Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela

By Kim Scipes | CounterPunch | February 28, 2014

As protests have been taking place in Venezuela the last couple of weeks, it is always good to check on the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Empire’s “stealth” destabilizer. What has the NED been up to in Venezuela?

Before going into details, it is important to note what NED is and is not. First of all, it has NOTHING to do with the democracy we are taught in civics classes, concerning one person-one vote, with everyone affected having a say in the decision, etc. (This is commonly known as “popular” or grassroots democracy.) The NED opposes this kind of democracy.

The NED promotes top-down, elite, constrained  (or “polyarchal”) democracy. This is the democracy where the elites get to decide the candidates or questions suitable to go before the people—and always limiting the choices to what the elites are comfortable with. Then, once the elites have made their decision, THEN the people are presented with the “choice” that the elites approve. And then NED prattles on with its nonsense about how it is “promoting democracy around the world.”

This is one of the most cynical uses of democracy there is. It’s notable even in what my friend Dave Lippmann calls “Washington Deceit.”

The other thing to note about NED is that it is NOT independent as it claims, ad nauseum. It was created by the US Congress, signed into US law by President Ronald Reagan (that staunch defender of democracy), and it operates from funds provided annually by the US Government.

However, its Board of Directors is drawn from among the elites in the US Government’s foreign policy making realm. Past Board members have included Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, General Wesley K. Clark, and Paul Wolfowitz. Today’s board can be found at http://www.ned.org/about/board; most notable is Elliot Abrams of Reagan Administration fame.

In reality, NED is part of the US Empire’s tools, and “independent” only in the sense that no elected presidential administration can directly alter its composition or activities, even if it wanted to. It’s initial project director, Professor Allen Weinstein of Georgetown University, admitted in the Washington Post of September 22, 1991, that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

In other words, according to Professor William Robinson in his 1996 book, Promoting Polyarchy, NED is a product of US Government foreign policy shift from “earlier strategies to contain social and political mobilization through a focus on control of the state and governmental apparatus” to a process of “democracy promotion,” whereby “the United States and local elites thoroughly penetrate civil society, and from therein, assure control over popular mobilization and mass movements.” What this means, as I note in my 2010 book, AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage?, “is that instead of waiting for a client government to be threatened by its people and then responding, US foreign policy shifted to intervening in the civil society of a country ‘of interest’ (as defined by US foreign policy goals) before popular mobilization could become significant, and by supporting certain groups and certain politicians, then channel any potential mobilization in the direction desired by the US Government.”

Obviously, this also means that these “civil society” organizations can be used offensively as well, against any government the US opposes. NED funding, for example, was used in all of the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and, I expect, currently in the Ukraine as well as elsewhere.

How do they operate?  They have four “institutes” through which they work:  the International Republican Institute (currently headed by US Senator John McCain), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (currently headed by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright), the Center for International Private Enterprise (the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the foreign policy operation of the AFL-CIO, with Richard Trumka the head of its Board of Directors.

As I documented in my book, ACILS had been indirectly involved in the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela by participating in meetings with leaders later involved in the coup beforehand, and then denying afterwards the involvement of the leaders of the right-wing labor organization (CTV) in the coup, leaders of an organization long affiliated with the AFL-CIO. We also know NED overall had been active in Venezuela since 1997.

The NED and its institutes continue to actively fund projects in Venezuela today. From the 2012 NED Annual Report (the latest available), we see they have provided $1,338,331 to organizations and projects in Venezuela that year alone:  $120,125 for projects for “accountability”; $470,870 for “civic education”; $96,400 for “democratic ideas and values”; $105,000 for “freedom of information”; $92,265 for “human rights”; $216,063 for “political processes”; $34,962 for “rule of law”; $45,000 for “strengthening political institutions”; and $153,646 for Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).

Additionally, however, as found on the NED “Latin American and Caribbean” regional page, NED has granted $465,000 to ACILS to advance NED objectives of “freedom of association” in the region, with another $380,000 to take place in Venezuela and Colombia. This is in addition to another $645,000 to the International Republican Institute, and $750,000 to the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The irony of these pious claims for “freedom of association,” etc., is that Venezuela has developed public participation to one of the highest levels in the world, and has one of the most free media in the world. Even with massive private TV media involvement in the 2002 coup, the government did not take away their right to broadcast afterward.

In other words, NED and its institutes are not active in Venezuela to help promote democracy, as they claim, but in fact, to act against popular democracy in an effort to restore the rule of the elite, top-down democracy. They want to take popular democracy away from those nasty Chavistas, and show who is boss in the US Empire. This author bets they fail.

Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University North Central in Westville, IN, and is author of AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers:  Solidarity or Sabotage?, and KMU:  Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994.  He can be reached through his web site at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes.

February 28, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Protests and Violence Are Important to the U.S. Media

By Nate Singham | CEPR Americas Blog | February 28, 2014

In light of the recent political demonstrations that have swept the country, Venezuela has received considerable attention from both the US State Department and mainstream media. In recent days, President Obama, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and several others have issued numerous statements regarding the protests. In the US major media, The New York Times has published articles nearly every day since the protests began. Extensive reporting can also be found in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and The Washington Post.

It is worth comparing the extent of this coverage to protests of similar importance next door to Venezuela. In August of last year, Colombian farmers launched large-scale demonstrations in opposition to Colombian trade policies that are strongly supported by the U.S. government.

Unlike the protests in Venezuela, the Colombian protests received very little coverage from mainstream media, as CEPR pointed out at the time. The graph below compares the amount of coverage, in total number of articles published, given by four of the United States’ most influential newspapers to the protests and violence in Colombia and Venezuela. The difference ranges from more than two times to 14 times as many articles devoted to the Venezuelan protests as compared with Colombia, despite the fact that the period covered for Colombia is twice as long.

Ven_Col_media_comp_2

This is especially remarkable if we consider the high levels of repression carried out by the Colombian police and military in response to these protests. The International Office for Human Rights Action in Colombia described the violence as “unprovoked” and “indiscriminate” and attributes all of the violence to state forces.

The incidence of deaths in both Colombia and Venezuela[i], so far, is only slightly higher in Venezuela, with 13 deaths versus 12 deaths in Colombia.[ii] Yet there was very little coverage, and almost no criticism of the Colombian government as compared to the harsh attacks on the Venezuelan government in the U.S. media.

As mentioned earlier, US Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama made public statements regarding the protests in Venezuela. Both demanded that students arrested in Venezuela be released, without regard as to whether any had been arrested for allegedly committing crimes such as arson and assault. There were no such statements from U.S. officials regarding the hundreds arrested in Colombia.

It is possible that both the huge differences in the amount of media coverage, and the responses to these two sets of protests by both the media and U.S. government officials has to do with the protesters and their aims, and the respective governments. The Colombian farmers were protesting against policies strongly supported by the U.S. government; they were also protesting against a government that the U.S. sees as a strategic ally, home to U.S. military bases and receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid. The Venezuelan protesters are demanding the ouster of a government that the U.S. government has [spent] millions of dollars trying to get rid of, including U.S. support for the 2002 military coup against the government.

[i] The total amount of deaths reflects data from the most recent figures from Venezuela Transparencia, as of Monday, February 24 2014.

[ii] It is important to note that so far only six of the 13 deaths in Venezuela are confirmed to be opposition protesters.

February 28, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Disbanding the Palestinian Authority

By Jessica Purkiss | MEMO | February 28, 2014

In December 2010, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a television interview that if Israel continued to build settlements in the West Bank he would disband the Palestinian Authority (PA), the West Bank authority established under the Oslo Accords.

“I cannot accept to remain the president of an authority that doesn’t exist,” he said.

Abbas responded to the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early 2013 by again threatening to dissolve the PA. “I’ll tell him… Sit in the chair here instead of me, take the keys and you will be responsible for the Palestinian Authority.” The threats were made in an attempt to apply pressure on the Israeli government to kick start negotiations.

For the last seven months, both parties have been back at the negotiations table, with the hope of finding a solution to the decades long conflict by this April. The two sides, led by US Secretary of State John Kerry, are again trying to draw the borders in a two state solution.

Established under the Oslo Accords as an interim body, the PA was sold as a national project that would see the transportation of Palestine from an occupied territory to an internationally recognised state. The West Bank was split into three areas under the accords; Areas A, B and C. The PA was given apparent full control of Area A, the smallest chunk of land, while Area B came under shared control and Area C fell under full Israeli control.

The idea was that a final status peace agreement would be reached within 5 years, and all areas would fall under Palestinian jurisdiction. Twenty years later and the status quo established by the Oslo Accords is still in place.

The PA’s control remains limited to Area A, where its authority is nonetheless frequently violated by Israel. For Palestine, the two central functions anticipated from the PA – providing both a vehicle to statehood and a means of institution building – have arguably failed.

The last 20 years of negotiations between the PA and Israel have instead left the West Bank fragmented into 167 enclaves, which are in turn broken up by 552 checkpoints and barriers as well as being separated from Israel by a 440 kilometre long concrete wall which has annexed East Jerusalem, the envisioned capital of an independent Palestinian state. The settler population has doubled and 53 thousand settlement homes have been constructed to house them. Meanwhile 15 thousand Palestinian homes have been destroyed, according to infographics from Visualizing Palestine.

Instead of viewing the Authority as a vehicle towards statehood, many Palestinians see the PA as an arm of the occupation, with the biggest beneficiary of its existence being the occupier. PA run schools and hospitals, supported by foreign aid, maintain a status quo allowing Israel to shoulder its obligations as an occupying power. Instead of tackling the underlying political issues, millions of dollars of aid are poured into the PA and projects in the West Bank, acting as temporary plasters that serve to make the current situation viable.

The security cooperation between Israel and the PA, which was at a high, according to a 2012 summary report by the Coordinator of Activities in the Territories, has led many to define the Authority as a puppet of the occupation. This has fuelled a decline in Abbas’ popularity and, in turn, led to calls for the third intifada to be pitted against the PA.

Israel’s Yossi Kuperwasser, director general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, said during a court case waged against the PA, “I think that the Palestinians shared partial, tendentious and incomplete information with the Shin Bet.”

Shin Bet, the Israel security agency, was reportedly trying to “cover up their inability to use this tool called the Palestinian security forces in supplying them with the purpose for which they exist: preventing terror.”

Not only is it recognised here that the PA is openly sharing files with Israel’s notorious intelligence agency, there is no attempt to hide the fact that the PA, as an entity, has been created solely for this purpose, as a “tool” to be used by Israel.

In 2011, 31 per cent of the total PA expenditure, one third of its budget, was spent on security, the beneficiary of such large national expenditure being Israel.

This led Yossi Beilin, the Israeli architect of the Oslo process, to also call for the disbandment of the PA. In a heavily worded letter to Abbas he said; “Do not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hide behind the fig leaf of the Palestinian Authority – impose upon him, once again, the responsibility of the fate of four million Palestinians.

“Remain as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which will give you the authority to lead the political negotiations if and when they resume, but for the sake of your own people, for the sake of peace, you cannot let this farce continue,” he said.

While the talks restarted, the call for PA disbandment has continued. The two-state solution currently being deliberated is likely to include large settlement blocs being annexed to Israel, with compensatory land swaps, which some argue could be defined as illegal under international law. Israel is likely to gain “legal” control of the valuable Jordan Valley under the pretext of security, with the right of return for Palestinian refugees shelved.

After they have carved up the complex territory, the Palestinian State will be demilitarised with no control over its borders or airspace. Just as the Bantustans of South Africa were seen by the world as fantasy entities with governments and borders that gave them a veneer of legitimacy, a “state” of Palestine as envisaged by Israel similarly leads one to consider when a state ceases to be a state. This kind of “state” also leads one to question where the terms “peace” and “agreement” are in this solution.

After 20 years of negotiations, which many argue has only led to 20 years of concessions made by the Palestinian side, most citizens seem unexcited by the new talks. Talks that continue despite Israel’s refusal to freeze settlement building, an issue which led to the breakdown of the last talks and despite moves in the Knesset to enforce Israeli sovereignty over Al-Aqsa, Jewish claims to the Islamic holy site sparked the last intifada.

On the ground the effect of dissolving the PA would be disastrous, with a projected loss of $3 billion of public spending, 100,000 public servants left unemployed and the poverty rate potentially rising to 60 per cent, according to a report by the Palestinian Center of Policy and Surveys Research. There is also a genuine concern that the power vacuum left behind would be filled with more radical elements.

