By Tim Coles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This is the HAARP Research Station in Gakona, Alaska.

In 1997 the US Space Command declared war on the world by committing America to "full spectrum dominance" by 2020, "to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments". This do1ctrine was approved and expanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2000. For Dick Cheney's Project for the New American Century, however, it did not go far enough. The doctrine was expanded further by the Obama administration, from dominating "land, sea, air and space" to doctrine, ideology and cyberspace. Everything America and its pillars (Britain and Israel) do must, therefore, be understood within the context of "full spectrum dominance".

In 2003 the United States Air Force Space Command announced a "vision call[ing] for prompt global strike space systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets". In order to achieve this, the air force has to control "natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control", hence "weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary," thereby allowing the US to "own the weather" and master "the science of chao", as the US Air Force explained in 1996. Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed in 2010 that far from reversing these trends, "Weather modification will continue to be explored".

A decade earlier, in 1999 the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy warned that, "despite the existing conventions", referring to the UN General Assembly Resolution banning environmental warfare, "military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP [High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program] system", putting into practice then Secretary of Defence William Cohen's suggestion that "electromagnetic waves" could alter the climate and control earthquakes and volcanoes remotely"¹. This was compounded by a Czech military paper, which stated that "HAARP can ionize and heat the atmosphere significantly affecting the airflow, and thus should cause storms, tornados and extreme heat or frost", going on to say that "it can be anywhere in the world to create artificial lightning, stronger than any natural [lightning]".. The latter point was confirmed by the US Air Force paper:

Possible mechanisms to investigate would be ways to modify the electropotential characteristics over certain targets to induce lightning strikes on the desired targets as the [generated] storm passes over their location. ... Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.

"BAE Systems designed and built the [HAARP] facility," according to the war corporation's website, "operating software, and controls under a series of contracts valued at more than 250 million US dollars from the Office of Naval Research". HAARP, according to its Alaska website, "employ[s] the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere", causing an ionospheric lift, "in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale". That is only HAARP Alaska, however, and that is only what they are telling us. According to the website, there are HAARP facilities in Latin America and Tajikistan, about which nothing is known, and, unlike HAARP Alaska, they are not open to selected members of the public.

This means that HAARP is funded by the Pentagon, contracted to (and designed by) private war corporations, developed through America's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and owned by the US Air Force and Navy - yet we are expected to believe that it is not a weaponized military application. This official position cannot be taken very seriously, especially given that those agencies are committed to "full spectrum dominance".

"The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere between space and the earth in which electrically charged atoms, or ions, reflect radio waves," BAE explained in a news release, "making long-distance radio communication possible". This is achieved by irradiating the ionosphere in order to send Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves down to submarines and other earthbound appliances. According to HAARP, it is also designed to "x-ray" the earth in order to find oil, gas, minerals, hidden submarines and subterranean bunkers. The tomographer Brooks Agnew explained how:

In 1983 I did tomography with 30 watts, looking for oil in the ground. I found 26 oil wells over a nine State area, and 100 per cent of the time was accurate, with just 30 watts of power beaming straight into solid rock.²

The resulting vibrations give mineral tomographers information about what is under the surface. HAARP, however, by its own admission, uses 3.6 million watts, with the aim of producing an apocalyptic 100 billion watts³. Testifying to the European Parliament in 1998, the physicist Rosalie Bertell

described the background to HAARP... If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region... [HAARP] enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.

In 1998 a European Parliament committee demanded that the US yield its HAARP secrets, which, of course, it refused to do. In 1999, the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection published a Report on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy, incorporating a Draft Resolution, which read:

The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive activity... [Article 27 of the Draft Resolution] considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States administration [then Clinton's] to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks... [HAARP] could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems... Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us... If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.

The Resolution was delayed until 2003, and subsequently dismissed: HAARP "for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The [European] Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament". In other words, everyone got paid off and/or threatened. In 2000, Rosalie Bertell informed The Times (London) that America and Britain "are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods", which the US Air Force recommended in 1996, and the MoD tacitly reaffirmed in 2010. Bertell has also stated that

[i]t would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States... The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.

Or simply not mentioned at all. The topic is completely off the media agenda: Rok Golob, a social scientist at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, wrote that "[g]eophysical weapons today is a taboo topic that is often only superficially treated," going on to explain, rather ominously, how

Geophysical weapons are an important aspect of the true integrity of modern warfare, which, in addition to all the most modern weapons also use the scheduler Earth and the natural processes as a weapon... Many scientists believe that a possible cause for ecological disasters are secret and unpunished geophysical weapons in use. This view is confirmed by a number of warnings from international organizations such as NATO, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the official documents the Ukrainian and Russian parliament on the dangers of Geophysical weapons [and now the EU]. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to US President Carter, and J.F. McDonald, Science Advisor to Lyndon Johnson, have published a document on geophysical weapons, which were described as having the real possibility of negative effects on the civilian population.

