Written by Peter Mikhailenko Wednesday, 29 July 2015 [Reprint from In Defence of Marxism]
In the Western Ukrainian region of Zakarpattia, Far-right Right Sector have clashed violently with police, resulting in two militants dead and several bystanders injured. What does this mean for the stability of post-Euromaidan alliance?
What can be described as a “vigilante” operation gone awry, has ended in a bloody clash with police, leaving two fascists dead, several bystanders, police and militants injured. Right Sector – a far right Ukrainian paramilitary organisation claiming the legacy of the Nazi-collaborating Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) – targeted a Ukrainian MP Mykhailo Lanio (formerly Party of Regions) on July 13th in his home region in Zakarpattia. Despite being heavily armed, they were met at the location by the MP’s guards along with local police, foiling their attempt to presumably kidnap the MP for what Right Sector claimed was the MP’s smuggling operation in the border region. This had put both the leaders in Kiev and Right Sector in uncomfortable positions.
For the oligarchs in Kiev, this was an embarrassing demonstration of the lawlessness that has followed the events of Euromaidan. Since those events, the primary objective of those in power had been to profit as much from the civil war while gaining loans from Western governments and the IMF. In their eyes, the legitimacy of the Kiev government lies in their ability to stabilize the situation in Ukraine for the business interests of foreign capital.
Ukraine’s total debt is estimated at a staggering 158% of its GDP and growing. Despite harsh IMF backed austerity measures being introduced by the government – including the cutting of pensions, social services and sacking of hundreds of thousands of public employees – the debt is continuing to spiral out of control. This is largely due to the enormous amount of spending going towards the war with the Donbas rebels along with the general militarization of the country. This of course is very convenient for the pro-Maidan oligarchs, as they are making billions of dollars off all of the business around supplying the army. Lenin, when he was told that “war is terrible” replied “yes, terribly profitable”.
The profit making of the oligarchs does not stop at the war effort as many have used the increased lawlessness to expand their business empires. This has nevertheless caused friction between some pro-Maidan oligarchs, most notably president Petro Poroshenko and the former governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoiskiy. This was brought to the open when last March, Kolomoiskiy and his thugs physically seized the headquarters of the state oil company UkrNafta last March, where Kolomoiskiy already owned a 42% stake. This type of takeover – although not entirely rare in Ukrainian business practices – was too high-profile and embarrassing for a corrupt Kiev president trying to present himself as a champion of “anti-corruption”. Shortly after, two minor government officials were arrested as a show of action, while Kolomoiskiy himself was only forced to resign from his position as Dnipropetrovsk governor after a face to face meeting with the president.
These types of manoeuvres are nothing new for the Ukrainian oligarchy. What has been a new occurrence is the reliance on militias – many with openly fascist and neo-Nazi ideologies – in their war against the rebels in the East and in quelling dissent in the rest of the country. Heavily implicated in the Euromaidan and the overthrow of Yanukovich in February 2014, they formed the basis for the National Guard battalions sent to combat the rebellion in Donbas. The battalions proved more willing than the regular Ukrainian army in combatting the rebels and so were useful.
While the Western media has often portrayed these battalions as “fighters for democracy”, often uncritically parroting the story’s from Kiev information ministries about Russian divisions crossing the border into Donbas. More and more, this façade is beginning to crumble.
The Western media has reluctantly been obliged to cover the far-right presence among the Ukrainian army. When the United States army began openly training the battalions earlier this year – notably the neo-Nazi Azov battalion – a bill was proposed by US congressman John Conyers to prevent the training of far-right elements, as if they could simply be sieved out of the National Guard ranks. Adding to this was the shocking revelations about the torture, rape and murder of civilians in the Lughansk region by members of the “Tornado” battalion, many of whom were violent criminals recruited from the Ukrainian prison system to fill the ranks of the battalion.
The dog lashes out against the master
In many ways, Right Sector became the symbol of the brute force at Euromaidan. Their ranks and influence swelled from a marginal group with few hundred members to a well-armed paramilitary organisation with thousands of members, and Members of Parliament. Their leader Dmitry Yarosh frequently appears on television, including the popular talk show Shuster Live.
Having gained their reputation as a combative force, they have focused their actions in military combat in Donbas, the kidnaping and torture of people suspected of “separatism” along with operations against drug rings. Local police are often less armed than the militias and are usually powerless and afraid to stop them, especially given the way Euromaidan transpired.
In Zakarpattia, they bit off more than they could chew in going after an oligarch MP well installed in the region. While the SBU tried to imply that the incident was the work of “Russian agents”, Poroshenko stated his intention to disarm Right Sector. Nevertheless, Right Sector was able to organize an armed rally numbering 3000-5000 outside the presidential office in Kiev, calling on the resignation of the president. In order to organise it they have also partially retreated from the front line.
Despite their anti-oligarch rhetoric, National Guard battalions and far-right groups in Ukraine are tied to oligarchs in terms of receiving funding and equipment. While Kiev is happy to have these groups fighting rebels, repressing opposition to the government and breaking up trade union actions, it is not out of the question that they could pit these groups against each other should they feel threatened as occurred last summer in Kiev.However, the show of strength of the Right Sector is a warning to what any Ukrainian government might face if it decides to finally settle the matter of the rebel republics.
The oligarchs and Western Imperialism
US imperialism historically has shown no hesitation in supporting brutal regimes, but prefer if these things stay hidden. As Ukraine’s economy veers closer and closer to default, it is more and more dependent on foreign aid, and thus, is in the process of transforming into a client state for foreign interests. This puts Ukrainian oligarchs in a contradiction however, as they have historically maintained a certain independence from both Western and Russian capital. Last June, Poroshenko dismissing Valentyn Nalyvaichenko – who is considered close to US interests – as the chief of the interior security agency, SBU.
Just how far Washington will tolerate the current Kiev regime remains to be seen. As of now, the US imperialism aims in the Ukrainian conflict are:
The expansion of their influence at the expense of a rival power in Russia,
The increasing of tensions between Russia and the EU (particularly Germany), that forces the EU industry to seek most expensive alternatives to Russian gas, reducing its competitively versus US industry,
The opening of new markets for US multinationals, not only in Ukraine, but also the possibility of selling US gas to the EU.
Neither the Ukrainian oligarchs nor US imperialism has an interest in ending the conflict because it is simply too profitable. The conflict is equally advantageous for various speculators holding Ukraine’s debt, who can make profits speculating on the debt, despite Ukraine not likely to ever be able to repay.
