of that country.

US military action against the IS in Syria

should signal the beginning of the end of all

direct and indirect assistance to the various

armed groups in Syria, all of which have

committed acts of terror at some point or

other. The US’s European and West Asian

allies should also desist from providing any

form of military support to these groups.

Without such external support it is very

likely that the violence and bloodshed in Syria

will come to a halt. Syrians would then be

in a better position to bring about whatever

change they feel is necessary through

peaceful means.

What is more important, the end of crass

political violence in Syria will undoubtedly

help to reduce IS generated terror in Iraq.

Terrorism in West Asia as a whole may

witness a decline. If one is principled and

not opportunistic or hypocritical in the fight

against terrorism, it is not just IS in one corner

of Iraq that will be one’s target. Terrorism,

whether it is perpetrated by friend or foe,

will be confronted and defeated with

courage and integrity.

9 August 2014.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the

International Movement for a Just World

(JUST).

ARTICLES

MH-17 ‘INVESTIGATION’: SECRET AUGUST 8TH AGREEMENT SEEPS

OUT- PERPETRATOR OF THE DOWNING IN UKRAINE, OF THE

MALAYSIAN AIRLINER, WILL STAY HIDDEN

By Eric Zuesse

Regarding what caused the downing

of the Malaysian airliner MH-17 in

Ukraine on July 17th, the Ukrainian

news agency UNIAN, reported in a

brief Russian-language news story on

August 12th , that four days earlier

(August 8th) a representative of that

nation’s Prosecutor General office,

Yuri Boychenko, had said that (as auto-

translated by google), “the results [of

the investigation] will be announced

upon completion of the investigation

and with the consent of all the parties

who signed the corresponding

agreement.” This UNIAN report said

that, “As part of the four-party

agreement signed on August 8 between

Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and

Australia [all of which nations are allies

of the United States and are cooperating

with its new Cold War against Russiacontinued next page


5

S T A T E M E N T

continued next page

], information on the investigation into

the disaster Malaysian ‘Boeing-777’

will not be disclosed.” In other words:

the official ‘investigation’ is being

carried out by four nations that, as

U.S. allies, are hostile toward Russia.

One of those four nations, Ukraine, is

not only a prime suspect in possibly

having shot this airliner down , but is

currently waging a hot war to

ethnically-cleanse the pro-Russian

population out of southeastern Ukraine

; and the initial ‘news’ reports in

Western ‘news’ media regarding the

downing of MH-17 had

stenographically repeated the Ukrainian

Government’s line that said that this

airliner was probably downed by the

local rebels there, who were trying to

shoot down the Ukrainian

Government’s bombers that are

constantly bombing them . Some

Western ‘news’ reports even

speculated that perhaps Russia itself

had shot this airliner down. If the

UNIAN news-report is correct, then

there is no way that the ‘investigation’

will be able to be released to the public

if it indicates that the Ukrainian

Government (which, according to that

news-report has veto power over

the making-public of the study’s

findings) is blamed for having shot the

airliner down.

On August 12th, another pro-

Ukrainian-Government ‘news’ site,

gordonua.com , headlined, as auto-

translated by google, “GPU: The

results of the investigation [into the]

crash [of] the Boeing 777 will be

released with the consent of the

parties,” and said, “Information about

the accident MH17 in the Donetsk

region will be published in obtaining

the consent of all the parties that are

involved in the investigation.” UNIAN

was cited there as gordonua’s sole

source. ‘News’ media didn’t probe the

matter further.


Until 23 August 2014, that seems to

have been the last of the matter, as far

as news reports were concerned, and

both of those two news reports were

just tiny squibs in the Russian language,

published only in Ukraine, by

supporters of the Obama-installed

Ukrainian Government. The news was

ignored both inside and outside

Ukraine.

Then, on 23 August 2014, Global

Research News published the first

English-language news-report on this

matter; it was based on the second

Russian-language news-report, the one

that had appeared at gordonua.com on

August 12th. Global Research

concluded from it that, “The Causes

of the MH17 Crash are ‘Classified’.”

Of course, this way of phrasing the

matter is a slight oversimplification,

because, actually, the findings will

remain ‘classified’ only if, and to the

extent that, the Ukrainian Government

is found to have caused the airliner’s

downing. In other words: this

‘investigation’ will not be published

unless the Ukrainian Government and

the other three nations that are

performing it agree unanimously to

publish it.

So: imagine a murder-case in which

298 innocents are slaughtered, and in

which there are only three suspects

(here: Ukraine, the pro-Russian rebels,

and Russia itself), and one of those

three suspects has veto-power on the

making-public of the ‘investigation’

into that crime. Well: this is that

murder-case, and the veto-holding

‘investigator’ and suspect is Ukraine.

Neither of the other two suspects holds

any such veto-power over this

‘investigation.’

In a sense, whether the official

investigation into the downing will ever

be made public is insignificant, just as

would be any ‘investigation’ that is

carried out by, or with veto-power

from, one of the prime suspects in the

crime that is being investigated.

The international public would

obviously need to be fools in order for

them to trust such an ‘investigation’ as

that. Case closed?

President Obama got the economic-

sanctions-increase against Russia, that

he had wanted out of this shoot-down.

Who needs any ‘investigation’ to

determine this mass-killing’s actual

perpetrator? Certainly not Obama.

Ultimately, it is he who caused it,

because he was the person behind this

ethnic-cleansing campaign, without

which ethnic-cleansing campaign the

airliner itself wouldn’t have been

downed.

The downing of this airliner goes

straight back to the U.S. White House

, which has already won what it wanted

from it.

Those 298 corpses are just casualties

of this U.S.-caused war, like the

Ukrainians are casualties of it who live

in the portions of Ukraine that had

overwhelmingly elected in 2010 the

Ukrainian President whom Obama

ousted from office in 2014. Obama

doesn’t want a President like that

elected ever again in Ukraine; so, those

voters are being gotten rid of, and

ethnic cleansing is how it’s being done.

And the residents there are likewise


6

continued next page

A R T I C L E S


not being heard from in Western ‘news’

media, and nobody in the West is

asking these victims what they think

of the Ukrainian Government that

Obama installed . Perhaps that’s

because they are increasingly

becoming a guerilla army to defeat the

regime that Obama installed.

As to the specific operation that

downed the plane, there is already a

lot more information about that than

the official ‘investigation,’ if that’s ever

published, is likely to reveal, and it

points clearly to the Ukrainian military

as the perpetrator, in yet another of

their ‘false flag’ operations. And unlike

the Ukrainian Government’s charges

that rebels shot it down by mistake,

Ukraine shot it down with deadly

purpose and knowing full well what

they were doing.

SIX MONTHS AFTER MH370, BOEING AND INMARSAT NEED TO

EXPLAIN THEMSELVES

By Nile Bowie

Six months have passed since the

disappearance of Malaysia Airlines

flight MH370 in March, which took off

from Kuala Lumpur carrying 239

people en route to Beijing. The aircraft

veered wildly off course while flying

over the South China Sea before turning

back over the Malaysian peninsula

toward the Indian Ocean, where it is

presumed to have crashed.

Despite the largest multinational search

and rescue effort ever conducted, not

a trace of debris from the aircraft has

been found, nor has the cause of the

aircraft’s erratic change of trajectory

and disappearance been established.

The case of MH370 has proven to be

the most baffling incident in

commercial aviation history and one of

the world’s greatest aviation mysteries.

Malaysia Airlines has suffered the two

worst disasters in modern aviation less

than five months apart, following the

tragic demise of flight MH17 in July,

forcing the company to slash its staff

numbers by a third as part of a major

restructuring effort. The state has

announced plans to take full ownership

of the national carrier following the

collapse of its share price and its

subsequent removal from the stock

market.

After a fruitless search in the southern

Indian Ocean where the plane is

believed to have terminated,

investigators established a new search

area that has been mapped by Chinese

and Australian ships since June. The

next stage of the investigation has been

given a provisional 12-month duration,

and a Dutch contractor, Fugro Survey,

will conduct an underwater search

beginning this month.

It is hoped that once the wreckage is

discovered, the aircraft’s black boxes,

cockpit voice recordings and flight data

will help investigators explain the

incident, as well as giving closure to

the families of the victims. There is still

little consensus among investigators

and experts as to what actually

happened onboard the doomed flight.

MH370’s transponders were shut off

without a mayday call between

Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace,

followed by significant changes in

altitude after ground control lost

contact with the cockpit less than an

hour into the flight. The aircraft flew

erratically before fixing onto a

consistent flight path, presumably on

autopilot, prior to terminating once the

plane ran out of fuel.

The Malaysian government, as well as

aviation experts, claim that the

aircraft’s movements were consistent

with deliberate action by someone on

the plane. The Australian-led search

team believes that depressurisation and

hypoxia rendered the crew

unconscious because of the orderly

path the aircraft took prior to ending

its flight.

Investigators have cleared all

passengers of any suspicious motives,

while the flight’s pilot, Captain Zaharie

Ahmad Shah, a qualified pilot with over

30 years experience with Malaysia

Airlines, has been the main suspect of

the investigation by Malaysian

authorities. Media reports speculated

that Shah was undergoing difficult

domestic circumstances, but his family

members deny that he exhibited

strange behavior.