Compounding Golob's research, particularly in relation to using natural cycles, a Czech military intelligence article explained how, "Under certain meteorological conditions (which are constantly changing, but they can be predicted) ionoféře can "steal" a large amount of electromagnetic energy that is there due to ions located in difficult to imagine quantities". The resulting amount of electromagnetism can be directed against earthbound targets, as the EU commissions have warned, making it the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

According to a pro-HAARP article in Wired magazine, which otherwise dismisses all of the above as a conspiracy theory, "A Russian military journal warned that blasting the ionosphere would trigger a cascade of electrons that could flip [the] Earth's magnetic poles. "Simply speaking, the planet will 'capsize'," it warned." HAARP is "so strong it could trigger earthquakes. And by dumping all those radio waves into the ionosphere, HAARP could turn a miles-wide portion of the upper atmosphere into a giant lens."⁴

On the subject of the "giant lens", shortly before the Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand earthquakes in 2010, "strange lights" were reported in the skies above many of those countries (these from the China earthquake in 2008 (see Video 1 and Video 2). Writing about something else, Wired noted how, "At about 125 miles up, HAARP's waves can energize free electrons, which collide with neutral atoms to produce a glow like the aurora borealis"⁵, which would explain the lights observed prior to the 2010 earthquakes. In 2010, Haiti, which has been subjected to centuries of brutal French and American colonial intervention, was hit by a devastating earthquake which killed 200,000 people. Russian Intelligence reported that

[s]ince the end of the decade of the 70s in the last century, the US "advanced a lot" in the state of its earthquake weapons and, according to these reports, they now use equipment with Pulse, Plasma and Tesla Electromagnetic and Sonic technology together with "shock wave bombs".

This would be consistent with the "experiments" conducted by the psychopaths at HAARP.

According to the Russian report, the State Department, USAID and the US Southern Command began its work of "humanitarian invasion" by sending at least 10,000 soldiers and contractors, to control Haitian territory, rather than the UN, after the devastating "experimental earthquake".

It should be noted that, although Obama's Quadrennial Defence Review 2010 does not mention geophysical weapons or weather modification, it does clarify the new doctrine of militarizing aid relief, thereby giving the US a pretext to occupy a given country:

extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defence support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

One official source that does mention such weapons is the MoD's Strategic Trends Programme 2010, which states that Directed Energy Weapons will be capable of discrete target discrimination, producing a strike beam or field of electromagnetic energy, acoustic energy or atomic scale particles to cause disruptive or damaging effects, at near instantaneous speeds, to equipment, infrastructure or personnel. They will [emphases in original] have widespread employment including: hand emplaced "suitcase" devices; and ground, sea and air-based systems, with applications that include engine disablement and infrastructure attack [emphasis added. These are consistent with HAARP].

"As regards the final result of the tests of these weapons, the [Russian Northern Fleet] report warns that there is a US plan to destroy Iran through a series of earthquakes". "It can't reach Iran, if that's your question," quipped one of HAARP's developers, "Dennis Papadopoulos" - not his real name - speaking to Wired. This statement, buried at the end of an otherwise propagandistic article, is a tacit admission that HAARP is indeed a weapon, otherwise why say such a thing? "Papadopoulos" added: "But if I put HAARP on a ship, or on an oil platform, who knows?"⁶

Why would "Papadopoulos" and his psychopathic colleagues need to put a HAARP facility on a sea platform when they could establish a HAARP facility in a country near to the one they wish to destroy? Contrary to the HAARP Alaska facility, which is partly open to the public, there are numerous HAARP facilities, according to the official website, one of which is in Tajikistan, which is near Iran and borders China. This is in keeping with the statement of "Papadopoulos" about building a facility near Iran in order to "reach" it.

Furthermore, Britain's Ministry of Defence had already written about using unspecified new weapons (possibly neutron) in "outfacing irresponsible nuclear powers and in opposing demographically strong nations". The most "demographically strong nation" is China. Afghanistan separates China from Iran, and is occupied by Britain and America. Tajikistan, which borders Afghanistan and China, is close enough for a HAARP facility, assuming "Papadopoulos" is right, in order to attack China (which suffered an earthquake and flood in 2010), and to attack Iran, especially given Tajikistan's poverty, lack of defence, and weak government. As noted above, HAARP Alaska's website explained how

[a]ll of these installations have as their primary purpose the study of the ionosphere, and most employ the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale.

In other words, HAARP can and does cause natural disasters - they claim on a miniscule level and "to a varying degree". Not wanting to limit their deterrence capabilities, the Russians have built several HAARP facilities. As the US Air Force noted in 1996, the "beauty" of "owning the weather" and mastering "the science of chaos" is that nobody can prove if the given event is anthropogenic or not. Added to which, Obama announced an increase in US exports at a time when Russia is banning exports after its unprecedented droughts in 2010. Wreck another country's economy with a weather weapon, and force it to borrow from the IMF (as we have seen with Pakistan), in order to get them to purchase American exports.

The circumstantial evidence is getting too much to ignore. In 2010, we have had: a "sink hole" form in the ground in Guatemala; landslides in Guatemala and Italy; severe droughts in Russia; forest fires in Russia and Bolivia; floods in China, Taiwan, Pakistan, Niger and Mexico; a hurricane which missed Mexico; a hurricane which hit Burma; a volcanic eruption in Iceland; and earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand; added to which Britain's Ministry of Defence anticipates how new technologies could create "disastrous outcomes, planned and unplanned" - note the word planned - the culmination of which is a "doomsday scenario" meaning "the end of the world, or at least of humanity".⁷ What use is "full spectrum dominance" if there is nothing left to dominate?

Notes

1. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere, Fans Conspiracy Flames", Wired, Issue 17, No. 8, 20 July 2009. This has subsequently disappeared from the internet, but if you type the quotes into a search engine, you can find traces of it from Wired's "Danger Room", etc.

2. Brooks Agnew interviewed in Wendy Robbins (director) and Paula Randol-Smith (co-producer), 1998, Holes in Heaven? HAARP and Advances in Tesla Technology. Robbins's film is very informative, hence very well hidden, and actually contains interviews with HAARP maniacs who essentially admit they do not know what they are doing. Her film is serious and very different from the popular CBC broadcast film on HAARP, which can be found at here. Needless to say, there are massive efforts to make all of this seem like a conspiracy theory, hence the Canadian film shows activists in shadow, making the whole thing seem like science fiction. Added to which, HAARP is also the subject of another propaganda film by former Navy SEAL-turned-pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura - clearly another effort to undermine serious discussion. Furthermore, HAARP has been the subject of X Files episodes and Marvel Comics, as well as Wired magazine's dismissals of its opponents as "tinfoil-hatted lunatics". The propaganda trying to undermine the serious discussion about HAARP is disgraceful, but, considering the kind of world we live in, completely predicable.