While the far-right poses a threat to any Ukrainian opposing the current order they are too tied to the oligarchs and the government themselves to pose a real threat to their power. Support from the US will go to the section of the oligarchy most willing to continue the transformation of the country into a client state for the interest of their multinationals. Another overthrow of the president is certainly not out of the question. These kinds of changes will only lead to the further destabilisation of the country, and drive Ukrainians further into poverty and war.
Many people who passively or actively supported the overthrow of Yanukovich did so with the idea that “things could not get any worse”. The events of the past year have shown them that there is no end in sight in the race to the bottom. Even the newly appointed governor of the Odessa region, Mikhail Saakashvilli, the former Georgian president who is sought in his country on corruption charges, has stated that it will take 20 years of stability to bring the economy back to the level it was under Yanukovich. We would add that there is no bottom for capitalism in crisis, which applies not just for Ukraine, but essentially everywhere in the world at the moment.
The huge ongoing campaign against the demolition of buildings [mostly tents] constructed against a court order in Susya village has been successful backed now by some NGOs, US, EU and UN. From Western mainstream media one easily can get picture that Israel plans to destroy ancient Arab village in occupied territory and grabbing land owned by local villagers. The true picture is a bit different, even opposite.
The question is not only some tents in Susya, besides media war the campaign is part of wider plan – known as “Fayyad Plan”, to occupy land for fictional Palestine state from Israel – land which is under direct Israeli control according the “Oslo Accords,” that incorporates within its terms UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which set the basic terms for comprehensive peace in the area. The case also shows an excellent example about the hypocrisy of European Union which same time plans sanctions against Israel due illegal Israeli settlements while continuously financing illegal Arab settlements.
Susya vs. Fake Susya
European Union-American acceptance of the lie of “Arab Susiya” is both a result from a successful PR campaign and against the reality. The archaeological evidence clearly proves that Jews lived in Biblical and Talmudic times until as late as the 9th century in Susya, while academic researchers have categorically established that Arabs never lived there. Modern are aerial photographs decades ago show that not one Arab lived in Susiya, for centuries, only a few thousand Arabs populated the relatively vast southern Hebron Hills and other Arabs came from the Hebron area to stay in caves for two months during the season for planting and reaping wheat or to grave sheep and goats; other than that, Arabs were never to be seen because their homes were elsewhere. All of that changed soon after the early 1980s when the Jews returned after 1,500 years.
The focus of the creation of this lie has been Susiya, the largest Jewish community in the area, although less than 200 families live there. It is located several hundred yards from the Talmudic city, which is protected as a natural park. The European Union – i.a. – have invested tens of thousands of dollars to bring Arabs to the narrow stretch of land separating modern and ancient Susiya.
Local resident Karni Eldad describes this side of settlement activities in i24news as follows:
Everybody knows that the settlements beyond the Green Line receive extensive subsidies and incentives. For example, a small community south of Hebron receives wind turbines to produce free electricity, it gets free mobile homes, free air conditioners, free toilets, free water tanks, a free library, free agricultural sheds, a free mobile clinic and free health care, and even basic food items, completely for free. Oh yeah, and a free mosque. Why a mosque? Because this settlement is an illegal Palestinian outpost, established in Israeli territory (Area C according to the Oslo Accord’s territorial division), and is located near the Jewish settlement of Susya in the southern Hebron hills. Who finances it? The EU, of course.
Below short video about the real ancient history and origins of Susya:
And below the Illegal Palestinian Settlement – fictional Arab village – of Susya:
After the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, and especially since 2009, Palestinians began to establish outposts in Area C with massive European funding. These outposts are designed to interrupt the continuity of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. This program is called the “Fayyad Plan”, named after Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian official who conceived it. The Europeans, for their part, are joining the initiative as they consider Judea and Samaria occupied territory and are working to establish a Palestinian state in the entire territory.
The so-called “Fayyad Plan” entitled “Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” is breathlessly ambitious. Fayyad, a US-educated economist and former senior World Bank official, challenged the Palestinian policy of liberation through armed struggle by proposing peaceful, proactive development. The plan had and still has US and EU support and has got aid in the billions. Also Israel has backed Palestinian economic development and reform from bottom up to establish a demilitarised state.
The Fayyad Plan includes 3 major pillars – 1. Structural reform of the central and local government administration. 2. Restoring and re-establishing the security system (Palestinian Police, courts, prisons, etc.). 3. Building the economic and physical infrastructure in all areas, (banks, public and educational facilities, electricity, water, sewage and roads etc.) whilst focusing on Area C.
In evaluating the successes of the Fayyad plan, addressing its obstacles and Israeli misapprehensions, this paper argues that the creation of an independent Palestinian state will work towards Israel’s advantage for the following reasons: First, it guarantees the two-state solution, ensuring that the State of Israel remains Jewish and democratic. Second, Israel’s responsibility towards the Palestinians will be dramatically reduced, for a Palestinian state would become responsible for its own citizens, territory and borders. Third, an independent Palestine will improve Israel’s serious legitimacy problem, for the relationship will be that of two sovereign states, as opposed to the current asymmetrical relationship between a state and a non-state. Fourth, a Palestinian state will strengthen the hand of the moderates, namely Fateh and Fayyad, while weakening the terrorist organization Hamas and other Islamic radicals. Finally, the environment for peace negotiations will improve, as Israel’s security needs will be met and the Palestinians, having achieved their decades-long desire for self-determination, will be negotiating from a place of pride and accomplishment, as opposed to the hopelessness and humiliation that engulfs them on a daily basis.
However the “Fayyad Plan leaves a number of issues unresolved, such as Jerusalem, the right of return, borders, the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and, lastly, Gaza. The essence of the Fayyad plan was to build the apparatus of a Palestinian state within two years, regardless of progress in the stalled peace negotiations with Israel. Israeli officials reacted with consternation over what they saw as a unilateral action even Fayyad has rejected calls for a binational state and unilateral declaration of statehood.
The core negative aspect of the plan is, in my opinion, that it Fayyad calls for massive Palestinian development in Area C – an area in which is under direct Israeli control – the Palestinian Authority exercises civil powers and responsibilities as well as functional jurisdiction under the umbrella of overall Israeli security and civil administration – the fate of which is intended by the Interim Agreement to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.
“Aid to the Bedouin” is a political program of the Palestinian Authority that was in conjunction with the previous PM Salam Fayyad, which intends to gradually take control over Area C, and to add it into the area of the Palestinian Authority (PA). In addition the EU is building hundreds of illegal structures in the West Bank, for example near Ma’aleh Adumim and its E1 area (great Jerusalem). Some of the structures are even being built on nature reserves, where construction is forbidden. All these buildings contravene the Oslo Accords, which give Israel full administrative responsibility and authority over Area C so the EU is participating in a violation of the Oslo II Agreement.