Malaysia’s chief of police, Khalid Abu

Bakar, said he believed that hijackers,

saboteurs or someone with a personal

vendetta or psychological problem had

succeeded in diverting the plane. In the

26 August, 2014

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is

the author, most recently, of They’re

Not Even Close: The Democratic vs.

Republican Economic Records, 1910-

2010 , and of CHRIST’S

VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that

Created Christianity .

Source: Countercurrents.org

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

7


continued next page

face of this exceedingly bizarre and

unexplained incident, the aircraft’s

manufacturer, the Boeing Company,

has exhibited deafening silence.

What has been established thus far

indicates that human intervention

contributed to aircraft’s radical change

in trajectory. If MH370’s pilots were

ultimately not responsible for this, then

other possible scenarios need to be

explored in explaining the flight’s

demise.

Boeing, the world’s largest

manufacturer of commercial jetliners

and military aircraft, was awarded a

patent in 2006 for an ‘uninterruptible

autopilot control system’ that could

enable aircrafts to be remotely piloted

from the ground using radio waves and

global satellite positioning systems to

counter hijacking attempts. The

technology, developed following the 9/

11 attacks, removes all control from

pilots and redirects the airliner to a

predetermined landing location.

“After it has been activated, the aircraft

will be capable of remote digital control

from the ground, enabling operators to

fly it like a sophisticated model plane,

manoeuvring it vertically and laterally…

Once triggered, no one on board will

be able to deactivate the system,”

claims a report from 2007 published

in the London Evening Standard.

The automatic control system

technology, filed under patent number

US7142971B2, is independently

powered by an alternative power

source that is inaccessible to anyone

on board the aircraft. Boeing officials

quoted in the report give the clear

impression that this system was

developed for the purpose of being

installed on Boeing airliners, stating that

the uninterruptible autopilot system

could be fitted into its planes by 2009.

Honeywell, one of Boeing’s avionics

suppliers, filed patent number

US7475851B2 in 2003 for a similar

uninterrupted autopilot control device.

Boeing and Honeywell have both

developed technology for use in

unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones,

with civilian and military applications

for decades.

In 2012, Boeing declared its intention

to install new security mechanisms

aboard several of its 777 series aircraft,

including the models used by Malaysia

Airlines, over concerns the aircrafts’

inflight entertainment system, which

includes USB connections, could allow

hackers to access a plane’s computer.

A report issued by the US Federal

Register in 2013 raised concerns that

Model 777-200, among others, was

exposed to security vulnerabilities.

“This potential exploitation of security

vulnerabilities may result in intentional

or unintentional destruction, disruption,

degradation, or exploitation of data and

systems critical to the safety and

maintenance of the airplane,” the

document stated.

Though the Federal Register’s

statement explicitly mentions Model

777-200, it is also valid for Model 777-

200ER – the aircraft used for MH370

– because the US Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) places both

models 777-200 and 777-200ER in the

same category and does not make a

distinction between the two variants.

This information confirms the

existence of technology that would

allow for an aircraft like MH370 to be

externally controlled, and that Boeing

and the FAA were aware of a potential

vulnerability loophole that could have

conceivably been exploited. Boeing

declined to comment on this incident

and has made no attempt to explain this

technology, even after former

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir

Mohamad publically raised concerns

over the possibility of such a scenario.

Inmarsat, the British satellite

telecommunications company

responsible for analyzing satellite data

showing that MH370 flew south

toward the Indian Ocean from its last

known position, has also come under

scrutiny from independent satellite

experts and engineers that found

glaring inconsistencies in their analysis.

The Atlantic magazine published a

report in May based on the analysis of

Michael Exner, founder of the

American Mobile Satellite Corporation,

Duncan Steel, a physicist and visiting

scientist at NASA’s Ames Research

Center, and satellite technology

consultant Tim Farrar.

The team of analysts used flight and

navigation software to deconstruct

Inmarsat’s analysis, and determined

that other known evidence contradicted

their mathematical conclusions, such

as in the instance where the graph data

provided by the British company

actually shows the plane and satellite

moving away from each other at 50

miles per hour while the plane was

stationary and had not even taxied to

take off.

The analysts concluded the Inmarsat’s

data contained irregular frequency

shifts, and even when the values were

corrected, Inmarsat’s example flight

paths failed to match and proved to be

erroneous. In another instance, the

graph data marking the position of the

satellite receiving the signal is shown

to be traveling faster in northbound

direction when the satellite itself was

moving south. Inmarsat’s graph shows

the satellite moving at 33 miles per hour

when its overall speed was just 0.07

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

8


continued next page

AMERICA STARTED THIS UKARAINE CRISIS

By William Pfaff

miles per hour at that time.

The authors of the report have

attempted to reach Inmarsat and other

relevant bodies, but they claim that the

company did not reply to requests for

comments on basic technical questions

about their analysis, leading them to

determine that “Inmarsat officials and

search authorities seem to want it both

ways: They release charts, graphics,

and statements that give the appearance

of being backed by math and science,

while refusing to fully explain their

methodologies.”

The investigation into the disappearance

of MH370 has not yet produced any

physical evidence of the wreckage. It

needs to be determined if this can be

attributed to a false mathematical

analysis by Inmarsat. Boeing must also

address concerns over the

uninterruptible autopilot system and

produce the relevant technical

specifics needed to determine the

extent of flight MH370’s vulnerability

to being externally overridden and

controlled.

9 September 2014

Nile Bowie is a columnist with Russia

Today, and a Research Associate with

the International Movement for a Just

World (JUST).

I find it very disquieting that so few

among the West European and

American commentators on the Ukraine

crisis, private or public, seem

concerned that the United States has

started this affair, and that it is not

inconceivable that it may end in a war.

Worse yet, Washington’s demonization

of Vladimir Putin has been so

successful in the American press and

public, and its secrecy about the

American role in Kiev, has left the public

in the United States and in NATO

Europe convinced that this has all been

the result of a Russian strategy of

aggressive expansion into Ukraine, and

not a bungled and essentially American

attempt to annex Ukraine to NATO and

the European Union, and to undermine

the domestic political position of

President Putin — which all has gone

badly and dangerously wrong.

The Ukrainian coup d’état in February

was prepared by Washington. Why else

were the State Department official in

charge of Europe and Eurasian Affairs,

Victoria Nuland, together with officials

of the European Union and a number

of intelligence people present, in

company with the “moderate”

Ukrainians programmed to take over

the government after the planned

overthrow of the corrupt (but elected)

President Viktor Yanukovych? Even

President Obama, in Mexico for a

“summit”, was waiting to supply a video

feed speeding the overthrown Mr.

Yanukovych on his way, and

congratulating the “democratic” victors.

But then, as the night wore on, things

got out of hand. The riot police and the

opposition forces went out of control.

In a video made at the time, the

American candidate for prime minister,

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said desperately,

“Ukraine is in a big mess.”

Even though the immediate mess was

eventually sorted out, and Mr.

Yatsenyuk (“Yats” to Secretary Nuland)

was soon (briefly) the prime minister

— and immediately was welcomed to

Washington to dine at the White House

with the American president — one

must ask what was accomplished by

all this that did not discredit the United

States and the EU, and draw towards

Ukraine and the American troops

today deployed in Poland and the

Baltics, and towards NATO itself, the

storm-clouds of a useless war?

It is the latest (and probably last) step

in a foolish American and European

betrayal of the promise given to

Mikhail Gorbachev by President

George H.W. Bush, at the time of the

unification of Germany, that if the

Soviet Union agreed to a newly united

Germany’s assuming the Federal

Republic’s existing place as a member

of NATO, no NATO troops would be

stationed in what formerly had been

the Communist German Democratic

Republic.

The deal was done, and at the time

was a cause for congratulations on

all sides, since it removed the principal

obstacle to Germany reunion,

considered desirable (and inevitable)

by the western countries, and as

inevitable, given Germany’s history,

by Moscow as well.

This agreement was undermined

during the Clinton presidency by

measures that first gave the former

Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern

Europe what might be described as


9


continued next page

A R T I C L E S

cadet NATO membership (the

“Partnership for Peace”).

Agreement to actual NATO admission

came as part of the European Union

Maastricht treaty in 1991, and in 1999

Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia

(soon to become two states) became

NATO members, and in 2004 the Baltic

States, Romania and Bulgaria.

Washington and the EU then turned

their attention to the Caucasus and

Ukraine. As early as 1987, the EU’s

“Europe 2000” plan for expansion

named Ukraine, Moldavia, and Belarus

as eventual candidates for EU

membership.

Georgia was the first to be invited to

prepare for NATO membership, and

took this as a sign that NATO and the

U.S. would underwrite its military

recovery of its “lost lands,” and

launched an attack on South Ossetia.

Russia’s patience was exhausted. The

Russian army promptly defeated the

Georgians and took over the Ossetian

statelet, and nearby Abkhazia as well.

Washington and the NATO allies voiced

loud outrage. But it was Georgia that

had started this little war of national

revenge.

NATO was, and remains, an alliance

effectively under complete American

control. Its arrival on the frontier of

the former Soviet Union was viewed

by the new Russia of Vladimir Putin

with disquiet. This was not supposed

to have happened.

