West Bank - IDF Beating & Torturing Detainees

ꕤ West Bank SOURCE   |  here SOURCE   |  here If this hasn't properly loaded, click on the source link to view video clip at source. [It's driving me bananas not knowing if it's loaded or not.  I've done a conversion, but I still can't see clip on this blog without a plug-in.] The clip caught my attention because it looked brutal. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Meanwhile, Israel cabinet approves law against anti-government non-government organisations (NGOs) [27.12.2015 - spiegel.de] Brief video clip of the preceding NGO debate on Israeli TV below: [It sounds like 'sheshen' is 'six' in Hebrew] Israel Hayom http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=30405 27.12.2015 Newsletter Monday December 14, 2015 Likud MK seeks to label foreign-funded NGOs as 'plants' MK Yoav Kisch introduces a bill that aims to curtail nongovernmental organizations funded mostly by foreign governments, as they "represent foreign political interests," use funds to promote anti-Israel propaganda • "We have to put a stop to it," he says. Gideon Allon and Israel Hayom Staff Likud MK Yoav Kisch on Sunday introduced a legislation proposal seeking to label nongovernmental organizations operating in Israel while receiving the majority of their funding from foreign governments as "plants" or "agents" of the governments funding them. The bill seeks to impose stricter record keeping and reporting guideline on such NGOs, and bar them from fostering collaborations with government ministries and the military, unless specifically authorized by the Justice Ministry. The bill's abstract further says the legislation seeks to allow both the "proper authorities and the public with tools to counter the erosion of democracy and the promotion of and internal delegitimization of the State of Israel, funded by foreign political entities." The proposal suggests any infringement by NGOs on the new guidelines will incur a 100,000 shekel ($26,000) fine, and that should any group be linked "to hostile activities, the Registrar of Associations will be able to petition the court for its dissolution." Kisch's legislation proposal states, "There are various associations operating in the State of Israel that receive support and funding from foreign political entities, making them 'plants' in the midst of Israeli society. These groupers effectively represent foreign political interests, as he who has the money has the final say. "There is a clear phenomenon in Israel by which these foreign interests undermine Israel's ability to defend itself and/or jeopardizes its Jewish and democratic character. While these associations promote foreign interests they still qualify for various exemptions, despite the fact the Israeli public is harmed, directly, by their actions," the bill said. "A democracy has to be able to defend itself," Kisch explained. "It's inconceivable that foreign-funded NGOs use those funds to spread lies and anti-Israel propaganda worldwide. "We will not allow foreign funding of this nature to attack Israeli soldiers, urge boycotts against Israel, and supporting terrorism or enemy states under the guise of a legitimate Israeli association. We have to put a stop to it," he said. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=30405 Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694082?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter NGO Bill: Assault on Democracy or Legitimate Effort to Guard Against Foreign Intervention? The controversial non-profit bill that got the backing of a ministerial panel on Sunday will remain a subject of heated debate but is expected to pass in some form. Haaretz Dec 27, 2015 4:33 PM A bill that would require non-profit organizations that get more than half their funding from foreign governments to disclose that in various contexts passed a major legislative hurdle on Sunday. It received the backing of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. Approval by the committee means that it now has the backing of the governing coalition, making it likely that it will pass in some form, although it could be subject to changes before final passage. Sponsored by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the Habayit Hayehudi party, the bill is widely seen as an effort to draw attention to left-wing organizations that get funding from foreign governments. The activities of left-wing organizations have been in the headlines recently in part over funding some of them receive from foreign governments, notably European ones, a situation that critics call an improper effort by the governments to influence the Israeli public agenda. Opponents of the legislation call it an anti-democratic attempt to stigmatize left-wing groups and point out that right-wing Israeli non-profit organizations also get substantial funding from abroad, although that money is not from foreign governments, coming instead from individual donors abroad, notably from Diaspora Jewish donors. As currently drafted, the bill proposed by Shaked would require representatives of organizations receiving over half their support from foreign governments to wear tags with the name and the group they represent when they attend Knesset sessions, as is currently required of Knesset lobbyists. Violations of the law would be punished by barring the representatives' access to the Knesset. The bill would also require the groups to disclose in their official publicity that they get more than half their funds from foreign governments, along with disclosing the donor governments by name. Violations of this provision would be subject to a 29,000 shekel ($7,450) fine. "Any country wishing to protect its sovereignty must put limits on intervention by foreign entities," Shaked said, adding that false information spread by non-profit groups "pretending to represent Israel's interests but which actually are financed by foreign countries that exploit these groups to suit their agenda" constitute a weapon directed against Israel. But for his part, Zionist Union party leader Isaac Herzog called the bill "a serious stain on democracy," while his party colleague Nachman Shai warned that it would provide "ammunition to those calling for Israel's isolation." At the