3. Official documents cited in Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don't Play This HAARP (Anchorage: Earthpulse Press).

4. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

5. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

6. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

7. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

* Tim Coles is a writer and filmmaker.

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I must have got it all wrong.

I thought the first duty of a government was to protect its citizens from assault while going about their lawful business.

"There is no greater priority, no more important responsibility than the safety of all our citizens..." Didn't our previous prime minister, Gordon Brown, say so?

To my way of thinking, that means protecting from armed thugs any British subjects sailing peacefully and lawfully on the high seas. The Israelis advertised their threats. The government had plenty of warning. So where was the Royal Navy?

Probably horsing around in the Gulf protecting foreigners who would rather be left alone. Or chasing pirates along the Somali coast. Or cruising the Caribbean showing the flag. Brown had also promised Royal Navy ships to thwart arms smuggling into Gaza, so if the flotilla was suspected of carrying arms you'd think jolly Jack Tar would have been on hand in a flash.

It seems our ships were just too busy on other chores like protecting Iraqis and Afghans to bother defending our own people from being murdered or abducted on their way through the Mediterranean on a noble humanitarian mission.

So new prime minister David Cameron fails his first test.

His foreign secretary William Hague told the House of Commons that he would stress to the Israeli Government the need for restraint "given that their actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportionate. We need to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks, or to reduce the number of deaths and injuries."

Meaning that the assault would have been OK if less blood on the decks?

He also wanted the Israelis to observe UN Resolution 1860, which calls for "sustained delivery of humanitarian aid" and calls on states "to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation". The fact that it has not happened, he said, was "a tragedy".

More than a tragedy - it's a dereliction of duty on the part of Britain and the rest of the international community. Their cowardice and moral bankruptcy has allowed Israel to defy dozens of other UN Resolutions.

"We will therefore continue to press the Israeli Government to lift the closure of Gaza," said Hague, "and plan early discussions with Israel as well as with our other international partners about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid while also ensuring that aid reaches those who need it and is not abused."

Press away... There is only one way to "alleviate" the situation and that's for the world's navies to land supplies on Gaza's beach.

Hague ducks and weaves

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the forthright Jewish MP, pointed out that any one of the 37 UK citizens might have been killed when the Israelis "committed a war crime of piracy in international waters, kidnapping and murder-and all in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on Gaza that amounts to collective punishment..." He asked Mr Hague for his assurance that further steps would be taken if the Israelis failed to comply with the modest request that had been made.

But Hague sidestepped, saying: "It is our strong advice to British nationals, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, not to travel to Gaza-let me make that absolutely clear-as they would be going into a dangerous situation, but it is absolutely wrong to maintain the blockade."

By advising us not to travel - now and in the future - and failing to take action to break the illegal blockade, he chickens out and hands the Israelis an amazing victory. They of course don't want witnesses crawling all over their major crime scene.

Jeremy Corbyn asked if it wasn't time for sanctions such as revoking the EU-Israel trade agreement. Hague replied that he did not think imposing sanctions was the right policy. So no consequences.

Frank Dobson suggested that Britain and the other European members of NATO should give naval protection if another flotilla sets off for Gaza, with the Royal Navy reverting to its traditional role of protecting the freedom of the seas. Hague dismissed this too.

Does this mean that, after all that's happened, we're going to abandon the Rachel Corrie to her fate? She was too late to join the main flotilla and is steaming towards Gaza independently and due to reach Israel's killing zone any day.

Mr Hague has been a Friend of Israel since his school days. Prime Minister David Cameron reminded MPs that he too counted himself a Friend of Israel. Why on earth do they and so many others in government champion a racist, rogue state? Why are they friends of Israel and not Palestine, not Lebanon, not Syria, not Iran? Why are they supportive of the Israeli government, who are proven terrorists, but hateful towards the democratically elected government of Gaza?

Should such people have their hands on the levers of power in Britain? In this new era of sleaze-free politics they owe us an explanation.

A very bad smell

Which brings us to the issue that few people seem to have questioned - Israel's sea blockade and its legality. I've heard Israel's apologists say the answer is to allow humanitarian supplies in by road through Israeli-controlled crossings while maintaining the blockade, and the US would probably agree to that.

Like everything else Israel does, and America supports, you have to look for the ulterior motive. Why did the belligerent party set up the blockade in the first place?

One reason is Gaza's marine gas field, which lies 25 to 30 km offshore. It is estimated to hold 1 trillion cubic feet of gas worth around $4 billion in revenue. It would last 15 years and Israel wants it, so nobody talks about it.

In 2005, at the time of Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians decided to drop plans to sell their gas to Israel and talked with Egypt instead. The position changed again when Tony Blair, Israel's faithful dogsbody and special envoy of the Quartet, personally intervened on Israel's behalf.

The plan cooked up was to pipe the gas from the sea-bed to an on-shore terminal at Ashkelon in Israel. A separate pipe would run from the terminal to Gaza, with Israel providing a raft of assurances about uninterrupted supply and an uninterrupted flow of profits to the Palestinians.

