Thursday, September 22, 2011

Filladhoo islanders says Israeli agriculturists cannot enter their island

Murshid Abdul Hakeem
Islanders of the Haa Alif Filladhoo have decided to reject the team of Israeli agriculturists invited by the Ministry of Agriculture to conduct some agricultural projects in the island.

The islanders decided as such in a meeting held by the island council with the islanders last evening. Miadhu Daily was informed that the council held the meeting when they received a petition signed by many islanders to reject the Israeli team.

“From those who gathered at the meeting last evening, almost islanders voted to reject the Israeli agriculturist delegation. Two islanders from those present refrained from voting. Those two said that they are not concerned whether the Israelis visit the island or not. But as for the others, all of them voted to reject the Israelis from entering the island,” an islander informed Miadhu Daily.

The islanders of Filladhoo said that they are in no need of any help whatsoever from the state of Israel.

“The first thing they should do is to stop slaughtering our brothers in Palestine. How can they aid us in anything when they are slaughtering and shedding the blood of our very brothers? If the State Minister Shafia has an island she can take them there. And the islanders believe that it will be even better if Shafia moves to the state of Israel and live there,” the islanders said.

Meanwhile, Deputy President of Adhaalath Party, Dr. Mauroof Hussein urged “all islands to reject the Zionists from Israeli Intelligence, Mossad, who are reported to be visiting Maldives on 26th of this month garbed as agriculturists.”
= Source: Miadhu News=

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Dr. Mauroof urges all islands to reject visiting Zionists garbed as agriculturists

Deputy President of Adhaalath Party, Dr. Mauroof Hussein has urged “all islands to reject the Zionists from Israeli Intelligence, Mossad, who are reported to be visiting Maldives on 26th of this month garbed as agriculturists.”
Dr. Mauroof said that the party was informed that these Zionists who are to visit Maldives in the guise of agriculturists. He said that these jews will be going to Haa Alif Filladhoo and Maafahi. He said that the government devised a plan to make all councils of the islands that they want to visit to invite them prior to their visit so as to tackle the problem of any protests and demonstrations that their visit might ignite in the islands.
Dr. Mauroof said that this visit of the Mossad intelligence agents to Maldives is spearheaded by the Minister of State for Ministry of Agriculture, Shafia.
Furthermore, Dr. Mauroof called all islanders to be cautious of this visit of the Zionist Jews. Dr. Mauroof also explained the merciless policy of occupation, oppression and massacre being carried out against Muslims of the Middle East by the Jewish occupational forces who have adopted Zionism, which is a racist ideology.
Dr. Mauroof said that his party is against establishing ties with only Zionists, whom he said purely follows a racist and cruel ideology, and not all disbelievers.

=source Miadhu News=

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Israeli People's Most Common Mistakes

By Gilad Atzmon

1. To fail to realize that there is no essential difference between Tel Aviv and a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

2. To believe that the creation of the state of Israel was an outcome of the Holocaust.

3. To regard themselves as innocent people and thus as victims of the Israeli­Palestinian conflict.

4. To believe that they live in a democracy and therefore that their atrocities are legitimate.

5. To be convinced that they live in an open society which enjoys political and ideological diversity.

6. To believe that the ghetto is behind them.

7. To be convinced that the 'Jewish state' is a legitimate concept.

8. To think that Israel is a shelter for the entire Jewish people and the best answer to anti-Semitism.

9. To regard themselves as humanists.

10. To be sure that Israel is immortal.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Israel major organ harvesting center

RAMALLAH: The Palestinian Minister of Detainees and Ex-detainees Issa Qaraqi’ on Sunday accused Israel of harvesting parts from the bodies of dead Palestinian martyrs without the consent of their families.

Qaraqi’ said during the national day of Palestinian campaign to retrieve martyrs’ bodies said that “Israel is the major harvesting and trading centre in the world.”

http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article494983.ece

The minister said that Israel holds the remains of Palestinian martyrs “to conceal the crimes it committed against the martyrs bodies and to punish their families.” “Holding of the martyrs’ remains for many years cats doubts and accusations that Israel assassinated them after detention or harvested their organs,” the minister said.

He added that “Israel is holding the remains of 338 Arab and Palestinian fighters in the secret Israeli cemeteries known as the Cemeteries of Numbers.”

Qaraqi' added that the Israeli authorities holding them in four cemeteries: One on the Israel-Lebanon-Syria border, two in the Jordan Valley and the fourth near Tiberias Lake.