beginning of the month, four senior lawmakers from Germany warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that advancement of the legislation would make it harder for Israel's allies in Germany to aid it in the face of boycotts or attempts to delegitimize it. Tzipi Livni, who is co-leader of the Zionist Union along with Herzog, has submitted her own bill that would require disclosure by non-profits that get sizeable foreign government support but also require groups that depend upon individual donors from abroad to disclose it, in practice also imposing legislative regulation on right-wing groups. Justice Minister Shaked's office said including recipients of contributions from individual donors from abroad was considered but was not pursued because of legal hurdles that it presented. Im Tirtzu vs. Breaking the Silence The right-wing political group Im Tirtzu recently made headlines for a video it released stigmatizing leaders of left-wing organizations that it said received substantial foreign government funding as foreign "moles." Breaking the Silence, a group founded by Israel Defense Force veterans to expose misconduct by the Israeli army in the territories, has been a particular focus of public criticism. Representatives of the group have been barred by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon from sending representatives onto army bases and by Education Minister Naftali Bennett from appearing in the country's public schools. The Breaking the Silence website states that among the financial support that it receives are funds from the governments of Norway, Spain and Switzerland as well as a number of foreign private foundations. Prior to the vote in the ministerial committee, Michael Oren, who is a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and is now member of the Knesset from the Kulanu party, which is a part of the governing coalition, said he could not vote in favor of the bill as currently drafted. "As someone who has worked his entire life to advance the State of Israel's foreign affairs, my conscience does not allow me to vote for the non-profits bill as it is drafted today."  Oren said.  "The non-profits bill that is reaching a vote at the Ministerial Committee for Legislation today is a bill that could harm Israel's foreign relations and image," he added. "I have no doubt that left-wing non-profits such as Breaking the Silence are working to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and it is our duty as lawmakers to reveal their funding sources to the public. But such one-sided exposure, which ignores the funding sources of extreme-right non-profits, might play exactly into the hands of those elements that are trying to boycott us," Oren said. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694082?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter SUMMARY - Haaretz info Summary (Parliament) Knesset lobbyists to wear name tags with name of group they represent NGOS receiving over half their support from foreign govts to wear name tags with name of govt they receive funding from violations result in barred access to parliament (Knesset) & in monetary fines right-wing groups receving money from individual donors abroad are exempt from same standard Breaking the Silence group founded by IDF veterans (donors include Norway, Spain & Switzerland govts) expose misconduct of IDF *barred from sending representatives to army bases *barred from appearing at Israel's public schools legislation will be targeted by BDS campaigners German law-makers already notified Israel difficult to defend COMMENT The above video clip of Palestinians being beaten by Israeli soldiers is pretty sickening to watch.  After the initial viewing, I couldn't view again. I've seen other things (eg. IDF soldiers beating up an old Palestinian man about to have his house demolished, and an IDF soldier striking an old woman), so it's not like this is an aberration.  And the bet is that what I've seen is just a fraction of the brutality. Also, I tend to avoid looking at what is happening in territories occupied by Israel, because I can't handle the dissonance.  The image I have of Israel is of its ancient history, its Temple, its songs and things that are pleasant ... seeing old people getting beaten ruins that. It's very unpleasant to see this kind of brutality, and it's impossible not to be appalled and sorry for the Palestinians that are being mistreated. Norway, Spain or Switzerland government funding of Israeli NGOs is far less of a potential 'de-legitimiser' of Israel than what the IDF have been caught doing to civilians in Palestine. For a country that has so many pro-Israel interest groups abroad lobbying other governments on its behalf, and for a country whose organisations are involved in, basically, a program of indoctrinating Western journalists and politicians by hosting 'educational' visits to Israel (including an Israeli hospital where Israel's been patching up Syrian 'rebels' - ie anti-Syrian government Islamists), it's somewhat hypocritical of Israel to put up barriers to NGOs that receive funding from other government organisations (while shielding Israel's right-wing NGOs from being subject to the similar measures). But Israel can always be counted on to do the rational thing:  ie. to act in its own interests and in pursuit of its own aims. In an ideal world, this is how one handles foreign interests potentially asserting influence on internal affairs, and this is how one handles fifth column elements within one's state. But, as mentioned in the article, this will be something the BDS campaigners might wish to exploit, especially considering Israel's strong reliance on representing itself as a democracy. I highly doubt that the governments of Norway, Spain and Switzerland are actually seeking to undermine or de-legitimise Israel in any way, but the intention isn't relevant if the result is seen as the undermining of Israel's interests and aims. This is a brilliant move on Israel's part to de-legitimise, diminish and silence leftist internal critics -- particularly critics of Israel's military (and occupation territory settlements, I'm guessing). But will it backfire?  Spiegel Google Translation German to English https://archive.is/I2UoD ꕤ