It would take a closer knowledge than

I possess of the workings of American

government to explain why it decided

to take control of post-1990 Central

and Eastern Europe, following

Communism’s collapse. For Poland,

the former Czechoslovakia, the Baltic

states, Hungary and Romania, who

suffered badly under the Communists,

NATO membership obviously offered

reassurance.

But for Georgia and other states in the

Caucasus, and for Ukraine, NATO

membership amounted to an

annexation by NATO of nations

formerly among the historical territories

of Soviet or Czarist Russia. Why

should the United States and the

original states of the European Union

— western, Roman Catholic or

Protestant Christian, Atlantic-oriented

states — decide to dismantle historical

Russia by taking over nations once part

of Russia itself (and in the Ukranian

case had been the instrument of

Russia’s conversion to Christianity), or

had been colonies, some of them

Muslim, of the Czars.

That, in any case, is where we are now,

and Russia’s reaction is not simply that

of an aggressive and authoritarian

President Putin — as the West likes to

make out — but the hostility of a

significant part of the Russian

population, which only now has

recovered its national self-confidence

and ambition.

What was the intent of all this? To

create an east-west civil war in

Ukraine? Why is that in the American

interest? Russia’s intervention in such

a futile war handed it back Crimea, but

also apparent responsibility for some

fool’s shooting down a passenger

airliner.

Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie

Center in Moscow, recently offered the

following observations: Vladimir

Putin’s essential requirements are:

NATO excluded from Ukraine.

No U.S. troops on Russia’s borders.

Protection and preservation of the

Russian cultural identity of the south

and east of Ukraine.

Keeping Crimea Russian.

Putin won’t yield. Any serious

concession to the U.S. would cause

him to fall from power, and produce

disorder in Russia.

For the future, he considers the U.S.

in decline. He does not look to alliance

with a rising China but to Germany,

which he sees as the coming leader of

a powerful Europe.

What is Barack Obama’s interest in all

this? What about the Washington

hawks responsible for what is

happening? Why have they done this

without an explanation to the American

people?

There is only one possible solution

now: negotiated truce on the Ukraine

frontier, followed by Russo-American

and EU agreement on the permanent

existence of an independent and

autonomous Ukraine. The alternative

could be major war.

7 August 2014

William Pfaff is the author of The

Irony of Manifest Destiny, published

in June 2010 by Walker and Company

(New York)

Source:www.williampfaff.com


10

A R T I C L E S

EUROPE AWAKE!

By Fred Dallmayr, Co- Chairman, World Public Forum “Dialogue Of Civilizations”

continued next page

In this year, 2014, we commemorate the

100th anniversary of the beginning of

World War I, that ferocious war in which

“Old Europe” – the Europe of the “Belle

Epoque”, the Europe of traditional

monarchies and dynasties – was

destroyed. For the peoples of Europe it

was an immense bloodletting, epitomized

by trench warfare and the battle of

Verdun. The war also laid the foundation

for subsequent catastrophes. While

dubbed “the war to end all wars”, the

concluding treaties of Versailles and

Trianon ushered in a “peace to end all

peace.” The conditions imposed on the

vanquished in these treaties were so harsh

and ill-conceived that resentment was

bound to flare up and, after barely two

decades, erupted in an unprecedented

paroxysm of mayhem and destruction

on a global scale.

The commemoration of the great

European war should not be the occasion

for finger-pointing and posthumous

recriminations – an exercise which,

although dear to some historians, can only

stir up nationalistic resentments. The

much more fruitful and beneficial

outcome of the commemoration is (or

should be) the determination to keep

Europe in the future free from warfare

on its soil. This is the basic purpose of

the European Union and the Council of

Europe and of the whole process of

European integration during the past half

century. This means that Europe should

be a zone of peace.

Unfortunately, there are developments

which threaten to undermine the role of

Europe as a peace zone. The greatest danger

is that Europe might become the victim of

“great power” rivalry. There are ominous

danger signals in the present crisis in the

Ukraine. Although the solution of the crisis

is patently simple and obvious – the

“federalization” of the country (which has

repeatedly been proposed) – there are forces

at work seemingly opposed to a peaceful

solution and bent on pushing the country

into civil war, and even into an all-out war

between West and East. Given the latter

horizon, the crisis takes on the character of

another “proxy war” between big powers

– similar to the proxy war which has raged

in Syria, but now much closer to the

European heartland. In some political

circles, one already talks about a possible

war between America and Russia, even

though this may result in nuclear war (a

possibility that is now openly accepted in

the same quarters).

In this situation, one has to ask: who is

going to be the most likely and most

immediate victim? Given its location

between America and Russia, Europe is

bound to be the site of the most direct and

immediate nuclear devastation. This means:

it is time for Europe to wake up from its

slumber and from its pliant submission to

great power politics. As Juergen Habermas

rightly pleaded some time ago: Europe has

to develop its own foreign policy. The first

step should be to bring pressure to bear on

all sides to stop the proxy war in Ukraine.

Europe should do everything possible to

induce contestants in the Ukraine to

assemble around a table and to negotiate

fair terms of peace. This would be the

proper European way to commemorate

1914.

Endorsed by:

Chandra Muzaffar, President,


(JUST), Malaysia

Vladimir Kulikov, Executive Director,

World Public Forum “Dialogue of

Civilizations”

Hans Kochler, President, International

Progress Organisation (IPO)

JEWISH SURVIVORS OF NAZI GENOCIDE CONDEMN THE MASSACRE OF

PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

By Countercurrents

As Jewish survivors and descendants of

survivors of the Nazi genocide we

unequivocally condemn the massacre of

Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing

occupation and colonization of historic

Palestine. We further condemn the United

States for providing Israel with the

funding to carry out the attack, and

Western states more generally for using

their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel

from condemnation. Genocide begins

with the silence of the world.

We are alarmed by the extreme, racist

dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli

society, which has reached a fever-pitch.

In Israel, politicians and pundits in The

Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post

have called openly for genocide of

Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are

adopting Neo-Nazi insignia.

Furthermore, we are disgusted and

outraged by Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our

history in these [NY Times] pages to

promote blatant falsehoods used to

justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale

effort to destroy Gaza and the murder

of nearly 2,000 Palestinians, including


11

continued next page


many hundreds of children. Nothing can

justify bombing UN shelters, homes,

hospitals and universities. Nothing can

justify depriving people of electricity and

water.

We must raise our collective voices and

use our collective power to bring about

an end to all forms of racism, including

the ongoing genocide of Palestinian

people. We call for an immediate end to

the siege against and blockade of Gaza.

We call for the full economic, cultural

and academic boycott of Israel. “Never

again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR

ANYONE!

Signed, Survivors

* Hajo Meyer, survivor of Auschwitz,

The Netherlands. ( has passed away since

the signing of this document)

* Henri Wajnblum, survivor and son of a

victim of Auschwitz from Lodz, Poland.

Lives in Belgium.

* Renate Bridenthal, child refugee from

Hitler, granddaughter of Auschwitz

victim, United States.

* Marianka Ehrlich Ross, survivor of Nazi

ethnic cleansing in Vienna, Austria. Now

lives in United States.

* Irena Klepfisz, child survivor from the

Warsaw Ghetto, Poland. Now lives in

United States.

* Karen Pomer, granddaughter of

member of Dutch resistance and survivor

of Bergen Belsen. Now lives in the United

States.

* Hedy Epstein, her parents & other

family members were deported to Camp

de Gurs & subsequently all perished in

Auschwitz. Now lives in United States.

* Lillian Rosengarten, survivor of the

Nazi Holocaust, United States.

* Suzanne Weiss, survived in hiding in

France, and daughter of a mother who

was murdered in Auschwitz. Now lives

in Canada.

* H. Richard Leuchtag, survivor, United

States.

* Ervin Somogyi, survivor and son of

survivors, United States.

* Ilse Hadda, survivor on Kindertransport

to England. Now lives in United States.

* Jacques Glaser, survivor, France.

* Norbert Hirschhorn, refugee of Nazi

genocide and grandson of three

grandparents who died in the Shoah,

London.

* Eva Naylor, surivor, New Zealand.

* Suzanne Ross, child refugee from Nazi

occupation in Belgium, two thirds of

family perished in the Lodz Ghetto, in

Auschwitz, and other Camps, United

States.

* Bernard Swierszcz, Polish survivor,

lost relatives in Majdanek concentration

camp. Now lives in the United States.

* Joseph Klinkov, hidden child in Poland,

still lives in Poland.

* Nicole Milner, survivor from Belgium.

Now lives in United States.

* Hedi Saraf, child survivor and daughter

of survivor of Dachau, United States.

* Michael Rice, child survivor and son

and grandson of survivor, aunt died in

Auschwitz and cousin in concentration

camp, ALL 14 remaining Jewish children

in my Dutch boarding school were

murdered in concentration camps, United

States.

* Barbara Roose, survivor from

Germany, half-sister killed in Auschwitz,

United States.

* Sonia Herzbrun, survivor of Nazi

genocide, France.

* Ivan Huber, survivor with my parents,

but 3 of 4 grandparents murdered, United

States.

* Altman Janina, survivor of Janowski

concentration camp, Lvov. Lives in

Israel.

