Where’s the Coverage? Hamas Bulldozes UNESCO Heritage Site to Build Terrorist Training Camp

Monday, watchdog group UN Watch sent a letter to the Director General of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization:

UN Watch is alarmed by the reported destruction by Hamas of parts of the ancient Anthedon Harbor in Gaza for use as a terrorist training camp. We urge you to bring the matter immediately before the UNESCO Executive Board, currently meeting at its 191st session in Paris, for protective action.
We note the tragic irony that this destruction by the rulers of Gaza comes exactly one year after the area was nominated by new UNESCO member state Palestine as a World Heritage site.

As you must know, earlier last month, despite criticism from nongovernmental organizations, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas bulldozed a part of the Anthedon Harbor in northern Gaza along the Mediterranean Sea, according to yesterday’s report by Al Monitor Palestine Pulse.

Hamas damaged the harbor in order to expand its “military training” zone, which was initially opened on the location in 2002, according to your own UNESCO representative in Gaza, Yousef al-Ejla.

UNESCO itself describes Anthedon, the historical significance of which dates back to 800 BCE, as a port that continued to thrive thru Neo-Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic periods:

The present site consists of a variety of elements which spread in the area from the seashore, including the underwater archaeology, to the inland: the ruins of a Roman temple and a section of a wall have been uncovered, as well as Roman artisan and living quarters, including a series of villas, testifying of the city of Anthedon. Mosaic floors, warehouses and fortified structures are found in the area.

Despite the importance of the site, its at-least-partial destruction has attracted very little mainstream news media attention. Outside of the Jewish and Israeli press and some blogs, CAMERA could find coverage in only The Washington Times, The Washington Free Beacon, FrontPage Magazine, and TheBlaze.com. The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, the network news, cable news channels… nothing.

Al-Monitor quotes Deputy Minister of Tourism in Gaza Muhammad Khela saying that the location was taken for “military” use:

“We can’t stand as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian resistance; we are all a part of a resistance project, yet we promise that the location will be limitedly used without harming it at all,” Khela explained.
[…]

“If the location was excavated already, I don’t think it would have been possible for anyone to take it over,” Khela explained, adding that “it should be UNESCO and other donating groups’ job to do so.”

Yet, UNESCO and Palestinian leaders have repeatedly failed to protect sites that have been excavated and that are even in use to this day. Though UNESCO’s constitution, Article 1 Paragraph 2c, states that the organization’s purpose is to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science,” UNESCO has been mute on repeated attacks on archeologically significant Jewish sites that were, if not allowed by, at least ignored by Palestinian authorities obligated to protect them.

Rachel’s Tomb, described by some as the second holiest place of worship in Judaism, comes under frequent rock and Molotov cocktail attack as do the Jews who worship there.

Visitors to Joseph’s Tomb report that vandals had urinated at the entrance to the tomb and there were indications on the wall and window of attempts to start a fire there.

Instead of protecting these and other sites from Palestinian damage, UNESCO, like many United Nations agencies, focuses disproportionate criticism on Israel. UN Watch notes in its letter to the organization:

According the current UNESCO session timetable, there are in fact four agenda items dedicated exclusively to Palestinian issues: Items 9, 10, 34, and 35, while Item 5 includes a fifth report on this issue. Israel is the only country in the world that is targeted for specific criticism in this session.

Though the United States withdrew funding for UNESCO when the organization admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011, the Obama administration seeks to restore $77.7 million in funding in the proposed 2014 budget:

The Administration seeks Congressional support for legislation that would provide authority to waive legislative restrictions that, if triggered, would prohibit paying U.S. contributions to United Nations specialized agencies that grant the Palestinians the same standing as member states or full membership as a state. Should the Congress pass this waiver legislation, the FY 2014 funding specifically requested for UNESCO would cover the FY 2014 UNESCO assessment and the FY 2013 and FY 2014 Contingent Requirements funding would cover arrears which accrued in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

Jewish heritage sites, which should be protected by the Palestinian Authority, are regularly desecrated and Hamas destroys a 3,000-year-old archeological treasure in Gaza yet UNESCO does nothing? Where’s the outcry in the archeological community? Where’s the outrage among academics? Where, oh where’s the coverage?

Oldie: Passover (as reported by the NY Times)

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,” complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. ”I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians.
Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”

While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. ”If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the right of every society.”

Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is justifiable given the Jews’ superior weaponry supplied to them by the superpower God.

The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish offensive. ”The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest of the world,” stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac.

Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded himself within Pharaoh’s chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery.

“The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy,” Mr. Shapiro laments. ”The Egyptians are really a very nice people and Pharaoh is kind of huggable once you get to know him,” gushes Shapiro.

The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the latest offensive.

“Pharaoh is not in complete control of the taskmasters,” Mr. Boucher states. ”The Jews must return to the negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues.”

The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi peace overture. If only the Jews will give up their language, change their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah declared.

Obama tells "Palestinians" to cut out the genocidal jihadist rhetoric and rocket attacks -- no, wait... »

Actually, he pretended that they have already done that. He spent his time hectoring the only side that really wants peace as if it were the only obstacle to that peace, and called upon it to take steps that would seriously imperil its survival. “Obama tells Israel: ‘Peace is the only path to true security,’” by Stephanie Condon for CBS News, March 21:

Speaking before a lively and receptive crowd of 600 Israeli students, President Obama today urged the youth of Israel to accept “the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” A two-state solution, the president suggested, is the only viable path forward for Israel, given the political and technological changes underway.
“Peace is necessary. I believe that,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at the Jerusalem International Convention Center on his second day in Israel. “I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future.”

Yes, creating a new base for jihad attacks against Israel will certainly secure the Zionist dream.

With the fast-moving developments in the Middle East sparked by the Arab Spring and the spread of democratizing technology, Mr. Obama said, “This is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve and commitment for peace.”

That “wave of revolution” brought to power governments that are unanimously and indefatigably hostile to Israel. So apparently Obama wants Israel to respond to this new threat not by preparing itself for a war that appears to be inevitable, but by pretending that the developments are positive and doing nothing to protect itself.

“Peace must be made among peoples, not just governments,” he continued. “No one step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions…. But progress with the Palestinians is a powerful way to begin, while sidelining extremists who thrive on conflict and division.”
Mr. Obama noted that, given the strong support for Israel in the U.S., it would be easy for him to put aside the idea of pursuing a two-state solution. However, he added, “It is important to be open and honest, especially with your friends.”

“Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine,” Mr. Obama said, prompting cheers from the young audience.

Mr. Obama hailed Israel’s thriving economy and robust democracy, remarking on the robust debate that young Israelis engage in. He even found the silver lining when a heckler in the crowd began yelling in Hebrew for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

“This is part of the lively debate that we talked about — this is good,” he said, bringing the audience to give him a standing ovation. He joked, “I have to say we arranged for that because it actually made me at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler.”

Mr. Obama said that while he backs a two-state solution, “the only path to peace is through negotiation… That is why, despite the criticism we’ve received, the United States will oppose unilateral efforts to bypass negotiations through the United Nations.”

He also said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. Still, he said, “Palestinians - including young people - have rejected violence as a means of achieving their aspirations. There’s an opportunity there — there’s a window.”

Have they really done that? Where? Who? How?

The president made an appeal for empathy, noting that before delivering his speech, he met with a group of young Palestinians, between the ages of 15 and 22.
“Talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons,” he said. “I honestly believe if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’”

It isn’t the Israelis who are teaching their children that their highest aspiration is to hate Israel and work for its destruction by killing Jews.

The new global dividing line: Is your economy a manipulator, or manipulated? By Tim Fernholz

Sometimes it feels like the globe needs an organizing principle. It used to be the Soviet Bloc versus the West. More recently, we’ve talked about emerging economies and advanced economies—BRICS versus the G7, if you will. But a new paper suggests another way of splitting the global community: Countries that manipulate their currency for an advantage in international markets, versus those that don’t.

We’ve heard, endlessly, about how China’s purchases of foreign reserves have made its exports more competitive, helping drive its growth, although it has relaxed its efforts slightly in recent years. But China is hardly the only economy in the game: Many other Asian countries, including Japan and Korea, keep their currencies down. Oil producing countries do the same to boost their export capabilities. And the largest currency manipulator last year was Switzerland, working to prevent its franc from appreciating against the euro.

All told, about 20 countries are actively manipulating their currencies to the tune of $1 trillion annually, according to research (pdf) by Joseph Gagnon and Fred Bergsten, economists and former US government officials working at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The country hurt most by this is the United States, because of the size of its economy and its liberal financial markets. Currency manipulation leads to US trade and current-account deficits, which lead to job losses. Gagnon and Bergsten argue that fully half of America’s current job shortfall is attributable to currency manipulation.