How laughable. This is the same Israel that's starving Gazans into submission, blitzing them in their prison-home and trashing their economy... The same Israel that continues to murder and imprison whomsoever it wishes and steal whatever it wants... The same Israel that has no regard for international law or human rights... The same Israel that has blocked the flow of Palestinian tax and customs revenues, humanitarian aid and hospital supplies... The same Israel that will not recognise Palestine or its right of democratic self-determination.

Nobody in the Middle East believes that an assurance or guarantee by Israel is worth the paper it's written on... especially in this case where it mounted a challenge to Palestine's right to own and control the gas field, and lost. Their plan, apparently, is get their hands on Palestine's precious energy resource in much the same way as they stole Palestine's water. Israel would siphon off the gas in ever-increasing quantities while keeping the Palestinians in a state of bankruptcy and unable to use their share. Alternatively they'll provoke endless 'security' alerts, as is their style, and block the pipeline anytime they choose as a collective punishment.

If Gaza's gas is brought ashore in Israel, how can Palestinians benefit in terms of business contracts and job opportunities?

Would they ever get a whiff of their own gas?

Indeed, should the Palestinians be thinking of selling their gas to energy-greedy Israel in the first place? After 62 years of occupation and ruination isn't every cubic foot needed to fuel their own economic recovery? It will be a long haul taking far more than 15 years.

Gaza itself ought to reap the full benefits and supply the West Bank direct. And maybe pipe some to Israel if it behaves itself.

Unfortunately an Interim Agreement signed in 1995 allowed the Israelis to weave a tangled web of security zoning in Gaza's coastal waters leaving Israel in charge and dictating what happens off-shore and who comes and goes. It's the sort of agreement no Palestinian would have signed unless under extreme duress.

It allowed fishing boats from Gaza to go 20 nautical miles from the coastline, but after Israel's so-called 'disengagement' and the capture of Corporal Shalit, Israel unilaterally reduced the fishing area to three miles.

Being 'interim' these restrictions were not expected to last beyond 1999. But they are still in force. Why?

The nasty whiff is not just gas. So here's an immediate and urgent task for the international community. It must untangle this sea blockade and restore to Palestine free unfettered use of its territorial waters.

As for the land blockade, if it is "wrong", as Mr Hague says, and illegal as everyone else believes, it has been wrong and illegal for 4 years. It is not enough to say it must end. Action must be taken to bring it to an end.

Hague was no help in opposition. Now he's in power, he is off to a poor start. The message to him and his fellow dining room loafers in the EU is clear: Cut the cackle and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING... NOW!

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

A young boy protests outside Downing St, London on May 31, 2010.A large demonstration took place in London after more than 16 people were killed by Israeli commandos when they stormed a ship part of a flotilla of six carrying 1,000 tonnes of aid to the Gaza Strip, AFP/Getty Images

By Dr. Alan Sabrosky* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Israel's attack on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla on America's Memorial Day was all too predictable, although the form it took surprised even me. And it confirms the old proverb that "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad," for the attack was the kind of madness only unbridled arrogance can assume.

It wasn't just that foreigners as well as Palestinians, flying flags other than that of Palestine, were attacked. Israel has a long history of doing such things, especially to the UN. But except for the USS Liberty incident in 1967, it has generally done that on inland sites -- Gaza, the West Bank, the Lebanon -- where it can largely block news and visual evidence, and control the spin it puts on events, counting on its friends in the US and other mainstream media to say little or nothing to contradict them.

The Attack Reprised

"...Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Not this time. An attack on the open seas, in acknowledged international waters, against unarmed ships carrying humanitarian aid with passengers and crews from many countries -- especially a direct attack against a Turkish ship -- is a different matter, and potentially an explosive one. The number of shipboard casualties indicates that once fighting started, the Israeli commandos simply sprayed automatic weapons fire into the people around them -- another of their long-standing habits.

And technology is their enemy here, just as it became in an earlier day the enemy of communist regimes in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Too many images and videos were taken, and some sent, and too many witnesses reported what was happening, before the Israelis were able to suppress communications from their victims.

Bad for their victims, but also potentially very bad for Israel, and the initial Israeli public-relations damage control efforts show that they are at least dimly aware of that fact. Trying to cast the attack in international waters as an exercise in self-defense would be ludicrous in the best or worst of circumstances -- has anyone ever seen wheelchairs used as offensive weaponry?

And for the Israeli spokeswoman to try to spin an assault by warships and armed commandos as defense against a "lynch" (I guess she was trying to push an American "hot button" for Obama -- someone should tell her it is "lynching" or "lynch mob") would have embarrassed even her public relations soulmate, Dr. Josef Goebbels. But desperate do what desperation dictates, I suppose, although this time they may well have gone way too far.

A Judging, Long Overdue

"...This is a time for those interested in justice for Palestine to seize the moment and act,.... now is the time and this is the incident to drive home the UN "Uniting for Peace" Resolution..."

And that is what the initial responses appear to affirm. All of the major US and many other media outlets are carrying this story, and even with the slant from many Jewish correspondents based in Jerusalem or Ashdod, the bloody particulars are slowly coming through to at least a general American audience for the first time:

1. The unarmed ships with unarmed passengers were trying to ferry humanitarian and reconstruction aid to ravaged and embattled Gaza.
2. Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza, probably if not certainly in violation of international law, supported largely by US vetoes in the UN Security Council.
3. Israeli warships and commandos intercepted and attacked the aid flotilla in international waters --which is an act of war, piracy or state terrorism, depending on one's view of the details.
4. Under attack, some of the passengers tried to defend themselves, scores were killed or wounded, and some Israeli commandos were also wounded -- doubtless a surprise to them, but then their usual run of victims may have made them a bit too cocky.
5. Many governments and publics around the world -- not only in Arab capitals -- are openly outraged, and the discussion forums on US news websites carrying the story suggest that much the same is happening at a public level in this country.
6. But for Israel, this is just another "we are the misunderstood victim" incident in a long, sordid and utterly unbelievable litany of such things -- except that this time, they may not get away with it.