However, disbanding the PA may push the completion of a two state peace agreement, with the possibility of using the situation as leverage to gain more from the negotiations than a Palestinian Bantustan. Of course its dissolution would make negotiations between the state of Israel and a future state of Palestine difficult, which instead of contributing to the two-state framework, could lead to a one-state solution becoming the only viable option. Either way, it would mean an end to the occupation.

Alternatively Israel could launch a full scale occupation of the whole West Bank, without the façade of the “liberated” Area A. The latter would cost Israel billions, with the gap left by the PA in Area A cities like Nablus and Jericho requiring an investment of more manpower for little gain. In a desperate bid to protect the Jewish demographics of Israel from the threat of a one-state solution, and with the maintenance of the status quo no longer possible, a viable State of Palestine may be born.

Alternatively, the one-state solution may finally gain some ground, outside academic circles. The one-state solution is unpopular with many Palestinians, who see the negotiations as futile, but are still focused on the aspiration for a nation state and see the PA as the only vehicle to get there, while the PA’s 100,000 employees are understandably more concerned with their pay cheque. However the situation on the ground is often referred to as a “one-state reality”, inferring that the one-state solution is the only option.

In this case, Israel would have to choose between turning the one-state into an apartheid state with Palestinians as second class citizens, or a democratic state granting equal rights to its citizens.

In one-state, accusations of apartheid could not be so easily thwarted by those who excuse Israel’s policies and international condemnation would be quick to follow. Either way, desperate not to let the power vacuum left by the PA be filled by radical Islamist groups that may not be so easy to negotiate with, Israel and the US would be pushed to think of alternative solutions.

Nonetheless, Abbas’ past threats to dissolve the PA are empty. Like Israel and its backers, the Fatah run PA does not want the power vacuum to be filled with its political enemy number one; Hamas, who it has been pitted against since the 2006 elections, with the dissolution of the West Bank authority also spelling the dissolution of Fatah’s authority over the territory. In a meeting with EU representative Marc Otte, Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian side, was recorded saying; “Reaching an agreement [with Israel] is a matter of survival for us. It’s the way to defeat Hamas.”

Instead, April will see a US brokered peace agreement unveiled with a State of Palestine resembling a state but not a state with sovereignty but dependent, run by a leader that governs the oppressed, but who is a puppet for the oppressor. The status quo will largely be the same, except this time it will no longer be a called a conflict and the US will celebrate the success of bringing “peace” to the region.

February 28, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Zim Shipping: New Evidence suggests Six Months Foreknowledge of the September 11th Attack Date and Potential Involvement in the Israeli Deep Cover Operation

By Keith Maart | February 20, 2014

Zim American-Israeli Shipping (“Zim”) was the predecessor company of the present Zim Integrated Shipping Services and was 49 percent owned by the Israeli government on 9/11. In 2004, the Israeli government sold their interest to the Israeli Ofer Brothers Group, which then became the sole owner of the company.[1] On 9/11, Zim’s headquarters was in Haifa, Israel, and it had worldwide regional offices in Hong Kong, Hamburg, Germany, and Manhattan, New York/Norfolk, Virginia.[2]

At the time of the 9/11 attacks Zim was one of two Israeli companies with lease contracts at the World Trade Center. The other Israeli tenant, Clear Forest, had a small office of 18 employees on the 47th floor of WTC 1 (the North Tower). According to the Jerusalem Post, Clear Forest had only four or five employees at the WTC on 9/11 and all escaped uninjured.[3] Although there were some variances in the WTC 1 tenant rosters between various media organizations, the majority showed that Zim occupied all of the 16th floor (WTC floor space approximated 50,000 square feet), 10,000 square feet of the 17th floor, and some space of the 29th floor of WTC 1.[4] Zim had about 250 employees at the WTC before its move-out, which would require somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of office space.[5]

Amazingly fortunate for Zim, the company moved out of the WTC around Sept. 4, 2001 and into a newly built office building in Norfolk, VA, even though they had a significant remaining lease obligation at the WTC.[6] In fact, Zim picked this lucky move-out date about six months before they actually moved. An April 3, 2001 article in the Virginian-Pilot stated that Zim “expects to open its new [Norfolk] building by Sept. 4 and will eventually employ 235 people.”[7] Coincidently, pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Shehhi were inexplicably in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area in February and April 2001 at the time Zim was apparently in the search and planning process for their Norfolk building.[8] Although Zim is reported to have had about 10 of its purported 20 remaining employees at the WTC on 9/11, none were killed or injured.[9] However, other media reports stated that Zim had 35 sales and marketing people and additional computer personnel remaining at the WTC on 9/11, indicating Zim had a small percentage of its remaining staff at the WTC on 9/11.[10]

Zim found the site in Norfolk, obtained all permits, drew up the architectural plans, and built its 2-story 45,000 square-foot steel frame/brick veneer office building in only six months, which is about as fast as humanly possible for a commercial office project.[11] It is so fast, that they even have a special name for it in real estate jargon; it’s called fast tracking, as a typical development period would be closer to one year.[12] [13] Fast track construction is utilized when a company needs to have their building completed in a short time as standard design and construction procedures are compressed to meet that goal. The added development challenges and construction risks of fast tracking were summed up by Zim’s real estate company when they stated in April 2001, “Since accepting Zim’s fast track project last month, Hunter has been involved in assisting with site location, selecting the development team of architects and general contractor, and developing strategic relocation plans for Zim’s employees… It is a terrific assignment that presents many challenges, not the least of which is to ensure that the site is completed by move-in by September 2001.”[14]

Zim’s remaining lease term had long been a point of debate, with 9/11 conspiracy debunkers claiming there was no evidence that Zim’s WTC lease term extended beyond their move-out date. However, a FOIA request to the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey by LetsRollForums.com resulted in a copy of the WTC tenant roster with lease expiration dates.[15] The Port Authority document showed that Zim entered into a 10-year lease contract starting on March 1, 1996 and expiring on Feb. 28, 2006, or about four and a half years after Zim’s September 2001 move-out date.[16] Confirmation that Zim’s remaining lease extended beyond their move-out date was further established by a Crain’s New York Business article on April 9, 2001 that stated, “Rising rent wasn’t an immediate concern [for Zim’s relocation decision] — several years remain on the lease.”[17]

Assuming Zim leased around 60,000 square feet at $30/square-foot at the WTC, its four and a half year remaining lease obligation would have been about $8 million.[18] Strangely, Zim did not seem concerned about high leasing costs when it entered into a relatively long 10-year lease in March 1996, and there is also no evidence that Zim tried to sublease its space in the six months they were planning and building their new office building in Norfolk. This is not the expected action of a company that stated their reason to vacate the WTC was to cut costs. Fortunately for Zim any worry about their $8 million lease liability disappeared when the WTC came crashing down on 9/11.

The burning question is why did Zim have to chance the added risks and challenges of fast tracking the development of their Norfolk office to guarantee its completion by Sept. 4, 2001 when it still had perfectly fine office space at the WTC with an existing four and a half year $8 million lease obligation? Zim’s public excuse that they moved to cut costs does not explain why it was mandatory that the Norfolk office be completed by Sept. 4, 2001. The fast track development process cost Zim more money and added unnecessary development risks. What difference would six months have made (i.e., fast track vs conventional development time period) when they still had occupancy rights with a significant lease obligation at the WTC? Apparently, Zim knew they had to be out of the WTC before September 11th, and that is why they did everything in their power to ensure they would be out of the WTC and in their new Norfolk office by Sept. 4th.

CIA Israeli Intelligence Assessment Regarding Zim Shipping and Mossad

A 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence shows that the CIA has long suspected that Zim has been used for Israeli intelligence support and cover.[19] [20] The CIA Israeli Assessment had this to say about Zim:

Other Israeli government organizations that provide support to the [Israeli] intelligence and security community are the Ministries of Finance and tourism, El Al, and the national shipping line, Zim. Unofficial Zionist organizations based in Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world also give aid to Israel operations when needed… Official organizations used for [Israeli intelligence] cover are Israeli Purchasing Missions and Israeli Government Tourist, El Al, and Zim offices, Israeli construction firms, industrial groups and international trade organizations also provide non-official cover. Individuals working under deep or illegal cover are normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with activities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.[21]

The CIA Israeli Assessment provides additional insight into Israel’s intelligence apparatus, including its methods and processes. In an interview with Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv in the early 80’s, former Mossad chief Isser Harel called the assertions of the document “malicious, dilettantish, distortions… but probably authentic,” and stated that the publication of the document had been a nightmare for him.[22] The CIA document basically shows that Israel has the means and experience to carry out false flag attacks by recruiting Arabs as deep cover operatives in covert operations, something they could also have done in the 9/11 operation. Deep cover operatives are often planted years in advance of the execution of an operation and can take on identities and backgrounds to fit the operation. Among many other important findings, following are some Israeli intelligence processes and methods that could have been pertinent to the 9/11 operation (references to sections of the CIA Israeli Assessment are given in parentheses):

  • The Israeli intelligence and security community is completely loyal and if the government requested the execution of a certain task, legal and illegal, it would be accomplished. (Section A3.b)
  • Mossad is also charged with inciting disturbances calculated to create mutual distrust among the Arabs and to draw Western sympathy away from the Arab cause. (Section B1)
  • The fact that Lebanon has a mix of Christians, Druze, and Muslim population has made that country attractive for intelligence projects and Israel has covert assets and has run operations in Lebanon. (Section B1)
  • Much of the activity against the Arabs in the Near East is based on “deep cover operations” by Israeli illegals or the recruitment of Arabs in third-countries followed by their dispatch or normal rotation back home to Arab areas. (Section B2)
  • Elishu (Eli) Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew, was involved in Israeli sabotage operations (false flag attacks) against American and British installations in Egypt in 1952. (Section B2) Cohen’s sabotage operation became known as the Lavon Affair, a confirmed Israeli false flag operation against the US.[23]
  • The CIA Israeli Assessment provides two examples of Israeli “deep cover” operations, where Israeli operatives were put in place years in advance to establish other identities and backgrounds (i.e., “legends”). One operation required Eli Cohen to take the identity of a Syrian Arab while the other operation required an Israeli Johann Lotz to move to Germany for a couple of years to establish an identity of a German African Corps officer.[24] (Section B2) (Similarly, three of the pilot hijackers spent several years in Hamburg, Germany where they allegedly became radicalized Islamists.[25])
  • Mossad activities are generally conducted through Israeli official and semiofficial establishments, deep cover enterprises in the form of firms and organizations, some especially created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective, and penetrations effected within non-Zionist national and international Jewish organizations. (Section B4)
  • Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli in speech, demeanor, and attitude. By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries. (Section B4)
  • The Israelis have used false-flag recruitment pitches extensively and successfully. In several cases they approached citizens of Western European nations under the cover of a national NATO intelligence organization for operations in Arab target countries. (Section B4)
  • Shin Beth has picked up local Arab espionage agents on their way back to neighboring countries and doubled them (turned them into Israeli spies) in coordination with Military Intelligence. (Section C4)

Israel’s long history of false flag terror operations intended to blame Arabs is extensive and beyond the scope of this article; however, there are several confirmed and dozens of suspected operations since Israel’s creation in 1948.[26] Israel’s skillful use of deep cover Arab operatives and other covert tactics listed above sometimes makes it difficult to link Israel directly to the false flag events. A case in point is where the CIA notes above that Israeli intelligence operatives working for Zim are “normally charged with objectives that require a long range approach where the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.” This covert activities concept is often referred to as “plausible deniability” and is used to remove any direct connection to the covert operation. Even though Israel’s fingerprints have been all over many false flag attacks in the past, the smoking gun has been eliminated by design. Thus, one has to look at all other evidence in likely false flag operations to assess involvement and guilt.

Pilot Hijackers Exhibit Modus Operandi of “Non-al-Qaeda” Deep Cover Operatives

There are many anomalies and contradictions in the backgrounds, timelines, and activities of the 9/11 pilot hijackers which indicate they could have been deep cover operatives in a broader 9/11 conspiracy. A good analysis of the many hijacker contradictions between the 9/11 Commission findings (or omitted facts), the FBI’s Hijacker Timeline, and various media reports can be found at Historycommons.org.[27] A prime example of one of the many contradictions is that at least two hijackers ended up on alleged Zionist Jack Abramoff’s connected Suncruz gambling boat on Sept. 5, 2001 when the FBI Hijacker Timeline showed the hijackers elsewhere.[28] The 9/11 Commission also ignored this evidence and much more in their report.