Russia Says 'Nyet' to Soros Colour Revolution American NGOs

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://russia-insider.com/en/us-foreign-office-against-sacking-soros/ri11851 US State Dept Throwing Fit Over Russian Expulsion of Soros NGOs Some people just don't understand the benefits of 'color revolution' style democracy Tue, Dec 15 | Originally Appeared at Kopp Online. Translated from the German by Werner Schrimpf The U.S. State Department is not happy with the Russian authorities having classified the various Soros NGO’s as “undesirable.” According to Washington, this would be a further step in preventing the kinds of activities beneficial to civil society and the Russian people. What was Putin thinking?  [lol] Blocking philanthropists and friends of mankind in conducting their fruitful activities is not a good move. Nothing is as hard as man’s ingratitude. Once again Russian’s president Putin is setting a bad example. At least the U.S. Foreign Office is firmly convinced of it. Immediately after release of two rulings which will ban two leading philanthropic organizations from Russian territory, State Department spokesman Mark Toner announced the following: Today’s designation of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation as so-called “undesirable” organizations will only further restrict the work of civil society in Russia for the benefit of the Russian people.  This action is yet another example of the Russian Government’s growing crackdown on independent voices and a deliberate step to further isolate the Russian people from the world.  [lol ... more like CIA voices] Both of these both organizations from US-mega-adventurer George Soros were added to the so-called “Stop-List” of foreign NGO’s in order to avoid any further infiltration to Russia.  Russian general prosecutor argued the activities of these Soros organizations would represent a major threat to the constitutional order of the Russian Federation and national security. The broader global public could easily get the impression that this is another strike of Putin’s against democratic movements - at least this is the image Soros tries to generate. Because it should be quite clear to everybody that Soros and his network of global-acting NGO’s are just serving civil societies and would do nothing else but encourage liberty and democracy. It’s not by chance that Soros initiated a bundle of activities decades ago, especially in Eastern European countries to promote the transition from "closed societies“ to "open societies“. But everybody should be aware that brutal wars are fought in order to establish peace, liberty, and democracy in allegedly suppressed societies, and bringing democracy is always a highly welcomed argument in order to forcibly implement geostrategic and economic interests. Especially in the case of George Soros, there is no denying the fact that this person exercised a massive impact and influence on “color revolutions” and social riots – all measures and activities just for the benefit of a new democratic order. His track record includes the Arabian spring, subversions in Serbia, Georgia, Macedonia; and finally in the Ukraine. Basically it is unbelievable that a single individual is able to trigger stress and turmoil in national and international politics. According to international standards this is an absolute no-go regardless the motivation of the initiator of all these social dislocations. But these standards are obviously not valid and binding for George Soros. In this case, Russia is accused of simply not wanting to accept such a serious exertion of influence.  The U.S. should know it better at least when listening to InfoWars author Kurt Nimmo. He pointed to the dramatic incidents in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, where Soros NGO’s had also a hand in the events. Additionally, Kurt Nimmo cited Polish journalist and author Konrad Stachnio, who wrote last October: Every time I see the old, good George Soros saying something about democracy and European values, I know that something is going to happen. This way the case of Ukraine, when George argued that democracy is the most important and when he says that European values are most important and that is why we must accept million refugees every year. How will it end? Probably as usual: fires, riots, overthrowing governments and total destabilization in Europe, more or less as it ended up recently in Ukraine. Those are clear words. Soros was also active in Poland and established the "Stephan-Báthory-Foundation” in 1988 as a starting point for his global network, spanning around the globe and bringing not always positive changes and developments to the various nations affected. During an interview with CNN-reporter Fareed Zakaria, Soros made no secret of his plans. As reported by Info-Wars author Kurt Nimmo: George Soros told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria over the weekend he is responsible for establishing a foundation in Ukraine that ultimately contributed to the overthrow of the country’s elected leader and the installation of a junta handpicked by the State Department. Many participants in the demonstrations against the elected president had been mobilized and were members of Soros NGO-network. These guys had been trained and instructed carefully by Soros’ organizations like the “International Renaissance Foundation” (IRF) and the “Open Society Foundation”. It’s not a big surprise that Russia doesn’t want this scenario to be repeated inside its own borders. http://russia-insider.com/en/us-foreign-office-against-sacking-soros/ri11851 How to Say 'No' in Russian  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51fr_Ez1RAs nyet nyea nye How to Say 'No' in German  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNxk0Bzjzs Nein ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT So that 'European values' garbage parroted by EU-NATO politicians (even while they facilitate destruction of European living spaces, European work spaces, European society -- and even the European peoples), is bandied about by Soros and the Soros network of organisations? Ignore this mind-f*ck & guilt-trip, which is based on false premises:  eg that 'democracy', resources or anything else that is the property and heritage of a sovereign nation (comprised of a people with a common heritage) *must* extend to those *beyond* the boundary of what comprises such nation: ie. beyond the limits or what is fundamentally the peoples/tribes that are the nation. CIA probably came up with the 'European values' spin (see CIA propaganda at foot of this post), designed to sell the unpalatable and persuade Europeans to agree to destruction of their societies and nations, on a steady path to complete erasure of the European peoples. PEGIDA and other like groups opposed to the invasion of Europe should probably: (a) commence an educational campaign, so that people fully understand what's going on, beyond the fact that they simply don't want an invasion of peoples who are not their own. As in, make obvious the link between the displaced regional populations to US-NATO series of foreign military interventions and to corporate-serving European governments; European Union elites-serving overriding agenda; US empire & allied foreign policy aggressive agenda; the wide range of costs to taxpayers (including present (& generational) strain on already strained (or 'austerity' affected) public services, the lowering of wages, loss of low-end jobs etc), and wide & enduring range of social costs); and (b) commence targeted rallies outside of the premises of American NGOs, embassies and in front of parliaments. (c) make positive focal points related to the integrity and welfare of one's nation and people etc. (d)  avoid getting too bogged down in arguing the side issues, beyond explaining issues (per educational campaign). (e) primary focus should be on the demand for integrity of one's identity & heritage (which is not transferable), which is the core or basis of the entire issue.  Everything else is a side issue / supporting factor.  *Maybe even a Maidan style, camp-out? Hey, maybe Vicky Nuland will drop by with cookies for all?  ... LOL From what little I've seen, protesters only seem to take to the streets, and continue to be ignored, despite marching in the thousands.  I'm guessing that people who know what's really going on would be much harder to ignore (and harder to attack, smear, diminish and negate in the press etc). LOL ... that's my protest the invasion of Europe manifesto. CIA Propaganda in Europe CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan Post Link | here -------  *As I've never protested anything, this may not necessarily be sound advice.  NOTE:  nations (supposedly) cannot openly and legally destabilise other nations ... but, apparently, non-government organisations can.   Wow, think about that.  lol ꕤ