* Leibu Strul Zalman, survivor from

Vaslui Romania. Lives in Jerusalem,

Palestine.

* Miriam Almeleh, survivor, United

States.

* George Bartenieff, child survivor from

Germany and son of survivors, United

States.

* Margarete Liebstaedter, survivor,

hidden by Christian people in Holland.

Lives in Belgium.

* Edith Bell, survivor of Westerbork,

Theresienstadt, Auschwitz and

Kurzbach. Lives in United States.

* Janine Euvrard, survivor, France.

* Harry Halbreich, survivor, German.

* Ruth Kupferschmidt, survivor, spent

five years hiding, The Netherlands.

Children of survivors

* Liliana Kaczerginski, daughter of Vilna

ghetto resistance fighter and

granddaughter of murdered in Ponary

woods, Lithuania. Now lives in France.

* Jean-Claude Meyer, son of Marcel, shot

as a hostage by the Nazis, whose sister

and parents died in Auschwitz. Now lives

in France.

* Chava Finkler, daughter of survivor of

Starachovice labour camp, Poland. Now

lives in Canada.

* Micah Bazant, child of a survivor of

the Nazi genocide, United States.

* Sylvia Schwarz, daughter and

granddaughter of survivors and

granddaughter of victims of the Nazi

genocide, United States.

* Margot Goldstein, daughter and

granddaughter of survivors of the Nazi

genocide, United States.

* Ellen Schwarz Wasfi, daughter of

survivors from Vienna, Austria. Now


* Lisa Kosowski, daughter of survivor

and granddaughter of Auschwitz victims,

United States.

* Daniel Strum, son of a refugee from

Vienna, who, with his parents were

forced to flee in 1939, his maternal

grand-parents were lost, United States.

* Bruce Ballin, son of survivors, some

relatives of parents died in camps, one

relative beheaded for being in the Baum

Resistance Group, United States.

* Rachel Duell, daughter of survivors

from Germany and Poland, United

States.

* Tom Mayer, son of survivor and

grandson of victims, United States.

* Alex Nissen, daughter of survivors who

escaped but lost family in the Holocaust,

United States.

* Mark Aleshnick, son of survivor who

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L DA R T I C L E S

12


continued next page

lost most of her family in Nazi genocide,

United States.

* Prof. Haim Bresheeth, son of two

survivors of Auschwitz and Bergen

Belsen, London.

* Todd Michael Edelman, son and

grandson of survivors and great-

grandson of victims of the Nazi genocide

in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, United

States.

* Tim Naylor, son of survivor, New

Zealand.

* Victor Nepomnyashchy, son and

grandson of survivors and grandson and

relative of many victims, United States.

* Tanya Ury, daughter of parents who

fled Nazi Germany, granddaughter, great

granddaugher and niece of survivors and

those who died in concentration camps,

Germany.

* Rachel Giora, daughter of Polish Jews

who fled Poland, Israel.

* Jane Hirschmann, daughter of


* Jenny Heinz, daughter of survivor,

United States.

* Jaap Hamburger, son of survivors and

grandchild of 4 grandparents murdered

in Auschwitz, The Netherlands.

* Elsa Auerbach, daughter of Jewish

refugees from Nazi Germany, United

States.

* Julian Clegg, son and grandson of

Austrian refugees, relative of Austrian and

Hungarian concentration camp victims,

Taiwan.

* David Mizner, son of a survivor,

relative of people who died in the

Holocaust, United States.

* Jeffrey J. Westcott, son and grandson

of Holocaust survivors from Germany,

United States.

* Susan K. Jacoby, daughter of parents

who were refugees from Nazi Germany,

granddaughter of survivor of

Buchenwald, United States.

* Audrey Bomse, daughter of a survivor

of Nazi ethnic cleansing in Vienna, lives

in United States.

* Daniel Gottschalk, son and grandson

of refugees from the Holocaust, relative

to various family members who died in

the Holocaust, United States.

* Barbara Grossman, daughter of

survivors, granddaughter of Holocaust

victims, United States.

* Abraham Weizfeld PhD, son of

survivorswho escaped Warsaw (Jewish

Bundist) and Lublin ghettos, Canada.

* David Rohrlich, son of refugees from

Vienna, grandson of victim, United

States.

* Walter Ballin, son of holocaust


* Fritzi Ross, daughter of survivor,

granddaughter of Dachau survivor Hugo

Rosenbaum, great-granddaughter and

great-niece of victims, United States.

* Reuben Roth, son of survivors who

fled from Poland in 1939, Canada.

* Tony Iltis, father fled from

Czechoslovakia and grandmother

murdered in Auschwitz, Australia.

* Anne Hudes, daughter and

granddaughter of survivors from Vienna,

Austria, great-granddaughter of victims

who perished in Auschwitz, United

States.

* Mateo Nube, son of survivor from

Berlin, Germany. Lives in United States.

* John Mifsud, son of survivors from

Malta, United States.

* Mike Okrent, son of two holocaust /

concentration camp survivors, United

States.

* Susan Bailey, daughter of survivor and

niece of victims, UK.

* Brenda Lewis, child of Kindertransport

survivor, parent’s family died in

Auschwitz and Terezin. Lives in Canada.

* Patricia Rincon-Mautner, daughter of

survivor and granddaughter of survivor,

Colombia.

* Barak Michèle, daughter and grand-

daughter of a survivor, many members

of family were killed in Auschwitz or

Bessarabia. Lives in Germany.

* Jessica Blatt, daughter of child refugee

survivor, both grandparents’ entire

families killed in Poland. Lives in United

States

* Maia Ettinger, daughter &

granddaughter of survivors, United

States.

* Ammiel Alcalay, child of survivors from

then Yugoslavia. Lives in United States.

* Julie Deborah Kosowski, daughter of

hidden child survivor, grandparents did

not return from Auschwitz, United States.

* Julia Shpirt, daughter of survivor,

United States.

* Ruben Rosenberg Colorni, grandson

and son of survivors, The Netherlands.

* Victor Ginsburgh, son of survivors,

Belgium.

* Arianne Sved, daughter of a survivor

and granddaughter of victim, Spain.

* Rolf Verleger, son of survivors, father

survived Auschwitz, mother survived

deportation from Berlin to Estonia, other

family did not survive. Lives in Germany.

* Euvrard Janine, daughter of survivors,

France.

* H. Fleishon, daughter of survivors,

United States.

* Barbara Meyer, daughter of survivor

in Polish concentration camps. Lives in

Italy.

* Susan Heuman, child of survivors and

granddaughter of two grandparents

murdered in a forest in Minsk. Lives in

United States.

* Rami Heled, son of survivors, all

grandparents and family killed by the

Germans in Treblinka, Oswiecim and

Russia. Lives in Israel.

* Eitan Altman, son of survivor, France.

* Jorge Sved, son of survivor and

grandson of victim, United Kingdom

* Maria Kruczkowska, daughter of Lea

Horowicz who survived the holocaust

in Poland. Lives in Poland.

* Sarah Lanzman, daughter of survivor

of Auschwitz, United States.

* Cheryl W, daughter, granddaughter and

nieces of survivors, grandfather was a

member of the Dutch Underground

(Eindhoven). Lives in Australia.

* Chris Holmquist, son of survivor, UK.

* Beverly Stuart, daughter and

granddaughter of survivors from

Romania and Poland. Lives in United

States.

* Peter Truskier, son and grandson of


13

continued next page

continued from page 12survivors, United States.

* Karen Bermann, daughter of a child

refugee from Vienna. Lives in United

States.

* Rebecca Weston, daughter and

granddaughter of survivor, Spain.

* Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky, daughter of

Holocaust survivors, London, UK.

* Marion Geller, daughter and

granddaughter of those who escaped,

great-granddaughter and relative of many

who died in the camps, UK.

* Susan Slyomovics, daughter and

granddaughter of survivors of

Auschwitz, Plaszow, Markleeberg and

Ghetto Mateszalka, United States.

* Helga Fischer Mankovitz, daughter,

niece and cousin of refugees who fled

from Austria, niece of victim who

perished, Canada.

* Steinberg, daughter of survivors and

grand daughter of victim killed in

Auschwitz as well as all his family of

Poland, France.

* Michael Wischnia, son of survivors and

relative of many who perished, United

States.

* Arthur Graaff, son of decorated Dutch

resistance member and nazi victim, The

Netherlands.

* Johanna Haan, daughter and

granddaughter of victims in the

Netherlands. Lives in the Netherlands.

* Aron Ben Miriam, son of and nephew

of survivors from Auschwitz, Bergen-

Belsen, Salzwedel, Lodz ghetto. Lives in

United States.

Grandchildren of survivors

* Raphael Cohen, grandson of Jewish

survivors of the Nazi genocide, United

States.

* Emma Rubin, granddaughter of a

survivor of the Nazi genocide, United

States.

* Alex Safron, grandson of a survivor of


* Danielle Feris, grandchild of a Polish

grandmother whose whole family died

in the Nazi Holocaust, United States.

* Jesse Strauss, grandson of Polish


States.

* Anna Baltzer, granddaughter of

survivors whose family members

perished in Auschwitz (others were

members of the Belgian Resistance),

United States.

* Abigail Harms, granddaughter of

Holocaust survivor from Austria, Now


* Tessa Strauss, granddaughter of Polish

Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide,

United States.