Israeli NGO Regavim has been very active with gathering data and conducting field surveys especially in Negev, Judea and Samaria. Regavim recently released a report revealing that the European Union has spent millions of dollars actively erecting some 500 unauthorized pre-fabricated buildings in strategic areas located in Area C in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in violation of the Oslo Accords. These reports are exposing very cleartThe hypocrisy of the European Union. Blaming Israel for taking unilateral steps, whilst simultaneously being directly, deeply and heavily involved in illegal and unilateral activity to the benefit of the Palestinian Authority. According Regavim in recent years, European support has moved from passive diplomatic and financial assistance to a situation of active cooperation in illegal building which the Palestinian Authority has been advancing unilaterally since 2009, as part of its strategic plan to create a Palestinian state de facto, while avoiding the need for negotiations with Israel. One of the central goals of this plan is the development of building initiatives specifically in Area C, (which is defined by the Oslo Accords as under full Israeli control) with the intent of chipping away at this area bit by bit, and thus creating a strip of territory between the area of Hebron, Samaria, and Jericho. This strip would endanger the security of the State of Israel and its ability to defend itself within defensible borders.
According Regavim reports in September 2012, the European Union announced the allocation of 100 million euros toward the advancement of projects for the Arab population across Area C, which is under full Israeli control (— in addition to the 100 million euros transferred in 2011). The first paragraph in the document detailing the allocation of the funds indicates an earmarked transfer of 7 million euros (in 2012 alone) for “development of land and basic infrastructures in Area C, See an example of EU funding decision here . The September 2014 EU document indicates an additional – earmarked – funding allocation (apart from the regular annual aid), in the sum of 11 million euros, intended for establishing outposts (“shepherds’ communities”) in Area C.
While unilateral measures of the PA are encouraged, promoted and funded by the European Union against Israeli law, the Oslo accords etc., its leaders criticize the State of Israel, accusing it of taking unilateral steps. For example the EU threatens sanctions against Israel, should Israel promote programs that constitute “measures to prevent the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity”.
According DEBKAfile the new proposals published on 22nd July 2015 by the European Council for Foreign relations [ECFR, a pan-European think tank with offices in seven European capitals] go beyond labeling Israeli goods made in “settlements” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (for boycotting) – to include Israeli banks. Its boycott would cover bank loans and mortgages, qualifications earned in settlement institutions and the tax-exempt status of European charities that deal with Israeli settlements. Under European Commission guidelines from 2013, EU- and member-state-funded lending cannot be provided to Israeli businesses and individuals operating in the occupied territories. In addition the report questions whether Europe should accept qualifications from academic, medical and other Israeli institutions based in the West Bank. Likewise, there is a question mark over whether the EU should be dealing with Israeli institutions – such as the Ministry of Justice and the national police headquarters – which are based in East Jerusalem.
The Israeli government has described Europe’s steps on labeling as discriminatory and wrong-headed, suggesting they are akin to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which Israel regards as anti-Semitic. News of the report’s publication caused Tel Aviv Stock Exchange banking stocks to fall 2-2.5 pc.
Earlier [on April 2015] 16 of the European Union’s (EU) 28 foreign ministers co-signed a letter to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, urging her to advance the creation of guidelines to separately label goods produced in the West Bank as part of an economic offensive on Israel. The labeling plan was first mooted in 2012, but the 16 member states told EU foreign affairs head Federica Mogherini it was now time to press ahead as part of efforts to force Israel to divide in a “two state solution.” (More in Top Priority of EU Foreign Policy: A New ‘Jude’ Badge )
My conclusion
The only valid and legally binding framework that has governed, and continues to govern, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is still the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (1995), with its related documents, commonly termed the “Oslo Accords,” that envelopes all the other agreements and arrangements between the two sides and incorporates within its terms UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which set the basic terms for comprehensive peace in the area.
Under the Oslo accords, the West Bank was divided into three zones, A, B and C, pending a permanent peace deal. Area C, where Israel maintains security and civil control, compromises more than 60% of West Bank territory. It includes the Jordan Valley where Israel has transformed the desert flats into lucrative agri-business settlements, west of the no-go military zone of border patrols and electronic fences on the frontier with Jordan.
The Susya region lies in Zone C, the archaeological evidence clearly proves Jewish ancient ties to area in question while Arab ties are only recent and temporary; land-grabbing with international campaign tries to grab land from Jews to Arabs and not opposite . The Susya case is not question about human rights, its is about politics to make solutions on the ground instead of negotiations.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 20 July 2015. Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TRANSCEND Media Service – TMS: MH17 One Year On: What Really Happened and Why, is included.
This month marks the one year anniversary of the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 – an incident that took place against a backdrop of a brutal proxy war – pitting Kiev and its supporters in Washington DC, the EU and NATO – against rebel forces in eastern Ukraine and Russia. As with most 21st century conflicts, truth has been the first casualty of war here. Last July, 21WIRE released its own preliminary investigation into the disaster. That post still remains one of the most successful articles in the site’s history. One year on, we’ll revisit and review many of those key points and attempt many of the reamining unanswered questions…
On July 17, 2014, flight MH17 traveling east from Amsterdam, Netherlands to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – crashed near the village of Grabovo, and on the outskirts of the town of Torez just outside of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, approximately 40 km from the Ukrainian-Russian border.
To call this situation volatile would almost be an understatement. A pivotal event such as this could easily be used as a pretext for escalating not only a New Cold War between the West and Russia, but also a hot war. Only six months previously, the Ukraine found itself in the throes of a western-backed coupd’état in Kiev which tore the country apart. This was quickly followed by a snap referendum in Crimea, where voters opted for secession from the Ukraine and into the relatively secure arms of the Russian Federation. The west cried foul and so began a new grudge match. Arguably, tensions between the west and Moscow have been at their highest since the apex of the Cold War during the east-west Soviet era. Needless to say, with MH17 the stakes could not be any higher, and regarding the west, it was obvious who would be assigned the blame for this tragedy.
More than any other incident, this one was flushed out firstly through public relations channels, and then secondly through official government bodies. From the onset the West took its position by claiming it had “proof” that ‘Russian-backed rebels’ were responsible for shooting down the passenger airliner. Immediately after the incident took place, the western government-media complex insisted that the murder weapon was a Russian-made BUK Surface to Air Missile system.