On December 2009, the chief Israeli pathologist and the director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir, Professor Yehuda Hiss, admitted of harvesting parts from the bodies of dead Palestinians without the consent of their families.

Hiss said that he and doctors who worked under him took parts from the dead skins, their corneas and heart valves in the 90’s for transplantation. He also admitted that the same parts were taken from dead Israelis for the same purpose.

Hiss’ remarks came in an interview with Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who tracks the organ trade worldwide. The one-hour interview was recorded in 2000 as part of Sheppard-Hughes’ study at Abu Kabir and was broadcasted by the Israeli Channel 1 television on Friday night.

The report said that Sheppard-Hughes decided to publish the interview after the leading Swedish daily Aftonbladet reported on August of the same year that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians in order to trade in their organs.

The Israeli pathologist said that “the skins were taken from the bodies and transmitted to Hadasah hospital in Jerusalem under the request of Israeli army to be transplanted to sounded soldiers and in case of disaster.”

On last July, the head of Palestinian Civil Affairs Commission Hussein Al-Sheikh said that Israel will hand over the remains of 84 fighters to the Palestinian Authority within days.

Israeli security sources confirmed that talks on the matter have been held but that no agreement had been reached.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

“El Al will be a Trojan horse for Maldives”: George Galloway

The commencement of flights by Israeli national airline El Al to the country will be “a Trojan horse for the Maldives,” warns controversial British politician George Galloway.

In a video message aired at the Adhaalath party national congress that concluded last night, the former MP said that he was “deeply shocked” by the government’s decision to authorise the operation of Israeli national carrier in the Maldives on December 13.

“At a time when Arab doors are closing on Israel as a result of the Arab revolution, the idea that the Maldives, an entirely Muslim country, would open the door for El Al, the Israeli national carrier, and bring the Israeli flag into their country, and bring the Mossad and all the attendants who will come with it, is just absurd to me,” said Galloway.

He added that Israeli flights would be “a Trojan horse for the Maldives.”

“You will be bringing Israel into your country at a time when most civilised people are trying to get Israel out of their country,” he continued.

“So I very much hope the people of the Maldives will rally behind the campaign to stop this infiltration of the country by this Zionist settler state. The blood of the Palestinian people for 63 or 64 years now is on this project and nobody should want to share in this blood.”

In April this year, the religious conservative Adhaalath party threatened to terminate its coalition agreement with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in protest if Israeli flights are allowed to commence flights to the country.

=extract taken from minivannews=

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Iran opposed to politicization of the human rights issue

The United Nations Human Rights Council has recently designated former Maldives foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed as the Special Rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran has no problem with Mr. Shaheed, and the Iranian government is ready to invite him to visit Iran so he can familiarize himself with the country’s latest scientific and technological achievements and the level of the people’s participation in society. But if he wants to come to Iran as a UN Special Rapporteur, he will not be welcomed by the Iranian people and government.

From Iran’s perspective, the decision to appoint a UN Special Rapporteur in this case clearly shows that the UN has adopted a politicized approach toward the human rights issue, which is by no means accepted by the Iranian government.

Iran’s official policy is opposed to any effort to use the human rights issue as political leverage because such an approach runs contrary to the true nature of human rights.

Over the past few decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has played an effective role at international conferences and meetings on human rights. Moreover, Iran has submitted numerous reports on the human rights situation in the country to the UN Human Rights Council. There is also a good deal of interaction between Iran and the governments of influential countries, such as Denmark and Japan, on the issue of human rights.

Iran plans to engage more in this area, and has positively cooperated with various governments on the issue, with Denmark being the latest example. A Danish delegation recently made a trip to Iran and met with officials tasked with addressing the issue of human rights and a number of Iranian scholars. They were surprised by Iran’s Islamic ideology, which places emphasis on the rights of various classes of people, including women and children.

Therefore, the new wave of political pressure imposed on Iran, in the form of various UN resolutions, is totally unacceptable and unjustified, and the Iranian government cannot agree to further cooperation under such political pressure, and neither would any other government in the world.

Based on the general policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been officially announced by the parliament’s Human Rights Committee, the Iranian government is not ready to allow the designated UN Special Rapporteur to visit the country because it is against the will of the Iranian people.