* Caroline Picker, granddaughter of


States.

* Amalle Dublon, grandchild and great-

grandchild of survivors of the Nazi

holocaust, United States.

* Antonie Kaufmann Churg, 3rd cousin

of Ann Frank and grand-daughter of

NON-survivors, United States.

* Aliza Shvarts, granddaughter of


* Linda Mamoun, granddaughter of


* Abby Okrent, granddaughter of

survivors of the Auschwitz, Dachau,

Stuttgart, and the Lodz Ghetto, United

States.

* Ted Auerbach, grandson of survivor

whose whole family died in the


* Beth Bruch, grandchild of German

Jews who fled to US and great-grandchild

of Nazi holocaust survivor, United

States.

* Bob Wilson, grandson of a survivor,

United States.

* Katharine Wallerstein, granddaughter

of survivors and relative of many who

perished, United States.

* Sylvia Finzi, granddaughter and niece

of Holocaust victims murdered in

Auschwitz, London and Berlin. Now lives

in London.

* Esteban Schmelz, grandson of KZ-

Theresienstadt victim, Mexico City.

* Françoise Basch, grand daughter of

Victor and Ilona Basch murdered by the

Gestapo and the French Milice, France.

* Gabriel Alkon, grandson of Holocaust

survivors, Untied States.

* Nirit Ben-Ari, grandchild of Polish

grandparents from both sides whose

entire family was killed in the Nazi


* Heike Schotten, granddaughter of

refugees from Nazi Germany who

escaped the genocide, United States.

* Ike af Carlstèn, grandson of survivor,

Norway.

* Elias Lazarus, grandson of Holocaust

refugees from Dresden, United States and

Australia.

* Laura Mandelberg, granddaughter of

Holocaust survivors, United States.

* Josh Ruebner, grandson of Nazi

Holocaust survivors, United States.

* Shirley Feldman, granddaughter of


* Nuno Cesar Ferreira, grandson of

survivor, Brazil.

* Andrea Land, granddaugher of

survivors who fled programs in Poland,

all European relatives died in German and

Polish concentration camps, United

States.

* Sarah Goldman, granddaughter of


States.

* Baruch Wolski, grandson of survivors,

Austria.

* Frank Amahran, grandson of survivor,

United States.

* Eve Spangler, granddaughter of

Holocaust NON-survivor, United States.

* Gil Medovoy, grandchild of Fela

Hornstein who lost her enitre family in

Poland during the Nazi genocide, United

States.

* Michael Hoffman, grandson of

survivors, rest of family killed in Poland

during Holocaust, live in El Salvador.

* Sarah Hogarth, granddaughter of a

survivor whose entire family was killed

at Auschwitz, United States.

* Tibby Brooks, granddaughter, niece,

and cousin of victims of Nazis in Ukraine.

Lives in United States.

* Dan Berger, grandson of survivor,

United States.

* Dani Baurer, granddaughter of Baruch

Pollack, survivor of Auschwitz. Lives in


14


continued next page

United States.

* Talia Baurer, granddaughter of a

survivor, United States.

* Evan Cofsky, grandson of survivor,

UK.

* Annie Sicherman, granddaughter of


* Anna Heyman, granddaughter of

survivors, UK.

* Maya Ober, granddaughter of survivor

and relative of deceased in Teresienstadt

and Auschwitz, Tel Aviv.

* Anne Haan, granddaughter of Joseph

Slagter, survivor of Auschwitz. Lives in

The Netherlands.

* Oliver Ginsberg, grandson of victim,

Germany.

* Alexia Zdral, granddaughter of Polish


* Mitchel Bollag, grandson of Stanislaus

Eisner, who was living in Czechoslovakia

before being sent to a concentration

camp. United States.

* Vivienne Porzsolt, granddaughter of

victims of Nazi genocide, Australia.

* Lisa Nessan, granddaughter of


* Kally Alexandrou, granddaughter of

survivors, Australia.

* Laura Ostrow, granddaughter of

survivors, United States

* Anette Jacobson, granddaughter of

relatives killed, town of Kamen Kashirsk,

Poland. Lives in United States.

* Tamar Yaron (Teresa Werner),

granddaughter and niece of victims of

the Nazi genocide in Poland, Israel.

* Antonio Roman-Alcalá, grandson of


* Jeremy Luban, grandson of survivor,

United States.

* Heather West, granddaughter of

survivors and relative of other victims,

United States.

* Jeff Ethan Au Green, grandson of

survivor who escaped from a Nazi work

camp and hid in the Polish-Ukranian

forest, United States.

* Noa Shaindlinger, granddaughter of

four holocaust survivors, Canada.

* Merilyn Moos, granddaughter, cousin

and niece murdered victims, UK.

* Ruth Tenne, granddaughter and relative

of those who perished in Warsaw Ghetto,

London.

* Craig Berman, grandson of Holocaust

survivors, UK.

* Nell Hirschmann-Levy, granddaughter

of survivors from Germany. Lives in

United States.

* Osha Neumann, grandson of Gertrud

Neumann who died in Theresienstadt.


* Georg Frankl, Grandson of survivor

Ernst-Immo Frankl who survived

German work camp. Lives in Germany.

* Julian Drix, grandson of two survivors

from Poland, including survivor and

escapee from liquidated Janowska

concentration camp in Lwow, Poland.


* Katrina Mayer, grandson and relative

of victims, UK.

* Avigail Abarbanel, granddaughter of

survivors, Scotland.

* Denni Turp, granddaughter of Michael

Prooth, survivor, UK.

* Fenya Fischler, granddaughter of

survivors, UK.

* Yakira Teitel, granddaughter of German

Jewish refugees, great-granddaughter of


* Sarah, granddaughter of survivor, the

Netherlands.

* Susan Koppelman, granddaughter of

survivor, United States

* Hana Umeda, granddaughter of

survivor, Warsaw.

* Jordan Silverstein, grandson of two

survivors, Canada.

* Daniela Petuchowski, granddaughter of


* Aaron Lerner, grandson of survivors,

United States.

* Judith Bernstein, granddaughter of

Holocaust victims in Auschwitz,

Germany.

* Samantha Wischnia, granddaughter and

great niece of survivors from Poland,

United States.

* Elizabeth Wischnia, granddaughter and

grand niece of three holocaust survivors,

great aunt worked for Schindler, United

States.

* Daniel Waterman, grandson of

survivor, The Netherlands.

* Elana Baurer, granddaughter of


* Pablo Roman-Alcala, grandson of

participant in the kindertransport and

survivor, Germany.

Great grandchildren of survivors

* Natalie Rothman, great granddaughter

of Holocaust victims in Warsaw. Now

lives in Canada.

* Yotam Amit, great-grandson of Polish

Jew who fled Poland, United States.

* Daniel Boyarin, great grandson of

victims of the Nazi genocide, United

States.

* Maria Luban, great-granddaughter of

survivors of the Holocaust, United

States.

* Mimi Erlich, great-granddaughter of

Holocaust victim, United States.

* Olivia Kraus, great-grandaughter of

victims, granddaughter and daughter of

family that fled Austria and

Czechoslovakia. Lives in United States.

* Emily (Chisefsky) Alma, great

granddaughter and great grandniece of

victims in Bialystok, Poland, United

States.

* Inbal Amin, great-granddaughter of a

mother and son that escaped and related

to plenty that didn’t, United States.

* Matteo Luban, great-granddaughter of


* Saira Weiner, greatgranddaughter and

niece of those murdered in the Holocaust,

granddaughter of survivors, UK.

* Andrea Isaak, great-granddaughter of

survivor, Canada.

Other relatives of survivors

* Terri Ginsberg, niece of a survivor of


* Nathan Pollack, relative of Holocaust

survivors and victims, United States.

* Marcy Winograd, relative of victims,

United States.

* Rabbi Borukh Goldberg, relative of

many victims, United States.

* Martin Davidson, great-nephew of

victims who lived in the Netherlands,


continued next page


15

Spain.

* Miriam Pickens, relative of survivors,

United States.

* Dorothy Werner, spouse of survivor,

United States.

* Hyman and Hazel Rochman, relatives of

Holocaust victims, United States.

* Rich Siegel, cousin of victims who were

rounded up and shot in town square of

Czestochowa, Poland. Lives in United

States.

* Ignacio Israel Cruz-Lara, relative of

survivor, Mexico.

* Debra Stuckgold, relative of survivors,

United States.

* Joel Kovel, relatives killed at Babi Yar, United

States.

* Carol Krauthamer Smith, niece of


States.

* Chandra Ahuva Hauptman, relatives from

grandfather’s family died in Lodz ghetto,

one survivor cousin and many deceased

from Auschwitz, United States.

* Shelly Weiss, relative of Holocaust


* Carol Sanders, niece and cousin of victims

of Holocaust in Poland, United States.

* Sandra Rosen, great-niece and cousin of


* Raquel Hiller, relative of victims in Poland.

Now lives in Mexico.

* Alex Kantrowitz, most of father’s family

murdered Nesvizh, Belarus 1941. Lives in

United States.

* Michael Steven Smith, many relatives were

killed in Hungary. Lives in United States.