A Russian-made BUK SAM Missile battery, commonly stocked by the Ukrainian Army (Image: Wikicommons)
Western mainstream media outlets wasted no time in disseminating this government-issued conspiracy theory, backed-up by a number of other clams of “evidence” coming out of the Washington-backed regime in Kiev. At the time, US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to have a “mountain of evidence” convicting ‘pro-Russian separatists’ and Moscow. Unfortunately, Kerry’s mountain was no more than a mole hill. Nearly all of those claims have since been debunked and exposed as fraudulent – but from a public opinion perspective, the damage was already done. RELATED: ‘Remembering MH17′ with Ray McGovern and Patrick Henningsen Within 48 hours, News Corp and other pro-war rags ran a series of loaded headlines including, “Putin’s Missile”, “Putin’s Victims” and “From Vlad to Worse”. Vladimir Putin and his government in Russia were already convicted in the Kangaroo court of public opinion under the guise of guilt by association with Russian-speaking rebels fighting Kiev’s military forces in the east.
‘Factless’ News Corp: Always the loyal war rag.
However, upon closer examination of the facts surrounding this case, an alternative set of conclusions can be drawn from this event – one which points to the very strong possibility that what the world really witnessed last year was a classic ‘false flag’ event – an attempted slight-of-hand bit of military trickery designed to cast blame on one party for a crime that was really committed by another. It wouldn’t be the first time that this type of sub-plot was put into motion to advance a world power’s geopolitical objectives.
Revelation of the Method: A ‘False Flag’ Attack
The term false flag, or “black flag”, is most common in naval battles, and describes the historic covert, military use of a flag other than the perpetrator’s true flag colors as a type of ruse de guerre – designed to deceive and confuse in order to provide a fake ‘moral high ground’ in the theater of mass public opinion.
The classic blueprint for MH17 was not dreamt-up by Russian war planners, but by the Pentagon – over 50 years earlier. A clandestine plan known as Operation Northwoods, was similarly conjured in 1962 by the US Department of Defense’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the CIA in front of a Cold War backdrop pitting the United States against then Soviet ally Cuba, led by Fidel Castro. The plan was signed off by then JCS Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and detailed how spooks would use prepositioned explosives to blow-up a passenger airliner over Cuba, blaming it on Cuba and by extension – Washington’s arch-nemesis the Soviet Union. This ‘false flag’ attack would then be used as valuable leverage in a global public opinion campaign against Washington’s existential and ideological enemies. They also talked about developing a “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”. Fortunately, the deceptive plot was eventually rejected by the Kennedy administration.
It’s important to note that had the US been successful in framing Moscow for the downing of MH17 in 2014, it would have given Washington a bright green light to intensify its efforts in destabilizing neighboring Ukraine, and later in Georgia, then in Estonia, and so on. As the MH17 false flag began to crumble, so did any prospects of a Washington geopolitical takeover in the region. Arguably, Washington DC and its allies attempted a similar geopolitical frame-up only one year earlier in August 2013 in Syria. What we now know to be a false flag chemical weapons attack took place in Ghutta, a suburb located on the outskirts of Damascus. The plan was simple: create a chemical or ‘WMD’ event to coincide with the visiting of UN weapons inspectors in Damascus and blame it on the government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Once international outrage and blame could be established, then a US-led ‘Coalition’ would carry out yet another oxymoronic ‘humanitarian’ military intervention against Syria, topple the regime and then work on installing a US-compliant government there. It almost happened. Had the British Parliament passed a war resolution in early September, then the US would have had the green light to begin bombing – risking another potential world war in the process.
In the end it was Russia who quickly supplied the solution: a UN monitored disposal of all of the Syrian military’s aging chemical weapons stocks – and thus removing any future change by the US or Britain to fabricate another ‘WMD’ indictment against the Assad regime in Syria. That master chess move was down to Russia’s dab-handed foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and it was a masterstroke which may have helped to avoid a wider world war.
The Case
Tracing the whereabouts of MH17 during its final moments is of great importance if one is to determine what happened and why. For this reason, a number of key data sets and important information and testimonies have been buried – not by Russia and Russian-speaking rebels in the east Ukraine, but rather by US and European stakeholders as well as obscured by the entirety of the western corporate media.
We know that a Malaysian Airlines spokesman has already confirmed that, for some unknown reason, Kiev-based Ukrainian Air Traffic Control (ATC) ordered MH17 off of its original flight path along the international air route, known as L980. Most likely, this order was given to pilots while MH17 was still in Polish air space. L980 is one of the most popular and most congested air routes in the world, as well as a key link between major international hubs in Europe, like London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt, and Asian destinations, like Singapore, Mumbai, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur. As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved by ATC Kiev approximately 200 miles north – putting it on a new course, heading directly into a war zone, a well-known dangerous area by now – one that hosted a number of downed military craft over the previous 3 weeks. Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine, confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto. Data on these and other similar flights can be found at the website Flight Radar24¹.
The plot (or the cover-up) thickens even more at this point, as publically available data appears to have been changed in the weeks following the incident. In the days after the crash, popular microblogger Vagellis Karmiros showed MH17’s clear change of course over the warzone to the north from compiling flight location and route data publically available on the website FlightAware. Karmiros’s findings were even featured in an infographic in the UK’s Daily Mail at the time².
The digital smoking gun: Then approximately six days after the crash, the information on popular publicly accessible flight tracking websites like FlightAware and FlightRadar24 appear to have been altered – to give the impression that all recent MH17 flights had gone over the Donetsk war zone too – effectively erasing the possibility that the plane’s flight path had been altered by Air Traffic Control in the first instance³. The following is a screenshot from FlightAware, of MH17 on the day of the incident, July 17, 2014, where the doomed journey came to an abrupt halt over the village of Grabovo, in eastern Ukraine. Notice the flight path along a trajectory north of Crimea:
Below are a set of five different FlightAware screenshots which originally showed how MH17’s normal route was approximately 200 miles south of its fatal kill zone on July 17th, 2014. Here are four samples: MH17 flight path for July 12, 2014 – Original data available in the immediate days following the crash:
MH17 ‘new’ flight path for July 12, 2014 – since changed approximately 6-7 days after the crash:
MH17 flight path for July 13, 2014 – Original data available in the immediate days following the crash:
MH17 ‘new’ flight path for July 13, 2014 – since changed approximately 6-7 days after the crash:
MH17 flight path for July 14, 2014 – Original data available in the immediate days following the crash:
MH17 ‘new’ flight path for July 14, 2014 – since changed approximately 6-7 days after the crash:
MH17 flight path for July 15, 2014 – Original data available in the immediate days following the crash:
MH17 ‘new’ flight path for July 15, 2014 – since changed from approximately 6-7 days after the crash:
Were these flight paths changed, and if so why? Again, the obvious motive here is misdirection. By altering the public-facing flight path data of MH17 after the fact would be to cloud the realization that MH17’s fateful path on July 17, 2014 was NOT it’s normal flight path – and thus halting any further inquiry as to exactly who diverted MH17 and why. According to these revised images that appears to be exactly what has been attempted here. Was FlightAware hacked and the flight path data altered? The answer to this question might help lead to finding out whether or not we are in fact witnessing a very elaborate cover-up here. The Missing Tapes
So what about the air traffic control tapes? These could easily provide the information investigators need to establish the who, what, when, where and why of MH17’s doomed journey. The BBC reported⁴ on July 17th: “Ukraine’s SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency.”