Iran’s message to the UN and the international community is that the country does not do anything under Western political pressure. This also applies to Iran’s nuclear program, which has made numerous breakthroughs despite all the pressure and sanctions imposed on the country.

Defending human rights based on the pure principles of Islam is regarded as one of the main duties of the Iranian government.

In line with this policy, the Iranian parliament is also trying to improve its position on the human rights issue, and Iranian MPs will try to increase the level of their diplomatic communication with their counterparts in other parliaments of the world. This policy can show the world the true picture of human rights in Iran.

MP Zohreh Elahian is the chairperson of the Majlis Human Rights Committee.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Iran parliament set to ban entry of Dr Shaheed UN Special Rapporteur on Iran


Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN - The Human Rights Committee of the Iranian parliament has decided to take measures to prohibit the entry of the newly appointed United Nations Special Rapporteur on Iran, MP Mohammad-Karim Abedi announced on Sunday.

On June 17, the UN Human Rights Council appointed former Maldivian foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed as Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in Iran.

On March 24, 2011, the UN Human Rights Council voted to appoint a special rapporteur to look into the situation in Iran.

In a U.S.-backed resolution adopted with 22 votes in favor, seven against and 14 abstentions, the 47-member council said the rapporteur would report to both the council and to the General Assembly.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Abedi said during the most recent meeting of the committee, it was emphasized that this person should not be allowed to enter the country.

Abedi, deputy chairperson of the Majlis Human Rights Committee, also said that the United States, Britain, and the Zionist regime are the greatest violators of human rights, and it would be better if the UN look into their human rights cases.

In addition, he pointed to the UN Fact Finding Mission’s report on war crimes committed by Israel during its 2008-2009 military offensive in Gaza, saying the UN failed to deal with the Zionist regime.

The Iranian lawmaker also said that the United States and Britain have dark human rights record as well.

MP Zohreh Elahian also said that Iran will not allow the UN Special Rapporteur to carry out his mission in the country.

Elahian, chairperson of the Majlis Human Rights Committee, made the remarks during a speech at the open session of the Majlis on Sunday.

The Islamic Republic of Iran full well knows the hidden agenda behind the human rights resolution that were adopted against it and will not bow to political pressure being exerted by certain other countries, she stated.

Elahian also said Iran has respect for the appointed rapporteur, who is a Muslim, but Iran is ready to welcome him as a tourist

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=242731

Friday, January 28, 2011

The Jewish hand behind Internet Google, Facebook, Wikipedia,Yahoo!, MySpace, eBay

In the following document we will give an insight into the Jewish penetration of the Internet and also show the level of cooperation between leading Jewish Internet entrepreneurs and the racist Jewish Apartheid state of Israel. (Read the full article)

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Israelis can tell the whole story of Sudan's division - they wrote the script and trained the actors

By Fahmi Howeidi
Now that we have been unable to defend the unity of Sudan, it might benefit us to understand what has happened there. Perhaps that will alert us to the fact that secession of the south is not the end, but is one of a series of splits intended to dismantle the Arab world surrounding Egypt. From very early on, Zionists realized that minorities in the Arab world represent a natural ally to their state of Israel and so they planned to build bridges with them. Zionist representatives communicated with the Kurds in Iraq, the people in southern Sudan, the Maronites in Lebanon, Kurds in Syria, and the Copts in Egypt; Zionism adopted the principle of divide and conquer, and saw that the most effective way to fragment the Arab world was to create secessionist movements within it.

In doing so, it sought the redistribution of power in the region in such a manner to make a group of marginal countries lacking unity and sovereignty, all the easier for Israel, in cooperation with non-Arab countries to control them one after the other later. All the rebel movements triggered by ethnic and sectarian groups in the Arab world have drawn support and advocacy from Israel, which has adopted these separatist movements, as witnessed by the Kurds in Iraq and the rebel movement in southern Sudan.
This situation helps us to understand Israel's strategy towards the Arab world, which is designed to encourage minorities to express themselves so that they may eventually seize self-determination and independence from the state. What helps in all of this is that the Arab world, contrary to what the Arabs claim, does not consist of one cultural and civilized unity - the mythical "Arab nation" but it is a diverse mix of cultures, religions, ethnicities and multilingualism. Israel has been used to portraying the region as a mosaic that includes in its midst a complex network of multi-linguistic, religious, nationalism forms between Arabs, Persians, Turks, Armenians, Israelis themselves, Kurds, Baha'is, Druze, Jews, Protestants, Alawites, Sabians, Shiites, Sunnis, Maronites, Circassians, Turkomans, Assyrians and so on.