* Linda Moore, relative of survivors and


* Juliet VanEenwyk, niece and cousin of

Hungarian survivors, United States.

* Anya Achtenberg, grand niece, niece,

cousin of victims tortured and murdered in

Ukraine. Lives in United States.

* Betsy Wolf-Graves, great niece of uncle

who shot himself as he was about to be

arrested by Nazis, United States.

* Abecassis Pierre, grand-uncle died in

concentration camp, France.

* Robert Rosenthal, great-nephew and

cousin of survivors from Poland. Lives in

United States.

* Régine Bohar, relative of victims sent to

Auschwitz, Canada.

* Denise Rickles, relative of survivors

and victims in Poland. Lives in United

States.

* Louis Hirsch, relative of victims, United

States.

* Concepción Marcos, relative of victim,

Spain.

* George Sved, relative of victim, Spain.

* Judith Berlowitz, relative of victims and


* Rebecca Sturgeon, descendant of

Holocaust survivor from Amsterdam.

Lives in UK.

* Justin Levy, relative of victims and

survivors, Ireland.

* Sam Semoff, relative of survivors and

victims, UK.

* Leah Brown Klein, daughter-in-law of

survivors Miki and Etu Fixler Klein,

United States

* Karen Malpede, spouse of hidden child

who then fled Germany. Lives in United

States

* Michel Euvrard, husband of survivor,

France.

* Walter Ebmeyer, grandnephew of three

Auschwitz victims and one survivor now

living in Jerusalem, United States.

* Garrett Wright, relative of victims and


26 August, 2014

WHAT’S NEXT FOR ISRAEL, HAMAS AND GAZA?By Noam Chomsky

On August 26th, Israel and the Palestinian

Authority (PA) both accepted a ceasefire

agreement after a 50-day Israeli assault on

Gaza that left 2,100 Palestinians dead and

vast landscapes of destruction behind. The

agreement calls for an end to military action

by both Israel and Hamas, as well as an

easing of the Israeli siege that has strangled

Gaza for many years.

This is, however, just the most recent of a

series of ceasefire agreements reached after

each of Israel’s periodic escalations of its

unremitting assault on Gaza. Throughout

this period, the terms of these agreements

remain essentially the same. The regular

pattern is for Israel, then, to disregard

whatever agreement is in place, while Hamas

observes it — as Israel has officially

recognized — until a sharp increase in Israeli

violence elicits a Hamas response, followed

by even fiercer brutality. These escalations,

which amount to shooting fish in a pond,

are called “mowing the lawn” in Israeli

parlance. The most recent was more

accurately described as “removing the

topsoil” by a senior U.S. military officer,

appalled by the practices of the self-

described “most moral army in the world.”

The first of this series was the Agreement

on Movement and Access Between Israel

and the Palestinian Authority in November

2005. It called for “a crossing between Gaza

and Egypt at Rafah for the export of goods

and the transit of people, continuous

operation of crossings between Israel and

Gaza for the import/export of goods, and

the transit of people, reduction of obstacles

to movement within the West Bank, bus

and truck convoys between the West Bank

and Gaza, the building of a seaport in Gaza,

[and the] re-opening of the airport in Gaza”

that Israeli bombing had demolished.

That agreement was reached shortly after

Israel withdrew its settlers and military

forces from Gaza. The motive for the

disengagement was explained by Dov

Weissglass, a confidant of then-Prime

continued next page



16

Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in charge

of negotiating and implementing it. “The

significance of the disengagement plan is

the freezing of the peace process,”

Weissglass informed the Israeli press. “And

when you freeze that process, you prevent

the establishment of a Palestinian state, and

you prevent a discussion on the refugees,

the borders, and Jerusalem. Effectively, this

whole package called the Palestinian state,

with all that it entails, has been removed

indefinitely from our agenda. And all this

with authority and permission. All with a

[U.S.] presidential blessing and the

ratification of both houses of Congress.”

True enough.

“The disengagement is actually

formaldehyde,” Weissglass added. “It

supplies the amount of formaldehyde that

is necessary so there will not be a political

process with the Palestinians.” Israeli

hawks also recognized that instead of

investing substantial resources in

maintaining a few thousand settlers in illegal

communities in devastated Gaza, it made

more sense to transfer them to illegal

subsidized communities in areas of the West

Bank that Israel intended to keep.

The disengagement was depicted as a noble

effort to pursue peace, but the reality was

quite different. Israel never relinquished

control of Gaza and is, accordingly,

recognized as the occupying power by the

United Nations, the U.S., and other states

(Israel apart, of course). In their

comprehensive history of Israeli settlement

in the occupied territories, Israeli scholars

Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar describe what

actually happened when that country

disengaged: the ruined territory was not

released “for even a single day from Israel’s

military grip or from the price of the

occupation that the inhabitants pay every

day.” After the disengagement, “Israel left

behind scorched earth, devastated services,

and people with neither a present nor a

future. The settlements were destroyed in

an ungenerous move by an unenlightened

occupier, which in fact continues to control

the territory and kill and harass its inhabitants

by means of its formidable military might.”

Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense

Israel soon had a pretext for violating the

November Agreement more severely. In

January 2006, the Palestinians committed

a serious crime. They voted “the wrong

way” in carefully monitored free elections,

placing the parliament in the hands of

Hamas. Israel and the United States

immediately imposed harsh sanctions, telling

the world very clearly what they mean by

“democracy promotion.” Europe, to its

shame, went along as well.

The U.S. and Israel soon began planning a

military coup to overthrow the unacceptable

elected government, a familiar procedure.

When Hamas pre-empted the coup in 2007,

the siege of Gaza became far more severe,

along with regular Israeli military attacks.

Voting the wrong way in a free election was

bad enough, but preempting a U.S.-planned

military coup proved to be an unpardonable

offense.

A new ceasefire agreement was reached in

June 2008. It again called for opening the

border crossings to “allow the transfer of

all goods that were banned and restricted

to go into Gaza.” Israel formally agreed to

this, but immediately announced that it

would not abide by the agreement and open

the borders until Hamas released Gilad Shalit,

an Israeli soldier held by Hamas.

Israel itself has a long history of kidnapping

civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas

and holding them for lengthy periods without

credible charge, sometimes as hostages. Of

course, imprisoning civilians on dubious

charges, or none, is a regular practice in

the territories Israel controls. But the

standard western distinction between people

and “unpeople” (in Orwell’s useful phrase)

renders all this insignificant.

Israel not only maintained the siege in

violation of the June 2008 ceasefire

agreement but did so with extreme rigor,

even preventing the United Nations Relief

and Works Agency, which cares for the

huge number of official refugees in Gaza,

from replenishing its stocks.

On November 4th, while the media were

focused on the U.S. presidential election,

Israeli troops entered Gaza and killed half a

dozen Hamas militants. That elicited a

Hamas missile response and an exchange

of fire. (All the deaths were Palestinian.) In

late December, Hamas offered to renew the

ceasefire. Israel considered the offer, but

rejected it, preferring instead to launch

Operation Cast Lead, a three-week incursion

of the full power of the Israeli military into

the Gaza strip, resulting in shocking atrocities

well documented by international and Israeli

human rights organizations.

On January 8, 2009, while Cast Lead was

in full fury, the U.N. Security Council

passed a unanimous resolution (with the

U.S. abstaining) calling for “an immediate

ceasefire leading to a full Israeli withdrawal,

unimpeded provision through Gaza of food,

fuel, and medical treatment, and intensified

international arrangements to prevent arms

and ammunition smuggling.”

A new ceasefire agreement was indeed

reached, but the terms, similar to the

previous ones, were again never observed

and broke down completely with the next

major mowing-the-lawn episode in

November 2012, Operation Pillar of

Defense. What happened in the interim can

be illustrated by the casualty figures from


continued next page


17

January 2012 to the launching of that

operation: one Israeli was killed by fire from

Gaza while 78 Palestinians were killed by

Israeli fire.

The first act of Operation Pillar of Defense

was the murder of Ahmed Jabari, a high

official of the military wing of Hamas. Aluf

Benn, editor-in-chief of Israel’s leading

newspaper Haaretz, described Jabari as

Israel’s “subcontractor” in Gaza, who

enforced relative quiet there for more than

five years. As always, there was a pretext

for the assassination, but the likely reason

was provided by Israeli peace activist

Gershon Baskin. He had been involved in

direct negotiations with Jabari for years and

reported that, hours before he was

assassinated, Jabari “received the draft of a

permanent truce agreement with Israel,

which included mechanisms for maintaining

the ceasefire in the case of a flare-up between

Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.”

There is a long record of Israeli actions

designed to deter the threat of a diplomatic

settlement. After this exercise of mowing

the lawn, a ceasefire agreement was reached

yet again. Repeating the now-standard

terms, it called for a cessation of military

action by both sides and the effective ending

of the siege of Gaza with Israel “opening

the crossings and facilitating the movements

of people and transfer of goods, and

refraining from restricting residents’ free

movements and targeting residents in border

areas.”

What happened next was reviewed by

Nathan Thrall, senior Middle East analyst

of the International Crisis Group. Israeli

intelligence recognized that Hamas was

observing the terms of the ceasefire.