The hijackers also did their best to leave behind an obvious trail of evidence that was easily found and quickly gave the FBI the support to tie them to the 9/11 operation stymieing any substantive investigation of the many anomalies and contradicting evidence.[29] [30] Not to mention the obvious plants of evidence like hijacker passports in the WTC and other wreckage.[31] Lastly, military operation Able Danger identified several al-Qaeda connections inside the US as early as December 1999, including Atta and other alleged 9/11 hijackers; however, the operation was shut down by senior military officials and lawyers who also prevented the unit from sharing the valuable information with the FBI for reasons that were wrong and inaccurate.[32]

Although the facts and evidence around the many hijacker anomalies and falsehoods are very detailed and complex and beyond the scope of this paper, following is a brief summary of some of the evidence suggesting the pilot hijackers were not what the US government said they were, and indicating that they may have been deep cover operatives (the Endnotes include references and links to sources with more detail).

Mohammed Atta — Journalist and author Daniel Hopsicker did very good investigative work around Atta when he interviewed various individuals who came across Atta; and found that Atta’s real life persona was nothing like the portrait painted by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission. In his book, “Welcome to Terrorland,” Hopsicker found among other things that Atta drank alcohol and ate pork (against Muslim beliefs), did drugs and partied heavily, slept with strippers, and spoke Hebrew.[33] [34] This is not the behavior of a devout Muslim who is planning to kill himself and then hopes to go to heaven and be greeted by 99 virgins. If Atta was not the Muslim extremist who believed deeply in his faith, as the US government made him out to be, then who was he? Atta came from an upper middle class Egyptian family and was fluent in 5 different languages, including English, despite supposedly never having spent any time in an English-speaking country before 9/11.[35]

Ziad Jarrah — Jarrah came from an affluent Lebanese family and by all accounts was a non-political non-devout Muslim brought up in private Catholic schools. Ziad’s two Lebanese cousins, Ali and Yusef Jarrah, were confessed and convicted spies for Israel. Although the February 2009 New York Times stated, “the men [Ziad and Ali Jarrah] were 20 years apart in age [actually 16] and do not appear to have known each other well,” it is apparently a subjective statement that is not based on any specified fact.[36] On the contrary, an October 23, 2001, article in the Los Angeles Times indicates that the cousins came from a “close-knit family” and that Ziad spent lots of time at the cousins’ house in Marj, as Ali’s apparently younger brother, Salim Jarrah, was Ziad’s age.[37] Marj is a small town in the agricultural Bekka Valley area of Lebanon where Ali had been a spy for Israel since around 1983. As it appears that Ali helped recruit his brother Yusef as a spy for Israel, it is likely that he could have done the same for his cousin Ziad.

The contradictions and discrepancies with the official story concerning Jarrah are revealing and significant. An excellent and well referenced article by Paul Thompson in Sept. 2002, entitled “The Two Ziad Jarrah’s” shows that there were two similar Ziad Jarrah’s in different places at the same time on several occasions and that Ziad’s real life persona was also nothing like the one portrayed by the 9/11 Commission.[38] Thompson also shows many timeline discrepancies in Jarrah’s alleged travels and activities, and that a slew of people who knew him best said he never exhibited devout Muslim tendencies nor did he ever express extremist ideology. Ironically, the 9/11 Commission’s sole support for Jarrah’s radicalization comes from a July 2002 classified German intelligence report.[39] The only noted source in the 9/11 Commission report on Jarrah’s Islamic radicalization comes from his girlfriend, Aisel Senguen, whose earlier statements in the press (as pointed out by Thompson) contradict statements attributed to her by the Commission.

Marwan Shehhi — Shehhi was Atta’s right hand man and shadowed him in the US for the 15 months before 9/11. He was also in the military of the United Arab Emirates (a US ally) while attending school in Hamburg from 1996 to 1999. Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi allegedly went to Osama Bin Laden’s training camp in Afghanistan in December 1999 and met OBL for the first time. According to the 9/11 Commission, the speed with which OBL chose the three for the 9/11 operation was remarkable.[40] Why did OBL so quickly choose three unknowns he had just met for the biggest and most complex terrorist operation in history, or could the three potential deep cover operatives actually have proposed the 9/11 plans to him?[41] Was this “choice” actually a fictitious part of the official story of 9/11 intended to portray OBL as the culprit?

Hani Hanjour — Saudi pilot hijacker Hani Hanjour arrived for a second time in the US in April 1996, the exact month and year that Jarrah and Shehhi went to Hamburg, suggesting the deep cover operation may have begun as early as then.[42] Although Hanjour was the most experienced of all the pilot hijackers, he was not allowed to rent a single-engine Cessna airplane several weeks before 9/11 because the instructors, after taking three test flights with him, judged his flying skills too poor. However, the plane Hanjour allegedly flew on 9/11 (Flight AA 77 targeting the Pentagon) executed a very difficult turn and descent that reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver, with one air traffic controller commenting, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.”[43] Hanjour’s sophisticated flying maneuver on 9/11 is contradicted by all the other information corroborating his poor flying skills.

Zim and Other Israeli Groups Potential Involvement in the 9/11 Deep Cover Operation

The fact that Zim probably had at least six months foreknowledge of the specific attack date would suggest they probably had foreknowledge of the entire 9/11 operation. Indeed, even the alleged 9/11 hijackers did not start making their 9/11 flight reservations until Aug. 25, 2001.[44] However, Zim’s 9/11 connections do not end with their timely move-out of the WTC or with their known support and cover for Israeli intelligence (with its history and means of false flag attacks against the US). Zim also happened to be a tenant in a building that was most likely taken down by controlled demolition and there is evidence linking explosives to other Israeli groups in the NY/NJ area.[45] Coincidently, the owner of all three WTC towers that came down crashing down in controlled demolition style on 9/11, Larry Silverstein, was friends with three ex-Israeli Prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom he was speaking weekly with at the time.[46]

An in-depth investigative report In December 2013 by this author on the “Celebrating/Dancing Israelis” shows that the FBI detected explosives in the Israelis’ van when they were apprehended on 9/11.[47] Although the FBI analyzed explosive samples taken from the Celebrating Israelis’ (CIs) vehicle, the lab results were never revealed in the FBI investigative documents, and were curiously still pending about two weeks after they were taken.[48] There is no rational or explainable reason for the FBI not to have completed the explosive tests in this time frame and the most logical reason for the FBI not showing the results is because the van tested positive for explosives.

The CIs happened to work for an Israeli-related moving company in the NJ/NY area, Urban Moving Systems (“UMS”), which was also apparently searched for explosives two days after 9/11.[49] (There were also at least three other Israeli-related moving companies in the immediate area with one under investigation by the FBI in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers.[50]) Coincidently, CI Yaron Shmuel worked for an Israeli explosives company after 9/11, which suggests he may have had a background in explosives.[51] In addition, five of fourteen Israeli Art students, or 37 percent, who provided their Israeli military backgrounds to US investigators worked in explosive ordnance units.[52] Thus, Israel had the expertise and human resources in the US to wire the WTC’s for demolition and the moving companies to help transport the explosives and devices.

It just so happens that at least two of the CIs were Mossad operatives and were involved in other US counterintelligence investigations according to various media sources.[53] The New York Times noted that the FBI even initially suspected the CIs of assisting the hijackers.[54] Several news agencies also reported that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company.[55] The owner of UMS, Dominik Suter, fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001 after being questioned by the FBI two days earlier.[56] In May 2002 the names of Suter and his wife appeared on an FBI 9/11 Watch List Report, which included among others, OBL, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”), all 19 hijackers (why if dead?), and 15 Arab individuals from Hamburg.[57] Out of over 300 names, those of Suter and his wife are two of just a few that are not Arab names.[58] This author’s investigative report showed that there was an obvious FBI cover-up in the investigation and that the CIs had foreknowledge of the attacks and that the CIs and other Israelis were probably more deeply involved in the 9/11 operation.[59]

Given the CIs and UMSs various connections to Israeli intelligence and explosives, and Zim’s known support and cover for Israeli intelligence, there is the possibility that the explosives used to take down the three WTC towers were manufactured in Israel and imported to the US on Zim ships. Coincidently, Zim’s main NY/NJ shipping port on 9/11 was Red Hook Port (“RHP”) in Brooklyn, which is a mere 3-mile drive to the WTC and by far the closest and most conveniently accessible to the WTC of the four NY/NJ area ports.[60] However, RHP is also the smallest (less than 4% of total NY/NJ port volume) and most logistically inferior of all the ports with no rail or air service and poor highway access. A December 1996 New York Times article noted that RHP excels in “specialized cargoes” and products that can be uploaded quickly and delivered to the immediate New York City area at night.[61] Although Zim received New York City tax credits in conjunction with the move to RHP, no other large international shippers like Zim appear to have chosen the small and inefficient RHP as their primary NY/NJ port. Zim is not at RHP now, and they may have moved out as early as November 2002.[62]

There are also several other potential Israeli connections to the Red Hook Port. At least one, and as many as four of the Celebrating Israelis, lived about one and a half miles from RHP.[62] In addition, another large Israeli related moving company (Moishes Moving) had an office/warehouse within a couple miles of RHP and two rental trucks found at UMS shortly after 9/11, were from a rental company located about two miles from RHP.[63] Zim first entered into its RHP contract in November 1996, and there is a confluence of alleged pilot hijackers and Israeli-connected events around that time which suggests the possible initiation of the 9/11 deep cover operation:

  • March 1996 — Zim Shipping extends its lease at the WTC to February 28, 2006, locking itself into a long 10-year lease obligation with no apparent concern for high leasing costs (see above).
  • April 1996 — Alleged pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah arrives in Greifswald, Germany, and Marwan Shehhi moves to Hamburg (Jarrah moves to Hamburg around September 1997).[64]
  • April 1996 — Alleged pilot hijacker Hani Hanjour moves to the US for seven months. Hanjour will have several stays in US and allegedly come back for the last time in Dec. 2000.[65]
  • November 1996 — Zim Shipping transfers its NY/NJ port operations from the area’s most modern and busiest port of Port Elizabeth to the much smaller and logistically inferior Red Hook Port.[66]
  • April 1997 — The likely Israeli intelligence front company Urban Moving Systems is incorporated.[67]

A second confluence of events between the hijackers and various Israeli groups takes place in late 1999/early 2000, perhaps indicating a subsequent phase of the deep cover operation:

  • December 1999/January 2000 — Hamburg pilot hijackers Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi allegedly attend OBL’s training camp in Afghanistan and allegedly are quickly chosen by OBL for the 9/11 operation (though the hijackers Afghanistan travel is not substantiated by the redacted FBI Hijacker Timeline).[68] [69]
  • November 1999 — Zim renews its Red Hook Port contract with the City of New York, probably for the same three-year period as in the original contract.[70]
  • December 1999 — Zim claims that they started looking for a new office location; although there is no other evidence to support this claim.[71]
  • Around October 1999 — Urban Moving Systems moves from a personal residence into its Weehawken office.[72]
  • Beginning of 2000 — Israeli Art Student activity begins in the US.[73]
  • Beginning 2000 — Hijackers Khalid Mihdhar and Nawaf Hazmi enter the US and move to San Diego.[74]
  • At least two of the CIs apprehended on 9/11 were under investigation in relation to other US counterintelligence investigations including one in San Diego.[75]

Other Important Geographic Nexus’ Between Pilot Hijackers and Zim

It has been well documented that certain Israeli groups had very close geographic and timeline connections to the three Southeast Florida 9/11 hijacker cells and the one in Paterson, New Jersey. The largest concentration of Israeli Art Students just happened to be located in Southeast Florida where the largest concentration of 9/11 hijacker cells were located.[76] The Paterson hijacker cell was in very close proximity to the CIs, UMS, and at least three other Israeli-related moving companies in that immediate area.[77] Zim’s WTC location was 25 miles from the Paterson cell’s apartment and Zim also has an office in Miami about 25 miles south of the hijackers’ main area of Hollywood, Florida. Coincidently, the pilot hijackers spent time in 8 of the 11 US cities where Zim had offices on 9/11, also including Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia, Jacksonville, Florida, Chicago, and Los Angles.[78] There is no obvious explanation for Jarrah’s two trips to Jacksonville and Atta and Shehhi’s stay in Brunswick, Georgia just happened to be approximately 75 miles between Savannah and Jacksonville.