According to Israel's view, when a land or part of a land has minority groups within it but no collective history, the real history is the history of each minority. This has the purpose of achieving two main objectives: First, it rejects the concept of Arab nationalism and the call for Arab unity; Arab nationalism in the Israeli perception is an idea shrouded in mystery, if not irrelevant.

Arab unity is a myth because the Arabs pay lip service to one nation, but live within mutually incompatible states. It is true that most are united by language and religion, but that is also the case with people across the English- or Spanish-speaking worlds, but that does not make them one nation.
Second, this is used to justify the legitimacy of Israel's presence in the region as just one more to add to the mix of nationalities, peoples and languages, for which the perception of unity is an illusion.

The logical conclusion of this train of thought is that each group of people (whether calling themselves a nation or not) has its own state; thus does Israel gains its legitimacy as one of many nation-states in the Middle East.
The preceding thesis is taken from a text book: "Israel and the South Sudan Liberation Movement", published in 2003 by the Dayan Centre for Research on the Middle East and Africa. The author is retired head of Mossad Moshe Faraji. I have referred to him on more than one occasion. He is worth looking at again as the crop sown by Israel and its allies since the 1950s is beginning to bear fruit.

Another senior Israeli, former Minister of Internal Security Avi Dichter, referred to Sudan in his 2008 lecture delivered to the Institute for Zionist National Security Studies. "There have been Israeli estimates since Sudan's independence in the mid-fifties that this country, although far from us, should not be allowed to become a force added to the power of the Arab world because if its resources continue under stable conditions, it will make it a power to be reckoned with." Hence, Israel's attention has been directed towards Sudan, hoping to exploit the situation.
Sudan provides strategic depth to Egypt.

This was evident post-1967 when Sudan and Libya provided training facilities for the Egyptian air force and army; Sudanese forces were sent to the Suez Canal zone during the war of attrition waged by Egypt between 1968 and 1970. For these two reasons, Dichter added, Israel had to work on weakening Sudan and prevent it from becoming a strong, unified state. This strategic perspective is necessary, he said, for Israeli's national security.

It is worth noting that Dichter's lecture took place almost thirty years after the peace agreement signed between Egypt and Israel in 1979.
When asked about the future of southern Sudan, Dichter replied: "There are international forces led by the United States that are determined to intervene in Sudan so that the South will become independent, and the same for the Darfur region, like the independence of Kosovo.

The situation in southern Sudan is not unlike that in Darfur and Kosovo, in that the two regions aspire to independence and acquire the right to self-determination after their citizens fought for that."
Israeli support for the rebels in southern Sudan has gone through five stages notes Colonel Faraji: Phase 1 started in the fifties. For nearly a decade, Israel focused on providing humanitarian aid (medicines, food and doctors) and was keen to provide services to refugees who were fleeing to Ethiopia.

The first attempts to invest in the tribal differences in southern Sudan itself began in order to intensify the conflict and encourage the South to secede from the Arab north. Israeli intelligence officers stationed in Uganda opened channels of communication with the leaders of the southern tribes to study the demographic map of the area.
Phase 2 began in the sixties with Israel providing military training in special centres established in Ethiopia. At this stage, the Israeli government became convinced that keeping Khartoum busy with internal wars was sufficient to make sure that it would be unable to provide any support for Egypt's struggle with the Zionist state.

Proselytizing organizations active in the south encouraged Israel to send members of its intelligence services under the cover of humanitarian aid; the prime goal was to train influential people to sustain the tension in the region. At this stage, Israel also expanded its support to the rebels by providing weapons through Ugandan territory; the first of such deals was in 1962, with mainly Russian armaments which had been captured by Israel when it took part in the aggressive Suez campaign in 1956.

Fighters were trained in southern Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya before being pushed over the border to fight inside Sudan.
Phase 3 extended from the mid-sixties into the seventies, when the flow of arms to Southern Sudan was facilitated by an Israeli arms dealer called Gabi Shafine, who was working for Israeli intelligence. Shipments of Russian weapons won by Israel in 1967 were dropped by Israeli cargo planes. Israel also established a school for infantry officers to train the cadres necessary to lead the rebel factions. Israeli elements were involved in the fighting to lend their expertise to the South.