Were the ATC audio records of the MH17 flight confiscated by the Kiev government? No reason has been given for this loss of transparency, but not a word from Washington regarding this cover-up of crucial evidence. Did the order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course? To be sure, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol, but more likely from ATC in Kiev.
Undoubtedly, this is the most obvious smoking gun that the fix was in for MH17 – as someone directed the flight directly over a war zone. Mainstream pundits and investigators have gone to great lengths to conceal this single most damning piece of evidence which should indicate that there is a running cover-up surrounding this incident.
Soon after the incident, British news outlets began floating the story – without evidence, that MH17 was diverted to “avoid thunderstorms in southern Ukraine”. This was also placed on Wikipedia at the same time⁵. Nico Voorbach, Dutch president of the ‘European Cockpit Association’, appears to be the man used to nudge along this talking point. Voorbach casually slides this crucial fabrication out there, telling The Guardian of all papers, “I heard that MH17 was diverting from some showers as there were thunderclouds”.
The only problem is that Malaysian Airlines immediately refuted this in a report from Malaysia News: “MAS operations director Captain Izham Ismail has also refuted claims that heavy weather led to MH17 changing its flight plan (…) There were no reports from the pilot to suggest that this was the case,” Izham said6.
What is significant, however, is that the Western media acknowledged that the change in the flight path did occur, indicating that the alleged “heavy weather” narrative is a fabrication designed to distract and obscure the fact that MH17’s course was indeed diverted directly into the war zone that day.
Amazingly, when searching all weather sites online, there is no weather data available for July 17th in the area of the incident. What? More digital chicanery to cover-up the truth?
Weather and Visibility Factor Another argument can be made that Kiev-based air traffic controllers not only led MH17 right over its alleged ‘target zone’ in Eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, but they also helped make it both visible to SAM missiles and to fighter jets. Although weather data online is all but unavailable for the area of Donetsk, Ukraine for July 17th, conditions are evident by numerous videos depicting the crash and crash site in the aftermath — it was cloudy and overcast, with more visibility above the cloud canopy. This factor is important because at its cruising altitude of approximately 33,000 feet (10,000 meters), the airliner would not be visible from the ground in the rebel-held area where Washington is insisting a SAM missile was launched. Why Kiev air traffic controllers order MH17 to suddenly drop its altitude, from 35,000 feet to around 33,000 feet, just before the plane’s demise is unknown for sure, but it would have been near impossible for the alleged rebel gunman occupying this relatively small rebel-held patch of land to make a visual sighting of MH17 and acquire the target during the 1-2 minute window they would have had (assuming they were even in possession of the BUK missile system). The following are some fresh footage and eyewitness reports from the scene of the crash:
The Takedown
Washington’s fragile ‘conspiracy theory’ quickly fell apart. Russian officials blindsided Washington and its NATO partners when it released all available satellite imagery and air traffic control data which was recorded in and around the final minutes of Flight MH17 – and presented it to the world media on live television. The data painted a very different picture, drawing contrasting conclusions to what Washington and Kiev officials had been disseminating via western media since July 17th. Following their presentation, Moscow handed its findings – air traffic data and time stamped satellite imagery – to European authorities. In stark contrast, US officials were reluctant to do the same – despite numerous cock-sure claims by high-ranking US officials including Secretary of State John Kerry.
On Monday July 21st, the Russian government, with almost every major global media outlet in attendance, released all of its air traffic data and satellite imaging data – all verifiable, including time stamps and supporting data. The entire content of the presentation was also handed over to the European authorities. Watch the official broadcast here:
The conclusions to be drawn from this are stunning, to say the least. Despite the public release of this information, US and British media outlets did not bother to report back to its people on these findings. They are as follows: Minutes before the downing of MH17, the plane made a mysterious ‘Left Turn’ as it flew over the Donetsk areaat approximately 17:20:00 Moscow Time, making a sharp 14km deviation, before attempting to regain its previous course before dropping altitude and disappearing from radar at 17:23:00. As we previously pointed out, air traffic controllers in Kiev had already diverted MH17 200 miles further north into the target zone, so the question remains: was Kiev ATC also responsible for this final, fatal diversion, or was there another reason for this unusual turn? According to clear satellite images provided, on July 16th, the Ukrainian Army positioned 3-4 anti-aircraft BUK M1 SAM missile batteries close to Donetsk. These systems included full launching, loading and radio location units, located in the immediate vicinity of the MH17 crash site. One system was placed approximately 8km northwest of Lugansk. In addition, a radio location system for these Ukrainian Army missile batteries is situated 5km north of Donetsk. On July 17th, the day of the incident, these batteries were moved to a position 8km south of Shahktyorsk. In addition to this, two other radio location units are also identified in the immediate vicinity. These SAM systems had a range of 35km distance, and 25km altitude. From July 18th, after the downing of MH17, Kiev’s BUK launchers were then moved away from the firing zone. Unlike rebel fighters, the Ukrainian military is in possession of some 27 BUK missile systems capable of bringing down high-flying jets, and forensic satellite imagery places at least 3 of their launchers in the Donetsk region on the day of this tragedy. Yet, Washington and NATO will not inquire about the possibility that any of these system had targeted MH17.
This is another definitive smoking gun: why did the Ukrainian Army move these short-range anti-aircraft SAM missile batteries into position on July 16-17th – to an interior region of East Ukraine where it’s known that the rebel resistance possess no air crafts whatsoever? Not surprisingly, both the US and Kiev have not answered that difficult question, perhaps for obvious reasons.
Most importantly however, Moscow radar picked up a Ukrainian Air Force fighter jet. At 17:20 Moscow Time, MH17 began to abruptly lose speed, eventually slowing to 124mph (200kmph). At that moment, what appears to be an SU-25 Ukrainian fighter jet appears on ATC radar, climbing in the direction of MH17 before trailing MH17 on the same flight path approximately 3-5km behind the passenger airliner, as it began rapidly approaching the same flight level. This happened just minutes before MH17 disappeared on radar. Note here that a Ukrainian fighter would not have been visible on ATC radar before it broke the ATC long-range standby radar tracking ceiling of 5km in altitude. Civilian ATC radar would not be able to identify this Su-25 as military because no secondary detection system is mounted – typical for military aircraft. Over the next four minutes, the Ukrainian fighter remained in the area. Note also that the Su-25 can be armed with air-to-air R-60 missiles with a range of up to 5km-12km.
Then assistant spokesperson for the US State Dept. Marie Harf had already declared her support for the western-backed coup in Kiev (Image: Twitter)
Washington’s Revised Conspiracy Theory In a damage control exercise, US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, called an ‘urgent’ press conference. The plan was to try and rescue the narrative. The Los Angeles Times reported: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” ⁷
The quiet U-turn by Washington signaled that its previous case blaming the rebels has been destroyed, and rather than concede that the Ukrainian Army has actually shot down MH17, they instead tried to concoct a revision about an unlikely Bond-like “rogue defector” villain and his “rogue team” – who all just happened to be wearing Ukrainian Army uniforms.
Even Hollywood’s best script writers could not rescue Washington’s terminally over-worked MH17 narrative.
The Crash Site
Most importantly, but completely overlooked by analysts following this story is the location (s) of the crash site itself. The scatter patterns of debris, along with the arguing which ensued between international bodies and the Donbass Rebels in east Ukraine – speaks volumes about a false flag master plan gone wrong.
The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact at about 10 km before the eventual crash site. The fatal event occurred somewhere in the interval between 17:21:28and17:22:30Moscow Time.The exact time of the crash is believed to be at 17:23:00.
Had the plane been shot down further east, and crashed some 30-40 miles southeast of its eventual grave, then the Ukrainian Army would have had complete control of the crash site, the evidence, as well as the flight data recorder ‘blackboxes’. As luck would have it, Kiev and Washington were not afforded the luxury of being able to hermetically seal off the crime scene – and thus completely control the narrative. For whatever reason, the plane was shot down too early, placing the wreckage along with the all-important black boxes in the wrong place – all of which made the false flag narrative slightly more complicated to sell than operation planners had originally intended (theoretically anyway).
The Investigation That Wasn’t
Once again, Russia’s impressive chess move by presenting all of their satellite and radar data in the immediate aftermath of the crash may very well have helped to avoid a major international conflagration.
With the egg still drying on their faces, western mandarins shifted into PR damage-control mode. In a massive face-saving exercise, much was made in the western media and in high-powered political circles about the need for a “thorough and fair investigation into MH17”. Any chance of that happening quickly died once the flight data recorders were handed over to British authorities for safe keeping at the UK’s Air Accidents Investigative Branch located in Farnborough, England. It’s been nearly one year now since the aircraft’s black boxes were placed into the hands of British authorities and it seems as if any further factual inquiries into what really happened that day have hit the wall. After Russia’s data dump there is simply no chance that the ‘Russian-backed’ Rebels could be framed for the disaster, so NATO’s intelligentsia have little choice other than to simply sit on the evidence indefinitely. It seems that the biggest losers are still the victims’ families. In December 2014, the Netherlands rejected families’ demands to allow the UN to take over from Dutch leading the investigation, as relatives claim the Dutch have “completely botched” the case by failing to meet basic international CSI protocol for securing evidence, as well as their inability to build a legal case to prosecute those responsible. As a leading NATO member with a clear stake in the Ukrainian civil war, the Netherlands can hardly consider themselves as a neutral arbitrator in the case. This is a good example of what happens to false flags once they reach the legal phase – when all of the previous hype and inertia generating through break-neck media speculation and wild political hyperbole – comes to a grinding halt in the face of the facts. This past week saw the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) release its ‘preliminary findings’ in a new report which claims to have identified a “Russian BUK Missile” launcher as the smoking gun, as well as blaming Malaysian Airlines for being ‘sloppy’ in its professional conduct by “not doing enough” to prevent its plane from flying over the deadly war zone. Far from fact-based, both citations by the DSB amount to nothing more than gross speculation and wild theorizing. To call it an investigation is laughable. Western media pundits have also been working overtime to characterize the DSB as a neutral arbitrator who is also apolitical, and a “meticulous”, honest broker. As a leading member of NATO, the Netherlands are anything but neutral and for anyone to suggest that that is truly the case would be both naive, and worse – ignorant – considering how NATO has managed to leverage the west’s fictional account of MH17 in order to fund and arm the Ukrainian military, as well as begin its recent unprecedented, break-neck expansion eastward right up to Russia’s border. They claim that their final “definitive report” will be released sometime in the fall – but few in the know will be holding their breath, as this one looks like it has all the makings of a protracted exercise in obfuscation designed to stay as far away from any conclusive investigation as possible, and allowing for continuing political pressure on Moscow via the original blame game.
Image: Wikicommons
The disinformation merry-go-round Who needs evidence when you have social media instead? The week following the downing of MH17, Washington deployed its front-of-house asset, US ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt (image, left), in its endless running fabricated social media campaign designed to somehow convince the world (or at least naive US media consumers) that the Russian military were occupying eastern Ukraine. Here, his damning tweet would implicate Russia for “firing artillery over its border into the Ukraine.” As cheap stunts went, this was one of the lowest ever. It turns out that Pyatt had simply grabbed a series of images off of the Google World-style satellite mapping website Digital Globe, while proudly touting it as “evidence” of Russia artillery fired into eastern Ukraine. This sort of media buffoonery has since become par for the course ever since the neoconservative faction led by Victoria Nuland managed to seize control of the US State Department in 2013. Here is Pyatt’s ‘evidence’ as it appeared last summer:
Pyatt’s Twitter gaff was part of an “disinformation merry-go-round” currently on heavy rotation in Kiev. Unlike the all-too-eager media drones in the US and Europe, Russian officials have been able to explain the mechanics of the Washington-Kiev fiction mill:
“This scheme is called “an informational merry-go-round,” Konashenkov added, using an expression commonly uttered in Russia relating to feeding the information to the media. “It’s no secret to anyone that fakes like this are made by a group of US counselors staying in the Kiev building of the Security Council, led by General Randy Kee,” he noted.
The general outlined the cycle as follows: the US counselors in the Kiev feed the disinformation to the Ukrainian media, with the news being taken by the Washington official representatives and presented as statements.
Afterwards, Washington’s stage-managed Ukrainian media outlet’s immediately cited the US Ambassador’s flimsy findings and published numerous articles as labeled as “objective” reporting on alleged Russian military movements inside Ukrainian territory. Opportunity and Motive Considering the military conflict which was taking place in eastern Ukraine at the time, there are three uncomfortable coincidences (or realities) that were prevailing before the downing of MH17 on July 17th. Firstly, the crash was also timed with an all-out Ukrainian Military offensive which was planned weeks in advance and was set to begin on July 18th. Secondly, it was widely reported that the troops were losing morale, and were suffering defections in an increasingly unpopular military theater of Eastern Ukraine. Kiev was losing the PR war hearts and minds in the Ukraine and abroad. Lastly, following the downing of MH17, Kiev was again characterized as a victim of “Russian aggression” and went on to garner huge public sympathy and support.
In the weeks leading up to July 17th, NATO, led by the US, conducted two large-scale military and intelligence drills in the Black Sea region. The first was an annual affair named, SEA BREEZE 2014, which just so happened to end on… July 17th. The drill included hundreds of US military specialists running ‘war simulations’ in electronic warfare, data collection from a spy satellite, and ‘monitoring’ of all passenger aircraft flying in the region. In addition, both US and British armed forces had also scheduled a concurrent military exercise code named, Rapid Trident 2014, another NATO sanctioned international drill which takes place around the Ukraine, which, according to the US Forces in Europe website, is supposed to “promote regional stability and security, strengthen partnership capacity and foster trust while improving interoperability between the land forces of Ukraine, and NATO and partner nations.” Since March, the Pentagon has kept quiet regarding the number of US forces, and hardware assets expected to participate in the maneuvers. According to US Army spokesman Col. Steven Warren,Rapid Trident is the only Ukraine military exercise the US planned to participate in this year, and it’s main purpose was, “To help the Ukrainian military improve its troops and weapons operability with NATO forces.”Just another coincidence. Eye in the Sky Here’s yet another smoking gun. The US had deployed its latest state-of-the-art, experimental satellite which just happened to be positioned over Eastern Europe for 1-2 hours, and directly over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine between 5:06pm – 5:21pm – the exact time frame in which MH17 was shot down. Did the US know something was happening in advance? It certainly seems so. Will the US ever release the information it clearly has documenting the MH17 disaster? Probably never.
MH17 Endgame: International Sanctions Clearly, war planners in Washington are determined to fabricate a case against Russia in order to enable either of these two outcomes:
Create a ‘global’ mandate for wider international sanctions against Russia. 2. Create a UN Security Council Crisis by implicating Russia via an “international violation”. In retrospect, the primary endgame of framing Moscow for the downed passenger airliner was to impose international sanctions against Russia. It’s crucial to note here that the west’s continued determination in blaming rebels in eastern Ukraine for MH17, and by extension Moscow, seems necessary in order to maintain the facade which was the original basis for their sanctions regime against Russia. Unlike Washington, the European economies have suffered greatly from sanctions against Russia, hitting Germany, France and Spain exports particularly hard at a time when when an already fragile Eurozone is teetering on the edge of disaster. If the truth about MH17 were ever to be revealed, and thus shattering the cheap narrative constructed by Washington’s conflict marketing department last year, the political blow-back from Europe’s leading economies would be substantial, with America’s allies demanding some sort of quid pro quo to cover their own shortfalls.
Shameless Cheap Shot
(Image: Wikicommons)
In the aftermath of the tragedy, a number of unscrupulous politicians sought to score what they thought were easy points against Russian president Vladimir Putin. Topping that list of shameless actors is none other than Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott (image, left), who threatened to “shirt-front” Putin over the issue ahead of the G20 Summit hosted by Australia last November. When Putin arrived, Abbott bottled, and revised his rhetoric to asking the Russian leader for an apology and also financial compensation for MH17 victims’ families – even though there was absolutely no evidence to even suggest that Russia had anything to do with the crash.
Towing the NATO line, as ever, Abbott then invited Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to visit Australia at a later date to “discuss security.” A Symbolic Date In terms of Russian history, there is not a more symbolic date than July 17th. This was also the date on which the Russian Imperial Romanov family led by Tsar Nicholas II, his wife and five children and other persons – were awoken at 2:00am and assassinated by firing squad in the early hours of 17 July 1918. Wikipedia recounts:
“Present with Nicholas, Alexandra and their children were their doctor and three of their servants, who had voluntarily chosen to remain with the family—the Tsar’s personal physician Eugene Botkin, his wife’s maid Anna Demidova, and the family’s chef, Ivan Kharitonov, and footman, Alexei Trupp. A firing squad had been assembled and was waiting in an adjoining room, composed of seven Communist soldiers from Central Europe, and three local Bolsheviks, all under the command of Bolshevik officer Yakov Yurovsky.”[85]
Conclusion Russia’s public satellite ‘data dump’ on July 21, 2014 was certainly a game changer – effectively snookering Washington and Kiev. The existence of this intelligence means that, for fear of losing face on the issue, Washington and its NATO partners cannot present any real intelligence – which they also have in their possession. In an attempt to save face, western governmental bodies will now likely stop short of issuing any definitive statements as they already had last summer, of accusing either Donbass Rebels or Moscow of actually shooting down MH17. The only remaining option to nudge their PR agenda foward, is to continue with the campaign of endless innuendos and other slanderous remarks in the media sphere using nongovernmental agencies and war advocacy think tanks. During its news package this week on the latest Dutch Safety Board report, CNN featured Heather Conley (image, left) a senior VP from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. Conley crowed that somehow the report was another “blow to Vladimir Putin’s credibility.” Naturally, the irony is lost on Washington. One year on, and we’re still no closer to closure, and very far from justice regarding the case of MH17. Expect more cover-ups and misdirection from western authorities who fear any new evidence that may threaten the narrative they were aggressively canvassing in the immediately aftermath of the last year’s tragedy.
Meanwhile, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard and the aged old battle to control Euraisa’s Heartland continues… Additional footnotes: 1. http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17 2. https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/489926167731142656/photo/1 3. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK 4. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28360784 5. Nico Voorbach, President, European Cockpit Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 6. http://news.malaysia.msn.com/tmi/dutch-pilot-says-mh17-could-have-veered-off-flight-path-in-bad-weather 7. http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-intelligence-us-20140722-story.html
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 20 July 2015. Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TRANSCEND Media Service – TMS: MH17 One Year On: What Really Happened and Why, is included.
Susya (Arabic: سوسية, Hebrew: סוּסְיָא) is the site of an ancient Jewish village in the southern Judaean Mountains south of Hevron, on the road towards Be’er Sheva, a Palestinian village claimed established by the 1830s and a religious communal Israeli settlement under the jurisdiction of Har Hebron Regional Council established in 1983. The Susya region lies in Zone C according the Oslo Agreements where the West Bank was divided in Area A (18% of the West Bank territory under PA – Palestinian Authority), B (22% under Palestinian civilian control) and C (60% under direct Israeli control).