Another critical area of activity for the alleged 9/11 hijackers was Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg was home to three of the pilot hijackers who had been living there since at least 1996 and where the 9/11 plans allegedly started to take form around early 2000.[79] Coincidently, one of Zim’s four worldwide offices is in Hamburg, giving them a significant presence in two of the three areas most crucial to the alleged hijackers and the 9/11 operation (New York and Hamburg).[80] In addition, 8 of 17 (44 percent) Israeli Art Students with known embarkation cities came to the US from Frankfurt, Germany in late March 2001.[81] Also, CI Yaron Shmuel just happened to hold a German passport.[82] Unfortunately, it is not known if, when, and where, Yaron Shmuel lived in Germany and if he had any potential connections to the Hamburg cell. In its investigation of the CIs, the FBI did not check with German intelligence to determine if Shmuel lived in Germany and if he may have had any association with the alleged Hamburg cell.[83]

Zim also had another of its four German offices in the river port city of Dusseldorf, a city which pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah visited at least six times from October 2000 to August 2001.[84] The story is that Jarrah had a German-born girlfriend of Turkish descent in the Dusseldorf area (Bochum), and that is why, in the midst of the allegedly most sophisticated terrorist operation of all time (that would lead to his death); he visited her regularly in the year before 9/11. Jarrah’s Dusseldorf girlfriend may have been a cover story similar to that of Israeli operative Johann Lotz, who married a German woman (while still being married to an Israeli woman) in order to establish his deep cover identity/legend while part of an Israeli intelligence operation.[85]

Between three of his trips to Dusseldorf Jarrah also visited Lebanon, a country bordering Israel and the home of his family, including his two cousins who were spies for Israel at the time. Jarrah’s travels during this time period also included stopovers in cities where Zim had other offices, including Hamburg, Munich, Athens, Newark/New York, Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Miami. Lastly, Jarrah inexplicably visited the city of Thessaloniki, Greece (May 16 to 22, 2000), a month before coming to the US, another city where Zim has an office.[86] Dusseldorf and other cities may have been “debriefing” locations for Jarrah. Ziad’s Israeli spy cousin, Ali Jarrah, was debriefed by his Israeli handlers in Belgium, Italy and Israel, and also obtained travel documents to Israel from Greece, Turkey, and Jordan.[87] Zim has offices in Belgium, Italy, and Greece, and Ziad Jarrah travelled to Greece and Jordan, and had a stop-over in Istanbul on Dec. 26, 2000 before continuing on to Lebanon the next day (per FBI Hijacker Timeline).

A final confluence of hijacker and Israeli group activities kicks off at the end of 2000 and continues through to the 9/11 attacks:

  • November/December 2000 — The number of Israeli Art Student incidents increase at this time and continue through at least June 2001.[88]
  • December 2000 — Hamburg pilot hijackers Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi spend their supposed first time in the Southeast Florida area which is the area of the largest concentration of Israeli Art Students.[89]
  • December 2000 — Pilot Hijacker Hani Hanjour re-enters the US for the last time.[90]
  • March 2001 — Zim enters into a fast track development contract to guarantee completion of its Norfolk office building by Sept. 4, 2001 (see above). Zim probably started its due diligence and negotiations of the development project a couple of months before.
  • March 2001 — At least eight Israeli Art Students enter the US in Dallas from Frankfurt, Germany (see Endnote 81).
  • April to June 2001 — The thirteen “muscle hijackers” (aka patsies) enter the US, primarily from Jeddah Saudi Arabia, a renowned CIA consulate/outpost.[91] [92]
  • April 2001- Alleged hijacker cells headed by Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi begin to be set up in the Southeast Florida area.[93]
  • May 2001 — An alleged hijacker cell headed by pilot hijacker Hanjour is set up in Paterson, New Jersey.[94] Alleged hijackers Khalid Mihdhar and Nawaf Hazmi are also members of this cell.
  • May to July 2001 — Four of the five CIs start working at UMS and appear to enter US around this time.[95] At least one, and possibly two CIs, had round trip air tickets coming from Israel to Newark on June 15, 2001 and returning Sept. 12, 2001, suggesting at least three months foreknowledge of the specific attack date. The other four CIs also had air tickets leaving the US immediately after Sept. 11th, suggesting not just foreknowledge, but probable involvement in the 9/11 operation.[96]
  • May to 9/11 (approximately) — Employment at Urban Moving Systems increases.[97]
  • July 2001 — Saudi hijacker Khalid Mihdhar re-enters the US for the last time.[98]
  • July/August 2001 — UMS inexplicably rents a second warehouse in Bayonne, New Jersey, next to Port Jersey, which is several miles south of the WTC and the second closest NY/NJ port to it.[99]
  • July 2001 — Alleged Zionist and Israeli-connected Larry Silverstein closes on the acquisition of WTC Towers 1 and 2.[100]

Zim America’s president, Shaul Cohen-Mintz, was quoted in the Journal of Commerce on October 18, 2001: “Naturally, no one is debating any more whether we had to move or not… Some people said it [the move] was like an angel sitting on our shoulders.”[101] Unfortunately, Zim’s move had a lot less to do with an angel and divine intervention than with giving the devil his due, with the devil wearing the Star of David while waving the Zim Shipping flag. And the debate now is not whether Zim had to move — they knew they had to — but how much foreknowledge Zim had and how deeply they may have been involved in the 9/11 operation.

The evidence presented in this article shows that Zim most likely had six months or more foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack date and was probably more deeply involved in what was almost certainly a false flag operation. The evidence further suggests that at least two pilot hijackers (Atta and Jarrah), and possibly all four, were probably deep cover operatives, put in place as many as five years in advance to establish identities and backgrounds (legends) of Islamic extremists. The evidence in this article has also touched on the many anomalies and contradictions involving the official story around the 9/11 hijackers and the alleged plans of the 9/11 operation between the key parties of OBL, KSM, and the pilot hijackers. Indeed, an overwhelming amount of the US’s evidence on the 9/11 plans relies on testimony garnered from torture and that is probably why KSM, Ramzi Binahshibh, and others still await trial more than 10 years after being apprehended.

Given Israel’s known history and practice of utilizing Arabs in deep cover intelligence operations, coupled with the atrocious and poorly transparent US investigations of the 9/11 attacks, it’s naïve and even ignorant to disregard the likelihood that some or all of the 9/11 pilot hijackers were used in a deep cover covert capacity by Israel. Israeli undercover intelligence officials working for Zim, UMS, and other Israeli groups in the US on 9/11 could well have been handlers for the hijackers or protected them from arrest, or even assisted them in the operation as once suggested in the New York Times on Sept. 13, 2001. The evidence presented in this article clearly points in this direction.


References and Endnotes

[1] Wikipedia, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zim_Integrated_Shipping_Services

[2] Zim Integrated Shipping Services Website, www.zim.com/aboutus/pages/factsandfigures.aspx. Zim was in transition from its America’s headquarters at the WTC to its new office in Norfolk, VA.

[3] Miriam Shaviv, “Zim Workers Saved by Cost Cutting,” Jerusalem Post, September 13, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/jerusalempost091301.html

[4] Wikipedia, List of Tenants in One World Trade Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center See also Endnotes 3 and 16 which confirm that Zim occupied the entire 16th floor.

[5] “Hunter Retained for Staten Island Office Project (for Zim American Israeli Shipping Co.),” Real Estate Weekly, November 14, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80776351.html

[6] Dennis O’Brien, “Shipping Firm Moves Headquarters to Norfolk, VA,” The Virginian Pilot, Sept. 4, 2001 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77831553.html . Although there were several articles that had Zim moving into their Norfolk office between one to two weeks before 9/11, this article and most of the others stated Zim moved in a week before 9/11.

[7] Christopher Dinsmore, “Firms Move to Norfolk Will Create 235 New Jobs, Shipping Company to Relocate Headquarters to Hampton Roads from New York City,” The Virginia Pilot, April 3, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72716654.html In addition to stating that Zim expected to open its new building by Sept. 4, it also states that a Zim official said the company started looking to move its headquarters in December 1999. However, there is no evidence of Zim looking for another office location prior to its decision to move to Norfolk.

[8] Zim appears to have entered into a contract with Hunter Management in March 2001 for the development of its new office building in Norfolk, VA (see Endnote 11) and was most likely there before that time conducting due diligence. Per the FBI Hijacker Timeline (http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02), pilot hijackers Mohammad Atta and Marwan Shehhi were in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area from Feb 19 to Feb 20, 2001 and from April 1 to April 4, 2001, for no apparent reason. Inexplicably, Atta opened a PO Box in Virginia Beach in February and closed it in April. (Norfolk is also headquarters for Naval Intelligence, whose office is approximately 4 miles from Zim’s new location.)

[9] Peter Tirschwell, “Zim Opens New Headquarters,” The Journal of Commerce, October 18, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html.

[10] Lore Croghan, “Real Estate Watch: Shipper Sights Land on Staten Island, Zim Building office for Displaced Staff, Engineering Firm Stays Downtown (Moves to Staten Island, Escaped the Islamic Terrorist Attack on WTC,” Crains New York Business, November 19, 2001. Christopher Dinsmore, “Shipper Left World Trade Center for New York Just Before Attacks,” Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News/The Virginian Pilot, October 26, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79490582.html The above two articles show that Zim had 35 sales and marketing people and computer personnel remaining at the WTC on 9/11. Zim claimed to have only 10 (uninjured) people at the WTC on 9/11, approximately 25% or less of its remaining staff — perhaps the expendable gentile staff that was not being transferred to Norfolk.

[11] “Hunter is Representative for Zim Relocation,” Real Estate Weekly, April 25, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-74887463.html It appears that the construction period for Zim’s office building was an incredibly short 4 months. Per Real Estate Weekly, “Hunter Management Corp. has been named Owner’s Representative in charge of the relocation of Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. from its headquarters in New York’s World Trade Center to a 45,000 SF office building soon to be under construction in the Lake Wright Office Complex in Norfolk, VA.”

[12] “Fast tracking” a real estate development means to compress standard design and construction procedures and timelines in order to meet the owner’s schedule to use the structure. In a project of this type, time is of the essence, and project processes that would normally run in sequence must be run in parallel. Following is a good summary of what fast tracking a project requires and then Wikipedia’s basic definition. Fast Track Design Description: www.structuresdb.com/about/fasttrack.asp Wikipedia Fast Track Construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-track_construction

[13] This author was a commercial real estate lender in a prior life and I could say through experience that the typical development/construction period for a 50,000 square foot office building would be 12 to 18 months depending on the status of the land and permitting approvals. The construction loan period would coincide with this development period. “Fast track” construction/development is used when someone needs a building to be completed quickly; however, there are more construction and design risks when this methodology is used. Following is an example of a construction timeline for a 3-story 75,000 square foot building which is approximately twelve months. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/commercial-construction-TC102893583.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/commercial-construction-project-plan-TC001018445.aspx

[14] “Hunter is Representative for Zim Relocation,” Real Estate Weekly, April 25, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-74887463.html

[15] Phil Jayhan, “World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA 1972-2001,” Letsrollforums.com, January 14, 2011, www.letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html Phil Jayhan and the Letsrollforums.com website appear to have misunderstood the tenant roster. They believe the tenant list goes all the way back to 1972; however, it appears to be the tenant roster as of the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse date of the towers.

[16] WTC Tenant Roster with Tenant Dates (apparently as of Sept. 11, 2001) www.editgrid.com/labc/common/FOIA_Request_Occupancy_WTC_1972-2001

[17] Alice Lipowicz, “Zim American Ships Itself Out of NY, New Headquarters in VA will Cut Costs, Move Means Layoffs,” Crain’s New York Business, April 9, 2001.

[18] Zim’s remaining WTC lease obligation is calculated at 60,000 square feet of office space, multiplied by $30 per square foot per year rental rate, multiplied by fifty-four remaining lease months, or $8.1 million (i.e., $30/12 X 54 X 60,000 = $8,100,000).

[19] CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence, March 1979 www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm When the Iranian students captured the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, a multi-volume CIA and State Department file was found which included a March 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The Washington Post and Boston Globe ran articles relating to the documents in early 1982, with the reputable but now defunct CounterSpy Magazine publishing the entire report in May-June 1982. (The Washington Post ran another article in May, 1991.) The CIA report is very detailed and provides a summary of each of Israel’s intelligence agencies, including Mossad, Shin Beth, Military Intelligence, and The National Police. Per the document’s “Comments on Principal Sources,” most of the information in the publication has been derived from a variety of sources including covert assets of the CIA, publications of the Israeli Government, and reports prepared by the US Department of Defense. It also lists 19 “Supplementary Overt Publication” sources. The link above is to a page on the Serendipity website which has the full CIA analysis along with an Introduction and Afterword from CounterSpy Magazine. The CounterSpy Afterword includes a discussion on the document’s authenticity, including an excerpt from former Mossad chief Isser Harel, who in a Ma’ariv interview called the assertions of the documents “malicious, dilettantish, distortions……but probably authentic,” and that the publication of the document had been a nightmare for him.