Seizing the Moment

This is a time for those interested in justice for Palestine to seize the moment and act, building on the promise engendered but not fulfilled after the submission of the Goldstone Report to the HRC.

I would like to think that President Obama would take a stand, and perhaps he will, but if he does it will be with words and not with deeds. Neither the Congress nor Rahm Emanuel would let him do much more, whatever his predisposition -- and who knows, he may believe the "lynch" metaphor, or pretend to do so.

"...Trying to cast the attack in international waters as an exercise in self-defense would be ludicrous in the best or worst of circumstances — has anyone ever seen wheelchairs used as offensive weaponry?"

Americans shouldn't bother with letters or emails to US Senators or Representatives, or Obama; AIPAC will be there ahead of you with more letters and money than you can generate. Go instead directly to the local offices of US Senators and Representatives, stay until you speak personally to the senior person there, and make your case as forcefully as you can. Make sure as many people hear you as possible -- but be polite, and leave your signs at home.

For the world community, now is the time and this is the incident to drive home the UN "Uniting for Peace" Resolution, in both the Security Council and the General Assembly as needed. The nationalities of the victims will at least neutralize many European countries that might have opposed it before. Sanctions, embargoes, even the suspension or expulsion of Israel from the UN itself, do as much as quickly and as forcefully as possible. Press the BDS campaign everywhere hard.

And for the US armed forces, on this Memorial Day, it would be well to reflect on the meaning of duty and service to country and people. Oaths of allegiance, obedience and loyalty are important to professionals in the armed forces, in or out of uniform. They were to me when I was in the Marines, and later as a civilian at West Point and the Army War College. I'm sure serving professionals today are no different.

But the elected and appointed civilians overseeing the armed services have also taken their own oaths, and many have violated them by serving the interests of Israel rather than the US itself, and especially by spending American lives and treasure furthering Israeli interests rather than safeguarding American ones. This, to me, is clearly treason, and utterly negates any loyalty anyone else owes to them.

Remember that the cornerstone of our oaths is not to obedience, but to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Think about it on this Memorial Day.

* Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This morning I'm hearing reports of 20 or more dead and dozens injured after Israeli forces attacked the Free Gaza flotilla in international waters and gunned down unarmed crew and passengers.

This is no surprise. Israel had been threatening for weeks to use violence, as is its style, to intercept the peaceful mission.

And I have just watched Israel's chief lie-monger, Mark Regev, on BBC TV. "We did everything we could to avoid violence," he said. "They [the aid workers] chose the path of confrontation... This is elementary, we have to defend ourselves." He claimed the Israeli boarding party was attacked! The week-kneed BBC failed to question this act of piracy in international waters and the blatant violation of maritime law.

Former British MP George Galloway, a mainspring behind the Free Gaza movement, called it "a murderous act of piracy" on innocent humanitarian aid workers and demanded a wholesale review of the international community's relationship with "the criminal pirate state of Israel".

When the OECD**, just 3 weeks ago, made their woeful decision to admit Israel to their club, the Zionist regime's plan to attack international ships attempting to bring relief to the 1.5 million innocent Gazans it had bombed and blockaded for 4 years, was already known. But the Organisation nevertheless went ahead, posting a video of their media briefing...
http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_201185_45159737_1_1_1_1,00.htm

Grit your teeth, watch, and marvel at this master-class in the art of bumbledom. It does not, of course, explain what many would love to know: how Israel's vile conduct is deemed to comply with the OECD's fundamental values.

So I asked our ambassador. The office of Britain's delegation to the OECD had to be prodded and goaded several times before making a half-baked reply to the simple question: Why did the British government give approval - in the British people's name - for relaxing the rules to allow Israel to join?

Ambassador Dominic Martin was too lazy to issue a personal statement. Or maybe he was just too embarrassed by the thought of having to spout the sort of bilge I would receive 17 days later from one of his junior assistants.

When I finally got a reply it was from a lady who did not reveal her job title. But her previous job was with the Honours Unit in the Protocol Division so, clearly, here was somebody with deep background knowledge of Israel's theft of the Holy Land and general lawlessness. This is what she said...

28 May: The rules for joining the OECD were not relaxed to allow Israel to join, and there was consensus among OECD members to admit Israel. Israel had to undergo a rigorous process of technical reforms to ensure that it met the standards of the OECD acquis in a wide range of diverse areas, from changing legislation in line with the Anti Bribery Convention to the environment. Israel has made commitments to bring its standards into line with those of the OECD in two areas, post accession - statistics (where it has been asked to disaggregate statistics for the Occupied Territories from those of Green Line Israel) and Intellectual Property Rights.

The UK has always been supportive of Israel's application to the OECD and welcomes the successful conclusion of accession negotiations. Israel is a country with whom the OECD and its members have many natural synergies. We view the accession of Israel as a positive development for a number of reasons. It is significant that Israel believes that adherence to OECD values and standards is important and helpful in the country's economic and social development, including its efforts to address high levels of poverty and deprivation, particularly among certain categories of the Israeli population.

The UK, together with EU member states, is confident that Israel's accession to the OECD will open new areas of co-operation in our mutual interest. We do not believe that economic sanctions or boycotts are the way to engage or influence Israel.

You asked in your subsequent email about a statement or press release. Neither we, nor the FCO, issued a press release or statement when Israel joined the OECD.