The Democracy Lie

The Democracy Lie The 'democracy' holy grail isn't all that it's hyped up to be. If you have government that is controlled by the wealthy, by corporations and by foreign interests, and is elected by a largely uninformed, apathetic and politically unorganised public, from a small pool of politicians who are all much the same as one another, what you've got is 'democracy' in name only. Take the legislation that was pushed through by the Australian government: #Auspol - very sad day for press freedom - http://alliance.org.au/meaa-condemns-passage-of-national-security-laws … / criminalizes legitimate reporting of matters in public interest. It penalises whistle-blowers, it gags the press, it further blocks transparency and accountability and therefore undermines any notion of 'democracy'.  And it infringes on civil rights. Meanwhile, the general public's probably more concerned about the release of the new Apple phone than they are about the laws that are passed. But even if large numbers of people were as outraged as they ought to be, as individuals versus government or the system, they're helpless until the next limited-choice corporate and US puppet government election.  That being the case, the public is completely at the mercy of the ruling classes on an ongoing basis, irrespective of the pretence of democratic representation and democratic government. 'Democracy' is the same deal the world over: #Obama #WallStreet #USA - attack on democracy - corruption of elections http://tinyurl.com/nxxbl5u  / $7 million bankroll / #NGO The Denial Machine principles in Greenpeace material can be applied WIDELY when it comes to political lobbying >> http://tinyurl.com/68lngwa [The above link was the initial link I looked at but the following notes are based on information from elsewhere on the Greenpeace site] #Politics - 'think tanks' + NGOs = 'echo chambers' strategy / co-ordinated propaganda attacks >> such groups are the CHORUS .. singing on behalf of agenda of benefactors >> business groups, women's groups, education groups, seniors groups, religious groups -- WHO funds them & WHY Here's a couple of interesting links that demonstrates how much corporate political control there is in the US (but it's applicable to anywhere that pretends to be a democracy): http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-the-koch-funded-c/ http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/ Driving me crazy not being able to find the link where I got the 'think tanks', 'echo chambers' and 'chorus' information from. Whoever used that terminology to describe lobbying organisations and those they influence has done a great job in conveying what they are in simple, descriptive and easy to remember terms.  ------------------------------------------ Postscript Moments after posting the above, I've had my point of view affirmed on social media: Whistle-blowers Activists & Citizens Alliance (WACA)  https://twitter.com/akaWACA Anti-war Protest at:  Swan Island, Australia "Members of SAS known as the assassins in Aust military - stripped naked, hooded & beat up peace activists for entering military base #auspol" "Welcome 2 #TeamAustralia where military assassins from SAS torture peaceful protestors. Imagine what they do in Iraq https://www.facebook.com/pages/Whistleblowers-Activists-and-Citizens-Alliance/166696300034817 … "Seriously get ur head around this. Aust Military just hooded and beat up christian peace activists on Swan Island for daring to protest war" "WTF!! Absolute DISGRACE. that doesnt border on torture that IS torture. if they do that to our own wtf do they do to others " "SAS officers handcuffed, dragged activists on the ground when didn’t respond to Q's stating “If you move we will kick you in the face”" "SAS officers placed Hessian bags over activists heads & asked “do you want to go for a swim” before being dragging them naked across ground" "SAS officers cut activists clothing off with knives. Hessian bags were placed over their heads and told “welcome to the bag motherfucker"" The above is some of the feed from the WACA account.   What's happening is unbelievable.  No representative of the government (which in turn is supposed to  represent the *people*) should have the right -- or inclination -- to do that. What does that tell you about 'democracy'?  Clearly, it's a farce. Further Info: #BREAKING >> Australian peace activists detained and assaulted by SAS on Swan Island >> http://tinyurl.com/m7f2kf9  >> #Auspol Further Info - Democracy Under Attack - Australia  #Auspol - building blocks of our democratic system under attack - #ASIO given law enforcement powers - https://archive.today/FHEiQ