[20] Following are three other sources confirming the authenticity of the 1979 CIA Analysis of Israeli Intelligence: “Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den,” Federation of American Scientist, Issue 70, September 1997. www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec70.html “Iran Hostage Crisis,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis The “Hostage-Holding Motivations” section discusses the CIA’s Assessment of Israeli Intelligence. David Ignatius, “Bungles, Bobbles and Spies; The Tehran Papers: Portrait of CIA in a Maze of its Own Design,” Washington Post, May 5, 1991. www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/The_Tehran_Papers.pdf

[21] See Endnote 19, CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The CIA’s comments on Zim Shipping can be found in Section A2 and Section B4. www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm

[22] See Endnote 19. This quote is from the introduction of the Counterspy Magazine article exposing the CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence.

[23] Wikipedia, Lavon Affair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

[24] One “deep cover” example was, Johann Wolfgang Lotz (aka Zeev Gur Arich), an officer in the Israeli Military who went undercover in 1959 as a former Nazi officer to infiltrate special weapons activity by German scientists in Egypt. After receiving training in Israel he went to Germany, married a German woman (while still being married to an Israeli), and surfaced as an East German refugee and former African Corps officer. Lotz then moved to Cairo (1960/61) and opened a riding academy where he made the acquaintance of a number of prominent and well-placed Egyptians. Lotz also made a number of trips to Western Europe for debriefing and was eventually caught and imprisoned in 1965 and sent back to Israel in 1968 in a prisoner trade. Another “deep cover” example was Eli Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew who was involved in Israeli sabotage operations against American and British installations in Egypt in 1952. Mossad recruited Cohen for an illegal operation designed to develop intelligence networks and acquire political and military information in Syria. Cohen adopted the identity of the late Kamil Amin Thabet, a Syrian-born merchant, and emigrated to Argentina in 1961 where he became an active member of the Arab community. Cohen eventually returned to Syria in 1962 where he was assisted by two Arabs who had previously been recruited by the Israelis. He made numerous contacts with Syrian political and military personnel. In 1965 Cohen was caught in Syria, convicted of spying and hanged.

[25] Mohammed Atta went to Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to attend school, and Ziad Jarrah and Marwan Shehhi both moved to Hamburg in April 1996. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (Section 5.3), it was in Hamburg that the three pilot hijackers allegedly became radicalized fundamentalists.

[26] Israel has a long and assorted history of false flag attacks against the US and other nations. The primary goal in most of Israel’s false flag terror attacks is to set the blame on Arab interests for the benefit of Israel. Although the level of evidence against Israel varies among the false flag attacks, there are indications of Israeli involvement in dozens of false flag attacks since around the time of its creation. Following is a link to an article by Chris Bollyn discussing Israel’s history of false flag terror, which gives several other examples of Israeli false flag terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks: Chris Bollyn, “America the Target: 9-11 and Israel’s History of False Flag Terrorism,” http://www.bollyn.com/america-the-target-9-11-and-the-history-of-false-flag-terrorism

[27] “2/14/2008: Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that was Ignored by 9/11 Commission,” Historycommons.org, February 14, 2008. http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423

[28] “September 5, 2001: Hijackers go on Gambling Cruise in Florida,” Historycommons.org http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=hijackers%2C+suncruz&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go Although it is believed that one of the hijackers on the Suncruz gambling boat was Mohammed Atta, the FBI took the ship’s video and did not disclose the suspects’ names. The FBI Hijacker Timeline does not show any hijackers being on a Suncruz boat on this date or even being in the Tampa area from where the boat departed.

[29] Context of ‘September 11-13, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Leave a Clear Trail of Evidence’, Historycommons.org, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101evidencetrail

[30] Prof. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage”, Global Research, May 9, 2008, republished at http://www.infowars.com/911-contradictions-mohamed-atta%e2%80%99s-mitsubishi-and-his-luggage/

[31] Context of ‘After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Hijacker’s Passport Allegedly Found near the World Trade Center’, Historycommons.org, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201passportfound#a091201passportfound

[32] The Able Danger Program, Historycommons.org http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

[33] Daniel Hopsicker, “Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus (Video Documentary),” August 15, 2002. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6W4L-HK-Os

[34] Dr. Ashraf Ezzat, “9/11 Hijacker Mohamed Atta & the Unreported Story,” Veteranstoday.com, Sept. 10, 2010. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/10/911-hijacker-mohamed-atta-the-unreported-story/

[35] Hopsicker, “Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus.” A number of people interviewed by Hopsicker state that Atta was fluent in English despite allegedly never having lived in an English-speaking country. Hopsicker provides evidence that Atta attended a US military school in Montgomery, Alabama, and additional evidence uncovered by a military operation Able Danger indicated that Atta and several other hijackers may have spent time in the US before the FBI has them coming to the US.

[36] Robert Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy,” New York Times, February 18, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=0 There was significant coverage of Ali and Yusef’s Israeli spy case in the Israeli and Lebanese press before the the Times article. Not only did Ali provide surveillance of Palestinian and Hezbollah targets for Israel, but he was also believed to be linked to the alleged Israeli assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh in February 2008. The following link provides several other articles regarding Ali Jarrah’s spying efforts: http://www.cedarsrevolution.net/jtphp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2371&Itemid=2

[37] Carol J. Williams, “Friends of Terror Suspect Say Allegations Make No Sense,” Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2001. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/23/news/mn-60481 Athough this article does not specifically state that Ziad and Ali Jarrah are cousins, other information in the article makes it apparent that they are, and that they’re from a close-knit family. Salim Jarrah is clearly Ziad’s cousin and is from the small Lebanon town of Marj/Maraj, the same town Ali and Yusef Jarrah are from. The article also suggests that Ziad’s father Samir Jarrah, and Salim’s father Nesim Jarrah, are the only two male siblings in Lebanon, indicating Nesim must be the father of Ali and Yusef. There’s no evidence to suggest that Ali and Yusef Jarrah are not the sons of Nesim Jarrah or brother of Salim Jarrah, and that Samir or Nesim have another brother in Marj. This article also points to many discrepancies of the character and events of Ziad Jarrah compared to the information provided by the US government.

[38] Paul Thompson, “The Two Ziad Jarrahs,” Historycommons.org, September 2002. http://historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah This article was written approximately one year after 9/11 and also points to the many discrepancies and contradictions around Ziad Zarrah timeline events and character. The article shows several instances where there was evidence of a similar looking Ziad Jarrah in two places at the same time. Thus, there was obviously an imposter Ziad Jarrah who appears to have been established as part of the 9/11 deep cover operation.

[39] The 9/11 Commission Report, Section 5.3, page 163 and Endnotes 77 to 79. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf All the radicalization information regarding Jarrah in the 9/11 Commission Report comes from a secret German Intelligence report dated July 2002. It appears that Jarrah’s radicalization information comes from various witnesses with the only noted source being Jarrah’s girlfriend, Aisel Senguen.

[40] The 9/11 Commission Report, “The Hamburg Contingent,” Section 5.3, page 166. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[41] Per the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad allegedly gets the green light from OBL to go ahead with the 9/11 operation in late 1998/early 1999 and planning for the operation began in earnest (Section 5.3, page 149-150). The sole evidence for this fact is the interrogation of KSM who is a known braggart and was allegedly waterboarded 183 times.

[42] FBI Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[43] Mid-August 2001: 9/11 Hijacker Hanjour Rents Plane in Maryland; He is Still Not Skilled Enough to Fly Solo, Historycommons.org This timeline entry has references to several mainstream media sources. http://historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=hani+hanjour%2C+mid+august+2001%2C+fly+solo&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[44] Per the FBI Hijacker Timeline, the alleged 9/11 hijackers booked their 9/11 flights between August 25 and 30, 2001. http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[45] Anyone who has done any research on the WTC collapses knows that the facts and evidence for controlled demolition of all three WTC towers that collapsed in typical controlled demolition style on 9/11 is significantly stronger than the evidence (for collapse due to the plane impacts) provided by the government’s investigation (the NIST Investigation). Although controlled demolition is also the author’s opinion, the evidence for this is beyond the scope of this article.

[46] Sara Liebovich-Dar, “Up In Smoke,” Haaretz (Israel), November 21, 2001. http://www.iamthewitness.com/haaretzdaily-Up-in-smoke.html Larry Silverstein was the owner of all three WTC towers that collapsed in typical controlled demolition style on 9/11. Silverstein completed his purchase of WTC Towers 1 and 2 on July 24, 2001. He is close friends with several Israeli prime ministers and once offered ex-PM Ehud Barak a job as his representative in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu would actually call Silverstein every Sunday afternoon. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance, with their ties continuing after Netanyahu became prime minister. Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one degree or another with Silverstein, who for 10 years tried to establish a “free-trade” zone in Negev, Israel, until the project fell apart in mid-2000. According to one Israeli official, “Silverstein presented a Zionist aspect” (to the development). Silverstein has various other ties to Israel as well, including being a fundraiser for and donor to Tel Aviv University and the Tel Aviv Development Foundation.

[47] Keith Maart, “The Five Celebrating Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information,” December 28, 2013, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/ The subject is an in-depth investigative report on the Celebrating/Dancing Israelis and other Israeli groups. The report is extremely well referenced with 138 references/endnotes and over 170 direct references to an FBI investigation that are included in the body of the report (Note: references to the FBI investigation documents are noted by FBIR, followed by the section and page number (e.g., FBIR_S1PP5-8). Thus, the subject investigative report will be used as a reference for this article.

[48] Ibid., Section B3 – Incriminating Evidence Found in the CI’s Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[49] Ibid., Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[50] Ibid., Section B7 – Other Israeli Moving Companies in NY/NJ Area — Operational Responsibilities in 9/11 Attacks? http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b7

[51] Ibid., Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[52] Ibid., Section B9, FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students – Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9

[53] Marc Perelman, “Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth: Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage,” The Forward, March 15, 2002. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israelis_9-11.htmlThe Forward of New York is a reputable newspaper and the oldest Jewish-American newspaper in the United States.

[54] David Johnston and James Risen, “After the Attacks: The Investigation; Bin Laden Tie Cited.” New York Times, September 13, 2001. www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html The Times specifically stated: “Separately, officials said a group of about five men [the CIs] were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers.”

[55] UK Channel 4 ran an 8-minute segment on the Celebrating Israelis around 2010. In an interview with an ex-Mossad agent, he states that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company. The ex-Mossad agent’s interview starts around the 5:54 minute mark and the video was obtained on YouTube at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeD9XPn_lg4

[56] John Miller, Chris Isham, Glenn Silber, and Chris Viasto, “Were Israelis Detained on Sept 11 Spies?”, ABC News 20/20, June 21, 2002. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=123885&page=1

[57] Justin Raimondo, “I HAVE IN MY HANDS A LIST; New documentary evidence points to an Israeli connection to 9/11,” Antiwar.com, July 26, 2001. www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j072602.html

[58] The May 22, 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List Report can be found at Antiwar.com, which the FBI put under investigation for publishing the list online. Although the FBI investigated Antiwar.com in connection with its publishing the watch list, the FBI did not state why Dominik Suter and his wife appeared on the list. The FBI’s Post-9/11 Watch List can be found at the Antiwar.com website: www.antiwar.com/justin/CI-08-02.pdf.

[59] Keith Maart, Ibid, Conclusion, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/conclusion.htm

[60] Douglas Feiders, “Shipping Line Relocating Service from New Jersey to New York,” New York Daily News, November 27, 1996. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18910281.html The article states that Zim announced it would shift much of its business to Brooklyn from New Jersey, and that “Zim is transferring its North and South American freight traffic to the Red Hook Marine Terminal from Port Elizabeth.” Zim’s shipping partner, Pan American Lines, is at Red Hook Port at this time.

[61] David Rhode, “Shipping Deal Promises Jobs,” The New York Times, December 8, 1996. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/nyregion/shipping-deal-promises-jobs.html The article further notes that Zim and Pan American Shipping are consolidating their operations and that Zim plans to move 10,000 additional containers (per year) through the Red Hook terminal. The article also notes that New Jersey has 93% of the total NY/NJ port volume and that Red Hook Port operated at a $6.3 million loss in 1995 despite improved performance. The following April 2012 New York Times article notes that RHP handled 110,000 containers in 2011 compared with 3 million for the region’s other ports. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/deal-preserves-red-hook-ports-customs-inspections/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[62] Zim received up to $1.1 million in New York City tax credits over the 3-year contract term, contingent on the volume of containers Zim brings to RHP (see previous two Endnotes/articles). Zim and Pan American are not at RHP now as shown by the following East/Gulf Coast Overview garnered from the Port Authority Website: http://www.maersk-nam-marketing.com/advisories/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/East-Gulf-Ports-Overview-12_20_12.pdf. Zim’s original contract at RHP was from Nov. 1996 to 1999 and was renewed in 1999 (see Endnote 70). The renewal was probably for another 3-year period, and there is no evidence that Zim renewed beyond the likely Nov. 2002 contract expiration date.