At this stage groups were taken to Israel to receive military training. At the beginning of the seventies another channel for the delivery of Israeli support to South Sudan through Uganda was opened officially.
When it seemed that the rebel movement was about to collapse in 1969, Israel made a tremendous effort to urge the rebels to continue their fight, and used every method available to them to persuade southerners that they were engaged in a national struggle between Arab-Muslims in the north who were dominating a Black-African-Christian-Animist south.

Phase 4 from the late seventies through the eighties saw the African continent witness several major diversions (e.g. drought in Ethiopia) which did not stop Israel from supporting the rebels; indeed, support increased after Ethiopia became a regular conduit for the delivery of weapons to the South. John Garang emerged at this stage as a leader supported by Israel; he was received in Tel Aviv and given money and weapons. Israel was keen to train his men in various martial arts; ten pilots were trained to use light fighter aircraft. Phase 5 started in late 1990 with expanding Israeli support; shipments reached the south through Kenya and Ethiopia. Israel provided the south with heavy anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft guns. At the beginning of 1993, the coordination between Israel and the SPLA (the southern army) included funding, training, armament, information and supervision by Israeli technicians of military operations. It is clear that Israel has been eyeing southern Sudan for more than half a century.

A worthy observation is that the insurgency in the south began in 1955, one year before the Declaration of Independence of the state of Sudan. This illustrates that the oft-cited reason for southern secession - the implementation of Shari'a Law by the government of Al-Turabi in 1989 - is merely an excuse; this is a struggle that has gone on long before such proposals were even mooted. While Israel was supporting the southern rebels with arms, Western countries were continuing their diplomatic efforts to arrange the division of Sudan through a referendum. The peace accord signed between the Khartoum government and the rebels was reached with British, American and Norwegian sponsorship. For more than fifty years, the people of Sudan have faced armed insurrection on one side and diplomatic pressure and dirty tricks on the other. If just a quarter of such an effort had been applied on the situation in Palestine, the problem would have been resolved decades ago. Self-determination appears to be acceptable, indeed highly desirable, if it will weaken a predominantly Arab state, but off the agenda when it involves the Palestinians obtaining their rights against the Zionist state of Israel.

They have planned for this division of Sudan and look set to get what they wanted. As for the Arabs, they have stood and watched as mere spectators. I hope that this is not a precursor for further disappointments to come. Source: Al-Khaleej Times

Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers

By Richard H. Curtiss
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

For many years the American media said that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid” or that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid.” Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.

The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.

Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.

The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby’s principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well funded hate group.

In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.

More recently, FBI raids on ADL’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.

The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.

Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL’s Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.

Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such “enemies” files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called “Terrorism experts,” and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in blacklisting, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC’s “opposition research“ department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.

But this is not AIPAC’s most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers’ fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC’s most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC’s national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.

An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That’s enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.

Even candidates who don’t need this kind of money certainly don’t want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.

There is something else very special about AIPAC’s network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?

Hiding AIPAC’s Tracks

In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don’t know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much “hard money” into any candidate’s election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.

Although AIPAC, Washington’s most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can’t hide all of the results.

Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.

Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.

According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.

Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.

The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel’s 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.

Shocking Comparisons

These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for the Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.

As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.

But that’s not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That’s the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that’s $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It’s worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it’s beyond the parameters of this study, it’s worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel’s Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.

In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it’s a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America’s mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Terrorist Israel to set up a military post in Maldives

Police Academy eh Hedhumahtakai LH.Dhiffushimaadhoo 30 Aharu Dhuvahah Havaalukurumah Izrael ge Zionistunnaai MDP sarukaaraai dhemedhu Sirru Agreement eh vefaivaakan saabithuvejje.
Mi agreement akeee Raajje ah varah Nurakkaatheri, Biruveri Echcheh. Raajje Terroristunnah Vikkaalumah MDP sarukaarun hingaa Jareemaa eh ...- mi agreement hadhaafai vanee varah iyahoodhee, makaruveri gothakah Kuwait company eh ge namugai.
These are the documents related to Lh. Dhiffushimaadhoo. According to these, the island was negotiated to be given to Israel probably to make a military post (through a third party - a Kuwaiti company, as is the usual modus operandi in such cases). To negotiate about it, a high level delegation of the Zionist Entity came to Maldives from Jan 2 to 7th and met a number of ministers in this government. See that the Zionist delegation descended on Maldives not in a single flight, but by various flights and at various times - probably not to make themselves too obvious... Wake up!