US MEDIA - ISRAELI BIAS

American media's new pro-Israel bias: the same party line at the wrong time Evolving conversations on the ground demand probing questions on-air. So why does TV news look like a Netanyahu ad? Chris McGreal theguardian.com, Friday 1 August 2014 03.45 AEST Here are a few questions you won’t hear asked of the parade of Israeli officials crossing US television screens during the current crisis in Gaza: What would you do if a foreign country was occupying your land? What does it mean that Israeli cabinet ministers deny Palestine’s right to exist? What should we make of a prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who as opposition leader in the 1990s was found addressing rallies under a banner reading “Death to Arabs”? These are contentious questions, to be sure, and with complicated answers. But they are relevant to understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today. They also parallel the issues routinely raised by American journalists with Palestinian officials, pressing to consider how the US would react if it were under rocket fire from Mexico, to explain why Hamas won’t recognise Israel and to repudiate Palestinian anti-Semitism. But it’s a feature of much mainstream journalism in the US, not just an issue of coverage during the last three weeks of the Gaza crisis, that while one set of questions gets asked all the time, the other is heard hardly at all. ... Take Netanyahu’s appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. The host, Bob Schieffer, permitted the Israeli leader to make a lengthy case for the his military’s ground attack, guiding him along with one sympathetic question after another. Finally, after describing Netanyahu’s position as “very understandable”, Schieffer asked about dead Palestinian civilians – but only to wonder if they presented a public relations problem in “the battle for world opinion”. ... [bias] At one extreme is Fox News, where last week Sean Hannity shouted down a Palestinian guest, Yousef Munayyer, because he would not condemn Hamas as a terrorist organisation, then proceeded to terminate the interview. Munayyer, director of the Jerusalem Fund in Washington, has appeared repeatedly on CNN where he is treated more respectfully. But he told me he is frequently brought on to answer accusations from the Israeli side, rather than explain the Palestinian perspective in the way that Israeli officials and commentators are allowed to lay out their case.  ... There is evidence of a shift in public opinion, mostly generational: a Pew poll this month showed falling support for Israel among younger Americans. Over 65s backed the Jewish state by 60% to just 9% support for the Palestinians. Among young adults, aged 18-29, just 44% were behind Israel with backing for the Palestinians rising to 22%.  As opinion shifts, it will be harder to go on presenting just one side of the story. Rest of article @ source http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/american-media-israel-bias-netanyahu

Article started off strong and held my interest.

The media sounds laughable in the US.

Fox News is appalling.  The guy that did the shouting gets flack online. 

Pew Poll put me right off the article.

Pew means bull to me.

MH17 - US - Civilian aircraft anti-missile systems

Lawmakers push for airline anti-missile systems

Associated Press 4:53 p.m. EDT July 27, 2014

ALBANY – Two U.S. legislators on Sunday urged the government to study whether American passenger jets should be equipped with devices protecting them against missiles like the one that brought down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine and projectiles fired near Tel Aviv's airport.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Steve Israel are asking the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Department and Federal Aviation Administration to consider technologies that would shield commercial aircraft.

A government study should include specific recommendations on the best technology needed to combat both shoulder-fired and surface-to-air missiles, they said. Anti-missile devices include onboard lasers, warning systems, flares and infrared countermeasure systems, costing from $1 million to $2 million per plane, Schumer and Israel said.

The Democratic lawmakers say two major events have raised red flags that require a quick study of defense technologies.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down on July 17 by what U.S. officials believe may have been a Russian-made surface-to-air missile fired by separatists in Eastern Ukraine. All 298 people aboard died. And last week, the FAA banned American flights to Israel after a rocket landed near Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport.

"The tragedy of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, plus numerous missiles being fired near the Tel Aviv airport have made one thing clear this week: we cannot let this happen to an American passenger plane," Schumer said.

As a result, "we are once again reminded that an attack on a civilian aircraft remains a significant threat," Israel said.

The Government Accountability Office believes there are between 500,000 and 750,000 portable surface-to-air missiles in existence worldwide. The State Department estimates thousands may be in the hands of terrorists.

Packaged in tubes, portable missiles can be concealed in a car trunk along with a launching mechanism and battery, making them especially dangerous, the lawmakers said.

Schumer noted that since 1973, at least 30 civilian aircraft have been downed by shoulder fired missiles, killing about 920 people, according to Stratfor, a Global Intelligence firm in Austin, Texas.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/2014/07/27/lawmakers-push-airline-anti-missile-systems/13241951/

-------------------------------------------

[wikipedia]

Charles Ellis "Chuck" "Pro-Israeli Hack" Schumer ... is the senior United States Senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party.