[63] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B8, “Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of CIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b8 See “The Potential Brooklyn Connection” in the above Section B8 for further detail of the geographic connections between RHP, CIs, Moishes Moving, and the Red Hook area rental trucks at UMS after 9/11.

[64] FBI Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[65] Ibid.

[66] Feiders, “Shipping Line Relocating Services from New Jersey to New York.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18910281.html

[67] New Jersey Department of Revenue, Business Entity Status Report Search for Urban Moving Systems, Inc., www.njportal.com/DOR/businessrecords/EntityDocs/BusinessStatCopies.aspx

[68] The 9/11 Commission Report (Section 5.3, page 166) states that Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi attended Osama Bin Laden’s Afghanistan training camp in Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000 where they met OBL for the first time. According to the report, “In retrospect, the speed with which Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah and Binalshibh became core members of the 9/11 plot — with Atta designated as its operational leader — is remarkable… Bin Laden and Atef wasted no time in assigning the Hamburg group to the most ambitious operation yet planned by al-Qaeda.” None of the above hijackers’ travels to Afghanistan, or to other countries allegedly traveled to in order to get to Afghanistan, are supported by the FBI Hijacker Timeline. Although there are heavy FBI redactions during this time period, there should be no logical reason for the FBI to redact it since it supports their statements.

[69] The 9/11 Commission Report’s evidence on Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi’s travel to Afghanistan appears to be based solely from the interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh (see Section 5, Endnote 91). Binalshibh has exhibited significant mental disorders since his capture in 2002, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and his testimony should be questionable. The following two articles discusses some of Binalshibh mental disorders with the second article stating that two CIA officials said Binalshibh mental problems started almost immediately after his capture in 2002 and worsened over time. Adam Goldman, “Judge Orders Sanity Hearing for Accused Sept. 11 Plotter,” The Washington Post, December 19, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-orders-sanity-hearing-for-accused-sept-11-plotter/2013/12/19/001e7428-68c0-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html “911 Interrogation Tapes Found Under Desk,” MSNBC.com and NBC News, August 17, 2010. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38735351/ns/us_news-security/t/interrogation-tapes-found-under-desk/#.Uvk6T7CYaM9

[70] “Government Alert: Spitzer takes the early fund raising offensive, AG girding himself for a heavy weight campaign class with someone like Rudy,” Crain’s New York Business, April 23, 2001. The full article can be found at the following link, Endnote 4: http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html Zim’s original contract at Red Hook Port was for the 3 years from November 1996 to November 1999 (see Endnote 60), and this article states that the contract was renewed. Although the renewal period is not stated in the article, it was probably for another 3 years. There is no evidence that the contract was extended beyond its first renewal period of November 2002.

[71] Christopher Dinsmore, “Firms Move to Norfolk Will Create 235 New Jobs, Shipping Company to Relocate Headquarters to Hampton Roads from New York City,” The Virginia Pilot, April 3, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72716654.html

[72] Urban Moving Systems original address is 312 Pavonia Ave, Jersey City, NJ, which was owner Dominik Suter’s personal residence at the time. A UMS employee is cited for a traffic violation in October 1999, which is the first time the Weehawken, NJ, UMS address is known to have been used.

[73] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information is also per the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to Israeli Art Students.

[74] Per the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI Hijacker Timeline, hijackers Mihdhar and Hazmi enter the USA in Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000.

[75] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B6, “The CIs’ Associations with Israeli Intelligence and Other US Intelligence Investigations”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b6

[76] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information is also per the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to Israeli Art Students.

[77] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B8, “Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of CIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b8

[78] Zim had eleven self-operated offices in the US on 9/11 (also a “representative” office in three cities including 9/11 critical Boston, and it appears Zim opened a Tampa office, which had significant hijacker activity, after 9/11). The hijackers spent time in eight of these places (and as well as the locations below the hijackers also spent time in the New York, Miami and Norfolk areas). Following is a summary of Zim’s US offices and the hijacker activity in each. (The hijackers’ places and dates are from the FBI’s Hijacker Timeline, and the Zim USA office locations are from their website — see Endnote 2.)
Zim Atlanta Office:

  • 06/27/00: Ziad Jarrah flies from Frankfurt, Germany, to Atlanta (allegedly entering the US for first time). It appears he then goes on to the Venice, FL, area sometime after this date.
  • 10/07/00: Jarrah flies from Atlanta to Frankfurt and continues on to Dusseldorf, Germany. Jarrah’s reason for flying in and out of Atlanta is unknown, as he appears to spend most of the time after his arrival on 6/27/00 in the Venice, FL, and Southeast Florida areas.
  • 01/25/01 to 02/18/01: Atta and Shehhi stay in the Atlanta area in Norcross, Lawrenceville, Decatur and Stone Mountain, GA. They appear to take flying lessons in the area and then drive to Norfolk/Virginia Beach area on Feb 19, 2001 where Zim has an office.
  • 03/15/01 to 03/31/01: Jarrah stays at a hotel in Decatur, GA, until around the end of March, 2001.
  • 04/13/01: Jarrah flies from Dusseldorf to Atlanta. Not clear how long he stays in Atlanta and why. Zim Savanah Office (Savanah is approximately 250 miles southeast of Atlanta):
  • 11/03/00: Atta and Shehhi purchase jet fuel at airport in Brunswick, GA, approx. 75 miles south of Savannah. Zim Jacksonville Office:
  • 11/03/00: Atta and Shehhi purchase jet fuel at airport in Brunswick, GA, approx. 75 miles north of Jacksonville.
  • 01/26/01: Jarrah takes a flight from Jacksonville to Newark. Not known how long Jarrah was in Jacksonville before the flight or why he was in Jacksonville in the first place.
  • 02/25/01: Jarrah flies from Dusseldorf to Jacksonville on 2/25/01 and stays at a Ramada Inn (no city provided until 03/04/01, but appears to have been Jacksonville area). It is not known why Atta flies to and stays in Jacksonville.

Chicago Office:

  • 07/02/00: Shehhi flies from Chicago to Oklahoma City. It is not known how long Shehhi was in Chicago and why. Sheehi’s last location from the FBI Hijacker Timeline is in Brooklyn on June 25, 2000. Los Angeles Office:
  • 01/15/00: Hijackers N. Hazmi and Mihdhar enter the US and stay in Los Angeles area for several days before moving to the San Diego area.

[79] Although there is some question as to when the Hamburg cell got involved in the 9/11 plans, the 9/11 Commission Report alleges that four core members of the Hamburg cell (including pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Marwan Shehhi and Hani Hanjour) attended the al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in November/December 1999 and were chosen for the operation at that time by Osama bin Laden. They then went back to Hamburg in January 2000 and started preparing for the operation (9/11 Commission Report, Section 5.3 — The Hamburg Contingent). Atta had been living in Hamburg since around 1992 and both Jarrah and Shehhi allegedly moved to Hamburg in April 1996.

[80] Zim Integrated Shipping Services Website, www.zim.com/aboutus/pages/factsandfigures.aspx

[81] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information came from the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to the Israeli Art Students. Per the DEA Memo (Sections 45, 51, and 129), at least 8 Israelis entered Dallas from Frankfurt, Germany in late March 2001. Frankfurt appears to be a connector city for Lufthansa Airlines flights from Hamburg to Dallas.

[82] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B3, “Incriminating Evidence Found in the CIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ziad Jarrah travelled regularly to Europe in the 16 months before 9/11. Following is his international flight schedule from May 2000 to August 2001 per the FBI Hijacker Timeline:
05/16/00: Lebanon to Athens to Thessaloniki, Greece
05/22/00: Thessaloniki to Athens
05/23/00: Athens to Lebanon
06/27/00: Munich to Atlanta (Unknown how and when Jarrah got to Munich; possibly visited Dusseldorf.)
10/07/00: Atlanta to Frankfurt, Germany
10/14/00: Dusseldorf, Germany, to Paris, France
10/16/00: Paris to Dusseldorf
10/29/00: Dusseldorf to Hamburg to Tampa
12/26/00: Miami to Munich to Istanbul
12/27/00: Istanbul to Lebanon
01/04/01: Beirut to Athens to Dusseldorf
01/05/01: Dusseldorf to Newark
01/26/01: San Francisco to Newark to Dusseldorf
02/02/01: Jarrah visits family in Lebanon around this time
02/18/01: Jordan to London to Dusseldorf
02/25/01: Dusseldorf to Newark to Jacksonville
03/30/01: Atlanta to Amsterdam to Dusseldorf
04/13/01: Dusseldorf to Amsterdam to Atlanta
07/25/01: Miami to Newark to Dusseldorf
08/05/01: Dusseldorf to Newark to Miami

[85] See Endnote 23.

[86] “History of the Jews of Thessaloniki,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_of_Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki once had the largest Jewish population in Greece (93,000) and currently has the second largest behind Athens.

[87] Robert Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy”, New York Times, February 18, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=0 This article notes that Ali Jarrah was debriefed by his Israeli handlers in Belgium, Italy, and Israel.

See also: “Lebanese Report: Mossad Spy Visited Israel”, Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2008. www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Lebanese-report-Mossad-spy-visited-Israel This article references a Lebanase al-Akhbar newspaper article that states Ali Jarrah would fly to another country such as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Greece, where he would rendezvous with a Mossad agent and receive an Israeli ID card with which to travel to Israel.

[88] Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, “Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities,” June 2001, Page 1. Note: The DEA Memo can be found in Exhibit A of following link: www.antiwar.com/rep2/MemorandumtotheCommissionandSelectCommitteesbold.pdf

[89] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[90] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[91] April 23-June 29, 2001: 9/11 ‘Muscle’ Hijackers Arrive in US at This Time or Earlier,’ Historycommons.org. http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=muscle+hijackers%2C+arrive+in+US&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[92] 9-11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA – US Consulate Whistleblower Michael Springmann http://www.minds.com/blog/view/75437/9-11-hijackers-passports-were-issued-by-the-cia-us-consulate-whistleblower-michael-springmann

[93] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[94] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[95] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[96] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B3, “Incriminating Evidence Found in the CIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[97] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[98] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[99] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[100] July 24, 2001 Port Authority Press Release: www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=81

[101] Peter Tirschwell, “Zim Opens New Headquarters,” The Journal of Commerce, October 18, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html

February 28, 2014 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | 8 Comments

Art of drills: 10 NATO war games that almost started armed conflicts

RT | February 28, 2014

The world’s largest military alliance seems annoyed about Russia’s “lack of transparency” over military drills at a very “delicate time.” NATO, however, has its own long history of war games all over the globe.

Western politicians have leveled criticism at Russia for planned drills on its own territory, seemingly glossing over the many joint military exercises Western powers, namely the US and NATO forces, have conducted on foreign soil over the years.

South Korea

This week, US and South Korean forces began their annual joint military drills, which will last until mid-April. The Foal Eagle exercise is conducted near Iksan and Damyan, South Korea.

The drills prompted a stern reaction from North Korea, which slammed the exercises as “a serious provocation” that could plunge the region into “a deadlock and unimaginable holocaust.”

Israel

The US joined Greece, Italy, and Israeli forces at Ovda air base in southern Israel for the ‘Blue Flag’ air-training drills in November 2013. The drills were called the “largest international aerial exercise in history,” by Israeli news outlet Haaretz.

According to Israel National News reports the exercises are geared towards “simulating realistic engagements in a variety of scenarios, based on Israel’s experience with air forces of Arab armies in previous engagements.”

Poland and Latvia

NATO’s ‘Steadfast Jazz’ training exercise was held in November 2013, in Latvia and Poland. The drills included air, land, naval, and special forces.

Over 6,000 military personnel from around 20 NATO countries and allies took part in the largest NATO-led drills of their kind since 2006.

Bulgaria

In October, NATO also held anti-aircraft drills in Bulgaria, along with the Greek and Norwegian air forces. The exercises were held to test responses in conditions of radio interference, according to the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense.

Persian Gulf

In May 2013, the US joined 40 other countries in the Persian Gulf for maritime war games. The US Navy said the mass exercises are aimed at “enhancing capability to preserve freedom of navigation in international waterways.”