In fact, manipulation even played a role in the 2008 financial crisis. The 2000s-era Federal Reserve kept rates low to counter the effects that those persistent current-account deficits had on employment, and in doing so it inadvertently pumped up the housing bubble. “It’s not the whole story,” Gagnon says. “We had a faulty electrical system, but there was still a surge of electricity that went through it and the circuit breaker didn’t handle it well.”

Read on

Photo: Jonathan Pollard with parts of the first pages of Foreign Denial and Deception Analysis Committee, Director of Central Intelligence, The Jonathan Jay Pollard Espionage Case: A Damage Assessment, Oct. 30, 1987, released in 2012 by the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. (Collage Tablet Magazine; original photo and document The National Security Archive)

Pollard Defenders Vindicated

After 25 years, the CIA has declassified documents that show Jonathan Pollard never spied on the U.S. for Israel

By Lee Smith

Jonathan Pollard, a former Naval intelligence service analyst, broke the law by selling American secrets to Israel. For that crime, he is currently serving the 25th year of a life sentence—the same sentence handed down to Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, American intelligence officers who sold secrets to the Soviet Union, a dangerous Cold War enemy for nearly half a century.

Since his 1985 arrest, Pollard’s case has sharply divided Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. To detractors, it makes little difference that Pollard gave top secret intelligence documents to an American ally. From their perspective—and this includes many in the pro-Israel camp—one of the most dangerous spies in American history richly deserves to end his life behind bars. But to Pollard’s supporters, including those who continue to demand his freedom, even naming a square for him in Jerusalem, he is a hero of the Jewish state.

Even as Israeli leaders have regularly petitioned their American counterparts for Pollard’s release, so little has been known about the details of the Pollard case that it was easy to assume the very worst. For instance, there was the widespread belief that Pollard had committed “treason,” as then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote in a memorandum to the judge sentencing Pollard. There was also speculation that the intelligence he sold to Israel had found its way into the hands of the Soviet Union, which had led to the deaths of several American agents. Perhaps the truth was even worse: Why else would former CIA director George Tenet have threatened to resign when President Bill Clinton considered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to have Pollard released?

After more than 25 years of speculation, documents released last week to the National Security Archives at George Washington University provide us, for the first time, with many of the details of the espionage activities that have made Pollard one of the most controversial figures in the history of the U.S. intelligence community. What the documents, particularly the CIA’s 1987 damage assessment of Pollard, show is that both Pollard’s detractors and supporters possess vastly distorted views of him. But it is the narrative put forth by those who insisted that Pollard was the most treacherous U.S. spy since Benedict Arnold that has caused real damage to the fabric of this country—more damage, in fact, than Jonathan Pollard ever did.

Contrary to the widespread belief, the CIA report reveals that Pollard did not procure secrets about the United States—nor did Israel ask him to. The intelligence he provided his Israeli handlers consisted of the information that the United States had acquired concerning Arab and other Middle Eastern states. This information may not change the minds of long-time detractors, but it vindicates those who have argued that Pollard, having already served a punishment that fit his crime, should be released.

***

A Stanford graduate with a B.A. in political science, Pollard started working as a naval intelligence analyst in June 1979 at the age of 24. The newly released documents verify that Pollard was an emotionally unstable man whose erratic behavior, boasting, financial problems, drug use, and fantastical stories alarmed his superiors—so much so that, in August 1980, his top-secret clearance was suspended “owing to evidence of gross unreliability,” and he was sent to a psychiatrist. Nevertheless, less than eight months later, a psychiatrist judged that he was “thoroughly capable of handling the duties of his job and not a security risk.” His top-secret clearance was reinstated in January of 1982.

In June 1984, he began his espionage career, selling secrets to Israel. (This lasted until his arrest Nov. 21, 1985.) Pollard’s initial contact was with Aviem Sella, a former Israeli pilot studying for a graduate degree at NYU. Sella eventually passed him on to Joseph Yagur, counselor for scientific affairs at the Israeli Consulate in New York, and working for an Israeli intelligence agency attached to the defense ministry known by the Hebrew acronym LAKAM, the bureau of scientific relations. Yagur, according to the damage assessment, “emphasized that Pollard should seek military and scientific intelligence on Arab States, Pakistan, and the Soviet Union in its role as military patron of the Arabs.”