“Israel,” Thrall wrote, “therefore saw little

incentive in upholding its end of the deal. In

the three months following the ceasefire,

its forces made regular incursions into Gaza,

strafed Palestinian farmers and those

collecting scrap and rubble across the

border, and fired at boats, preventing

fishermen from accessing the majority of

Gaza’s waters.” In other words, the siege

never ended. “Crossings were repeatedly

shut. So-called buffer zones inside Gaza

[from which Palestinians are barred, and

which include a third or more of the strip’s

limited arable land] were reinstated. Imports

declined, exports were blocked, and fewer

Gazans were given exit permits to Israel

and the West Bank.”

Operation Protective Edge

So matters continued until April 2014, when

an important event took place. The two

major Palestinian groupings, Gaza-based

Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian

Authority in the West Bank signed a unity

agreement. Hamas made major

concessions. The unity government

contained none of its members or allies. In

substantial measure, as Nathan Thrall

observes, Hamas turned over governance

of Gaza to the PA. Several thousand PA

security forces were sent there and the PA

placed its guards at borders and crossings,

with no reciprocal positions for Hamas in

the West Bank security apparatus. Finally,

the unity government accepted the three

conditions that Washington and the

European Union had long demanded: non-

violence, adherence to past agreements, and

the recognition of Israel.

Israel was infuriated. Its government

declared at once that it would refuse to deal

with the unity government and cancelled

negotiations. Its fury mounted when the

U.S., along with most of the world, signaled

support for the unity government.

There are good reasons why Israel opposes

the unification of Palestinians. One is that

the Hamas-Fatah conflict has provided a

useful pretext for refusing to engage in

serious negotiations. How can one negotiate

with a divided entity? More significantly,

for more than 20 years, Israel has been

committed to separating Gaza from the West

Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords it

signed in 1993, which declare Gaza and

the West Bank to be an inseparable territorial

unity.

A look at a map explains the rationale.

Separated from Gaza, any West Bank

enclaves left to Palestinians have no access

to the outside world. They are contained

by two hostile powers, Israel and Jordan,

both close U.S. allies — and contrary to

illusions, the U.S. is very far from a neutral

“honest broker.”

Furthermore, Israel has been systematically

taking over the Jordan Valley, driving out

Palestinians, establishing settlements, sinking

wells, and otherwise ensuring that the region

— about one-third of the West Bank, with

much of its arable land — will ultimately be

integrated into Israel along with the other

regions that country is taking over. Hence

remaining Palestinian cantons will be

completely imprisoned. Unification with

Gaza would interfere with these plans,

which trace back to the early days of the

occupation and have had steady support

from the major political blocs, including

figures usually portrayed as doves like

former president Shimon Peres, who was

one of the architects of settlement deep in

the West Bank.

As usual, a pretext was needed to move on

to the next escalation. Such an occasion

arose when three Israeli boys from the settler

community in the West Bank were brutally

murdered. The Israeli government evidently

quickly realized that they were dead, but

pretended otherwise, which provided the

opportunity to launch a “rescue operation”

— actually a rampage primarily targeting

continued from page17


18

Hamas. The Netanyahu government has

claimed from the start that it knew Hamas

was responsible, but has made no effort to

present evidence.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas,

Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that

the killers very likely came from a dissident

clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in

the side of the Hamas leadership. He added,

“I’m sure they didn’t get any green light

from the leadership of Hamas, they just

thought it was the right time to act.”

The Israeli police have since been searching

for and arresting members of the clan, still

claiming, without evidence, that they are

“Hamas terrorists.” On September 2nd,

Haaretz reported that, after very intensive

interrogations, the Israeli security services

concluded the abduction of the teenagers

“was carried out by an independent cell”

with no known direct links to Hamas.

The 18-day rampage by the Israeli Defense

Forces succeeded in undermining the feared

unity government. According to Israeli

military sources, its soldiers arrested 419

Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with

Hamas, and killed six, while searching

thousands of locations and confiscating

$350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of

attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members

on July 7th.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets

in 18 months, Israeli officials reported,

providing Israel with the pretext to launch

Operation Protective Edge on July 8th. The

50-day assault proved the most extreme

exercise in mowing the lawn — so far.

Operation [Still to Be Named]

Israel is in a fine position today to reverse

its decades-old policy of separating Gaza

from the West Bank in violation of its solemn

agreements and to observe a major ceasefire

agreement for the first time. At least

temporarily, the threat of democracy in

neighboring Egypt has been diminished, and

the brutal Egyptian military dictatorship of

General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is a welcome

ally for Israel in maintaining control over

Gaza.

The Palestinian unity government, as noted

earlier, is placing the U.S.-trained forces of

the Palestinian Authority in control of Gaza’s

borders, and governance may be shifting

into the hands of the PA, which depends

on Israel for its survival, as well as for its

finances. Israel might feel that its takeover

of Palestinian territory in the West Bank has

proceeded so far that there is little to fear

from some limited form of autonomy for

the enclaves that remain to Palestinians.

There is also some truth to Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu’s observation: “Many

elements in the region understand today that,

in the struggle in which they are threatened,

Israel is not an enemy but a partner.” Akiva

Eldar, Israel’s leading diplomatic

correspondent, adds, however, that “all

those ‘many elements in the region’ also

understand that there is no brave and

comprehensive diplomatic move on the

horizon without an agreement on the

establishment of a Palestinian state based

on the 1967 borders and a just, agreed-upon

solution to the refugee problem.” That is

not on Israel’s agenda, he points out, and is

in fact in direct conflict with the 1999

electoral program of the governing Likud

coalition, never rescinded, which “flatly

rejects the establishment of a Palestinian

Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

Some knowledgeable Israeli commentators,

notably columnist Danny Rubinstein, believe

that Israel is poised to reverse course and

relax its stranglehold on Gaza.

We’ll see.

The record of these past years suggests

otherwise and the first signs are not

auspicious. As Operation Protective Edge

ended, Israel announced its largest

appropriation of West Bank land in 30 years,

almost 1,000 acres. Israel Radio reported

that the takeover was in response to the

killing of the three Jewish teenagers by

“Hamas militants.” A Palestinian boy was

burned to death in retaliation for the murder,

but no Israeli land was handed to

Palestinians, nor was there any reaction

when an Israeli soldier murdered 10-year-

old Khalil Anati on a quiet street in a refugee

camp near Hebron on August 10th, while

the most moral army in the world was

smashing Gaza to bits, and then drove away

in his jeep as the child bled to death.

Anati was one the 23 Palestinians (including

three children) killed by Israeli occupation

forces in the West Bank during the Gaza

onslaught, according to U.N. statistics, along

with more than 2,000 wounded, 38% by

live fire. “None of those killed were

endangering soldiers’ lives,” Israeli journalist

Gideon Levy reported. To none of this is

there any reaction, just as there was no

reaction while Israel killed, on average, more

than two Palestinian children a week for

the past 14 years. Unpeople, after all.

It is commonly claimed on all sides that, if

the two-state settlement is dead as a result

of Israel’s takeover of Palestinian lands, then

the outcome will be one state West of the

Jordan. Some Palestinians welcome this

outcome, anticipating that they can then

conduct a civil rights struggle for equal

rights on the model of South Africa under

apartheid. Many Israeli commentators warn

that the resulting “demographic problem”

of more Arab than Jewish births and

diminishing Jewish immigration will

undermine their hope for a “democratic

Jewish state.”continued next page

But these widespread beliefs are dubious.

The realistic alternative to a two-state

settlement is that Israel will continue to carry

forward the plans it has been implementing

for years, taking over whatever is of value

to it in the West Bank, while avoiding

Palestinian population concentrations and

removing Palestinians from the areas it is

integrating into Israel. That should avoid the

dreaded “demographic problem.”

The areas being integrated into Israel include

a vastly expanded Greater Jerusalem, the

area within the illegal “Separation Wall,”

corridors cutting through the regions to the

East, and will probably also encompass the

Jordan Valley. Gaza will likely remain under

its usual harsh siege, separated from the

West Bank. And the Syrian Golan Heights

— like Jerusalem, annexed in violation of

Security Council orders — will quietly

become part of Greater Israel. In the

meantime, West Bank Palestinians will be

contained in unviable cantons, with special

accommodation for elites in standard

neocolonial style.

These basic policies have been underway

since the 1967 conquest, following a

principle enunciated by then-Defense

Minister Moshe Dayan, one of the Israeli

leaders most sympathetic to the

Palestinians. He informed his cabinet

colleagues that they should tell Palestinian

refugees in the West Bank, “We have no

solution, you shall continue to live like dogs,

and whoever wishes may leave, and we

will see where this process leads.”

The suggestion was natural within the

overriding conception articulated in 1972

by future president Haim Herzog: “I do not

deny the Palestinians a place or stand or

opinion on every matter... But certainly I

am not prepared to consider them as

partners in any respect in a land that has

been consecrated in the hands of our nation

for thousands of years. For the Jews of

this land there cannot be any partner.”

Dayan also called for Israel’s “permanent

rule” (“memshelet keva”) over the occupied

territories. When Netanyahu expresses the

same stand today, he is not breaking new

ground.