- Tanya Collingridge, UK Delegation to the OECD

Who actually wrote that... Mrs Collingridge? Ambassador Martin? Or, more likely, some hack in the FCO's Hasbara Unit quoting from the Israeli crapaganda manual?

• "The rules for joining the OECD were not relaxed..."

Its mission statement says that the OECD "brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy". And in December 2007 a roadmap towards Israeli membership set out the OECD's "fundamental values" to which members must adhere. These include "a commitment to pluralist democracy based on the rule of law and respect of human rights".

Oh dear. Israel, as everyone has come to realize, is no western-style democracy and no respecter of the rights of others. It is an ethnocracy with deeply racist policies and criminal territorial ambitions. Since 1967 it has ruled over millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories without according them any democratic rights at all. It discriminates systematically against its Arab minority in numerous ways. For example, the OECD's own report Israeli Child Policy and Outcomes finds that "government spending per child is much lower in the Arab sector than in the Jewish sector... average spending per child in the Arab localities is estimated to be 36.8% lower than in Jewish localities".

Ongoing human rights violations are too numerous to list here - it's latest murderous outrage has just been demonstrated on the high seas. Others range from preventing Gaza's 3,500 licensed fisherman from earning a livelihood by shooting up their vessels whenever they put to sea, and preventing students from Gaza finishing their degree courses at West Bank universities such as Bethlehem and Birzeit, to what former prime minister Olmert himself described as "deliberate and insufferable" employment discrimination against their Arab minority.

Israel also operates discriminatory land laws that benefit Jews and prevent its non-Jewish Palestinian citizens (20% of the population) from exercising an equal right to own land. Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens are denied full legal status, thus excluding some 16,000 women from exercising their social rights such as accessing health care.

Basic services such as water and electricity are denied to Bedouin citizens of the Negev/Naqab. Their homes are frequently destroyed.

Has the OECD turned a blind eye to the terror and havoc wrought by Israel's military? The sanctions and blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip, and Israel's ‘Cast Lead' blitzkrieg launched in December 2008 against the tiny enclave's citizens and infrastructure have caused a massive humanitarian crisis. Promised relief and reconstruction are cruelly obstructed.

Between 2000 and the start of Cast Lead (according to Israel's B'Tselem statistics), Israelis killed 4,790 Palestrinian civilians in their homeland. Of these, 952 were children. In the same period Palestinians killed 490 Israeli civilians within Israel, including just 84 children.

Yes, 952 Palestinian kiddies snuffed in their own streets. Israelis slaughtered at least 350 more during Cast Lead and have kept Gaza under daily air attack ever since. So the "most moral army in the world" must have eliminated nearly 1400 youngsters by now. The number left maimed and crippled doesn't bear thinking about.

Israel's claim to sovereignty over all of historic Palestine has no basis in law, yet land confiscation and illegal settlement building continues throughout the West Bank in blatant breach of UN resolutions and previous peace accords, as do home demolitions and displacements, especially in East Jerusalem.

Doesn't the OECD know about the severe restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by Israeli checkpoints and bypass roads, to the extent that Palestinians cannot easily reach their place of work or their farmlands, or even access the meagre healthcare facilities, and both Arab Christians and Muslims are prevented from visiting their holy places?

Isn't the OECD aware of the torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians held in Israeli jails and detention centres, the widespread denial of children's rights.and Israel's refusal to allow Palestinian refugees the right of return?

Israel's contemptuous disregard of international law, UN declarations and normal codes of conduct shows that it is not the slightest bit committed to the "attainment of the purposes of the United Nations". Thanks to its never-ending aggression, the persistent expansion of its borders and refusal to end its illegal occupation, Israel has miserably - many would say purposely - failed to establish "peaceful and harmonious relations" with its closest neighbours. It regularly violates Lebanese and Palestinian airspace and makes armed incursions into Gaza whenever the mood takes it.

It has made no contribution whatever to the economic expansion of non-member countries and no attempt to abolish obstacles to the exchange of goods and services or enable the liberalisation of capital movements. On the contrary, it has used unrestrained military might to wreck and ruin its neighbours' prospects and reduce them to permanent poverty.

The OECD surely knows these things.

• "Israel has made commitments to bring its standards into line with those of the OECD in two areas, post accession - statistics... and Intellectual Property Rights."

Given the Israelis' long crime sheet, are these the only commitments the OECD was able to wring from them? Why did it not, at the very least, insist on an end to the economic and military blockade of Gaza?

• "Israel believes that adherence to OECD values and standards is important..."

Israel believes quite the opposite, as its actions show.

• "The UK, together with EU member states, is confident that Israel's accession to the OECD will open new areas of co-operation in our mutual interest."

Has anyone explained what interests and values we could possibly have in common with the Israeli regime?

• "We do not believe that economic sanctions or boycotts are the way to engage or influence Israel."

Since when have we been squeamish about slapping crippling sanctions on other countries... Iraq since 1990 and Palestine especially when we didn't like the outcome of their democratic elections in 2006 or the' flavour' of their fledgling but perfectly legitimate government? We eagerly joined with the bully-boys to crush it and pile on the misery for innocent Gazans.

Now we're itching to "engage and influence" Iran with tougher sanctions. None of these countries have posed a threat to the UK.

For 62 years normal diplomacy has failed with Israel. People with a grain of sense have concluded that it's time to change tack. The British thumbs-up for Israeli membership of the OECD is an obscene reward for previous bad behaviour and the first act of lunacy on the watch of our new Foreign Secretary, William Hague. But we can expect many more. Hague is so passionately pro-Israel that he's determined to make the UK a safe haven for that regime's thugs. This will be achieved by ducking out of our legally binding obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction over persons accused of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

He is reported in Haaretz as saying, "We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country and indeed not just Israel, but this could apply to many other nations as well. So this has to be put right. And that is well understood and agreed in the coalition government."