Israel “did not request or receive intelligence concerning some of the most sensitive US national-security resources,” Pollard told his CIA investigators. “The Israelis never expressed interest in US military activities, plans, capabilities, or equipment. Likewise, they did not ask for intelligence on US communications per se.” The fact that Pollard did not collect intelligence against his native country is reflected in the June 4, 1986, indictment handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Pollard was charged with violating Title 18 United States Code, section 794(a), gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government. This federal law “makes it a crime to deliver defense information to a foreign government ‘with intent or reason to believe’ that the information is to be used in one of two ways: ‘to the injury of the United States,’ or, alternatively, ‘to the advantage of a foreign nation.’ ”

Presumably recognizing that Israel is an ally and not an enemy, the indictment specifies only the second part of the statute, charging Pollard with delivering “information and documents relating to the national defense of the United States, having intent and reason to believe that the same would be used to the advantage of ISRAEL.”

“The indictment is scrupulous,” I was told by Angelo Codevilla, who has followed the Pollard case since serving as a senior staff member for the Senate intelligence committee from 1978 to 1985. Codevilla argues that the swarm of accusations against Pollard over the years is implausible on the face of it. “Pollard was an analyst. He is alleged to have given away information to which no analyst had any access,” he said. “All of what has been said about what he did, including the secret memorandum that Caspar Weinberger wrote to the court in order to influence the judge’s sentence, is nonsense.”

Weinberger’s 1986 memo is available alongside the recently released cache of documents but remains heavily redacted. However, his March 1987 supplemental memo is unclassified. “The punishment imposed,” wrote Weinberger, “should reflect the perfidy of the individual’s actions, the magnitude of the treason committed, and the needs of national security.”

But of course Pollard was not charged with levying war against the United States or aiding America’s enemies—i.e., treason. Codevilla explained that Pollard’s uniquely hard sentence is a function of the Weinberger memo. “When someone is indicted,” said Codevilla, “the sentence has to be conformant with the dimensions of the damage alleged in indictment. Instead, the sentencing of Pollard was conformant with Weinberger’s memorandum to the court. He was sentenced to life on the basis of rumors.”

Indeed, as James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA under the Clinton Administration, noted to me, Pollard is serving time comparable to Ames and Hanssen’s. But unlike those two Soviet spies, said Woolsey, “Pollard did not get anybody killed and was not spying for an enemy. We’ve had South Korea, the Philippines, and Greece, all friendly countries, spy on us. We caught them and they served time, which has turned out to be a very few years, or much less time than Pollard has already served.”

Codevilla suggests that even Weinberger’s memo may have been the end result of bureaucratic bluster. “All of this started in 1981 when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak,” he said. “The CIA was aghast that the Israelis had done this, because they thought they had a good thing going with Saddam Hussein.” Even as the senators on the intelligence committee, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson, all celebrated the Israeli strike, the CIA was incensed.

“Bobby Ray Inman [then deputy director of the CIA] came into the Senate committee stomping up and down, and said he was going to cut off the satellite intelligence they fed Israel,” Codevilla recalled. “What Pollard did was to ignore these restrictions—which he had no right to do—and continued to supply Israel with the information. His sin was more against U.S. policy than U.S. security. The reason for the animus against him was that he subverted U.S. policy.”

That particular policy dovetailed perfectly with the CIA’s longstanding pro-Arab predisposition. “That the CIA has these prejudices is fact,” said Codevilla. “The opinion of this Italian-American Catholic is that there is also a long residue of anti-Semitism in the agency.”

Woolsey is one of the few figures from the intelligence community, and certainly the only former director of the CIA, who believes Pollard should now be released. “When I was director, I looked into it carefully, and I opposed clemency then,” Woolsey told me. “But now some 20 years have passed and the whole point is to link sentence and comparable sentences. Anyone who thinks what he did is comparable to Ames and Hanssen has no understanding of what they did. If you are hung up on Pollard having spied for Israel, then pretend he is Filipino-American, Korean-American, or Greek-American spy (we have had all three) and the facts are otherwise the same, you’d conclude he ought to be released.”