The drills provoked a sharp response from the Iranian government who voiced concerns at how the maneuvers came in the run-up to the Iranian elections.

Japan

In August 2012, US Marines joined Japanese troops for military drills in the western Pacific. The drills were held in part in Guam, a US holding, just as an old territory dispute reemerged between Japan and China over islands in the East China Sea.

“China will not ignore hostile gestures from other nations and give up on its core interests or change its course of development,” the Chinese Communist Party stated in response to the drills, warning the US and Japan not to “underestimate China’s resolve to defend its sovereignty.”

Jordan

The US joined 16 other nations in May 2012 for military exercises in Jordan near the Syria border. The ‘Eager Lion’ drills included 12,000 soldiers from the participating countries, Turkey, France, and Saudi Arabia among them.

Denying accusations that the violence in Syria had nothing to do with the drills, the US claimed it was “designed to strengthen military-to-military relationships through a joint, entire-government, multinational approach, integrating all instruments of national power to meet current and future complex national security challenges.

Vietnam

In August 2010, the US Navy joined Vietnamese forces for drills in the South China Sea, to the dismay of China. Sovereignty claims in the South China Sea have long been a subject of debate and animosity among Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, and Malaysia, though China’s territorial declarations have been the most aggressive.

Ukraine

Ukraine welcomed a fleet of NATO warships for a two-week period of military drills in July 2010. Operation ‘Sea Breeze-2010’ focused on joint anti-terror exercises, despite Kiev’s decision not to enter the NATO alliance. Some 3,000 international military personnel were said to be a part of the drills.

Ukraine began hosting the Sea Breeze exercises in 1997, as part of its commitment to join the alliance. In 2009, the Ukrainian parliament voted against the drills, curtailing then-President Viktor Yuschenko’s efforts to seek NATO membership.

Georgia

In May 2009, 15 NATO countries held a series of controversial military exercises in Georgia less than a year after it launched an offense against its breakaway region of South Ossetia. Russia called the maneuvers “dubious provocation” saying it may encourage the country’s regime to carry out new attacks.

February 28, 2014 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah: ‘Stop the War on Syria’

February 28, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video | Leave a comment

The false conventional wisdom about the Iran nuclear talks

By Cyrus Safdari | Iran Affairs | February 27, 2014

I’m seeing a false narrative being constructed by the media around the Iran nuclear talks which, as usual, will become repeated so often that it becomes ‘true’ by virtue of repetition, as is the case usually with most of the conventional wisdom about Iran.

According to this false narrative, Iran was engaged in nuclear “weapons-related” research which was stopped in 2003, mostly, and this was the cause of the confusion all along and the reason why the US thought Iran was making nukes and not negotiating with Iran.

And now Iran has to ‘come clean’ about this past research which misled the US into thinking that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, causing the US to impose sanctions on Iran, which then led to Iran ‘giving in’ to the sanctions and accepting talks whose ‘goal’ is to reduce or eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

This is of course a PR spin that was invented by someone. It has the benefit of providing a nice little story line in which everyone comes out not a bad guy, and we can all just put it down to a case of miscommunication — like some sort of TV sitcom episode.

But that’s not what happened at all.

The only question is why they’re pushing this spin in the media. An optimist would say that the US side is pushing this narrative in order to portray its eventual agreement with Iran as some sort of victory, and the Iranian side may allow this face-saving move by the US if only to remove sanctions. BUT, i’m not an optimist. I think that just as the entire nuclear issue was always a red herring and distraction, just as ‘WMDs in Iraq’ was always just a pretext for an entirely different policy, I think that the presumption should be that the talks too are just pretextual and a tactic.

But we’ll see.

Anyway, everything in that narrative that the media is trying to cook and feed average Americans is complete baloney, and I could type out a book to debunk it. So just for example about the claim that Iran was involved in ‘nuke-related’ research: When the 2003 NIE came out saying that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the IAEA, whilst welcoming that conclusion, also pointed out that they had no evidence of a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003 either and NOTHING has changed since then, except that the IAEA head Elbaradei was replaced by US puppet Amano, who had sworn loyalty to the US and then started trying to give credence to the “Alleged studies” claims by renaming them ‘possible military dimensions’ and then issuing the ‘secret annex’ as part of the IAEA’s 2011 report that the previous IAEA head had dismissed as unverified claims. And to date NONE of the the claims have ever been verified, aside from anonymous claims of additional supporting information which no one has seen.

And that’s just one problem with this narrative. I could go on and on.

The point is, watch out for these false narratives and ‘conventional wisdom’ and don’t just ignore these claims in analysis pieces or reportage that proceed on such assumptions.

Aside from tha,t “nuclear related” research per se does not have to be reported by Iran to the IAEA anyway.

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UNRWA’s human rights curriculum suffocates Palestinian resistance

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | February 27, 2014

The curriculum taught to students in schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been criticised by Hamas through a statement issued by the Education Ministry, which declared the human rights textbooks provided by UNRWA to be detached from Palestinian reality.

The statement denounced the syllabus distribution prior to proper consultation with the ministry and deemed the dissemination of human rights enshrined within the curriculum an exercise in “brainwashing Palestinian students and convincing them to accept the Zionist enemies”.

Apart from providing narratives which have been assimilated into Western mainstream discourse about human rights, Palestinian historical memory was also obscured by providing an alternative history of the Nakba which absolves Israel of the atrocities committed to establish the settler-colonial state, as well as depicting peaceful resistance “as the only way of achieving freedom and independence”.

According to the Times of Israel, UNRWA spokesperson Chris Gunness insisted that “UNRWA’s education system takes, as its basis, the curriculum taught by the PA. We have done our utmost in developing these materials to be sensitive to local values while also being true to the values that underpin the work of the United Nations.”

However, the issue is of greater complexity than the obvious disagreement about the legitimacy of armed struggle endorsed by Hamas and the peaceful resistance which UN-affiliated entities continue to uphold as sustainable.

It is important to evaluate the alleged universal values of human rights, the probable complicity between UNRWA and the PA as entities affiliated to the imperialist narrative and the inherent selective application with regard to human rights within the imperialist concept of what constitutes humanity.

The “universal” declaration of human rights is a fabricated substitute for freedom providing a backdrop for the constant and premeditated violations. Within this framework there exists oppression and selective application of human rights, decided by the imperialist collective that is also responsible for restraining the legitimacy of the armed struggle in return for a set of competently quoted and intentionally compromised rules.

By relying upon vague terms such as universal qualities and the concept of human rights, the UN is ensuring the depletion of history and memory as a means of preventing nations from asserting their liberation, thus consolidating the subjugation upon which imperialism is dependent.

Extending the imperialist interpretation of human rights to Palestinians remains a conspiracy through which to sabotage armed resistance and the insistence upon the dismantling of the Zionist state, which Hamas has repeatedly insisted upon.

The manipulation of Palestinian history by UNRWA in agreement with the PA, which has repeatedly exhibited its allegiances with oppressive institutions and the settler-colonial state, is an exercise in erasing memories to increase agreement with the dominant narrative.

While resistance is a natural phenomenon against oppression, discourse pertaining to human rights is just a convenient intervention to stifle the reclamation of freedom, perfectly compatible with the alleged values imparted by the UN.

Implementing the compromised education curriculum would limit the possibility of an organised and legitimate armed struggle against the settler-colonial state, as well as indoctrinate Palestinian students against their rights to assert their own historical legitimacy

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli forces kill Palestinian man during Birzeit arrest raid

Ma’an – 27/02/2014

267709RAMALLAH – Israeli forces killed a Palestinian man on Thursday after opening fire on a property in Birzeit, locals said.

Muatazz Washaha, 24, was found dead inside the house following a stand-off between Israeli military forces which lasted several hours.

Witnesses said that the victim was hit in the head by a rifle-fired Energa shell.

Israeli forces were reportedly trying to arrest Muatazz for being an activist with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

During the dawn raid, Israeli forces stormed the house and detained his brother, Ramiz, and two other men. Earlier reports suggested Israeli forces were targeting another brother, Thaer.

Palestinian firefighters rushed to the scene after the house caught on fire as a result of Israeli artillery shelling.

Palestinian Authority Minister of Detainees, Issa Qaraqe, said Israeli troops raided Birzeit at around 3 a.m.

An Israeli army spokeswoman said that Israeli forces raided Birzeit to arrest a man suspected of “terror activity.”

“After the suspect was called to turn himself in, he barricaded himself inside his house, effectively resisting arrest. Under the premise that he had weapons in his possession, the forces used different means to complete the arrest, including live fire.”

An AK47 assault rifle was found in the house, but no shots were fired at any point towards Israeli forces.

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kerry proposes Beit Hanina as future capital of Palestine

MEMO | February 27, 2014

US Secretary of State John Kerry is proposing for the Palestinians to establish the capital of a future Palestinian state in Beit Hanina instead of all of occupied East Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war, Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Beit Hanina is located to the north of the old city, on the road to Ramallah.

According to the newspaper, Kerry’s proposal for the Palestinian capital to be located in only a small part of East Jerusalem, along with his other suggestions, enraged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who left his meeting with Kerry last week furious, threatening to torpedo the framework agreement. Kerry is said to have adopted the Israeli positions completely, including demanding that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state and retain the ten Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank as part of a land swap. Kerry also hinted that the Jordan Valley will not be part of a future Palestinian state and refused having any international presence in the Palestinian territories when Israel pulls out.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that US President Barack Obama has decided to intervene in the talks and “pressure both sides” to reach a framework agreement within the set deadline. Obama is meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday and has invited Abbas to visit Washington next month.

Regarding the possibility of extending the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel after the April deadline, Kerry told reporters that the parties took seven months to reach an understanding on their positions and he did not believe that anyone would feel concerned if it took another nine months to reach a final agreement. “I very much hope we should be able to make both parties take what is necessary to enter the most important stage, that is the final stage. To negotiate the final status based on a clear and specific framework.”

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fukushima Dangerously Contaminated the USS Reagan

Documents Say Navy Knew

By Harvey Wasserman | CounterPunch | February 27, 2014

A stunning new report indicates the U.S. Navy knew that sailors from the nuclear-powered USS Ronald Reagan took major radiation hits from the Fukushima atomic power plant after its meltdowns and explosions nearly three years ago.

If true, the revelations cast new light on the $1 billion lawsuit filed by the sailors against Tokyo Electric Power.  Many of the sailors are already suffering devastating health impacts, but are being stonewalled by Tepco and the Navy.

The Reagan had joined several other U.S. ships in Operation Tomodachi (“Friendship”) to aid victims of the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami. Photographic evidence and first-person testimony confirms that on March 12, 2011 the ship was within two miles of Fukushima Dai’ichi as the reactors there began to melt and explode.

In the midst of a snow storm, deck hands were enveloped in a warm cloud that came with a metallic taste. Sailors testify that the Reagan’s 5,500-member crew was told over the ship’s intercom to avoid drinking or bathing in desalinized water drawn from a radioactive sea. The huge carrier quickly ceased its humanitarian efforts and sailed 100 miles out to sea, where newly published internal Navy communications confirm it was still taking serious doses of radioactive fallout.

Scores of sailors from the Reagan and other ships stationed nearby now report a wide range of ailments reminiscent of those documented downwind from atomic bomb tests in the Pacific and Nevada, and at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. A similar metallic taste was described by pilots who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and by central Pennsylvanians downwind of Three Mile Island. Some parts of the atolls downwind from the South Pacific bomb tests remain uninhabitable six decades later.

Among the 81 plaintiffs in the federal class action are a sailor who was pregnant during the mission, and her “Baby A.G.,” born that October with multiple genetic mutations.

Officially, Tepco and the Navy say the dose levels were safe.

But a stunning new report by an American scholar based in Tokyo confirms that Naval officers communicated about what they knew to be the serious irradiation of the Reagan. Written by Kyle Cunningham and published in Japan Focus, “Mobilizing Nuclear Bias” describes the interplay between the U.S. and Japanese governments as Fukushima devolved into disaster.

Cunningham writes that transcribed conversations obtained through the Freedom of Information Act feature naval officials who acknowledge that even while 100 miles away from Fukushima, the Reagan’s readings “compared to just normal background [are] about 30 times what you would detect just on a normal air sample out to sea.”

On the nuclear-powered carrier “all of our continuous monitors alarmed at the same level, at this value. And then we took portable air samples on the flight deck and got the same value,” the transcript says.