The Israeli Supreme Court has given the green light for the demolition of 80 illegal structures in Arab Susya. On Thursday [16th July 2015] demolition orders were distributed to the Arab squatters. Arab Susya was built adjacent to the Jewish community of Susya that was established in 1983. Problematically, the Arab town was built on the archaeological site of ancient Susya, a Jewish village from the Temple Period.
According Arutz Sheva newsportal US State Department spokesperson John Kirby delivered a terse statement against Israel at a press briefing on 16th July 2015, incredibly ordering the Jewish state not to demolish illegal structures built by Arab squatters on an ancient Jewish village. After an Arab journalist asked about reports that Israel may carry out the demolition soon, Kirby said the State Department is “closely following developments”.
“We strongly urge the Israeli authorities to refrain from carrying out any demolitions in the village,” warned Kirby. “Demolition of this Palestinian village or of parts of it, and evictions of Palestinians from their homes, would be harmful and provocative. Such actions have an impact beyond those individuals and families who are evicted…[the demolition may] “worsen the atmosphere for a peaceful resolution and would set a damaging standard for displacement and land confiscation particularly given settlement-related activity in the area.”
According Arutz Sheva Kirby clearly was reading a typed answer to the question, whereas in his other answers he spoke in his own words without a pre-scripted message. This fact would appear to indicate both the strong intentions expressed in the statement, as well as how the State Department was planning to address the issue – and possibly pre-arranged for the question to be asked.
The “Palestinian village” Kirby took such pains to defend was in fact built adjacent to the Jewish community of Susya which was established in 1983. Problematically, the Arab town was built on the archaeological site of ancient Susya, a Jewish village from the Temple Period. The position on an illegal Arab settlement is particularly hypocritical given the State Department’s vocal condemnation of Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria, labeling them as “illegal settlements” and urging their demolition – despite the 2012 Levy Report‘s finding that the Jewish presence in the region is legal according to international law. [Lähde: Arutz Sheva ]
While Arab squatters have claimed an Arab historical connection to the site, historical documents have thoroughly debunked that claim, showing how the Arab village is a very recent phenomenon whereas the ancient Jewish connection to the site is established in the records. Tzviki Bar-Hai, then head of the Har Hevron regional council, told Arutz Sheva in late 2013 that the Arab presence in Susya is very recent. “I was there in 1976, and aside from the synagogue that was built here in 1969, there wasn’t a living soul,” he recalled. “We were able to restart the archaeological digs in 1983, and then, too, there were no Palestinians around.” He noted how Arab farmers began to visit Susya for one or two nights at a time during certain parts of the year starting in 1986, revealing that those now claiming to be residents of Susya are actually from the nearby Arab town of Yatta. The researcher and Jerusalem Post journalist Dr. Seth J. Frantzman, carried out his Ph.D. research at the Hebrew University, using Israel State Archives and the map archives of the Hebrew University and National Library as well as at the aerial photo archive of the Hebrew University’s Geography department, on the foundation, expansion and development of Arab villages in the 19th and early 20th century, tracing how some villages expanded and gave birth to “daughter villages”. Dr. Frantzman notes that he did not come across any village, hamlet or settlement at Susya. He did identify several other villages that were founded in the 1940s, which Professor David Grossman of the Department of Geography at Bar Ilan Unversity has also written about. For example, the village Rahiya, near Yatta, was founded in the late 19th century or early 20th century. Yet there is no evidence, however, from records examined at Ben Gurion University from the Ottoman Empire period or British mandate period, of any village or settlement ever existing at Susya. The Palestine Exploration Fund, which carried out a thorough and widely respected survey of the country from 1871-77 did not show any village or settlement in the area of Susya. Instead they noted only the ruins of ancient Susya, which was a Jewish town from the Temple period with a synagogue facing Jerusalem, ritual bath and other artifacts. [Source: Arutz Sheva ]
The case of Susya is one example of problems with outposts and settlements of Arab side (Arabs from PA-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, and by Bedouin Arabs in the Negev). The Arabs do not seek permits, and set up whole towns, which in some cases have grown to be small cities. The outposts are built on state land, often on land used by the IDF for training, and as a result the army is forced to adjust its exercises, jeopardizing the security of Israelis. In addition, the outposts are not hooked up to sewage systems, and raw Arab sewage is often dumped in environmentally sensitive areas, ruining the ecology of many areas. In many cases, the Arabs refuse to request permits for their outposts, refusing to recognize the authority of the state, and avoiding paying for development and infrastructure costs. As an illegal outpost, the Arab settlement does not have a development plan even in some cases they are working with that kind of plan in the hope of retroactively legalizing the site.
In addition – according The Jerusalem Post – the EU is building hundreds of illegal structures in the West Bank, which the government has not removed in order to avoid a diplomatic tangle with the Europeans. The structures are being built near Ma’aleh Adumim and its E1 area, some of the structures are even being built on nature reserves, where construction is forbidden. These buildings contravene the Oslo Accords, which give Israel full administrative responsibility and authority over Area C so the EU is participating in a violation of the Oslo II Agreement.
Susya is also example of problems due unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The legal procedures are more clear e.g. in Negev (inside 1967 cease-fire line) than in Areas A, B or C in Samaria and Judea where different civil laws and military rules are prevailing.
Ariel "Ari" Rusila is a blogger and former development project management expert from Finland with a special interest in the Balkan region. His other interests include geopolitics, conflicts and The Great Middle East. <"Conflicts By Ariel Rusila [aka ex-BalkanBlog] - ISSN 2342-6675 - covers issues of conflicts and regionally the Balkans (esp. Serbia), the Black Sea region and MENA (the greater Middle East and North Africa and esp. Israel) regions as well EurAsia.
Member of
* Anna Lindh Foundation NW * G.N.S. Press Association & European News Agency * International Press Card * EzineArticles Expert Author * Authors.com * Peace & Collaborative Development NW * Take-A-Pen * Suomi-Israel ry/Jyväskylä International Solidarity Work (member of board 2017-18) * Left Alliance/FIN * European Left/Agriculture WG
What can be described as a “vigilante” operation gone awry, has ended in a bloody clash with police, leaving two fascists dead, several bystanders, police and militants injured. Right Sector – a far right Ukrainian paramilitary organisation claiming the legacy of the Nazi-collaborating Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) – targeted a Ukrainian MP Mykhailo Lanio (formerly Party of Regions) on July 13th in his home region in Zakarpattia. Despite being heavily armed, they were met at the location by the MP’s guards along with local police, foiling their attempt to presumably kidnap the MP for what Right Sector claimed was the MP’s smuggling operation in the border region. This had put both the leaders in Kiev and Right Sector in uncomfortable positions.
Posted by Ariel Rusila 
Conflicts by Ariel Rusila 