Still, it’s doubtful that even the revelation that Pollard did not spy against the United States will change minds among his detractors, especially those critical of the U.S.-Israel alliance. After all, for those who think the bilateral relationship is more of a burden than a boon, it’s the Pollard case they cite as the prime example of Israel’s aggressive intelligence collection against the United States—a sign of ingratitude hardly appropriate, the argument goes, for a client that gets $3 billion in aid from Washington annually. Trying to reason with those who see Pollard as Exhibit A of Jews whose loyalty to their country of origin is dubious is hopeless.

Ultimately, the Pollard case is not a referendum on Jews or Israel, or the U.S.-Israel alliance. “The story of the Pollard case is a blot on American justice,” said Codevilla. “It makes you ashamed to be an American.”

***

Documentation: The Jonathan Pollard Spy Case: The CIA’s 1987 Damage Assessment Declassified

Lee Smith is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the author of The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations.

Talks continue on control of the internet.

american-samoa:

A UN agency, the International Telecommunications Union, has been meeting in Dubai to discuss proposals for regulating the internet. Some American commentators say this sort of talk is terrible, as it may lead to repressive regimes being able to suppress comment about them made in freer societies. The New York Times’s Eric Pfanner argues that the panic is overblown. Talks began yesterday and continue today.

Hitler’s stealth bomber: How the Nazis were first to design a plane to beat radar. By Marcus Dunk

With its smooth and elegant lines, this could be a prototype for some future successor to the stealth bomber.

But this flying wing was actually designed by the Nazis 30 years before the Americans successfully developed radar-invisible technology.

Now an engineering team has reconstructed the Horten Ho 2-29 from blueprints, with startling results.

It was faster and more efficient than any other plane of the period and its stealth powers did work against radar.

Experts are now convinced that given a little bit more time, the mass deployment of this aircraft could have changed the course of the war.

1923: A portrait of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler by Heinrich Hoffmann

First built and tested in the air in March 1944, it was designed with a greater range and speed than any plane previously built

and was the first aircraft to use the stealth technology now deployed by the U.S. in its B-2 bombers.

Thankfully Hitler’s engineers only made three prototypes, tested by being dragged behind a glider, and were not able to build them on an industrial scale before the Allied forces invaded.

From Panzer tanks through to the V-2 rocket, it has long been recognised that Germany’s technilowcal expertise during the war was years ahead of the Allies.

But by 1943, Nazi high command feared that the war was beginning to turn against them, and were desperate to develop new weapons to help turn the tide.

Nazi bombers were suffering badly when faced with the speed and manoeuvrability of the Spitfire and other Allied fighters.

Hitler was also desperate to develop a bomber with the range and capacity to reach the United States.

In 1943 Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering demanded that designers come up with a bomber that would meet his ‘1,000, 1,000, 1,000’ requirements – one that could carry 1,000kg over 1,000km flying at 1,000km/h.

A full scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber made with materials available in the 1940s at prefilght

A wing section of the stealth bomber. The jet intakes were years ahead of their time

Two pilot brothers in their thirties, Reimar and Walter Horten, suggested a ‘flying wing’ design they had been working on for years.

They were convinced that with its drag and lack of wind resistance such a plane would meet Goering’s requirements.

Construction on a prototype was begun in Goettingen in Germany in 1944.

The centre pod was made from a welded steel tube, and was designed to be powered by a BMW 003 engine.

The most important innovation was Reimar Horten’s idea to coat it in a mix of charcoal dust and wood glue.

Reimar and Walter Horten

Vengeful: Inventors Reimar and Walter Horten were inspired to build the Ho 2-29 by the deaths of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain

The 142-foot wingspan bomber was submitted for approval in 1944, and it would have been able to fly from Berlin to NYC and back without refueling, thanks to the same blended wing design and six BMW 003A or eight Junker Jumo 004B turbojets

He thought the electromagnetic waves of radar would be absorbed, and in conjunction with the aircraft’s sculpted surfaces the craft would be rendered almost invisible to radar detectors.

This was the same method eventually used by the U.S. in its first stealth aircraft in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk.

The plane was covered in radar absorbent paint with a high graphite content, which has a similar chemical make-up to charcoal.

After the war the Americans captured the prototype Ho 2-29s along with the blueprints and used some of their technological advances to aid their own designs.

But experts always doubted claims that the Horten could actually function as a stealth aircraft.

Now using the blueprints and the only remaining prototype craft, Northrop-Grumman (the defence firm behind the B-2) built a fullsize replica of a Horten Ho 2-29.