Serious fallout was also apparently found on helicopters coming back from relief missions. One unnamed U.S. government expert is quoted in the Japan Focus article as saying:

At 100 meters away it (the helicopter) was reading 4 sieverts per hour. That is an astronomical number and it told me, what that number means to me, a trained person, is there is no water on the reactor cores and they are just melting down, there is nothing containing the release of radioactivity. It is an unmitigated, unshielded number. (Confidential communication, Sept. 17, 2012).

The transcript then contains discussion of health impacts that could come within a matter of “10 hours. It’s a thyroid issue.”

Tepco and the Navy contend the Reagan did not receive a high enough dose to warrant serious concern. But Japan, South Korea and Guam deemed the carrier too radioactive to enter their ports. Stock photographs show sailors working en masse to scrub the ship down.

The $4.3 billion boat is now docked in San Diego. Critics question whether it belongs there at all. Attempts to decontaminate U.S. ships irradiated during the Pacific nuclear bombs tests from 1946-1963 proved fruitless. Hundreds of sailors were exposed to heavy doses of radiation, but some ships had to be sunk anyway.

Leaks at the Fukushima site continue to worsen. Despite its denials, Tepco recently admitted it had underestimated certain radiation releases by a factor of 500 percent. A new report indicates that particles of radioactive Cesium 134 from Fukushima have been detected in the ocean off the west coast of North America.

Global concerns continue to rise about Fukushima’s on-going crises with liquid leaks, the troubled removal of radioactive fuel rods, the search for three missing melted cores, organized crime influence at the site and much more. The flow of information has been seriously darkened by the pro-nuclear Abe Administration’s State Secrets Act, which imposes major penalties on those who might report what happens at Fukushima.

But if this new evidence holds true, it means that the Navy knew the Ronald Reagan was being plastered with serious radioactive fallout and it casts the accident in a light even more sinister than previously believed.

The stricken sailors are barred from suing the Navy, and their case against Tepco will depend on a series of complex international challenges.

But one thing is certain: neither they nor the global community have been getting anything near the full truth about Fukushima.

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The Efficacy of Combative Resistance

By Stuart Jeanne Bramhall | Dissident Voice | February 26, 2014 

You occasionally read a totally mind bending book that opens up a whole new world for you. The Failure of Nonviolence  by Peter Gelderloos is one of them, owing to its unique evidence-based perspective on both “nonviolent” and “violent” resistance. It differs from Gelderloos’s 2007 How Nonviolence Protects the State in its heavy emphasis on indigenous, minority, and working class resistance. A major feature of the new book is an extensive catalog of “combative” rebellions that the corporate elite has whitewashed out of history.

Owing to wide disagreement as to its meaning, Gelderloos discards the term “violent” in describing actions that involve rioting, sabotage, property damage or self-defense against armed police or military. In comparing and contrasting a list of recent protest actions, he makes a convincing case that combative tactics are far more effective in achieving concrete gains that improve ordinary peoples’ lives. He also explodes the myth that “violent” resistance discourages oppressed people from participating in protest activity. He gives numerous examples showing that working people are far more likely to be drawn into combative actions – mainly because of their effectiveness. The only people alienated by combative tactics are educated liberals, many of whom are “career” activists working for foundation-funded nonprofits.

Gelderloos also highlights countries (e.g., Greece and Spain) which have significantly slowed the advance of neoliberal capitalism via combative resistance. In his view, this explains the negative fiscal position of the Greek and Spanish capitalist class in addressing the global debt crisis. Strong worker resistance to punitive labor reforms and austerity cuts has significantly slowed the transfer of wealth to their corporate elite, as well as the roll-out of fascist security measures.

The Gene Sharp Brand of Nonviolence

Gelderloos begins by defining the term “nonviolent” as the formulaic approach laid out by nonviolent guru Gene Sharp in his 1994 From Dictatorship to Democracy and used extensively in the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. This approach focuses exclusively on political, usually electoral, reform. Gelderloos distinguishes between political revolution, which merely overturns the current political infrastructure and replaces it with a new one – and social revolution, which overturns hierarchical political infrastructure and replaces it with a system in which people self-organize and govern themselves.

The nonviolent approach Sharp and his followers prescribe relies heavily on a corporate media strategy to promote their protest activity to large numbers of people. This obviously requires some elite support, as the corporate media consistently ignores genuine anti-corporate protests. As an example, all the nonviolent color revolutions in Eastern Europe enjoyed major support from the State Department, billionaire George Soros and CIA-funded foundations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Republican Institute.

Is Nonviolence Effective?

Gelderloos sets out four criteria to assess the effectiveness of a protest action:

  1. It must seize space for activists to self-organize essential aspects of their lives.
  2. It must spread new ideas that inspire others to resist state power and control.
  3. It must operate independently of elite support.
  4. It must make concrete improvements to the lives of ordinary people.

As examples of strictly nonviolent protest movements, Gelderloos offers the “color” revolutions (see * below), the millions-strong global anti-Iraq war protest on February 15, 2003 and 2011 Occupy protests, which were almost exclusively nonviolent (Occupy Oakland being a notable exception).

In all the color revolutions Gelderloos describes, the goal has been strictly limited to replacing dictatorship with democracy and free elections. None attempted to increase economic democracy nor to reduce oppressive work and living conditions. In fact, most of the color revolutions forced their populations to give up important protections to integrate more thoroughly into the cutthroat capitalist economy.

So-called “democracies” such as the US are just as capable as dictatorships of engaging in extrajudicial assassination, torture, and suspension of habeas corpus and other legal protections. However US corporations generally find “democracies” more investment-friendly. Owing to greater transparency, they are less likely to nationalize private industries or arbitrarily change the rules for doing business.

Besides failing to meet any of his criteria, the 2003 anti-Iraq war movement failed to stop the US invasion of Iraq and the 2011 Occupy protests failed to achieve a single lasting gain.

Successful “Combative” Protests

He contrasts these strictly nonviolent  protests with nearly 20 popular uprisings (see ** below) and two (successful) US prison riots that have incorporated “combative” tactics along with other organizing strategies. Most have been totally censored from the corporate media and history books or whitewashed as so-called “nonviolent” actions (e.g., the corporate media misportrayed both the 1989 Tiananmen Square rebellion and the 2011 Egyptian revolution as nonviolent protests).

The US, more than any other country, uses prison to suppress working class dissent. Most prison struggles employ a diversity of tactics combining work stoppages and legal appeals with property damage, riots and attacks on guards. Nonviolent protest tends to be particularly ineffective in the prison setting. A nonviolent hunger strike usually reflects a situation in which prisoners have so little personal control that the only way to resist is to refuse to eat.

Gelderloos also analyzes a number of historical combative uprisings, pointing out their relative strengths and weaknesses. He devotes particular attention to the Spanish Civil War (a failed working class revolution), the anti-Nazi partisan movements during World War II, combative Indigenous peoples resistance to European colonizers and autonomous liberated zones created in Ukraine, Kronstadt, and Siberia following the Bolshevik Revolution and in the Skinmin Province of Manchuria in pre-World War II China.

Who Are the Pacifists?

He devotes an entire chapter to the major funders and luminaries of the nonviolent movement. Predictably most of the funding comes from George Soros, the Pentagon, the State Department and CIA-funded foundations such as USAID, NED, and NIR. Among other examples, Gelderloos describes the Pentagon running a multi-million dollar campaign to plant stories in Iraqi newspapers to promote “nonviolent” resistance to US occupation.

*Examples of political/regime change color revolutions:

  • Philippines – Yellow Revolution 1983-86
  • Serbia – Bulldozer Revolution 2000
  • Georgia – Rose Revolution 2003
  • Ukraine – Orange Revolution 2004
  • Kyrgyzstan – Tulip Revolution 2005
  • Lebanon – Cedar Revolution 2005
  • Kuwait – Blue Revolution 2005
  • Burma – Saffron Revolution 2007

**Examples of combative uprisings (despite being a partial list, it effectively illustrates the extent to which combative resistance is censored out of the mainstream media and history):

  • 1999 Battle of Seattle – contrary to media whitewashing (I was there), the combative component wasn’t a matter of a few Black Bloc anarchists breaking windows. Numerous “peaceful” marchers joined in destruction of corporate storefronts, looting and throwing rocks at police. Inspired 3rd world WTO delegates to shut down Doha round of WTO negotiations.
  • 1990 Oka Crisis (near Montreal) – in which Mohawk warriors took up arms to stop a golf course expansion on their lands. Successful in defeating the golf course expansion.
  • 1994 Zapitista (Mexico) – armed uprising against NAFTA. Successfully seized space, liberating numerous villages which continue to be run by popular assemblies.
  • 2000 2nd Palestinian Intifada – successful in seizing and defending space, defeating the CIA/Israeli army invasion of Gaza in 2009. Inspired combative insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt.
  • 2001 Kabbylie Black Spring armed protest to liberate Berber territory occupied by Algeria. Successfully seized space to bring back traditional assemblies and reverse erosion of Berber culture. Won increased autonomy of Kabylie, including official recognition of Berber language.
  • 2003-2005 Bolivia Water and Gas Wars against strict water privatization implemented by Bolivian government and Bechtel. Successful in ending years of Bolivian dictatorship, slowing advance of neoliberalism and restoring indigenous autonomy. Received no elite support until 2005 union and political party support elected the movement into government, putting neoliberalism back on track.
  • 2006 Oaxaca (Mexico) Rebellion – coalition of indigenous people, teachers and workers fought police and military and ran Oaxaca by popular assembly for one month. No elite support until assembly taken over by politicians who convinced them not to fight back against the military. Greatly improved quality of life while it lasted.
  • 2006 CPE France – combative (rioting, burning cars, fighting police and occupying public buildings) uprising against new legislation allowing bosses to fire younger workers without cause. Defeated new law.
  • 2008 Athens insurrection – millions-strong armed uprising (consisting of arson attacks on banks and police stations, occupation of vacant lots and buildings to create community gardens, community centers and popular assemblies) triggered by police murder of a teenager. Besides destroying debt and tax records and providing brief period of self-governance, it inspired new cycle of anarchist activity throughout Greece.
  • 2009 Guadalupe General Strike – inspired by poor living standards, especially high cost of living combined with low wages and high unemployment. After three days of rioting, setting fire to cars and businesses and opening fire on the police, demonstrators won an increase of $200 euros per month in the lowest salaries and 19 other demands.
  • 2009 Oscar Grant riots (Oakland) – prompted by police murder of an African American named Oscar Grant. Spontaneous rioting, property damage, looting and shooting back at police. Resulted in first case in California history in which an on-duty police officer was charged with murder. Influenced Occupy Oakland to adopt a diversity of tactics that included combative resistance.
  • 2010 Tunisian revolution – contrary to corporate media white washing, this was a violent uprising in which protestors burned tires and attacked the office of the ruling party. It failed to create any new self-organized spaces. It only received elite support, which pressured Tunisians to accept a purely political solution (i.e. regime change), when local authorities failed to quell popular unrest. Economic tyranny and police abuse/violence remain unaddressed.
  • 2010 15 M Movement and General Strikes (Spain) – millions took part in general strike against austerity measures incorporating sabotage of the transportation infrastructure, blockades, looting, rioting and fighting with police. Established numerous police-free zones (which persisted for months) throughout Spain run by popular assemblies. Occupied numerous hospitals and primary care centers and established urban gardens and collective housing facilities. Prevented privatization of numerous health clinics and inspired anti-capitalist focus of Occupy movement.
  • 2011 Egyptian revolution – combative rebellion (contrary to corporate media claims that it was nonviolent). Protesters burned over 90 police stations and used clubs, rocks and Molotov cocktails to defend themselves against police and government thugs. Set up self-governing assemblies in Tahrir Square and inspired a large number of activists to remain in the streets to fight the repressive Islamic government that replaced Mubarak.
  • 2011 Libyan Civil War – began as spontaneous uprising but quickly transformed into a foreign military intervention. Gelderloos uses Libya to demonstrate why revolutions that wish to end oppressive social relations must never allow military or political revolution to assume precedence.
  • 2012 Quebec student movement – rioting, looting, property damage and fighting back against the police prompted by massive tuition hike. Provided thousands of young people direct experience of self-governing assemblies and successfully spread critiques of debt, austerity and capitalism throughout Canada. Forced government to reverse tuition hike.
  • 2013 Mapuche (indigenous nation occupied by Chile and Argentina) struggle – long history of combative resistance continues to present day. Employs both nonviolent and combative methods, including arson, sabotage against mining and logging companies and armed land occupations. In January 2013 (5th anniversary of unprosecuted police murder of Mapuche teenager) they liberated large tracts of land.

Email Dr. Stuart Bramhall at: stuartbramhall@yahoo.co.nz

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Book Review, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment