Archive for the Must Read Category

EGYPTIAN INTIFADA: Did Israel have a hand in Egypt’s Internet blackout?

Posted in Must Read on February 12, 2011 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Veterans Today; February 12, 2011

Just after midnight on Friday, January 28, following three days of popular demonstrations calling for the ouster of longstanding Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Internet access (along with mobile-phone communications) in Cairo, Alexandria and the northern canal city of Suez — where demonstrations were most intense — was abruptly cut. The Internet remained inaccessible for the next three days.
Now reports have emerged in the Hebrew- and Arabic-language press that the Mubarak regime had sought Israel’s help in imposing the Internet blackout. On February 9, Egyptian Arabic-language news website Youm al-Sabea, citing reports in Hebrew-language daily Yedioth Ahronoth published the same day, asserted that the Egyptian regime had “requested the assistance of Israeli technicians to disrupt Egypt’s Internet network with the aim of quelling the revolution.”

The Youm al-Sabea report reads:

Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has revealed that the Egyptian [Mubarak] regime used cutting-edge Israeli techniques to disrupt Internet connectivity throughout Egypt, preventing Egyptians from accessing the Internet for the first week of the Tahrir Revolution, which began on January 25.

The newspaper, in its economy supplement, reported that Egypt’s ruling regime had been forced to request the assistance of Israeli technicians to disrupt Egypt’s Internet network with the aim of quelling the revolution by thousands of demonstrators who assembled in [Cairo’s] Tahrir Square late last month to demand…Mubarak’s ouster.

Yedioth Ahronoth cited statements by a high-level communications source who said that the Israeli software company Narus had designed the advanced software used to paralyze the Internet in Egypt. The newspaper noted that the Israeli company has had a longstanding relationship with Egypt’s largest public-sector company for communications and Internet services [this presumably refers to government-owned TE Data, see below], with which it provides additional special systems.

The Israeli company also provides similar services to communications companies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and is specialized in the production of supercomputers used by intelligence agencies worldwide for numerous applications, such as phone-taps; tracking voice communications on the Internet [presumably Skype, see below]; recording email and browsing habits; and disrupting Internet connectivity in any country at any time if needed.
Israeli dailies Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz both pointed to the fact that Israeli President Shimon Peres indirectly admitted the veracity of these reports at Israel’s annual security conference in Hertzliya on Tuesday, where he noted that, despite the restrictions and surveillance that governments are able to impose on the Internet, the media and Internet nevertheless played major roles in the eruption of popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

The following is the original Arabic-language text of the article:

يديعوت أحرنوت: مصر استعانت بتقنية “إسرائيلية” لتعطيل الإنترنت

كشفت صحيفة يديعوت أحرنوت الإسرائيلية أن النظام المصرى استخدم تقنيات إسرائيلية حديثة للغاية، مكنته من تعطيل شبكة الإنترنت فى جميع أنحاء جمهورية مصر العربية، وجعلت المصريين عاجزين على تصفح الإنترنت طوال الأسبوع الأول الذى اندلعت فيه ثورة التحرير الذى شهدها أشهر ميادين مصر فى 25 يناير.
وذكرت الصحيفة الإسرائيلية فى ملحقها الاقتصادى، أن النظام الحاكم فى مصر اضطر إلى الاستعانة بطاقم من خبراء إسرائيل التقنيين لحجب شبكة الإنترنت فى مصر، وذلك بهدف تهدئة ثورة آلاف المتظاهرين الذى خرجوا بميدان التحرير آواخر الشهر الماضى، مطالبين بالتغيير والحرية ومحاربة الفساد والبطالة، إلى أن امتدت مطالبهم بإسقاط النظام، ورحيل الرئيس مبارك.
ونقلت يديعوت أحرنوت تصريحات مصدر إسرائيلى كبير بمجال الاتصالات، قال إن شركة “نايروس” الإسرائيلية للبرمجيات، صممت برنامج متطور للغاية استخدم لشل الإنترنت فى مصر، وأشارت الصحيفة إلى أن هذه الشركة الإسرائيلية تتعامل مع أكبر شركة حكومية مصرية لخدمات الاتصالات والإنترنت، منذ وقت طويل وتزودها بتقنيات خاصة.

هذا بجانب دور الشركة الإسرائيلية فى تقديم خدمات مماثلة لشركات الاتصالات فى السعودية وباكستان، لتخصصها فى إنتاج أجهزة كمبيوتر عملاقة تستخدمها أجهزة الاستخبارات فى العالم فى أغراض عديدة، مثل التنصت على المكالمات الهاتفية، ورصد الاتصالات الصوتية عبر الإنترنت، وتسجيل كل ما يدور فى الإنترنت، مثل استعادة المراسلات الإلكترونية، والكشف عن أى مواقع التصفح، وبالطبع تعطيل الشبكة العنكبوتية فى أى دولة وفى أى وقت عند الحاجة.

وأخيرا أشارت صحيفتا يديعوت أحرنوت وهاآرتس الإسرائيليتان، إلى أن شيمون بيريز الرئيس الإسرائيلى اعترف بشكل غير مباشر بصحة هذه المعلومات، وذلك خلال كلمة ألقاها أمس الثلاثاء فى مؤتمر هرتزليا للمناعة القومية، مؤكدا أنه رغم القيود والمراقبات التى يمكن أن تفرضها الحكومات على شبكة الإنترنت، إلا أن الإعلام والإنترنت عجلا باندلاع الثورة فى مصر وتونس.

Notably, Israeli software company Narus ( is also mentioned in the following article from the Huffington Post (which refers to it as a ‘US corporation’), published on the third day of the uprising:

One US corporation’s role in Egypt’s brutal crackdown The Huffington Post; January 28, 2011

The open Internet’s role in popular uprising is now undisputed. Look no further than Egypt, where the Mubarak regime today reportedly shut down Internet and cell phone communications — a troubling predictor of the fierce crackdown that has followed.

What’s even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt’s harsh response through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.

The Internet’s favorite offspring — Twitter, Facebook and YouTube — are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)

But the open Internet’s power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.

Telecom Egypt, the nation’s dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.

Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, “disappear” truckloads of cyber-dissidents.

The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard. One in particular is an American firm, Narus of Sunnyvale, California, which has sold Telecom Egypt “real-time traffic intelligence” equipment.

Narus, now owned by Boeing, was founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts (see below) to create and sell mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients.

The company is best known for creating NarusInsight, a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the National Security Agency and other entities to perform mass, real-time surveillance and monitoring of public and corporate Internet communications in real time.

Narus provides Egypt Telecom with Deep Packet Inspection equipment (DPI), a content-filtering technology that allows network managers to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones, as it passes through routers on the information superhighway.

Other Narus global customers include the national telecommunications authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — two countries that regularly register alongside Egypt near the bottom of Human Rights Watch’s world report.

“Anything that comes through (an Internet protocol network), we can record,” Steve Bannerman, Narus’ marketing vice president, once boasted to Wired about the service. “We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on; we can reconstruct their (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls.”

Other North American and European companies are selling DPI to enable their business customers “to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers.” But this “Internet-enhancing” technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.

In addition to Narus, there are a number of companies, including many others in the United States, that produce and traffic in similar spying and control technology. This list of DPI providers includes Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.

These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. All Net traffic in and out of Iran, for example, travels through one portal — the Telecommunications Company of Iran — which facilitates the use of DPI.

When commercial network operators use DPI, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, the use of DPI can crush dissent and lead to human rights violations.

While the Huffington Post refers to Narus as a “US corporation,” Israeli daily Haaretz notes in the following article from 2006 that the firm was founded by “Dr. Ori Cohen, Stas Khirman and four other guys in Israel.”

Ori Cohen, private eye
Haaretz (Israel); July 11, 2006

If you’ve been keeping track of American Internet and the battles over surfer privacy, then you have run into the name Narus, which specializes in tapping surfer traffic. It was founded in 1997 by Dr Ori Cohen, Stas Khirman and four other guys in Israel.

For years Narus sailed on untroubled. But today it’s become associated with the likes of Carnivore or Echelon, the notorious software programs that have become linked with spying on email and delivering data on surfers to government agencies.

The image change Narus has suffered and its frequent mentions in debates on privacy and the freedom of information, is mainly because of Mark Klein. That would be a technician retired from AT&T for 22 years, who reported to the American authorities a few months ago that he suspected AT&T of allowing the National Security Agency to bug its customers’ phone calls.

Customer Internet traffic via the WorldNet service provider was reportedly shunted to data-mining technology in a secret room at AT&T facilities. The data analysis technology was made by Narus.

The scandal doesn’t seem to have bothered Narus much: it takes pride in various forums in the quality of its offerings. Its products enable ISPs and phone companies to monitor and manage their networks, detect illegal intrusions — and tap calls. Nor is Narus shy of declaring AT&T to be one of its customers.

Even though the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is striving to protect surfer privacy, has decided to sue the NSA in order to find out the scope of Washington’s spying on the people, Narus still has nothing official to say about the affair.

If anything, Narus’ management happily notes reports on its products, which are involved in countless weird and wonderful projects, including monitoring and blocking of voice and data over Internet. It proudly notes that its products are well used in countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, not really bastions of human rights.

It appears the Narus technology is used there to monitor surfing by the people, and blocking the use of Internet telephone technology such as Skype, which make monitoring communications very hard.

Narus says that its software can monitor and block Skype’s communications protocol, other VoIP programs, P2P (peer to peer) networks (such as Kazaa), instant messaging software, email traffic and many other protocols too. When installed on the infrastructure of an Internet provider, it can do all that too, monitoring unbelievably huge amounts of data up to ten gigas per second.

Big in Tripoli

Another factoid in which Narus takes pride is its giant agreement with Giza Systems of Cairo. That Egyptian integration and communications company paid Narus several million dollars to install its bugging and blocking software on networks in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and even in the Palestinian Authority.

But how is it that in the Middle East of 2006, Saudi Arabia, Libya and the like are buying technology developed by Israelis, funded by Israeli venture capital?

Walden Israel was one of the first backers behind Narus, but it says it’s severed all contact. General Partner Roni Hefetz says it hasn’t been involved in the company for years. However, the Walden international fund has picked up the slack, continuing to invest in Narus throughout. Narus even has a Walden man on its board.

Narus has morphed from an Israeli company into an American one. But it hasn’t been sold or floated, despite earlier ambitions. Where are the Israelis? Their involvement is hard to pin down, including that of legendary founder Dr. Ori Cohen, who’d been so happy to grant interviews; or the chief technology officer Stas Khirman. Did they abandon Internet bugging?

Cright on!

Apparently not. It is very possible that Cohen and Khirman are working at a startup that nobody is willing to talk about. A stealthy startup they helped found called Cright that has lots of employees in Israel and California, and which is reportedly about to avail itself of Ukrainian development talent too. Almost nobody has heard of Cright and nobody at all, including its distinguished investors, is willing to discuss what it does.

Sequoia Israel, the Rolls Royce of the technological venture capital world, is whispered to have invested $7 million in Cright together with Charles River. But the enigmatic startup is not mentioned on the Sequoia site, which otherwise describes the portfolio very thoroughly. Nor does the Charles River site mention it.

Nor could I glean any information about the company or about the Narus people manning it. Cright has a website (, a naked one that reveals nothing: and has taken a vow of utter silence.

Market sources surmise that Cright is tight-lipped because what it does would spark outrage among surfers jealous of their privacy, which could culminate in migraines for the startup and its backers. The last thing these financiers need is bad press, especially as other products in which they invested, such as Jajah, are striving to gain adulation among the online community.

In today’s online world, surfers can make the connection between investment in one company and in another. If Fund X invests in, and surfers find it out, they could hurt its investment in

The prying eye

But that is assuming that Ori Cohen and Stas Khirman are still working on products that analyze Internet traffic, and possibly, that this time their prying eye is looking at private surfers.

Industry sources in the know claim they’re harnessing Israeli developers to develop a DRM product designed for installation at Internet providers, which will among other things frustrate file sharing and peer-2-peer networks. These sources say Cright (could that be short for copyright?) is supposed to filter P2P networks, to monitor and analyze files being shared, and possibly to shut down errant P2P network, or at least to block certain content.

In other words, if may be a new twist on the old trick of monitoring the Internet’s main line, analyzing content, and interfering with it, just as Narus says it does in Saudi Arabia.

Cright’s ambitions may be disclosed by the appointment of Ed Kozel as its CEO. Kozel hails from Cisco and Yahoo. But isn’t Ori Cohen Cright’s CEO? I don’t know, or maybe they’re both co-CEOs, maybe the company has two CEOs because it’s going in two different directions at once.

If I had to guess, I’d guess that Cright means to launch some product related to online advertising. To guess on, I’d think it connects financed ads or links to personal content that Cright uncovers using its data mining capacities. Could that be? Selling ads based on breaking down data from traffic? I think it could.

But we can continue to merrily play detective for a few more weeks, until somebody tells us something.
Finally, it’s worth noting that an Egyptian national, arrested by Egyptian authorities last year on charges of spying for Israel, claimed that his Mossad handlers had told him that Israel was behind the days-long Internet outage that hit several countries of the Middle East (but not Israel) in 2008.
Israel sabotaged Egypt’s Internet, says alleged Mossad spy; December 29, 2010

Israeli sabotage was behind the nationwide crippling of Egypt’s Internet in 2008, according to an alleged Mossad agent. The accused agent, Abdel Razeq Hussein Hassan, is an Egyptian businessman who was arrested earlier this year by Egyptian counterintelligence and is accused of working for the Israeli spy agency. Two of his alleged Israeli handlers, Joseph Daymour and Idid Moushay, are reportedly on the run and are wanted by the Egyptian government.

Hassan is due to go on trial next month, but transcripts of his interrogation records have been leaked to Egyptian media. In one instance, Hassan appears to tell his police interrogators that a team of Mossad operatives deliberately cut two undersea cables about 5 miles off the north Egyptian port city of Alexandria, disrupting the country’s Internet service for several days.

An article in Britain’s The Daily Telegraph claims erroneously that the disruptions, occurred in December of 2008 and were “blamed at the time on damage […] caused by a ship’s anchor”. In reality, the undersea cables were cut on January 30, 2008, and there was no connection to anchors or anything similar, which does raise suspicions.

Still, the possibility must be considered that Hassan’s revelation may have been extracted by his interrogators through torture, or that it may be part of a controlled leak — true, overstated, or downright false — by Egyptian counterintelligence.

Whatever the truth behind this is, what is missing is the strategic motive that would have caused the Mossad to sabotage Egypt’s nationwide Internet data delivery at a time when the governments of the two countries were entering a period of rapprochement.

For more information on the involvement of Israeli telecommunications firms in espionage activities in the US and Canada, see:

The above article can be found here: Egyptian Intifada: Did Israel have a hand in Egypt’s Internet blackout?

THE PALESTINE PAPERS: Leaked memos expose treachery of Palestinian Authority, futility of US-brokered ‘peace process’

Posted in Must Read on January 26, 2011 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process’The Guardian (UK); January 23, 2011

The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel’s annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.

A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.

The documents — many of which will be published by the Guardian over the coming days — also reveal:

• The scale of confidential concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, including on the highly sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

• How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state.

• The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.

• The central role of British intelligence in drawing up a secret plan to crush Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

• How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel’s 2008-9 war in Gaza.

As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.

Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem’s Old City — the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.

The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush’s Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history” in order to resolve the world’s most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.

Intensive efforts to revive talks by the Obama administration foundered last year over Israel‘s refusal to extend a 10-month partial freeze on settlement construction. Prospects are now uncertain amid increasing speculation that a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict is no longer attainable — and fears of a new war.

Many of the 1,600 leaked documents — drawn up by PA officials and lawyers working for the British-funded PLO negotiations support unit and include extensive verbatim transcripts of private meetings — have been independently authenticated by the Guardian and corroborated by former participants in the talks and intelligence and diplomatic sources. The Guardian’s coverage is supplemented by WikiLeaks cables, emanating from the US consulate in Jerusalem and embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli officials also kept their own records of the talks, which may differ from the confidential Palestinian accounts.

The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem — including Gilo, a focus of controversy after Israel gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes — has never been made public.

All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal “neighborhoods”. Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal — and came close to doing so at Camp David.

Erekat told Israeli leaders in 2008: “This is the first time in Palestinian-Israeli history in which such a suggestion is officially made.” No such concession had been made at Camp David.

But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma’ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. “We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,” Israel’s then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, “and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it”.

The overall impression that emerges from the documents, which stretch from 1999 to 2010, is of the weakness and growing desperation of PA leaders as failure to reach agreement or even halt all settlement temporarily undermines their credibility in relation to their Hamas rivals; the papers also reveal the unyielding confidence of Israeli negotiators and the often dismissive attitude of US politicians towards Palestinian representatives.

Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were “a bunch of lies and half truths”. Qureia told AP that “many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership”.

However Palestinian former negotiator, Diana Buttu, called on Erekat to resign following the revelations. “Saeb must step down and if he doesn’t it will only serve to show just how out of touch and unrepresentative the negotiators are,” she said.

Palestinian and Israeli officials both point out that any position in negotiations is subject to the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and therefore is invalid without an overarching deal.

The above article can be found here:

‘Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees’The Guardian (UK); January 24, 2011

Palestinian negotiators privately agreed that only 10,000 refugees and their families, out of a total refugee population exceeding 5 million, could return to Israel as part of a peace settlement, leaked confidential documents reveal. PLO leaders also accepted Israel’s demand to define itself as an explicitly Jewish state, in sharp contrast to their public position.

The latest disclosures from thousands of pages of secret Palestinian records of more than a decade of failed peace talks, obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian, follow a day of shock and protests in the West Bank, where Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders angrily denounced the leaks as a “propaganda game”. The documents have already become the focus of controversy among Israelis and Palestinians, revealing the scale of official Palestinian concessions rejected by Israel, but also throwing light on the huge imbalance of power in a peace process widely seen to have run into the sand.

The latest documents to be released reveal:

• The then Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, repeatedly pressed in 2007-08 for the “transfer” of some of Israel’s own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal that would exchange Palestinian villages now in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

• The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and other American officials refused to accept any Palestinian leadership other than that of Mahmoud Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad. The US “expects to see the same Palestinian faces”, one senior official explained, if it was to continue funding the PA.

• Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state under George Bush, suggested in 2008 Palestinian refugees could be resettled in South America. “Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind,” she said. “Chile, Argentina, etc.”

• Livni told Palestinian negotiators in 2007 that she was against international law and insisted that it could not be included in terms of reference for the talks: “I was the minister of justice”, she said. “But I am against law — international law in particular.”

The scale of the compromise secretly agreed on refugees will be controversial among Palestinians who see the flight or expulsion of refugees when Israel was created in 1948 as their catastrophe (nakba) — while most Israelis regard the Palestinian right of return as incompatible with a democratic Jewish state.

The PLO’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, is recorded telling the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in February 2009: “On refugees, the deal is there.” In June 2009, he confirmed what the deal was to his own staff: “Olmert accepted 1,000 refugees annually for the next 10 years.”

Abbas, who is himself a refugee, is also recorded arguing privately: “On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million. That would mean the end of Israel.”

On the issue of accepting Israel as an explicitly Jewish state, Erekat privately told Israeli negotiators: “If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want.” He told his staff privately that it was a “non-issue”.

But publicly PA leaders reject any ethnic or religious definition of Israel, and it is fiercely opposed by many of Israel’s 1.3 million Palestinian citizens, who see it as a threat to their own civil and national rights, particularly since there have been moves in Israel to introduce a loyalty oath along the same lines.

In several areas, Livni pressed for Arab citizens of Israel to be included in a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal, raising the controversial specter of “transfer”. In other words, shifting Palestinians to another state without their consent, a demand backed in its wholesale form by rightwing nationalists.

Livni explained privately that there are “some Palestinian villages located on both sides of the 1967 line about which we need to have an answer, such as Beit Safafa, Barta’a, Baqa al-Sharqiya and Baqa al-Gharbiya”. Earlier, she had made clear that such swaps also meant “the swap of the inhabitants”. But Palestinian negotiators rejected the proposal.

Tonight Livni’s spokesman said she had not discussed population transfers and insisted she had not criticized international law. In Ramallah on the West Bank today, al-Jazeera’s offices were taken over by a crowd of 250 security forces and protesters in response to the disclosures. Abbas said they were an intentional “mix-up”, while Erekat claimed they had been “taken out of context and contain lies”.

But senior PLO sources accepted privately that the documents were genuine.

The above article can be found here:



Also see ‘Bearing out the betrayal’ here:

Also see ‘Sacking proves Fatah-Israel collusion’ here:

Also see ‘Israeli stooge Abbas gives away the farm’ here:

Also see ‘Zionist-run PA (along with Arab League and OIC) keeps UN Goldstone Report, flotilla probe in bureaucratic limbo’ here:

Also see ‘Why Hamas took Gaza (Dayton, Dahlan and the plot against the resistance), Pt. 1’ here:

Also see ‘World’s only superpower admits failure to stop Israel’s illegal settlement drive’ here: see ‘Obama offers Israel free stealth fighters, UNSC vetoes, Jordan Valley for 90-day settlement freeze” here:

Also see ‘Zionist state comes out of Wikileaks debacle smelling like roses’ here:


Posted in Must Read on November 12, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘The Gaza Bombshell

Vanity Fair (US); April, 2008

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle, part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs.

With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current US officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser [and Jewish Zionist] Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

The Al Deira Hotel, in Gaza City, is a haven of calm in a land beset by poverty, fear, and violence. In the middle of December 2007, I sit in the hotel’s airy restaurant, its windows open to the Mediterranean, and listen to a slight, bearded man named Mazen Asad abu Dan describe the suffering he endured 11 months before at the hands of his fellow Palestinians. Abu Dan, 28, is a member of Hamas, the Iranian-backed Islamist organization that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States, but I have a good reason for taking him at his word: I’ve seen the video.

It shows abu Dan kneeling, his hands bound behind his back, and screaming as his captors pummel him with a black iron rod. “I lost all the skin on my back from the beatings,” he says. “Instead of medicine, they poured perfume on my wounds. It felt as if they had taken a sword to my injuries.”

On January 26, 2007, abu Dan, a student at the Islamic University of Gaza, had gone to a local cemetery with his father and five others to erect a headstone for his grandmother. When they arrived, however, they found themselves surrounded by 30 armed men from Hamas’s rival, Fatah, the party of Palestinian [Authority] president Mahmoud Abbas. “They took us to a house in north Gaza,” abu Dan says. “They covered our eyes and took us to a room on the sixth floor.”

The video reveals a bare room with white walls and a black-and-white tiled floor, where abu Dan’s father is forced to sit and listen to his son’s shrieks of pain. Afterward, abu Dan says, he and two of the others were driven to a market square. “They told us they were going to kill us. They made us sit on the ground.” He rolls up the legs of his trousers to display the circular scars that are evidence of what happened next: “They shot our knees and feet–five bullets each. I spent four months in a wheelchair.”

Abu Dan had no way of knowing it, but his tormentors had a secret ally: the [Neoconservative, i.e., Zionist] administration of President George W. Bush.

A clue comes toward the end of the video, which was found in a Fatah security building by Hamas fighters last June. Still bound and blindfolded, the prisoners are made to echo a rhythmic chant yelled by one of their captors: “By blood, by soul, we sacrifice ourselves for Muhammad Dahlan! Long live Muhammad Dahlan!”

There is no one more hated among Hamas members than Muhammad Dahlan, long Fatah’s resident strongman in Gaza. Dahlan, who most recently served as Abbas’s national-security adviser, has spent more than a decade battling Hamas. Dahlan insists that abu Dan was tortured without his knowledge, but the video is proof that his followers’ methods can be brutal.

Bush has met Dahlan on at least three occasions. After talks at the White House in July 2003, Bush publicly praised Dahlan as “a good, solid leader.” In private, say multiple Israeli and American officials, the US president described him as “our guy.”

The United States has been involved in the affairs of the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel captured Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. With the 1993 Oslo accords, the territories acquired limited autonomy, under a president, who has executive powers, and an elected parliament. Israel retains a large military presence in the West Bank, but it withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

In recent months, President Bush has repeatedly stated that the last great ambition of his presidency is to broker a deal that would create a viable Palestinian state and bring peace to the Holy Land. “People say, ‘Do you think it’s possible, during your presidency?’ ” he told an audience in Jerusalem on January 9. “And the answer is: I’m very hopeful.”

The next day, in the West Bank capital of Ramallah, Bush acknowledged that there was a rather large obstacle standing in the way of this goal: Hamas’s complete control of Gaza, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians, where it seized power in a bloody coup d’état in June 2007. Almost every day, militants fire rockets from Gaza into neighboring Israeli towns [where the extremely primitive rockets rarely if ever result in casualties — 800], and President Abbas is powerless to stop them. His authority is limited to the West Bank.

It’s “a tough situation,” Bush admitted. “I don’t know whether you can solve it in a year or not.” What Bush neglected to mention was his own role in creating this mess.

According to Dahlan, it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready. After Hamas — whose 1988 charter committed it to the goal of driving Israel into the sea [Actually, the Hamas charter commits it to the goal of driving the Zionist regime into the sea — 800]won control of the parliament, Bush made another, deadlier miscalculation.

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the US and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the CIA’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.

Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative [and Jewish Zionist], who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.

Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”

Preventive securityBush was not the first American president to form a relationship with Muhammad Dahlan. “Yes, I was close to Bill Clinton,” Dahlan says. “I met Clinton many times with [the late Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat.” In the wake of the 1993 Oslo accords, Clinton sponsored a series of diplomatic meetings aimed at reaching a permanent Middle East peace, and Dahlan became the Palestinians’ negotiator on security.

As I talk to Dahlan in a five-star Cairo hotel, it’s easy to see the qualities that might make him attractive to American presidents. His appearance is immaculate, his English is serviceable, and his manner is charming and forthright. Had he been born into privilege, these qualities might not mean much. But Dahlan was born — on September 29, 1961 — in the teeming squalor of Gaza’s Khan Younis refugee camp, and his education came mostly from the street. In 1981 he helped found Fatah’s youth movement, and he later played a leading role in the first intifada — the five-year revolt that began in 1987 against the Israeli occupation. In all, Dahlan says, he spent five years in Israeli jails.

From the time of its inception as the Palestinian branch of the international Muslim Brotherhood, in late 1987, Hamas had represented a threatening challenge to Arafat’s secular Fatah party. At Oslo, Fatah made a public commitment to the search for peace, but Hamas continued to practice armed resistance. At the same time, it built an impressive base of support through schooling and social programs.

The rising tensions between the two groups first turned violent in the early 1990s — with Muhammad Dahlan playing a central role. As director of the Palestinian Authority’s most feared paramilitary force, the Preventive Security Service, Dahlan arrested some 2,000 Hamas members in 1996 in the Gaza Strip after the group launched a wave of suicide bombings. “Arafat had decided to arrest Hamas military leaders, because they were working against his interests, against the peace process, against the Israeli withdrawal, against everything,” Dahlan says. “He asked the security services to do their job, and I have done that job.”

It was not, he admits, “popular work.” For many years Hamas has said that Dahlan’s forces routinely tortured detainees. One alleged method was to sodomize prisoners with soda bottles. Dahlan says these stories are exaggerated: “Definitely there were some mistakes here and there. But no one person died in Preventive Security. Prisoners got their rights. Bear in mind that I am an ex-detainee of the Israelis’. No one was personally humiliated, and I never killed anyone the way [Hamas is] killing people on a daily basis now.” Dahlan points out that Arafat maintained a labyrinth of security services — 14 in all — and says the Preventive Security Service was blamed for abuses perpetrated by other units.

Dahlan worked closely with the FBI and the CIA, and he developed a warm relationship with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who stayed on under Bush until July 2004. “He’s simply a great and fair man,” Dahlan says. “I’m still in touch with him from time to time.”

‘Everyone was against the elections’In a speech in the White House Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, President Bush announced that American policy in the Middle East was turning in a fundamentally new direction.

Arafat was still in power at the time, and many in the US and Israel blamed him for wrecking Clinton’s micro-managed peace efforts by launching the second intifada — a renewed revolt, begun in 2000, in which more than 1,000 Israelis and 4,500 Palestinians had died. Bush said he wanted to give Palestinians the chance to choose new leaders, ones who were not “compromised by terror.” In place of Arafat’s all-powerful presidency, Bush said, “the Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body.”

Arafat died [most likely poisoned by the Israelis or their proxies — 800] in November 2004, and Abbas, his replacement as Fatah leader, was elected president in January 2005. Elections for the Palestinian parliament, known officially as the Legislative Council, were originally set for July 2005, but later postponed by Abbas until January 2006.

Dahlan says he warned his friends in the Bush administration that Fatah still wasn’t ready for elections in January. Decades of self-preservationist rule by Arafat had turned the party into a symbol of corruption and inefficiency — a perception Hamas found it easy to exploit. Splits within Fatah weakened its position further: in many places, a single Hamas candidate ran against several from Fatah.

“Everyone was against the elections,” Dahlan says. Everyone except Bush. “Bush decided, ‘I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.’ Everyone is following him in the American administration, and everyone is nagging Abbas, telling him, ‘The president wants elections.’ Fine. For what purpose?”

The elections went forward as scheduled. On January 25, Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Legislative Council.

Few inside the US administration had predicted the result, and there was no contingency plan to deal with it. “I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming,” Condoleezza Rice told reporters. “I don’t know anyone who wasn’t caught off guard by Hamas’s strong showing.”

“Everyone blamed everyone else,” says an official with the Department of Defense. “We sat there in the Pentagon and said, ‘Who the *censored* recommended this?’ ”

In public, Rice tried to look on the bright side of the Hamas victory.

“Unpredictability,” she said, is “the nature of big historic change.” Even as she spoke, however, the Bush administration was rapidly revising its attitude toward Palestinian democracy.

Some analysts argued that Hamas had a substantial moderate wing that could be strengthened if America coaxed it into the peace process. Notable Israelis — such as Ephraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency — shared this view. But if America paused to consider giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt, the moment was “milliseconds long,” says a senior State Department official. “The administration spoke with one voice: ‘We have to squeeze these guys.’ With Hamas’s election victory, the freedom agenda was dead.”

The first step, taken by the Middle East diplomatic “Quartet” — the US, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations — was to demand that the new Hamas government renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and accept the terms of all previous agreements. When Hamas refused, the Quartet shut off the faucet of aid to the Palestinian Authority, depriving it of the means to pay salaries and meet its annual budget of roughly $2 billion.

Israel clamped down on Palestinians’ freedom of movement, especially into and out of the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip. Israel also detained 64 Hamas officials, including Legislative Council members and ministers, and even launched a military campaign into Gaza after one of its soldiers was kidnapped. Through it all, Hamas and its new government, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, proved surprisingly resilient.

Washington reacted with dismay when Abbas began holding talks with Hamas in the hope of establishing a “unity government.” On October 4, 2006, Rice traveled to Ramallah to see Abbas. They met at the Muqata, the new presidential headquarters that rose from the ruins of Arafat’s compound, which Israel had destroyed in 2002.

America’s leverage in Palestinian affairs was much stronger than it had been in Arafat’s time. Abbas had never had a strong, independent base, and he desperately needed to restore the flow of foreign aid — and, with it, his power of patronage. He also knew that he could not stand up to Hamas without Washington’s help.

At their joint press conference, Rice smiled as she expressed her nation’s “great admiration” for Abbas’s leadership. Behind closed doors, however, Rice’s tone was sharper, say officials who witnessed their meeting. Isolating Hamas just wasn’t working, she reportedly told Abbas, and America expected him to dissolve the Haniyeh government as soon as possible and hold fresh elections.

Abbas, one official says, agreed to take action within two weeks. It happened to be Ramadan, the month when Muslims fast during daylight hours. With dusk approaching, Abbas asked Rice to join him for iftar — a snack to break the fast.

Afterward, according to the official, Rice underlined her position: “So we’re agreed? You’ll dissolve the government within two weeks?”

“Maybe not two weeks. Give me a month. Let’s wait until after the Eid,” he said, referring to the three-day celebration that marks the end of Ramadan. (Abbas’s spokesman said via e-mail: “According to our records, this is incorrect.”)

Rice got into her armored SUV, where, the official claims, she told an American colleague, “That damned iftar has cost us another two weeks of Hamas government.”

‘We will be there to support you’Weeks passed with no sign that Abbas was ready to do America’s bidding. Finally, another official was sent to Ramallah. Jake Walles, the consul general in Jerusalem, is a career foreign-service officer with many years’ experience in the Middle East. His purpose was to deliver a barely varnished ultimatum to the Palestinian president.

We know what Walles said because a copy was left behind, apparently by accident, of the “talking points” memo prepared for him by the State Department. The document has been authenticated by US and Palestinian officials.

“We need to understand your plans regarding a new [Palestinian Authority] government,” Walles’s script said. “You told Secretary Rice you would be prepared to move ahead within two to four weeks of your meeting. We believe that the time has come for you to move forward quickly and decisively.”

The memo left no doubt as to what kind of action the US was seeking: “Hamas should be given a clear choice, with a clear deadline: … they either accept a new government that meets the Quartet principles, or they reject it. The consequences of Hamas’ decision should also be clear: If Hamas does not agree within the prescribed time, you should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government explicitly committed to that platform.”

Walles and Abbas both knew what to expect from Hamas if these instructions were followed: rebellion and bloodshed. For that reason, the memo states, the US was already working to strengthen Fatah’s security forces. “If you act along these lines, we will support you both materially and politically,” the script said. “We will be there to support you.”

Abbas was also encouraged to “strengthen [his] team” to include “credible figures of strong standing in the international community.” Among those the US wanted brought in, says an official who knew of the policy, was Muhammad Dahlan.

On paper, the forces at Fatah’s disposal looked stronger than those of Hamas. There were some 70,000 men in the tangle of 14 Palestinian security services that Arafat had built up, at least half of those in Gaza. After the legislative elections, Hamas had expected to assume command of these forces, but Fatah maneuvered to keep them under its control. Hamas, which already had 6,000 or so irregulars in its militant al-Qassam Brigade, responded by forming the 6,000-troop Executive Force in Gaza, but that still left it with far fewer fighters than Fatah.

In reality, however, Hamas had several advantages. To begin with, Fatah’s security forces had never really recovered from Operation Defensive Shield, Israel’s massive 2002 re-invasion of the West Bank in response to the second intifada. “Most of the security apparatus had been destroyed,” says Youssef Issa, who led the Preventive Security Service under Abbas.

The irony of the blockade on foreign aid after Hamas’s legislative victory, meanwhile, was that it prevented only Fatah from paying its soldiers. “We are the ones who were not getting paid,” Issa says, “whereas they were not affected by the siege.” Ayman Daraghmeh, a Hamas Legislative Council member in the West Bank, agrees. He puts the amount of Iranian aid to Hamas in 2007 alone at $120 million. “This is only a fraction of what it should give,” he insists. In Gaza, another Hamas member tells me the number was closer to $200 million.

The result was becoming apparent: Fatah could not control Gaza’s streets — or even protect its own personnel.

At about 1:30 p.m. on September 15, 2006, Samira Tayeh sent a text message to her husband, Jad Tayeh, the director of foreign relations for the Palestinian intelligence service and a member of Fatah. “He didn’t reply,” she says. “I tried to call his mobile [phone], but it was switched off. So I called his deputy, Mahmoun, and he didn’t know where he was. That’s when I decided to go to the hospital.”

Samira, a slim, elegant 40-year-old dressed from head to toe in black, tells me the story in a Ramallah café in December 2007. Arriving at the Al Shifa hospital, “I went through the morgue door. Not for any reason — I just didn’t know the place. I saw there were all these intelligence guards there. There was one I knew. He saw me and he said, ‘Put her in the car.’ That’s when I knew something had happened to Jad.”

Tayeh had left his office in a car with four aides. Moments later, they found themselves being pursued by an SUV full of armed, masked men. About 200 yards from the home of Prime Minister Haniyeh, the SUV cornered the car. The masked men opened fire, killing Tayeh and all four of his colleagues.

Hamas said it had nothing to do with the murders, but Samira had reason to believe otherwise. At three a.m. on June 16, 2007, during the Gaza takeover, six Hamas gunmen forced their way into her home and fired bullets into every photo of Jad they could find. The next day, they returned and demanded the keys to the car in which he had died, claiming that it belonged to the Palestinian Authority.

Fearing for her life, she fled across the border and then into the West Bank, with only the clothes she was wearing and her passport, driver’s license, and credit card.

‘Very clever warfare’Fatah’s vulnerability was a source of grave concern to Dahlan. “I made a lot of activities to give Hamas the impression that we were still strong and we had the capacity to face them,” he says. “But I knew in my heart it wasn’t true.” He had no official security position at the time, but he belonged to parliament and retained the loyalty of Fatah members in Gaza. “I used my image, my power.” Dahlan says he told Abbas that “Gaza needs only a decision for Hamas to take over.” To prevent that from happening, Dahlan waged “very clever warfare” for many months.

According to several alleged victims, one of the tactics this “warfare” entailed was to kidnap and torture members of Hamas’s Executive Force. (Dahlan denies Fatah used such tactics, but admits “mistakes” were made.) Abdul Karim al-Jasser, a strapping man of 25, says he was the first such victim. “It was on October 16, still Ramadan,” he says. “I was on my way to my sister’s house for iftar. Four guys stopped me, two of them with guns. They forced me to accompany them to the home of Aman abu Jidyan,” a Fatah leader close to Dahlan. (Abu Jidyan would be killed in the June uprising.)

The first phase of torture was straightforward enough, al-Jasser says: he was stripped naked, bound, blindfolded, and beaten with wooden poles and plastic pipes. “They put a piece of cloth in my mouth to stop me screaming.” His interrogators forced him to answer contradictory accusations: one minute they said that he had collaborated with Israel, the next that he had fired Qassam rockets against it.

But the worst was yet to come. “They brought an iron bar,” al-Jasser says, his voice suddenly hesitant. We are speaking inside his home in Gaza, which is experiencing one of its frequent power outages. He points to the propane-gas lamp that lights the room. “They put the bar in the flame of a lamp like this. When it was red, they took the covering off my eyes. Then they pressed it against my skin. That was the last thing I remember.”

When he came to, he was still in the room where he had been tortured. A few hours later, the Fatah men handed him over to Hamas, and he was taken to the hospital. “I could see the shock in the eyes of the doctors who entered the room,” he says. He shows me photos of purple third-degree burns wrapped like towels around his thighs and much of his lower torso. “The doctors told me that if I had been thin, not chubby, I would have died. But I wasn’t alone. That same night that I was released, abu Jidyan’s men fired five bullets into the legs of one of my relatives. We were in the same ward in the hospital.”

Dahlan says he did not order al-Jasser’s torture: “The only order I gave was to defend ourselves. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t torture, some things that went wrong, but I did not know about this.”

The dirty war between Fatah and Hamas continued to gather momentum throughout the autumn, with both sides committing atrocities. By the end of 2006, dozens were dying each month. Some of the victims were noncombatants. In December, gunmen opened fire on the car of a Fatah intelligence official, killing his three young children and their driver.

There was still no sign that Abbas was ready to bring matters to a head by dissolving the Hamas government. Against this darkening background, the US began direct security talks with Dahlan.

‘He’s our guy’In 2001, President Bush famously said that he had looked Russian president Vladimir Putin in the eye, gotten “a sense of his soul,” and found him to be “trustworthy.” According to three US officials, Bush made a similar judgment about Dahlan when they first met, in 2003. All three officials recall hearing Bush say, “He’s our guy.”

They say this assessment was echoed by other key figures in the administration, including Rice and Assistant Secretary David Welch, the man in charge of Middle East policy at the State Department. “David Welch didn’t fundamentally care about Fatah,” one of his colleagues says. “He cared about results, and [he supported] whatever son of a *censored* you had to support. Dahlan was the son of a *censored* we happened to know best. He was a can-do kind of person. Dahlan was our guy.

Avi Dichter, Israel’s internal-security minister and the former head of its Shin Bet security service, was taken aback when he heard senior American officials refer to Dahlan as “our guy.” “I thought to myself, the president of the United States is making a strange judgment here,” says Dichter.

Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, who had been appointed the US security coordinator for the Palestinians in November 2005, was in no position to question the president’s judgment of Dahlan. His only prior experience with the Middle East was as director of the Iraq Survey Group, the body that looked for Saddam Hussein’s elusive weapons of mass destruction.

In November 2006, Dayton met Dahlan for the first of a long series of talks in Jerusalem and Ramallah. Both men were accompanied by aides. From the outset, says an official who took notes at the meeting, Dayton was pushing two overlapping agendas.

We need to reform the Palestinian security apparatus,” Dayton said, according to the notes. “But we also need to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”

Dahlan replied that, in the long run, Hamas could be defeated only by political means. “But if I am going to confront them,” he added, “I need substantial resources. As things stand, we do not have the capability.”

The two men agreed that they would work toward a new Palestinian security plan. The idea was to simplify the confusing web of Palestinian security forces and have Dahlan assume responsibility for all of them in the newly created role of Palestinian national-security adviser. The Americans would help supply weapons and training.

As part of the reform program, according to the official who was present at the meetings, Dayton said he wanted to disband the Preventive Security Service, which was widely known to be engaged in kidnapping and torture. At a meeting in Dayton’s Jerusalem office in early December, Dahlan ridiculed the idea. “The only institution now protecting Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in Gaza is the one you want removed,” he said.

Dayton softened a little. “We want to help you,” he said. “What do you need?”

‘Iran-Contra 2.0’Under Bill Clinton, Dahlan says, commitments of security assistance “were always delivered, absolutely.” Under Bush, he was about to discover, things were different. At the end of 2006, Dayton promised an immediate package worth $86.4 million — money that, according to a US document published by Reuters on January 5, 2007, would be used to “dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza.” US officials even told reporters the money would be transferred “in the coming days.”

The cash never arrived. “Nothing was disbursed,” Dahlan says. “It was approved and it was in the news. But we received not a single penny.”

Any notion that the money could be transferred quickly and easily had died on Capitol Hill, where the payment was blocked by the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Its members feared that military aid to the Palestinians might end up being turned against Israel.

Dahlan did not hesitate to voice his exasperation. “I spoke to Condoleezza Rice on several occasions,” he says. “I spoke to Dayton, to the consul general, to everyone in the administration I knew. They said, ‘You have a convincing argument.’ We were sitting in Abbas’s office in Ramallah, and I explained the whole thing to Condi. And she said, ‘Yes, we have to make an effort to do this. There’s no other way.’ ” At some of these meetings, Dahlan says, Assistant Secretary Welch and Deputy National-Security Adviser Abrams were also present.

The administration went back to Congress, and a reduced, $59 million package for nonlethal aid was approved in April 2007. But as Dahlan knew, the Bush team had already spent the past months exploring alternative, covert means of getting him the funds and weapons he wanted. The reluctance of Congress meant that “you had to look for different pots, different sources of money,” says a Pentagon official.

A State Department official adds, “Those in charge of implementing the policy were saying, ‘Do whatever it takes. We have to be in a position for Fatah to defeat Hamas militarily, and only Muhammad Dahlan has the guile and the muscle to do this.’ The expectation was that this was where it would end up –with a military showdown.” There were, this official says, two “parallel programs” — the overt one, which the administration took to Congress, “and a covert one, not only to buy arms but to pay the salaries of security personnel.”

In essence, the program was simple. According to State Department officials, beginning in the latter part of 2006, Rice initiated several rounds of phone calls and personal meetings with leaders of four Arab nations — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. She asked them to bolster Fatah by providing military training and by pledging funds to buy its forces lethal weapons. The money was to be paid directly into accounts controlled by President Abbas.

The scheme bore some resemblance to the Iran-contra scandal, in which members of Ronald Reagan’s administration sold arms to Iran, an enemy of the US. The money was used to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua, in violation of a congressional ban. Some of the money for the contras, like that for Fatah, was furnished by Arab allies as a result of US lobbying.

But there are also important differences — starting with the fact that Congress never passed a measure expressly prohibiting the supply of aid to Fatah and Dahlan. “It was close to the margins,” says a former intelligence official with experience in covert programs. “But it probably wasn’t illegal.”

Legal or not, arms shipments soon began to take place. In late December 2006, four Egyptian trucks passed through an Israeli-controlled crossing into Gaza, where their contents were handed over to Fatah. These included 2,000 Egyptian-made automatic rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips, and two million bullets. News of the shipment leaked, and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, an Israeli Cabinet member, said on Israeli radio that the guns and ammunition would give Abbas “the ability to cope with those organizations which are trying to ruin everything” — namely, Hamas.

Avi Dichter points out that all weapons shipments had to be approved by Israel, which was understandably hesitant to allow state-of-the-art arms into Gaza. “One thing’s for sure, we weren’t talking about heavy weapons,” says a State Department official. “It was small arms, light machine guns, ammunition.”

Perhaps the Israelis held the Americans back. Perhaps Elliott Abrams himself held back, unwilling to run afoul of US law for a second time. One of his associates says Abrams, who declined to comment for this article, felt conflicted over the policy — torn between the disdain he felt for Dahlan and his overriding loyalty to the administration. He wasn’t the only one: “There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this,” says Cheney’s former adviser David Wurmser. “We were ripping each other to pieces.”

During a trip to the Middle East in January 2007, Rice found it difficult to get her partners to honor their pledges. “The Arabs felt the US was not serious,” one official says. “They knew that if the Americans were serious they would put their own money where their mouth was. They didn’t have faith in America’s ability to raise a real force. There was no follow-through. Paying was different than pledging, and there was no plan.”

This official estimates that the program raised “a few payments of $30 million” — most of it, as other sources agree, from the United Arab Emirates. Dahlan himself says the total was only $20 million, and confirms that “the Arabs made many more pledges than they ever paid.” Whatever the exact amount, it was not enough.

Plan BOn February 1, 2007, Dahlan took his “very clever warfare” to a new level when Fatah forces under his control stormed the Islamic University of Gaza, a Hamas stronghold, and set several buildings on fire. Hamas retaliated the next day with a wave of attacks on police stations.

Unwilling to preside over a Palestinian civil war, Abbas blinked. For weeks, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had been trying to persuade him to meet with Hamas in Mecca and formally establish a national unity government. On February 6, Abbas went, taking Dahlan with him. Two days later, with Hamas no closer to recognizing Israel, a deal was struck.

Under its terms, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas would remain prime minister while allowing Fatah members to occupy several important posts. When the news hit the streets that the Saudis had promised to pay the Palestinian Authority’s salary bills, Fatah and Hamas members in Gaza celebrated together by firing their Kalashnikovs into the air.

Once again, the Bush administration had been taken by surprise. According to a State Department official, “Condi was apoplectic.” A remarkable documentary record, revealed here for the first time, shows that the US responded by redoubling the pressure on its Palestinian allies.

The State Department quickly drew up an alternative to the new unity government. Known as “Plan B,” its objective, according to a State Department memo that has been authenticated by an official who knew of it at the time, was to “enable [Abbas] and his supporters to reach a defined endgame by the end of 2007. The endgame should produce a [Palestinian Authority] government through democratic means that accepts Quartet principles.”

Like the Walles ultimatum of late 2006, Plan B called for Abbas to “collapse the government” if Hamas refused to alter its attitude toward Israel. From there, Abbas could call early elections or impose an emergency government. It is unclear whether, as president, Abbas had the constitutional authority to dissolve an elected government led by a rival party, but the Americans swept that concern aside.

Security considerations were paramount, and Plan B had explicit prescriptions for dealing with them. For as long as the unity government remained in office, it was essential for Abbas to maintain “independent control of key security forces.” He must “avoid Hamas integration with these services, while eliminating the Executive Force or mitigating the challenges posed by its continued existence.”

In a clear reference to the covert aid expected from the Arabs, the memo made this recommendation for the next six to nine months: “Dahlan oversees effort in coordination with General Dayton and Arab [nations] to train and equip 15,000-man force under President Abbas’s control to establish internal law and order, stop terrorism and deter extralegal forces.”

The Bush administration’s goals for Plan B were elaborated in a document titled “An Action Plan for the Palestinian Presidency.” This action plan went through several drafts and was developed by the US, the Palestinians, and the government of Jordan. Sources agree, however, that it originated in the State Department.

The early drafts stressed the need for bolstering Fatah’s forces in order to “deter” Hamas. The “desired outcome” was to give Abbas “the capability to take the required strategic political decisions … such as dismissing the cabinet, establishing an emergency cabinet.”

The drafts called for increasing the “level and capacity” of 15,000 of Fatah’s existing security personnel while adding 4,700 troops in seven new “highly trained battalions on strong policing.” The plan also promised to arrange “specialized training abroad,” in Jordan and Egypt, and pledged to “provide the security personnel with the necessary equipment and arms to carry out their missions.”

A detailed budget put the total cost for salaries, training, and “the needed security equipment, lethal and non-lethal,” at $1.27 billion over five years. The plan states: “The costs and overall budget were developed jointly with General Dayton’s team and the Palestinian technical team for reform”– a unit established by Dahlan and led by his friend and policy aide Bassil Jaber. Jaber confirms that the document is an accurate summary of the work he and his colleagues did with Dayton. “The plan was to create a security establishment that could protect and strengthen a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with Israel,” he says.

The final draft of the Action Plan was drawn up in Ramallah by officials of the Palestinian Authority. This version was identical to the earlier drafts in all meaningful ways but one: it presented the plan as if it had been the Palestinians’ idea. It also said the security proposals had been “approved by President Mahmoud Abbas after being discussed and agreed [to] by General Dayton’s team.”

On April 30, 2007, a portion of one early draft was leaked to a Jordanian newspaper, Al-Majd. The secret was out. From Hamas’s perspective, the Action Plan could amount to only one thing: a blueprint for a US-backed Fatah coup.

‘We are late in the ball game here’The formation of the unity government had brought a measure of calm to the Palestinian territories, but violence erupted anew after Al-Majd published its story on the Action Plan. The timing was unkind to Fatah, which, to add to its usual disadvantages, was without its security chief. Ten days earlier, Dahlan had left Gaza for Berlin, where he’d had surgery on both knees. He was due to spend the next eight weeks convalescing.

In mid-May, with Dahlan still absent, a new element was added to Gaza’s toxic mix when 500 Fatah National Security Forces recruits arrived, fresh from training in Egypt and equipped with new weapons and vehicles. “They had been on a crash course for 45 days,” Dahlan says. “The idea was that we needed them to go in dressed well, equipped well, and that might create the impression of new authority.” Their presence was immediately noticed, not only by Hamas but by staff from Western aid agencies. “They had new rifles with telescopic sights, and they were wearing black flak jackets,” says a frequent visitor from Northern Europe. “They were quite a contrast to the usual scruffy lot.”

On May 23, none other than Lieutenant General Dayton discussed the new unit in testimony before the House Middle East subcommittee. Hamas had attacked the troops as they crossed into Gaza from Egypt, Dayton said, but “these 500 young people, fresh out of basic training, were organized. They knew how to work in a coordinated fashion. Training does pay off. And the Hamas attack in the area was, likewise, repulsed.”

The troops’ arrival, Dayton said, was one of several “hopeful signs” in Gaza. Another was Dahlan’s appointment as national-security adviser. Meanwhile, he said, Hamas’s Executive Force was becoming “extremely unpopular. I would say that we are kind of late in the ball game here, and we are behind, there’s two out, but we have our best clutch hitter at the plate, and the pitcher is beginning to tire on the opposing team.”

The opposing team was stronger than Dayton realized. By the end of May 2007, Hamas was mounting regular attacks of unprecedented boldness and savagery.

At an apartment in Ramallah that Abbas has set aside for wounded refugees from Gaza, I meet a former Fatah communications officer named Tariq Rafiyeh. He lies paralyzed from a bullet he took to the spine during the June coup, but his suffering began two weeks earlier. On May 31, he was on his way home with a colleague when they were stopped at a roadblock, robbed of their money and cell phones, and taken to a mosque. There, despite the building’s holy status, Hamas Executive Force members were violently interrogating Fatah detainees. “Late that night one of them said we were going to be released,” Rafiyeh recalls. “He told the guards, ‘Be hospitable, keep them warm.’ I thought that meant kill us. Instead, before letting us go they beat us badly.”

On June 7, there was another damaging leak, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Abbas and Dayton had asked Israel to authorize the biggest Egyptian arms shipment yet — to include dozens of armored cars, hundreds of armor-piercing rockets, thousands of hand grenades, and millions of rounds of ammunition. A few days later, just before the next batch of Fatah recruits was due to leave for training in Egypt, the coup began in earnest.

Fatah’s last standThe Hamas leadership in Gaza is adamant that the coup would not have happened if Fatah had not provoked it. Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas’s chief spokesman, says the leak in Al-Majd convinced the party that “there was a plan, approved by America, to destroy the political choice.” The arrival of the first Egyptian-trained fighters, he adds, was the “reason for the timing.” About 250 Hamas members had been killed in the first six months of 2007, Barhoum tells me. “Finally we decided to put an end to it. If we had let them stay loose in Gaza, there would have been more violence.”

“Everyone here recognizes that Dahlan was trying with American help to undermine the results of the elections,” says Mahmoud Zahar, the former foreign minister for the Haniyeh government, who now leads Hamas’s militant wing in Gaza. “He was the one planning a coup.”

Zahar and I speak inside his home in Gaza, which was rebuilt after a 2003 Israeli air strike destroyed it, killing one of his sons. He tells me that Hamas launched its operations in June with a limited objective: “The decision was only to get rid of the Preventive Security Service. They were the ones out on every crossroads, putting anyone suspected of Hamas involvement at risk of being tortured or killed.” But when Fatah fighters inside a surrounded Preventive Security office in Jabaliya began retreating from building to building, they set off a “domino effect” that emboldened Hamas to seek broader gains.

Many armed units that were nominally loyal to Fatah did not fight at all. Some stayed neutral because they feared that, with Dahlan absent, his forces were bound to lose. “I wanted to stop the cycle of killing,” says Ibrahim abu al-Nazar, a veteran party chief. “What did Dahlan expect? Did he think the US Navy was going to come to Fatah’s rescue? They promised him everything, but what did they do? But he also deceived them. He told them he was the strongman of the region. Even the Americans may now feel sad and frustrated. Their friend lost the battle.”

Others who stayed out of the fight were extremists. “Fatah is a large movement, with many schools inside it,” says Khalid Jaberi, a commander with Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which continue to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza. “Dahlan’s school is funded by the Americans and believes in negotiations with Israel as a strategic choice. Dahlan tried to control everything in Fatah, but there are cadres who could do a much better job. Dahlan treated us dictatorially. There was no overall Fatah decision to confront Hamas, and that’s why our guns in al-Aqsa are the cleanest. They are not corrupted by the blood of our people.”

Jaberi pauses. He spent the night before our interview awake and in hiding, fearful of Israeli air strikes. “You know,” he says, “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy [or just plain stupid — 800] otherwise.”

The fighting was over in less than five days. It began with attacks on Fatah security buildings, in and around Gaza City and in the southern town of Rafah. Fatah attempted to shell Prime Minister Haniyeh’s house, but by dusk on June 13 its forces were being routed.

Years of oppression by Dahlan and his forces were avenged as Hamas chased down stray Fatah fighters and subjected them to summary execution. At least one victim was reportedly thrown from the roof of a high-rise building. By June 16, Hamas had captured every Fatah building, as well as Abbas’s official Gaza residence. Much of Dahlan’s house, which doubled as his office, was reduced to rubble.

Fatah’s last stand, predictably enough, was made by the Preventive Security Service. The unit sustained heavy casualties, but a rump of about 100 surviving fighters eventually made it to the beach and escaped in the night by fishing boat.

At the apartment in Ramallah, the wounded struggle on. Unlike Fatah, Hamas fired exploding bullets, which are banned under the Geneva Conventions. Some of the men in the apartment were shot with these rounds 20 or 30 times, producing unimaginable injuries that required amputation. Several have lost both legs.

The coup has had other costs. Amjad Shawer, a local economist, tells me that Gaza had 400 functioning factories and workshops at the start of 2007. By December, the intensified Israeli blockade had caused 90 percent of them to close. Seventy percent of Gaza’s population is now living on less than $2 a day.

Israel, meanwhile, is no safer. The emergency pro-peace government called for in the secret Action Plan is now in office — but only in the West Bank. In Gaza, the exact thing both Israel and the US Congress warned against came to pass when Hamas captured most of Fatah’s arms and ammunition — including the new Egyptian guns supplied under the covert US-Arab aid program.

Now that it controls Gaza, Hamas has given free rein to militants intent on firing rockets into neighboring Israeli towns [i.e., resisting the Israeli occupation of their land — 800]. “We are still developing our rockets; soon we shall hit the heart of Ashkelon at will,” says Jaberi, the al-Aqsa commander, referring to the Israeli city of 110,000 people 12 miles from Gaza’s border. “I assure you, the time is near when we will mount a big operation inside Israel, in Haifa or Tel Aviv.”

On January 23, Hamas blew up parts of the wall dividing Gaza from Egypt, and tens of thousands of Palestinians crossed the border. Militants had already been smuggling weapons through a network of underground tunnels, but the breach of the wall made their job much easier — and may have brought Jaberi’s threat closer to reality.

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice continue to push the peace process, but Avi Dichter says Israel will never conclude a deal on Palestinian statehood until the Palestinians reform their entire law-enforcement system — what he calls “the chain of security.” With Hamas in control of Gaza, there appears to be no chance of that happening. “Just look at the situation,” says Dahlan. “They say there will be a final-status agreement in eight months? No way.”

‘An institutional failure’How could the US have played Gaza so wrong? Neocon critics of the administration — who until last year were inside it — blame an old State Department vice: the rush to anoint a strongman instead of solving problems directly. This ploy has failed in places as diverse as Vietnam, the Philippines, Central America, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, during its war against Iran. To rely on proxies such as Muhammad Dahlan, says former UN ambassador John Bolton, is “an institutional failure, a failure of strategy.” Its author, he says, was Rice, “who, like others in the dying days of this administration, is looking for legacy. Having failed to heed the warning not to hold the elections, they tried to avoid the result through Dayton.”

With few good options left, the administration now appears to be rethinking its blanket refusal to engage with Hamas. Staffers at the National Security Council and the Pentagon recently put out discreet feelers to academic experts, asking them for papers describing Hamas and its principal protagonists. “They say they won’t talk to Hamas,” says one such expert, “but in the end they’re going to have to. It’s inevitable.”

It is impossible to say for sure whether the outcome in Gaza would have been any better — for the Palestinian people, for the Israelis, and for America’s allies in Fatah — if the Bush administration had pursued a different policy. One thing, however, seems certain: it could not be any worse.

The above article can be found here:


Also see ‘Who is Muhammad Dahlan?’ here:

Also see ‘Bearing out the betrayal’ here:

Also see ‘After Gaza, resistance reconsidered’ here:


Posted in Must Read on November 12, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla



The 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip by Palestinian resistance movement Hamas (which swept democratically-held Palestinian legislative elections one year earlier) is inevitably described by the Zionist-controlled media as the “bloody” or “violent” seizure of the coastal enclave from forces loyal to the US-backed Palestinian Authority (PA).

Such media reports, however, leave Hamas’ motivations for capturing the strip entirely unexplained. For example, few readers of ‘mainstream’ media will have heard of the so-called “Dayton Plan,” the failed Israeli/US plot (quarterbacked by PA strongman Mohamed Dahlan) to annihilate the Hamas leadership in Gaza — a scheme that precipitated the resistance group’s preemptive takeover of the territory.

Lest these facts, which are essential to understanding the current situation in Gaza, be forgotten, the following news reports from 2007/08 should shed some light on the reasoning behind Hamas’ lightning capture of the strip — a move swiftly followed by the internationally-sanctioned embargo of the territory by Israel and Egypt.

‘This bombshell took a year falling’

Inter Press Service (IPS); April 2, 2008

CAIRO — A recent article in Vanity Fair magazine “exposing” a US-planned coup attempt against Palestinian resistance movement Hamas last year has ignited a storm of debate about Washington’s Middle East policies. Yet for more than nine months, details of the plot were reported in the independent Arabic press — and elsewhere — leading some observers to ask: where was the mainstream media?

“From the very beginning, Hamas has publicly insisted that what happened in Gaza last year came in reaction to plans being hatched against it,” Tarek Abd al-Gaber, former news correspondent for Egyptian state television covering Israel and the Palestinian territories, told IPS.

Hamas has been widely blamed in much of the mainstream media for carrying out a “violent coup” against the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the Gaza Strip last summer. After six days of heavy fighting, Hamas wrested control of the territory from the government of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the US-backed Fatah movement, in mid-June.

Hamas fighters quickly seized all official institutions and symbols of governance in the Gaza Strip, including the presidential residence in Gaza City.

Declaring a state of emergency from the Fatah-ruled West Bank, Abbas announced the dissolution of the previous national unity government, led by Hamas-affiliated Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh. Hamas leaders in Gaza, however, refused to recognize the declaration, and have remained in control of the territory.

Most western capitals, led by Washington, quickly condemned the takeover, placing blame for the dangerous turn of events squarely on Hamas. The refrain was taken up by much of the western media, which consistently portrayed the dispute as one between “extremist” Hamas in the Gaza Strip and “moderate” Fatah in the West Bank.

Many Arab capitals, too, denounced Hamas’s seizure of the volatile territory. The day after the upset, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was quoted in the state press as describing what happened as “the overthrow of Palestinian legitimacy.”

“What happened in the Gaza Strip was nothing less than a military coup d’etat,” Mohamed Basyouni, former Egyptian ambassador to Israel and current head of the Shura (upper parliamentary) Council’s committee for Arab affairs, told IPS at the time. “It was totally illegitimate.”

Yet in its April issue, the US leisure magazine Vanity Fair makes a startling claim: that Hamas’s takeover of the territory was prompted by a secret US plan aimed at extirpating the Islamist group’s leadership in Gaza.

In an article entitled “The Gaza Bombshell,” the magazine purports to “lay bare a covert initiative” approved by the White House and implemented by the US State Department “to provoke a Palestinian civil war.”

[For the full text of the Vanity Fair article, see ‘Why Hamas took Gaza, Pt. 2’]

Relying on confidential documents and former administration officials, author David Rose writes that after Hamas’s unexpected victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, the US administration drew up a plan to arm Fatah cadres with the aim of forcefully removing Hamas from power in Gaza. Under the terms of the arrangement, Rose writes, Fatah received arms and financing through a handful of Washington’s Arab allies, including Egypt and Jordan.

According to sources cited in the article, the plan was to be jointly coordinated by US Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton and long-time Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan.

But the conspiracy was stillborn. After a Jordanian newspaper leaked details of the plot, Hamas pre-emptively seized control of Gaza on 14 June and arrested much of Fatah’s leadership throughout the territory.

Instead of driving the Islamist group from power, Vanity Fair writes, “US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.”

White House and State Department officials have strenuously denied the article’s claims. Nevertheless, the Gaza “bombshell” has received wide coverage in the western news media, with several commentators comparing the magazine’s “revelations” to the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, which also involved the covert — and illegal — supply of arms to the Middle East.

Yet according to many local observers, the existence of the so-called “Dayton Plan” has been fairly well known since the upset in Gaza more than nine months ago.

“Hamas has consistently and publicly stated that what happened in June came in reaction to the Dayton Plan, which aimed at the group’s destruction,” said Ibrahim Eissa, editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Dustour, which published Hamas’s allegations last summer.

“But the group’s claims received little coverage in the mainstream Arab media — even [Arabic language news channel] al-Jazeera didn’t give the issue much attention,” Eissa told IPS. “The plot allegations were only covered in a handful of independent newspapers and on websites sympathetic to Hamas.”

Abd al-Gaber agreed that Egyptian state media wholly neglected to convey Hamas’s point of view regarding the reasons for the Gaza seizure.

“The official press took the US line and simply blamed Hamas for everything,” he said. “The White House insisted on calling Hamas’s actions a ‘coup’ regardless of the circumstances, and official media — in the west and in the Arab world — repeated this mantra.”

One notable exception to this was the Egyptian English-language state broadsheet Al-Ahram Weekly. In its 21 June edition, only one week after the Gaza upset, the newspaper quoted Hamas leader Yehia Moussa at length about the failed plot [see below].

“[US-backed Fatah fighters] were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas involving the murder of hundreds of people, including Hamas’s political and religious leaders,” Moussa was quoted as saying. “But we managed to thwart their plans before they could carry them out.”

Nor did IPS miss the story. In August of last year, in an article devoted to Fatah’s decling popularity [see below], IPS explicitly cited the Dayton Plan as a chief reason for Fatah’s deteriorating image on the Arab Street.

“Fatah’s image has also been tarnished by revelations that emerged in the immediate wake of the Gaza upset regarding a failed plan to extirpate the Hamas leadership,” IPS reported from Cairo on 21 August. “According to Hamas officials, the ‘Dayton Plan’ — named after US General Keith Dayton — had been scheduled to take place on 13 July.”

Citing Hamas spokesmen, the article noted that that the operation “was to be led by Fatah-affiliated strongman Mohammed Dahlan with logistical support from the US Central Intelligence Agency.”

The article went on to quote Essam al-Arian, a leading member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood movement — which controls a fifth of the Egyptian parliament and is ideologically close to Hamas — as saying: “The so-called Dayton Plan aimed to manipulate the Palestinians into waging war against each other.”

So why, then — if details of the US plan were so readily accessible for the last nine months — are Vanity Fair’s disclosures being treated by the mainstream media as new information?

Mohamed Mansour, professor of media at Cairo University, says the belated reporting proves the overwhelming bias against Hamas in much, if not all, of the western media.

“Western media institutions do everything in their power to tarnish the image of the Palestinian quest for statehood,” Mansour told IPS. “This can only be attributed to the Zionist influence on western, particularly American, media — a fact that can no longer be debated.”

Although the Vanity Fair article serves to vindicate Hamas’s Gaza takeover, Mansour went on to question the timing of its publication.

“Why did the media take so long to break the story?” he asked. “I suspect the article was only published now to further aggravate the rift between Hamas and Fatah and divert attention from developments elsewhere.”

According to Eissa, Egypt‘s official press has yet to mention the contentious Vanity Fair report.

“Even now, the state press hasn’t reported on the Vanity Fair story,” he said, noting that al-Dustour, by contrast, had published translated selections from the article in the first week of March.

Eissa added: “Like much of the western media, the official Arab press would rather ignore Hamas than publish stories that might serve to justify the resistance group’s actions.”

The above article can be found here:


‘Bush could have given Fatah that kiss of death’

Inter Press Service (IPS); August 21, 2007

CAIRO — Ever since the takeover of Gaza two months ago by Palestinian resistance faction Hamas, Washington and its allies have steadfastly supported the rival Fatah movement headed by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. But public support for Fatah, which has come to be seen by many as a stooge of Washington and Tel Aviv, has dropped off markedly.

“Popular support for Abbas and his Fatah party has fallen for several reasons,” Essam al-Arian, a leading member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood movement, told IPS. “For one, Abbas seems prepared to give Israel all the concessions it wants without getting anything in return.”

In mid-June, Hamas wrested control of the Gaza Strip from the US-backed Abbas government, essentially splitting the Palestinian body politic into two distinct geographical entities. Since then, the US Bush Administration — along with most of the western media — has consistently portrayed the dispute as one between an “extremist” Hamas in the Gaza Strip and a “moderate” Fatah in the West Bank.

“The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank today is a struggle between extremists and moderates,” US President George W. Bush declared in the immediate wake of the upset.

Israel too rushed to embrace Abbas and his Fatah movement as a “moderate” counterweight to Hamas. In an effort to isolate the resistance faction, which Tel Aviv calls a “terrorist organization,” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised to ease conditions in the West Bank while maintaining a crushing economic embargo on the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip.

“Abbas is hoping that economic improvements in the West Bank, in tandem with the difficulties suffered in Gaza, will boost his public support base,” Emad Gad, analyst at the semi-official al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies and expert in Israeli affairs, told IPS.

In a further bid to strengthen Abbas’ hand vis-à-vis Hamas, Olmert announced the release of some 250 Fatah-affiliated prisoners from Israeli jails late last month.

Meanwhile, Washington’s “moderate” Arab allies in the region — led by Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States — have followed the US lead in expressing support for Abbas and his emergency government, headed by Salam Fayyad.

While in Washington last month to confer with senior US administration officials, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit again referred to Abbas as the only “legitimate” representative of the Palestinian people. He went on to reiterate the official mantra that the Hamas takeover of Gaza constituted an illegal “military coup.”

But while most Arab capitals have declared support for Abbas and his government, much of the wider Arab public has been disturbed by certain aspects of the PA president’s post-Gaza political trajectory.

For one, Israel’s obvious support for Abbas has served to reinforce his image as a de facto ally of the Jewish state against Hamas.

“Abbas now appears to move entirely according to the US and Israeli agenda,” Abdel-Halim Kandil, former editor-in-chief of opposition weekly al-Karama told IPS. “The so-called PA has become little more than a security manager for the Israeli occupation.”

“Israel may soon reoccupy the Gaza Strip with the aim of permanently removing Hamas from power,” Kandil added. “In this case, Abbas will be seen by many as little more than a soldier in the Israeli army.”

Further belying the Fatah camp’s designation as “moderate,” Abbas, following the lead of Washington and Tel Aviv, has staunchly refused to talk to Hamas since the Gaza takeover. “There will be no dialogue with the instigators of the coup,” Abbas has declared.

Hamas, by contrast, has consistently called for negotiations with its Fatah rivals. In a statement late last month, the resistance faction reiterated its call for dialogue, “despite the PA president’s repeated emphasis on his total refusal to hold talks.”

Abbas’ steadfast refusal to negotiate, however, has only reinforced the perception of Hamas as the more reasonable party to the conflict.

“It’s remarkable that Abbas will run to hold talks with Israeli officials, who demand impossible concessions of him, while simultaneously rejecting dialogue with Hamas,” said al-Arian.

According to Kandil, Abbas’ intransigence can be attributed directly to the PA president’s close relationship with his patrons in Washington. “Abbas can’t hold talks with Hamas because the US and Israel won’t let him,” he said.

Indeed, on 8 August, US house majority leader Steny Hoyer openly warned Abbas against making any contacts, overtly or covertly, with the resistance faction. “Dealing with Hamas … would be something which we would look on with opposition and suspicion,” Hoyer was quoted as saying in the Israeli press.

Fatah’s image has also been tarnished by revelations that emerged in the immediate wake of the Gaza upset regarding a failed plan to extirpate the Hamas leadership. According to Hamas officials, the “Datyton Plan” — named after US General Keith Dayton — had been scheduled to take place on 13 July.

The operation was to be led by Fatah-affiliated strongman Mohammad Dahlan with logistical support from the US Central Intelligence Agency, say Hamas officials.

“They were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas, involving the murder of hundreds of people, including Hamas’ political and religious leaders,” leading Hamas member Yehia Moussa was quoted as saying in the state press on 21 June [see below]. “But we managed to thwart their plans before they could carry them out.”

Moussa went on to say that Dayton had supplied Dahlan and Fatah-affiliated security agencies with heavy weapons and ammunition with the aim of permanently eradicating the Hamas leadership in Gaza.

“The so-called Dayton Plan aimed to manipulate the Palestinians into waging war against each other,” said al-Arian.

Ibrahim Eissa, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Dustour, said he believed that Hamas’ takeover of the territory on 14 June had been of a “pre-emptive” nature.

“The conflict isn’t between secularists and Islamists,” Eissa told IPS. “It’s between the corrupt agents of the US within Fatah and those who are looking out for the interests of the Palestinian people.”

Notably, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement with Fayyad in Ramallah on 3 August committing Washington to spend some 80 million dollars on the “development” of Fatah-controlled Palestinian security agencies. Instructors from the US State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security will reportedly begin training units from Abbas’ presidential guard early next year.

“Rice didn’t come to help us establish a Palestinian state,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abuzahri was quoted as saying in flagship government daily al-Ahram. “She came to support one Palestinian faction at the expense of another.”

According to Kandil, the apparent erosion of Fatah’s popular standing hardly represents a recent phenomenon.

“The declining popularity of Abbas and Fatah on the Arab — and Palestinian — street is nothing new,” he said. “It has been entirely evident since January of last year, when Hamas surprised everyone by winning a wide majority in democratically-held parliamentary elections.”

The above article can be found here:


Opinions from both sides of the fence’

Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt); June 21, 2007

Yehia Moussa is a leading Hamas politician and deputy head of the movement’s parliamentary bloc in the Gaza Strip. He accuses what he calls the “treacherous trend” within Fatah, an allusion to former Gaza strongman Mohamed Dahlan, of having planned to carry out a “bloody coup” against the [Hamas-run] government of Ismail Haniyeh.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and other Fatah leaders recently accused Hamas of carrying out a coup against the symbols of Palestinian legitimacy. Moussa countered saying that the real coup was being hatched and planned by Dahlan, in concert with the CIA and Israel.

“They were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas, involving the murder of hundreds of people, including Hamas’s political and religious leaders. The coup was to take place on 13 July, three weeks from today. They were planning to dig mass graves in Gaza for Hamas and its supporters. But we managed to thwart their heinous plans before they could carry them out,” said Moussa.

When asked to substantiate the claims so that they wouldn’t be regarded as part of the continuing propaganda war between Hamas and Fatah, the Hamas politician explained that US General Keith Dayton had supplied Dahlan, and the security agencies affiliated with Fatah, with arms and weapons which included heavy machineguns, anti-armor missiles, sniper fitted rifles and millions of bullets.

“Now, let me ask you, why do you think America gave Dahlan and his men all these weapons? To fight Israel or fight Hamas?”

Furthermore, Moussa explained that his movement had confiscated thousands of damning documents incriminating Dahlan. He further stated that he believed Dahlan was a CIA agent whose primary objective was to destroy Hamas even if that meant an all-out civil war in Gaza.

Dahlan was simply carrying out orders given by Elliot Abrams, the American Zionist official in charge of the Hamas file, who admitted recently that the US was arming and financing Dahlan in a bid to destroy Hamas and undo the Mecca Agreement which had been the precursor of the government of national unity, he said.

When Al-Ahram Weekly questioned the Hamas official as to whether former Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh had notified President Abbas of what was happening, and if so what was Abbas’s response, he replied in the affirmative.

“Prime Minister Haniyeh provided President Abbas with every bit of relevant information. As early as six months ago, the prime minister informed Abbas that large consignments of weapons were being shipped by the US and Israel to the Dahlan-controlled presidential guard. Haniyeh also informed Abbas that Dahlan was building up a new security force, encamped at the Ansar Base, in preparation for a military confrontation with Hamas’s Executive Force.

Furthermore, the new force was being equipped with armored cars, armored personnel carriers and lethal weaponry. Haniyeh also informed Abbas about several highly-sensitive meetings that were held between American officers and preventive security officers in Israel,” explained Moussa.

Abbas failed to respond, according to Moussa. On the contrary, Abbas actually expressed his disappointment that Israel had not permitted a larger supply of weapons into the Strip, to allow Fatah to fight Hamas more efficiently.

In response to claims by Fatah that there was no room for talks with Hamas if they refused to relinquish power in Gaza, Moussa responded by asking if the readers were aware what returning to the previous situation entailed.

“Do you know what reverting to the former situation would mean in real terms? It would mean returning to hell. It would mean returning to lawlessness, chaos, daily killings, theft, assassinations, clan feuds, arson and total insecurity. Today, we have succeeded in re-establishing the rule of law. There is almost total quiet here. Peoples and families are walking in the streets without being shot at, without being terrorized by armed thugs,” he said.

However, some people have argued that despite the calm, the situation fails to serve the cause of Palestinian national unity. The Hamas politician refuted claims that his organization was trying to oust Fatah from Gaza. He said Fatah was an integral part of Palestinian society and negating it was, therefore, unthinkable.

“We are not against Fatah. Fatah and Hamas are brothers. We are only against American and Israeli agents who are carrying out their treachery under the rubric of Fatah. In short, the problem lies not with Fatah, but with a small faction within it that is answerable to our enemies.”

The solution was very simple, according to Moussa. The respect for the rule of law, including the basic law, was paramount and it was vital that the Palestinians didn’t allow their enemies to undermine their common cause, he explained.

Moussa also appeared unperturbed by US and Israel claims that they would seek to isolate and starve the Gaza Strip.

“First of all, our lives are not in the hands of America and Israel, but in the hands of God. Second, starving 1.4 million people could have grave and unpredictable repercussions. I think the world community will think twice before allowing such a thing to happen,” he said. [Alas, the “world community,” as it turns out, was all too prepared to allow such a thing to happen, and to continue to happen up until the present day — 800]

As to whether the status quo of two governments and two premiers would continue, Moussa explained unequivocally that Haniyeh was elected by the Palestinians with a large majority. On the other hand, Salam Fayyad was appointed prime minister by Abbas in order to appease and please the United States and Israel. So which government is legitimate, the elected one or the appointed one, he asked.

The complete text of the above article can be found here:

The Zionist ‘Hollowhoax’ continues

Posted in Must Read on October 27, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Veterans Today

October 26, 2010

“HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS”: old adage(Editorial note:  Views are that of the author and included for information purposes only.)


Since I wrote this documented expose of some of the outright lies and deceptions surrounding the so-called Zionist holocaust – better described as a ‘hollowhoax’– several distinguished learned patriots and seekers of truth have suffered every form of brutality and injustice for the crime of expressing their learned and FACT FOUNDED ‘opinions’ resulting from many years of professional investigations. These are scholars whose motivation were simply to bring the TRUTH to light. A LOT of LIES will be exposed here – and not only Soviet lies -but ‘American’ lies as well. The mendacities I will expose are irrefutable – as you will see.

These courageous men are termed ‘revisionists’. They seek to shed new light on purposeful false fabrications of certain historic events. They are simply seekers of truth and I admire those who are willing to sacrifice their freedoms fortunes and security for the sake of truth. In ancient times those same sacrifices for disseminating the truth were experienced by the Apostles and the Prophets. NOW – two thousand years later the Zionists are STILL the cause of much suffering by those who dare to expose the lies of the Zionist.

Although I do not purport to have the lofty credentials of these intellectuals (most have earned doctorates) – I PROUDLY ‘through my hat in the ring’ as an exposer of lies and those evil people who perpetuate these sinister lies to promote even more evil. I AM A REVISIONIST – A CHAMPION OF THE TRUTH AND DEFENDER OF THE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

I am not a wealthy and powerful or influential man – so I should be an easy target for Zionist persecution – Zionist lies and Zionist mega-wealth. This is a TEST – by an American citizen – a veteran- a patriot and father, with a flawless civic and military record – a man who has never committed a crime nor ever even been accused of such – a TEST to see if in fact there is ANY justice or ANY freedom of speech or ANY Constitutional validity left in my homeland.

You Jews have used this ‘mantra’ of the hollowhoax as a veil to destroy the goodness of my country and immunize your horrible crimes against humanity as you transform my beloved Christian nation into a putrid morally rotted corpse. You people have made MY beloved America a playground for your pathological Jew mentality to encourage the total perversion of EVERYTHING once good and decent and wholesome and innocent.

You have made my nation a platform for waging endless serial wars against innocent people whom YOU wish to have destroyed for YOUR greater glory – to more freely pursue your demonic agenda of world domination.

I am proudly one of those who stand in the way of your Godless degenerate filth hatred and destruction. Like the little 5 year old innocent child I witnessed in Gaza – one of thousands of murdered victims of your Jew brutality – standing defiant against guns and tanks of the “sons of the Devil” – I TOO defy the DEVIL – only I CAN FIGHT BACK!


“Good News From Auschwitz_”

The following is from Australia’s A.N.M. P.O.

Box 40, Summer Hill, N.S.W. 2130:

Dear Respected Reader: Since1945

there have been many conflicting claims concerning the numbers of Jewish people(and others)who died at Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. However,it is only recent research and access to hitherto unavailable documents,that these numbers have drastically lowered, possibly indicating that more of our people survive. Perhaps the 6 millions so often publicized (though our best figure is 4.3 million) may also need to be revised lower,- we hope so. Dr. Nathan Nussbaum, Honorary Director, ‘Centre for Jewish Holocaust Studies. According to official documents in the French Republic (institute for the Examination of War-criminals) the number that died in Auschwitz, was:

:8,000,000 according to the French daily newspaper_Le Monde_(20,April,1978)

:5,000,000 According to the memorial plaque on the gas-chamber monument at Auschwitz-Birkenau. (later removed in 1990 by the Polish Government)

:4,000,000 According to the _confession_ of Rudolf Hoess, the last commandant of Auschwitz – interrogation record and written statement before his suicide_

:3,000,000 According to a statement by Yeduha Bauer, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem

:1,600,000 According to _La Monde_ (September 1989)

:1,433,000 According to Prof. Raul Hilberg (Professor for Holocaust Research, and author of the book,_The Annihilation of European Jewry,_2nd.ed.1988

:1,250,000 According to Polish historians, Reportof July, 1990 and corresponding public announcements

:1,100,000 According to Gerald Reitlinger – author of _Die Endlbsun

AND – In the autumn of 1989 the Soviet President – Mikhail Gorbachev opened Soviet archives, and the public saw for the first time, the complete register of deaths at Auschwitz, which speaks as a key document of 74,000.


Quite by accident, I uncovered what has to be one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the public in modern times. I have traveled extensively and while in Germany several years ago, I made a side trip to Dachau out of historic curiosity. While there I not only took the official tour but also purchased a copy of the official book of the camp history as compiled by the very same unfortunates who had suffered there during the period leading up to and till the end of WWII in Europe in Summer of 1945.

Upon reading it after my return to the States, something from the past jogged my memory. Something that did not seem right, and then I recalled what it was. I have an extensive Video library of WWII documentaries, which included Concentration camps. Upon reviewing the concentration camp film section on Dachau, I discovered the substantial following purposeful falsification of what was presented as SWORN historical fact.

In this well documented presentation, it will be shown that ranking members of the United States military conspired to deceive the American people and the rest of the world concerning a matter of international interest. In 1945, American troops occupied several of the German controlled prison camps. One of these – and perhaps one of the most familiar, was DACHAU.

The Video of the dated official Signal Corps film plainly indicated that Jewish ( and other) inmates of Dachau were gassed to death in Dachau ‘gas chambers’. It even goes so far as to show old films of piles of the victim’s clothing stacked outside the “lethal gas chambers”, ostensibly represented to the hapless victims as showers and de-lousing rooms. At the beginning of the film -titled-NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP, the official United States Signal Corps producers go to EXTREME length to authenticate the “factual” nature of the film and events to be viewed.

The great length at which the producers went can be illustrated by the length and complexity of the opening tirade of official credentials. The narrative begins with an ‘official’ bulletin that states the following in these exact words:

AUGUST 28 1945




(The last line is not visible)

(As if that were not proof enough, another detailed documentation reads as follows:)


Washington DC

Certification and Affidavit

“ I, George C. Stevens, Lt. Col. Army of the United States, hereby certify that:

From 1 March 1945 to 8 May 1945, I was on active duty with the United States Army Signal Corps attached to the Supreme Hqs..Allied Expeditionary Forces and among my official duties was the director of the photography of the NAZI concentration camps and prison camps as liberated by allied forces.

The motion pictures which will be shown following this affidavit were taken by official allied photographic teams in the course of their military duties, each team being composed of military personnel under the direction of a commissioned officer.

To the best of my knowledge and belief these motion pictures constitute a true representation of the individuals and screen photographs. They have not been altered in any respect since the exposures were made.

The accompanying narration is a true statement of the facts and

circumstances under which these pictures were made.”

George C. Stevens. Lt.Col. A.U.S.

Sworn to before me this 2nd day of October 1945

James B. Donavon, Commander, US Army Reserve

(And as if that STILL wasn’t proof enough that the contents were 100% truthful, consider this additional sworn testimony shown in the film.)


Washington D.C.

Certification and Affidavit

“I, E.R.Kellogg, Lieutenant United States Navy, hereby certify that:

From 1929 1941 I was employed at 20th Century Fox Studios in

Hollywood California as a director of photographic effects and am familiar with all photographic techniques.”

“Since the 6th of Sept. 1941 to the present date of August 1945, I have been on active duty with the United States Navy.

I have carefully examined the motion picture to be shown following this affidavit and I certify that the excerpts of these images from the original negatives have not been retouched, distorted or otherwise altered in any respect and are true copies of the original held in the vaults of the United States Signal Corps.

These excerpts comprise 6,000 feet of film selected from 80,000 feet, all of which I have reviewed, and all of which is similar in character to the excerpts.”

E.R. Kellogg., Lieutenant U.S.N.

Sworn to before me this 27th day of August 1945

Don Ford, Captain, United States Navy

(The film now has shown the ultimate in credibility by using not only the sworn testimony of FIVE United States Army AND Navy commissioned officers BUT under the SPECIFIC DIRECT ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER HIMSELF!)



However the whole matter was a huge fraud, apparently perpetrated by Jewish sympathizers whose obvious goals were to incense the immediate post-war American civilian viewers with the horrible notion that the ‘barbarous Germans’ in charge of the Dachau camp were committing wholesale murder on innocent unsuspecting (mostly Jewish) victims, by gassing them to death and burning ‘the evidence’.

The absolute 100% verifiable truth that this was a vicious hoax is easily proven, as one the many sources of verification of the fact that no Jew or other human was ever gassed at this camp, — is the society of Jewish survivors themselves. Read the description of the official US Govt. video and narrations. The videos OFFICIAL SWORN, CERTIFIED, AFFIDAVIT of the ‘true’ statements of facts begins as follows:


(Film shows the outside of a building with stacks of clothes outside)

[The exact following text appears on the screen]

‘Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of the persons who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided.’

The ‘voice’ of the narrator then speaks:

“This is the brausbad – the shower bath. Inside the shower bath, the gas vents on the ceiling, the dummy shower heads”

(Shows film of inside of brausbad with close-up of ‘showerheads’)

“In the engineer’s room, the intake and outlet pipe”

[film shows the inside of the described room]

“Push buttons to control inflow and out take of gas -hand valve to regulate pressure”

[film exhibits these items]

“Cyanide powder was used to generate the lethal smoke”

(shows can of ‘ZYCLON B’)

“From the gas chamber, the bodies were removed to the crematory.”

[shows shots of bodies piled in ovens [not yet burned]

This, according to the FORMER PRISONERS/INMATES at Dachau, as presented in the official camp museum memorial book PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL DACHAU COMMITTEE –—— IS A COMPLETE LIE.



My videos of the posters in the camp and the open admission of the Jewish guide himself, further confirm that GASSINGS NEVER OCCURRED AT DACHAU.

These irrefutable facts positively indicates without ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the official Dept. of Army film AND narration supported SUBSTANTIAL LIES. I consider it shameful that Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower would permit his prominent name to be used in validation of such libelous slander.

It is common knowledge among WWII historians, That Gen. Eisenhower harbored an intense hatred of all Germans, EVEN after they were a defeated people, with their country in complete shambles for trusting the judgment of a lunatic’s evil ambitions. It is well documented that Eisenhower was SOLELY responsible for the FORCED starvation of hundreds of thousands of German POWs – just average soldiers doing what they were told for their country. As if these certifiable MEGA war crimes weren’t evil enough – he was also responsible of being an accomplice to perjury.

It was obviously a fabrication for gullible viewers to promote even more hatred for ALL German people – NOT just the long dead prison guards and camp commanders who had obviously carried out camp orders with more than just reluctance. Point is, where did these lies end and the truth begin? Who would do such a hateful and despicable deed?

If I had caught this substantial lie by pure accident without even trying to discover something like this – just how many more big lies about the Jewish “holocaust” have we been spoon fed since 1945? I specify the “holocaust” to be the one ‘against’ the Jews, to distinguish it from another well documented ‘holocaust’ in about the same time in history.

That ‘holocaust’, was the horrific cold-blooded murder of over 20,000,000 Russian Christians – by the Jew dominated Cheka under Stalin. Several of my former wife’s relatives were among the victims of those mindless murders. But of course – because they were gentile CHRISTIANS – their tragic ruthless mega-murders – are not NEARLY as important to warrant endless ‘guilt trips’ upon people who had nothing to do with it.

So where are the ‘Christian holocaust memorials?’ Where is the grief and repentance among Jewish leaders for this mass murder of innocent people ? People – whose only ‘guilt’ was that they professed their spiritual homage and reverence to the teachings of Christ? Where are the demands for tribunals to wreak justice upon these ‘world-class’ murderers ? Where are the endless motion pictures depicting Jews as cold-blooded killers of Christians? And – where are the documentary films – such as the ones I mentioned above – to so methodically site the ‘holocaust’ of Christians who worshiped God – at the hands of Jew dominated bloodthirsty mobs?

When people become so hateful that they resort to deception, intimidation, bribery, and outright lies to propagate and keep their legacy of hate alive, they discredit themselves.

Until I discovered – first hand – this shameful orchestrated deception, I tended to ignore stories that I had heard about the Jews exaggerating the facts about the so-called ‘holocaust ‘. I am not so sure anymore. Sadly – life and human nature often implies that one lie usually leads to another. I fully expect to see the future slowly reveal the WHOLE truth-sooner or later. Lying, flies in the face of God’s Commandment, and should be exposed wherever and whenever it is discovered.

Apparently – our traditional Constitutionally given right to express ourselves has been deemed obsolete by the Orwellian ‘thought police’ – and I may end up in an ‘American gulag’ – for my expression and concern for the truth. Others in this country and abroad have ALREADY paid a high price for their efforts to express what they sincerely believe to be true.

These Draconian ‘Jew KGB’ tactics have been imposed by a people who have labored tirelessly to conceal their own lies. Ironically – these people have also tirelessly worked to destroy the Constitution of my country – a country that these people by and large – have NEVER been loyal to.

I have learned something from these new legislations in America.

IF – a CHRISTIAN American ‘goy’ expresses anger against the Jew who FACTUALLY murdered countless of our relatives, friends, family members or our ‘brothers and sisters in faith’ THAT BECOMES A HATE CRIME – and a trip to prison!

Whereas – if it a Jew who has committed these horrendous crimes against humanity – he is exonerated because of his ‘chosen’ ‘victim’ ‘persecuted’ status – so it is OK – because his ‘religion’ not only allows – but encourages him to treat Christians like cattle ( goy) – fair game – to be cheated – robbed or even killed.

Isn’t it paradoxical – that the ‘chosen’ have accused us ‘goy’ of spreading hate against them by TELLING LIES – when IN FACT, IF you BELIEVE that the words of the Holy Bible are truth and not fiction – the Son of God accused them of being the sons of Satan – whom HE deemed the father of all lies! SINCE WHEN – in ANY decorous society – IS TELLING THE TRUTH A CRIME!

NOTE: anyone wishing to learn how to obtain copies of these falsified documents films video etc may do so through the Veterans Today Network. This is something about which the entire WORLD needs to know the TRUTH !

Who will be the NEXT to go to prison – for expression of thought. In an earlier and more moral Constitutional America – we called it ==




My name is Joe Cortina. I was a 60s Green Beret commander and a representative for IBM as well as a scientist for Honeywell Aerospace in Florida. I later became President of my own manufacturing company.

I have two sons and 2 granddaughters who are the reason for my dedication to expose the threats to the freedoms I hope to see them enjoy as I did many decades ago when America was still a Christian-based sovereign nation free of Zionist influence.


The above article can be found here: JOE CORTINA: THE ZIONIST ‘HOLLOWHOAX’ CONTINUES