He attended Harvard College ... passed the New York State Bar Exam in early 1975, but never practised law, entering politics instead.

Steven J. "Steve" Israel ... is a U.S. Representative for New York's 3rd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Democratic Party and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[wikipedia]

-------------------------------------------
MANPADS

Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) are shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). They are typically guided weapons and are a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters. [wikipedia]

They look like a big shoulder-steadied portable 'telescopes' that have a barrel to fire off what I'd consider 'snack-sized' missiles at targets -- ie small sized missiles.

-------------------------------------------

 [ wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/25/25335_MANPADS%20for%20c.e..doc ]

Civilian Attack History

The first known cases of attempted MANPADS attacks against civilian aircraft were in 1973 in Rome. In both January and September of that year, Black September militants attempted to strike Israeli flights, one of which was carrying then-prime minister Golda Meir. Both attempts were thwarted in their final minutes. In the case of Golda Meir’s plane in January, the militants who were positioned around the airport with the weapons were caught before her plane touched down. In the second attempt, police raided the militants’ apartment as the militants, who had positioned themselves outside on the balcony, prepared to shoot at the plane as it taxied down the runway.

Two years later, the first successful MANPADS attack against a civilian aircraft came in the form of an SA-7 missile launched by North Vietnamese forces against a Douglas C-54D Air Vietnam flight, resulting in the deaths of all 26 passengers and crew members. One of the most famous civilian MANPADS attacks was in 1994, when two SA-16s were used to shoot down a Rwandan government flight whose passengers (and victims) included the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi. This event sparked the Rwandan genocide, which resulted in approximately 800,000 deaths in 100 days. (The identity of those responsible for this attack remains a matter of debate.) Over the years, MANPADS attacks have been plotted and actively attempted in at least 20 countries, resulting in more than 900 civilian fatalities.

[ wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/25/25335_MANPADS%20for%20c.e..doc ]

-------------------------------------------

Source US Dept of State:  http://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/107632.htm

Site lists some of the strategies of decommissioning MANPADS and provides links.

-------------------------------------------


RAND REPORT - 2005 - Infrastructure, Safety and Environment

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP106.pdf

Rand Corporation - Figure 2.1

Proliferation of MANPADS among Selected NON-State Groups

Rand Corporation - Figure 6.1

Summary of Potential Counters to MANPADS

-------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Civilian aircraft anti-missile systems became the subject of debate post 9/11.

The New York politicians calling for civilian aircraft anti-missile technologies, do so citing the recent downing of a civilian aircraft (MH17) flying over a Ukrainian war zone and citing rockets fired at Tel Aviv airport, in what is a Middle Eastern war zone in a conflict that has now spanned how many decades?

It's unclear how these two war zone examples could possibly amount to a perceived "significant threat" of attack on civilian aircraft that are under the control of US authorities.

There's a bunch of MANPADS that have gone missing in Libya:

U.S. Still Hunting for Missing Libyan MANPADS
Feb. 2, 2012 - 05:38PM 

...
However, while there is no definitive evidence that any of the weapons left the country, the U.S. government is not ruling out that possibility, according to Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs.
...
The weapons, also called man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, pose a threat to commercial and military aircraft worldwide. The real concern for the United States is that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.

It’s believed Gadhafi had an estimated 20,000 MANPADS when his regime collapsed, posing a “major proliferation challenge,” Shapiro said.

To date, about 5,000 MANPADS have been identified, recovered and secured, Shapiro said.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120202/DEFREG02/302020009/U-S-Still-Hunting-Missing-Libyan-MANPADS

A more detailed New York politician (ie Schumer and Israel) and MANPADS story (later disovered) is here -

 http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140727/NEWS/140729730/-1/NEWS

... terrorist organizations like Hamas in Gaza, Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Syrian insurgents, and groups in Mali, Yemen, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and other places. The U.S. led a $40 million buyback program to acquire loose missiles in the region, but were only able to secure 5,000 of an estimated 20,000 anti – aircraft systems that once belonged to the Gadhafi regime. After tensions rose in November 2012 between Israel and the Hamas in the Gaza strip, Hamas released a video of it possessing MANPADS. In Syria, thousands of soldiers have defected and set up new battalions that have shot down military helicopters and jets and in Iraq the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group has taken large swaths of territory and seized weapons depots of the Iraqi Army along the way.

 http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140727/NEWS/140729730/-1/NEWS

Check out that whopping $40 million buy-back program!!!

Buy-back doesn't seem very successful despite the tempting cash offer.

In my view, it's doubtful that missing MANPADS are all within the confines of the Libyan territory.  The bet is they're somewhere in the Middle East or maybe some have reached Africa or gone north. [*Still get Libya and Syria mixed up!  LOL.  They're already in Africa if they're Libyan MANPADS.  LOL.]

However, the likelihood of MANPADS threatening civilian aircraft beyond world hotspots and war zones is probably minimal.

So what are the New York politicians currently lobbying for?  

It looks like some pie in the sky civil aviation protection scheme that is going to raise the cost of travel and raise a whole lot of other costs and issues along the way.