How silly. Israeli politicians are welcome to visit the UK as long as their hands are clean. But Hague wants Mrs Livni, who is deeply implicated in the bloodbath in Gaza, and many more who are accused of crimes against humanity, to be able to come and do their shopping in London. I simply don't believe that the entire coalition government shares Silly Willy's protective attitude towards foreign war criminals. Besides, Hague's coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, are not as hopelessly hoodwinked by Zionism as he is.

And the public, one hopes, would regard sheltering Israelis wanted for war crimes as totally unacceptable.

It might be worth mentioning that Foreign Secretary Hague became a Friend of Israel at the tender age of 15, when still in short trousers. How can he possibly be fit for purpose? How clever is it to allow signed-up, card-carrying admirers of the rogue state anywhere the levers of international power?

The stark reality of Israeli terror

As I write, the fate of that altogether more gutsy coalition, the international Free Gaza flotilla, and its humanitarian cargoes and brave passengers, is still unknown. But after the callous murders at sea it can't be good.

Some 30 British nationals are believed to be aboard, along with £millions-worth of humanitarian supplies donated by British citizens, peacefully going about their lawful business. Where was the Royal Navy? The Government had been alerted to Israel's threats.

According to Aljazeera, Israel claimed the Free Gaza boats were embarked on "an act of provocation" against the Israeli military, rather than providing aid, and he flotilla would be breaking international law by landing in Gaza,

Last night I wrote to Nick Clegg, Britain's deputy Prime Minister, saying: "What action is Her Majesty's Government taking, please, to guarantee freedom of the seas and protect those going about their lawful business from Israeli piracy? Ministers were warned of Israel's threats so had ample time to prepare for this development. Let's have no whimpish driveling from the Foreign Office this time, please. What's needed is firm, decisive intervention. Just for a change let us see our Government do us proud on the international stage."

This was only one of many angry messages he and Prime Minister David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron must have received.

Every decent person this morning will feel great sorrow - but also tremendous admiration - for those who lost their lives or were wounded in a noble effort to relieve the endless suffering inflicted by the foulest professional politicians on earth. I fully expect their sacrifice to be marked by remembrance services across the world.

Meanwhile, hands up anyone who feels sorry for the OECD, which has been so comprehensively pissed on by the delinquent regime it welcomed with open arms only days ago.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

** OECD: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is where a select group of 31 countries compare policy experiences, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies. Its roots go back to 1947 and the reconstruction of Europe under the Marshall Plan. It is funded by its member countries to the tune of 328 million euros.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-Mk4bFz-U

Spread the video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MB-Mk4bFz-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MB-Mk4bFz-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

More videos:

Reuters: Israel boards Gaza-bound ships, 15 dead: reports
Press TV: Death toll from Gaza aid attack hits 20
Al-Jazeera: Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet
BBC: Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship
Sky News: 16 Killed As Israel Storms Aid Convoy

By Prof. Stephen M. Walt* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored.

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran-- 525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action. The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and Sec Def Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.

* Prof. Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Professor Walt is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, and, with coauthor J.J. Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Source: Foreign Policy
BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

Photo: Baz Ratner/Reuters

By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Terrorist Israelis had done it again. One more time they had conceitedly acted as the only God's chosen people, who have the right to violate international laws set by all other nations; the Goyims, who according to Israel's Talmudic teachings, are only animals, sub-humans at the best, whom God had created only to serve his chosen people.

Terrorist Israeli naval forces had boarded early Wednesday morning (11/4/09) the Antiqua-flagged trading ship "Francop" while in the international waters close to Cyprus, and kidnapped it to Ashdod port in Israel. The Israelis claimed that the ship was carrying Iranian weapons, with English markings, destined to Syria and to Lebanese Hezbollah.

They consider it their duty to intercept every ship they suspect of carrying any weapons to their enemy and to confiscate these weapons. It is an act of self defense as they claim.

This Israeli false claim of self defense comes as a violation of international laws and freedom of trade, and is consider a piracy. Contrary to all laws Israelis are proud of this piracy, broadcast it through international media, and demand it to be legitimized. Furthermore they demand their enemies to be punished for weapons trade that many countries, including Israel itself, are deeply involved in, and consider a major pillar to their economy. Such hypocrisy can be found only in God's chosen people.

Israel is claiming, without any proof, that these weapons were destined to Lebanese Hezbollah in violation of UN Resolution 1701 that prohibits weapons delivery to any Lebanese entity except its government. On the other hand Israel's military fighter planes are routinely penetrating Lebanese skies in flagrant violation of the resolution.

Israeli Prime President Benjamin Netanyahu had pledged to take to matter to the Security Council to demand an investigation into the alleged arms smuggling. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon had denied any knowledge of the arms shipment, and accused Israel of staging the whole incident as another step towards another war against Lebanon. Israeli politicians and military leaders keep stating that another round of attack against Hezbollah is not far away.

One should remember that Israel has been continually accusing Iran of sending weapons to Hezbollah through Syria, and keeps asking the UN to investigate the matter. Two days before this Israeli piracy the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released a report to the UN security Council, in which he stated that the UN had taken Israeli allegations of weapons smuggling to Hezbollah seriously, but investigation had shown no evidence of such allegations.

It would be so foolish to believe that Iranians would risk sending any arms to Syria through a sea route full of Western (American, British, French and German) and Israeli war ships patrolling the international waters, starting from the Persian Gulf and through the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, intercepting every ship and subjecting them to scrutinizing search for alleged arms smuggling to Hamas or to Hezbollah. These war ships have been described by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem as official pirates in the seas, who under the guise of security and inspection obstruct trade between countries.