Ho 2-29 blueprint

Luckily for Britain the Horten flying wing fighter-bomber never got much further than the blueprint stage, above

Thanks to the use of wood and carbon, jet engines integrated into the fuselage, and its blended surfaces, the plane could have been in London eight minutes after the radar system detected it

It took them 2,500 man-hours and $250,000 to construct, and although their replica cannot fly, it was radar-tested by placing it on a 50ft articulating pole and exposing it to electromagnetic waves.

The team demonstrated that although the aircraft is not completely invisible to the type of radar used in the war, it would have been stealthy enough and fast enough to ensure that it could reach London before Spitfires could be scrambled to intercept it.

‘If the Germans had had time to develop these aircraft, they could well have had an impact,’ says Peter Murton, aviation expert from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, in Cambridgeshire.

‘In theory the flying wing was a very efficient aircraft design which minimised drag.

‘It is one of the reasons that it could reach very high speeds in dive and glide and had such an incredibly long range.’

The research was filmed for a forthcoming documentary on the National Geographic Channel.

A Reminder: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Obama’s Speech in Sderot, Israel

Published: July 23, 2008

The following is a transcript of Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Sderot, Israel, as provided by CQ Transcriptions, Inc.

OBAMA: … today, Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Fayad, when I was in Ramallah, earlier.

The threats to Israel security begin in Sderot, but they don’t end there. They include outrageous acts of terror like the attack we just saw yesterday in Jerusalem. Rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon and an Iranian regime that sponsors terrorism, pursues nuclear weapons and threatens Israel’s existence. A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Today I had a series of productive discussions with many of Israel’s key leaders about how to address the broad range of security threats that Israel faces and the broad threats that all of us face. I look forward to continuing these consultations with Prime Minister Olmert this evening, and I’m also looking forward to consulting closely with our European allies about Iran and other challenges in the days ahead.

Now let me just close by saying that I bring to Sderot, an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. The state of Israel faces determined enemies who seek its destruction. But it also has a friend and ally in the United States that will always stand by the people of Israel. That’s why I’m proud to be here today and that’s why I will work from the moment that I return to America, to tell the story of Sderot and to make sure that the good people who live here are enjoying a future of peace and security and hope.

So with that, we’re going to take questions, but I might — before everybody starts raising hands, my understanding is this gentleman right here is going to actually call on people so that I don’t get in trouble with any of you. I want all of you to like me so I’m going to — he’s going to be the bad guy. He’s going to make the decision, we’ve got a limited amount of time.

Why don’t you go ahead.

QUESTION: Senator Obama, you said in OPEC convention that the (INAUDIBLE) Jerusalem could continue to be the capital city. Then you changed it and clarified later on in the — (INAUDIBLE) wonder.

How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you’re not going to change it even when you’re the President of the United States?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn’t change my statement.

I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don’t simply slice the city in half. But I’ve also said that that’s a final status issue. That’s an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it’s not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.

When Israel invaded Lebanon, in response to the kidnapping of Israel’s soldiers, I was one of the first people to state that Israel had an unequivocal right to defend itself and to rescue soldiers that had been captured. And that is what any country would do. On vote after vote I have demonstrated my support of the state of Israel.

So, the way you know where somebody’s going is where have they been. And I’ve been with Israel for many, many years now. What is also true is I believe it is strongly in the interests of Israel’s security to arrive at a lasting peace with the Palestinian people. I don’t think those positions are contradictory. I think they’re complementary. You know, it is going to be hard for Israel over the long term and this is something that I think the vast majority of Israelis understand. That it’s going to be hard to achieve true security if there’s still hostile neighbors only a few miles away.

But, what I think that Israel has to do is to make sure that that peace is not purchased at — by putting Israel’s security at risk. And it’s the job of the United States I think, to make sure that that peace is centered and promotes Israel’s long-term security.

QUESTION: Senator, you told me yesterday that if you become president, you would tackle the issue of Middle East peace tight away.

What fresh strategies would you bring and can you respond to the concerns of Israelis who feel that you might pressure them to make too many concessions? And again, what new strategies would you bring?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s — OK. Why don’t you ask your buddies to speak up louder when they’re asking the question.

I’ll repeat it. The question was, what fresh strategies could be brought to the Middle East peace process. And what was the second part of it? The concerns about it — Israel’s concerns about me pressuring them into concessions.