Like other states, Israel pleads “security”

as justification for its aggressive and violent

actions. But knowledgeable Israelis know

better. Their recognition of reality was

continued from page18 articulated clearly in 1972 by Air Force

Commander (and later president) Ezer

Weizmann. He explained that there would

be no security problem if Israel were to

accept the international call to withdraw

from the territories it conquered in 1967,

but the country would not then be able to

“exist according to the scale, spirit, and

quality she now embodies.”

For a century, the Zionist colonization of

Palestine has proceeded primarily on the

pragmatic principle of the quiet

establishment of facts on the ground, which

the world was to ultimately come to accept.

It has been a highly successful policy. There

is every reason to expect it to persist as

long as the United States provides the

necessary military, economic, diplomatic,

and ideological support. For those concerned

with the rights of the brutalized Palestinians,

there can be no higher priority than working

to change U.S. policies, not an idle dream

by any means.

09 September, 2014

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor

emeritus in the Department of Linguistics

and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute

of Technology.

Source: TomDispatch.com

FERGUSON: NO JUSTICE IN THE AMERICAN POLICE STATE

By Paul Craig Roberts

There are reports that American

police kill 500 or more Americans

every year. Few of these murdered

Americans posed a threat to police.

ht tps: / /www.dojmedia.com/u-s-

po l i ce -have-k i l l ed -over -5000-

civilians-since-911/ Police murder

Americans for totally implausible

reasons. For example, a few days

before Michael Brown was gunned

down in Ferguson, John Crawford

picked up a toy gun from a WalMart

shelf in the toy department and was

shot and killed on the spot by police

goons. http://www.msnbc.com/

msnbc/family-man-kil led-cops-

walmart-demands-surveillance-video

Less than four miles from Ferguson,

goon thugs murdered another black

man on August 19. The police claims

of “threat” are disproved by the video

of the murder released by the police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

2 0 1 4 / 0 8 / 2 0 / k a j i e m e - p o w e l l -

shooting_n_5696546.html

Five hundred is more than one killing

by police per day. Yet the reports of

the shootings seldom get beyond the

local news. Why then has the

Ferguson, Missouri, police killing of

Michael Brown gone international?

Probably the answer is the large

multi-day protests of the black

community in Ferguson that led to

the state police being sent to

continued next page

19


Ferguson and now the National

Guard. Also, domestic police in full

military combat gear with armored

personnel carriers and tanks pointing

numerous rifles in the faces of

unarmed civilians and arresting and

threatening journalists make good

video copy. The “land of the free”

looks like a Gestapo Nazi state. To

much of the world, which has grown

to hate American bullying, the

bullying of Americans by their own

police is poetic justice.

For those who have long protested

racial profiling and police brutality

toward racial minorities, the police

murder of Michael Brown in

Ferguson is just another in a history

of racists murders. http://

www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/20/

racial-repression-and-the-murder-of-

mike-brown/print Rob Urie is correct

that blacks receive disproportionate

punishment from the white criminal

justice (sic) system. See, for

example: http://

www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/

william-norman-grigg/mother-faces-

11-years-in-prison/

Myself, former US Representative

Dennis Kucinich, and others see

Michael Brown’s murder as

reflective of the militarization of the

police and police training that creates

a hostile police attitude toward the

public. The police are taught to view

the public as threats against whom

the use of violence is the safest

course for the police officers.

This doesn’t mean that racism is not

also involved. Polls show that a

majority of white Americans are

content with the police justification

for the killing. Police apologists are

flooding the Internet with arguments

against those of the opposite

persuasion. Only

those who regard the police excuse

as unconvincing are accused of

jumping to conclusions before the

jury’s verdict is in. Those who jump

to conclusions favorable to the police

are regarded as proper Americans.

What I address in this article is non-

evidential considerations that

determine a jury’s verdict and the

incompetence of Ferguson’s

government that caused the riots and

looting.

Unless the US Department of Justice

makes Michael Brown’s killing a

federal case, the black community in

Ferguson is powerless to prevent a

cover-up.

What usually happens in these cases

is that the police concoct a story

protective of the police officer(s) and

the prosecutor does not bring an

indictment. As Obama and his

Attorney General, Eric Holder, are

partially black (in skin color alone),

the black majority community in

Ferguson, Missouri, might have

hopes from Holder’s visit. However,

nothing could be more clear than the

fact that Obama and Holder, along

with the rest of “black leadership,”

have been co-opted by the white

power structure. How else would

Obama and Holder be in office? Do

you think that the white power

structure puts in office people who

want justice for minorities or for

anyone other than the mega-rich?

The 1960s were a time of black

leadership, but that leadership was

assassinated (Martin Luther King) or

co-opted. Black leaders sold out for

prestige appointments and corporate

board memberships. Today black

leadership is marginalized and exists

only at local levels if at all.

If the cop who killed Brown is

indicted and he is tried in Ferguson,

the jury will contain whites who live

in Ferguson. Unless there is a huge

change in white sentiment about the

killing, no white juror can vote to

convict the white cop and continue

to live in Ferguson. The hostility of

the white community toward white

jurors who took the side of a “black

hoodlum who stole cigars” against

the white police officer would make

life for the jurors impossible in

Ferguson.

The trouble with purely racial

explanations of police using

excessive force is that cops don’t

limit their excesses to racial

minorities. White people suffer them

also. Remember the recent case of

Cecily McMillan, an Occupy

protester who was brutalized by a

white good thug with a record of

using excessive force. McMillan is a

young white woman. Her breasts

were seized from behind, and when

she swung around her elbow

reflexively and instinctively came up

and hit the goon thug. She was

arrested for assaulting a police officer

and sentenced by a jury to a term in

jail. The prosecutor and judge made

certain that no evidence could be

presented in her defense. Medical

evidence of the bruises on her breast

and the police officer’s record of

police brutality were not allowed as

evidence in her show trial , the

purpose of which was to intimidate

Occupy protesters.

In America white jurors are usually

continued from page19

continued next page

20


sheep who do whatever the

prosecutor wants. As Cecily

McMillan, a white woman, could not

get justice, it is even less likely that

the black family of Michael Brown

will. Those who are awaiting a jury’s

verdict to decide Michael Brown’s

case are awaiting a cover-up and the

complicity of the US criminal justice

(sic) system in murder.

If there is a federal indictment of the

police officer, and the trial is held in

a distant jurisdiction, there is a better

chance that a jury would consider the

facts. But even these precautions

would not eliminate the racist element

in white jurors’ decisions.

The situation in Ferguson was so

badly handled it almost seems like the

police state, in responding to the

shooting, intended to provoke

violence so that the American public

could become accustomed to military

force being applied to unarmed

civilian protests.

Ferguson brings to mind the Boston

Marathon Bombing. Two brothers of

foreign extraction allegedly set off a

“pressure cooker bomb” left in a

backback that killed and injured race

participants or observers. The two

brothers were deemed, without any

evidence, to be so dangerous that the

entirety of Boston and its suburbs

were “locked down” while 10,000

heavily armed police and military

patrolled the streets in military

vehicles conducting door-to-door

searches forcing residents from their

homes at gun point, while the police

ransacked homes where it was totally

obvious the brothers were not hiding.

Not a single family evicted from their

residences at gunpoint said: “Thank

God you are here. The bombers are

hiding in our home.”

The excessive display of force and

warrantless police home intrusions is

the reason that aware and thoughtful

Americans do not believe one word

of the official account of the Boston

Marathon Bombing. Thoughtful

people wonder why every American

does not see the bombing as an

orchestrated state act of terror in

order to accustom Americans to the

lock-down of a city and police

intrusion into their homes.

Logistically, it is impossible to

assemble 10,000 armed troops so

quickly. The obvious indication is that

the readiness of the troops indicates

pre-planning.

In Ferguson all that was needed to

prevent mass protests and looting

was for the police chief, mayor or

governor to immediately announce

that there would be a full investigation

by a civic committee independent of

the police and that the black

community should select the

members it wished to serve on the

investigative committee.

Instead, the name of the cop who

killed Michael Brown was withheld

for days, a video allegedly of Michael

Brown taking cigars from a store

was released as a justification for his

murder by police. These responses

and a variety of other stupid police

and government responses convinced

the black community, which already

knew in its bones, that there would

be a coverup.

It is entirely possible that the police

chief, mayor, and governor lacked the

intelligence and judgment to deal with

the occasion. In other words,

perhaps they are too stupid to be in

public office. The incapacity of the

American public to elect qualified

representatives is world-renown. But

it is also possible that Michael

Brown’s killing provided another

opportunity to accustom Americans

to the need for military violence to

be deployed against the civilian

population in order to protect us from

threats.

Occupy Wall Street was white, and

these whites were overwhelmed by

police violence.

This is why I conclude that more is

involved in Ferguson than white racist

attitudes toward blacks.

The founding fathers warned against

allowing US military forces to be

deployed against the American

people, and the Posse Comitatus Act

prevents the use of military forces

against civilians. These restrictions

designed to protect liberty have been

subverted by the George W. Bush and

Obama regimes.

Today Americans have no more

protection against state violence than

Germans had under National

Socialism.

Far from being a “light unto the

world,” America is descending into

cold hard tyranny.

Who will liberate us?

21 August, 2014

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

for Economic Policy and associate

editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Source: Countercurrents.org


21I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:


P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main

Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

Documents

Just Commentary September 2014