But, first, there must be an expensive, US tax-payer funded study on the subject.

Are these guys for real or is this just a publicity stunt?  

What about a common sense approach like, uuuumm, maybe not flying over war zones?

---------------------------

Other

RAND CORPORATION

RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development) is a non-profit global policy think tank formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations including the health care industry, universities and private individuals.

New to looking at politics and organisations, so I'm a little confused about the status of Rand Corporation. 

Is it an NGO or a GO?

Quickie check to see what others have to say:

The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations. [here]

The author of that quote (Daily Paul) wrote back in 2008 that Rand Corporation is lobbying for the goverment to start a war with China or Russia, to stimulate the economy.

Anyway, I take it Rand Corporation is an NGO.

MH17 - Is Tony Abbott gonna be a hero in eastern Ukraine?

Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts' Date July 27, 2014 Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of Australia's intention to send 190 armed Australian Federal Police and an unknown number of ADF [Australian Defence Force] personnel  ... [... extract only ...] The senior defence figure, who did not wish to be named, said it was a poor idea for Australia. ''They can't secure the site,'' he said. ''It's kilometres long and wide. They could escort Australian officials and provide close protection, but this is a civil task rather than a military task and it's a terribly volatile area. ''We don't have the language skills or knowledge of the area. ''For any military deployment, you have to look at a status of forces agreement with the government and, given the area the aircraft is in, I don't think there is anyone to make that agreement with. What I've heard is the rebels don't want more than 30 investigators there.'' Mr Abbott confirmed on Saturday that 230 Australian officials would be sent to help with the recovery. This, he said, would include a small number of defence personnel. ''That is our mission, to secure the remains, to assist the investigation and to obtain justice for the victims and their loved ones,'' Mr Abbott said. ''It is, I stress, a humanitarian mission. Others can get involved if they wish in the politics of eastern Europe.'' Mr Abbott said that, despite the dangers, armed personnel are needed to secure the site. ... Source - SMH - here.

---------------------------------------------
COMMENT

From the headline, I thought: Hey, someone's been reading social media.

SMH gives "Peter Dean, director of studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University", the megaphone -- after conveying the contrary views of some faceless, unnamed 'senior defence figure'.  

The academic conveys:

''It really depends on the diplomacy undertaken around this,'' Dr Dean said. ''If our government can make its intentions clear and be accepted on those grounds I think this [Mr Abbott's goal] can be achieved.''

Dr Dean said Australia's status as a non-NATO member would play in its favour and its geographical distance from Europe would also help.

''I think we see it through a different lens than the European commentators,'' he said. [Yeah, through the US lens.] 

 ''We are not sending the army over there to take on the Russians or separatists. It's not a European country interfering in another European country's business. It's a country from the outside that has experienced a significant loss of life of Australian people and permanent residents.

''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''

So who are you going to listen to: faceless, unnamed source in the military -- or an impressive academic specialist?

Hmmm ... looks to me like the academic is justifying Abbott's decision:

''We are not sending the army ...to take on Russians or separatists."

''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''

Anyone who has watched their own people being slaughtered around them and anyone who has put their own life on the line to defend their nation, their people; their pulverised town; their land; their national identity; their beliefs; their aims; their future and the future of generations ahead; is -- I'm guessing -- likely to be, at the very least, uneasy with foreign military presence on their blood-soaked soil, whatever the rationale offered.

Noticed Peter Dean happens to be a Fulbright Professional Scholar:

Fulbright Professional Scholar

Fulbright Professional Scholarship in Australian-United States Alliance Studies, sponsored by DFAT.

Peter Dean is currently Fellow and Director of Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. He will study at Georgetown University, Washington from August to November 2014, focusing on Australia-United States strategic relations, and how that strategic relationship has evolved and changed over time.

He will also visit the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the leading global think tank for security and strategic issues.

and that this scholarship is sponsored by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.

THE FULBRIGHT PROGRAM

The Australian-American Fulbright Commission is a non-profit organisation in Australia, established in 1949 to further mutual understanding between the U.S. and Australia through education and exchange.

... It is part of the world-wide Fulbright Program, administered by the U.S. State Department.

Maybe I'm one-eyed, but this looks to be yet another US-NGO linked (however tenuously) to the affairs of a foreign nation -- in this case, an ally, Australia. [See addendum below. Not NGO. Govt. org.]

The name of the game with NGOs [and GOs] appears to be networking, education and undoubtedly influence, whatever the noble, stated organisational aims.

The views of respected academic authorities are always very impressive. 

Nonetheless one is bound to question:   how independent and unbiased are the views of such authorities?

SMH reports:

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told parliament in The Hague on Friday he was too concerned about possible ramifications to send troops to Ukraine.

SMH quotes some American think tank nobody's ever heard of, based in Washington:

Joerg Forbrig, senior program officer for central and eastern Europe at the Berlin bureau of the German Marshall Fund of the US, said of the Australian plan: ''They must be nuts. It's a very dangerous proposal and will be seen as a provocation by the separatists and the Russians.''