It would be safer, faster, shorter, and probably cheaper for Iran to airlift arms to its neighboring Syria if it really wanted to. Besides the two countries have the legal right to sell and buy weapons like any other countries in the world. It certainly has been legal for Israel to sell weapons to Turkey, India, China, Russian Georgia, South Africa, and even to Iran itself during the Iran/Iraq war.

Israel's justification of its piracy as self defense in the form of preventing other countries from arming Israel's enemies is really a very dangerous justification. If endorsed, it would give justification to any country to intercept and kidnap any ship under the claim of such self defense. It would mean that Iran and Syria have the legal justification of intercepting and confiscating American arms shipments to Israel.

It should be noticed that this alleged Iranian arms shipment had come two days ahead of the UN General Assembly discussing Goldstone's report accusing Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity during its holocaust against Palestinian civilians in Gaza Strip. Many had accused Israel of staging the arms shipment incident in order to divert attention away from Goldstone's report and to justify its war crimes.

Looking back into Israel's history one finds that Israelis had used piracy as a tool to further their terrorist agenda. Even before the establishment of Israel, Zionist terrorists had destroyed ships carrying Jews to Palestine in order to bring attention to the Zionist agenda (Naeim Giladi's "Ben-Gurion's Scandals" found on the net). Zionists had bombed the Patria ship in November 25th 1940, the ship Struma in February 24th 1942, the Empire Life Guard ship in July 23rd 1947, and the Egoz boat in January 10th 1961.

In June 8th 1967 during the Six-Day War Israeli planes and torpedo boats attacked the American USS Liberty ship while in international waters with the full knowledge of its identity killing 34 crew members and wounding 171 others. This was a clear act of war the US, but President Lyndon Johnson, at the time, chose to ignore the matter.

In December 2008 Israel perpetrated its holocaust assault against Gaza. After 19 days of attack an Iranian ship attempted to deliver 2000 ton of humanitarian aid Gaza after coordinating with the Palestinian Red Cross. The Israeli gun boats intercepted the ship and under the threat of arms prevented it from docking into Gaza.

In February 6th 2009 the Lebanese Brotherhood Ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza victims was attacked by Israeli navy while in Egyptian territorial waters and kidnapped to the Israeli port of Ashdod. All 18 passengers including former Greek Catholic archbishop of Jerusalem Hillarion Capucci, 86 years old, and crew members were abused, beaten, handcuffed, blindfolded and imprisoned for hours before turned in to UN Interim Force in Lebanon. All the humanitarian goods were confiscated by Israel.

The campaign to end the siege of Gaza had sent several boats with humanitarian aid to Gaza. The pirates of the Israeli nave had intercepted the boats, shot at them, damaged some of them, kidnapped some to Ashdod, imprisoned international humanitarian organizers, and confiscated goods. The famous incident was the kidnapping of the "Spirit of Humanity" boat in July 2009 with 21 international human rights workers from 11 countries including Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and ex-member of the American House of representatives Cynthia McKinney. Israel jailed the activists for few days before releasing them.

The Israeli navy went a little further when they torpedoed an Iranian ship off the coast of Sudan in April 2009. The Israeli Haaretz paper reported that the Iranian ship was suspected of carrying weapons to Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

A more serious and dangerous act of Israeli piracy was the boarding and kidnapping of the Russian ship "Arctic Sea" end of July 2009. Israeli special forces had intercepted the Russian ship while en route from Finland to Algeria. Israel suspected that the ship was carrying Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile batteries to be delivered to Iran. This piracy prompted Netanyahu's mysterious half-day trip to Moscow to resolve the problem.

Israeli state pirates are worse than the Somali pirates. Western countries had turned Somalia into a nuclear waste dump, had destroyed its economy, had waged proxy wars against the country and massacred its inhabitant. Somalis were, thus, driven into piracy in order to make a living. Israelis on the other hand had chosen piracy as a tool to further its occupation of Palestine and to perpetrate war crimes and crimes against humanity in gross violation of all international laws.

UN member countries have sent their ships to stop the Somali pirates, would they send their ships to stop the Israeli pirate?

* Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the "Nakba" of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the "Nakseh" of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

Embed code avaliable here!
Also can be download from here!

Scottish activist films Israeli navy shooting at Gaza fishermen

A SCOTTISH human rights activist has filmed the Israeli navy firing machine guns at unarmed Palestinian fishing boats in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip.

The footage, taken on September 6 by Andrew Muncie, who is from the Highlands, shows an Israeli gunboat engaging fishing boats while international observers hold their arms in the air and scream for them to stop firing.

No-one was injured in the incident, but Palestinian fishermen claim 14 colleagues have been murdered at sea by the Israeli navy since the onset of an economic blockade imposed after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Israel says patrolling these waters is a vital security measure to stop weapons being smuggled into Gaza.

Muncie, 34, of Dalbreagha, Spean Bridge, is working with the Free Gaza movement and arrived in Gaza last month as part of a group of 40 activists who sailed on two boats from Cyprus in an attempt to breach Israel's blockade. He was accompanied by an 81-year-old nun, an 84-year-old holocaust survivor and Cherie Blair's sister, Lauren Booth.

Source: Sunday Herald

[Hat tip: Kimmy]

PS. The video is also available on YouTube here (at least for now!).

U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats

Chilling Threat Could Have Come From the Shore or Another Ship, Navy Says... Read on!

...or the Pentagon's cut and paste unit?

Why is it that the mainstream media NEVER questions anything those liars say? It ALWAYS turns out to be total and utter BULLSHIT... They KNOW that that first impression is what people always remember!