 

Unknown think tank says Abbott's plan's nuts.

So why isn't think tank backing Abbott? Come on, what's going on?

Oh, I get it. Readers will see "eastern Europe" and "Berlin bureau" and "German", and they'll dismiss the statement.

The German Marshall Fund is a US NGO promoting 'democracy'.

Like all these NGO 'think tanks' it has tentacles all over:

"GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm"

-- and it puts out surveys.

So it would appear it is a US group with an agenda and a stake in interfering in Europe.  And even this group is saying armed troops could be seen as provocative.

Netherlands is sending:

a separate mission of 40 unarmed military police to the site to help complete the forensic work and gather evidence, Mr Rutte said.

UK plays it smart at the sidelines:

Britain has sent one forensics specialist to Kiev and nine scientists are working in the Netherlands to help identify bodies and secure evidence.

... would ''offer logistical support and is keeping in close contact with the Australians and Dutch over how it can assist, though it won't be putting be sending police or technicians to Ukraine''.

''We believe a UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate,'' the Foreign Office said in a statement. ''The UK stands ready to provide constructive support to the mission.''

But SMH had stated:

Malaysia, Germany and Britain are the other three nations that are expected to contribute to the security force.

It's unclear how UK is 'expected to contribute to the security force' if the UK Foreign Office believes a 'UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate."

CONCLUSION

Is this Tony Abbott trying to play the hero in eastern Europe, to ass-kiss his big-boy buddy, USA?

And is this more likely a sly US attempt at getting a foothold in the eastern Ukrainian territory -- via a 'naive' but willing, Australian ally -- than it is about a 'bring them home' mission?

-----------------------
Addendum - Further info and Comment

Fulbright Program

The Fulbright Program operates in over 155 countries around the world. In each of 50 countries, a bi-national Fulbright Commission administers and oversees the Fulbright Program. In countries without a Fulbright Commission but that have an active program, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy oversees the Fulbright Program.

The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs sponsors the Fulbright Program from an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress. Additional direct and in-kind support comes from partner governments, foundations, corporations, and host institutions both in and outside the U.S.

The program is coordinated by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State under policy guidelines established by the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), with the help of 50 bi-national Fulbright commissions, U.S. embassies, and cooperating organizations in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of State is responsible for managing, coordinating and overseeing the Fulbright program. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the bureau in the Department of State that has primary responsibility for the administration of the program.

Bi-national Fulbright commissions and foundations, most of which are funded jointly by the U.S. and partner governments, develop priorities for the program, including the numbers and categories of grants. More specifically, they plan and implement educational exchanges, recruit and nominate candidates for fellowships; designate qualified local educational institutions to host Fulbrighters; fundraise; engage alumni; support incoming U.S. Fulbrighters; and, in many countries, operate an information service for the public on educational opportunities in the United States

In a country active in the program without a Fulbright commission, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy administers the Fulbright Program, including recruiting and nominating candidates for grants to the U.S., overseeing U.S. Fulbrighters on their grant in the country, and engaging alumni.


Related organizations

The Fulbright Association is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. The Fulbright Association was established on Feb. 27, 1977, as a private nonprofit, membership organization with over 9,000 members. The late Arthur Power Dudden was its founding president. He wanted alumni to educate members of the U.S. Congress and the public about the benefits of advancing increased mutual understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries. In addition to the Fulbright Association in the U.S., independent Fulbright Alumni associations exist in over 75 countries around the world.

The Fulbright Academy is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. A non-partisan, non-profit organization with members worldwide, the Fulbright Academy focuses on the professional advancement ... individual and institutional members, Fulbright alumni associations and other organizations interested in leveraging the unique knowledge and skills of Fulbright alumni.

[Source - wikipedia]

Further Comment

If I have this straight, the Fulbright Program is sponsored by US and Australian government (or other governments, as the case may be) and it is coordinated by US government, its Fulbright Commissions around the world and US embassies, in cooperation 'with organisations in the US'.

Although the Fulbright Program is related to what appear to be NGOs (the Fulbright Association and the Fulbright Academy), the Fulbright Program itself and the Fulbright Commissions -- and therefore Fulbright Scholarships - arise from US (and partner) government funding.

The Fulbright Program (from which scholarships arise) is therefore not an NGO (as initially appraised by the blogger) - it's a full US government (and partner government) org -- although foundations, corporations and host institutions -- both in US and wherever program is hosted -- may also contribute to funding.

And if you look at the picture from a cynic's point of view, the entire thing looks like an indoctrination scheme and pyramid 'selling' scheme (er, educational, cultural, networking initiative) that reaches out around the globe -- selling the US, its perspective and its agenda, creating contact points for the US and surely quietly influencing on behalf of the US, with cooperative governments -- and I'm guessing any sponsoring CORPORATIONS in the US and beyond.

Anyway, that's my opinion.  

But, hey, I could be sitting here wearing tin foil on my head, so make up your own minds.