Well, look. I don’t think that Minister Livni or Minister Barak or (INAUDIBLE) or the others, President Perez, when they spoke to me today got any sense that I would be pressuring them to accept any kinds of concessions that would put their security at stake.

We don’t need a peace deal just to have a piece of paper that doesn’t result in peace. We need something that’s meaningful. And it’s not going to be meaningful if Israel’s security is not part of that package. And any American president, whether it’s myself or John McCain, can rest assured that Israel won’t be pressured into something that is going to put them at risk. Because they have an obligation to their people.

So, my job is to — if I’m the president, my job and my team’s job is not to dictate to either of the parties what this deal should be, but hopefully to be able to facilitate and promote a meaningful, realistic, pragmatic, concrete strategy for achieving these goals. And that’s why I don’t want to get too specific in response to your first question because I think it’s important not to predetermine in some sense what the parties are going to agree to, but rather to just set up a process in which this can occur.

I can tell you one thing that is very important, though, and that is a U.S. administration has to put its weight behind a process recognizing that it’s not going to happen immediately. And that’s why I can’t — I will not wait until a few years into my term or my second term if I’m elected, in order to get the process moving. I think we have a window right now that needs to be taken advantage of. I think you’ve got a set of moderate Palestinian leaders who are interested. I think the Israeli people are interested in moving this process along. But I also think there’s a population on both sides that is becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress. And where there’s hopelessness and despair, that can often turn in a bad direction.

And as I’ve noted in all the conversations I’ve had, Israel also has this enormous threat from Iran, which is connected to the situation between Hamas and Hezbollah and more moderate forces in the region. And so to the extent that we can solve this problem, it also helps us solve some of these larger problems that are not just questions of Israel’s national security, but also the United States national security.

QUESTION: In the name of the Israeli colleagues, welcome to Israel.

BARACK:

QUESTION: You have just justified Israel’s alleged attack in Syria.

Will you bear the same understanding should Israel act similarly towards Iran?

OBAMA: Well, you know, my goal is to avoid the hypothetical by moving rapidly to mobilize the international community, to offer a series of big sticks and big carrots to the Iranian regime to stand down on nuclear weapons. We have to do it now.

I don’t want it to get started, should I become president. I want the Iranians to understand that they should take advantage of the shift in the Bush administration’s approach where they sent one of our diplomats, William Burns, to the latest discussions with the European delegation.

Iranians need to understand that whether it’s the Bush administration or an Obama administration, that this is a paramount concern to the United States. And, I think there are opportunities for us to mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran, but also to offer them the possibility of improved relations in the international community if they stand down on these nuclear weapons.

What I have also said, though, is that I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game changing situation not just in the Middle East, but around the world. Whatever remains of our nuclear non-proliferation framework, I think would begin to disintegrate. You would have countries in the Middle East who would see the potential need to also obtain nuclear weapons.

Many of these countries, including Iran, have ties to terrorist organizations. Which means that suddenly you could have loose nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists. That is our single- most important threat both to Israel but also to the United States of America. And so this is something that we’re going to spend a lot of time working on.

QUESTION: In your first year as president, with president Ahmadinejad, without preconditions, is there anything you have heard today, in your discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge? Or are you still standing by that?

OBAMA: Dan, I think you have to take a look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded.

The question is, would I meet with leaders without preconditions in pursuit…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I understand. I understand.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) … in your first year as president.

OBAMA: But I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America.

And, Dan, that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity.

But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without pre-conditions and meeting without preparation. You know, the specific context of your question let’s say with respect to Iran, is a Bush administration policy, for example, that said, we will not involve ourselves in any diplomatic negotiations or even talks with the Iranians until they have made the decision to stand down on their nuclear weapons. Well, that presumably would be the topic of negotiations. And if we take that position, then it’s not surprising that we might not make much progress on that front.

My whole goal in terms of having tough, serious, direct diplomacy, is not because I’m naive of the nature of any of these regimes. I’m not. It is because if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems. And if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. Our unwillingness to talk or the perception that we are trying to bully our way through negotiations, that’s eliminated as an excuse for them not dealing with these issues in an appropriate way. And so you know, I think that it is very important for us to exhaust every possible avenue to solve this problem and to send the signal to the international community that this is a top priority. We are willing to extend ourselves and work hard to solve this problem. But what we’re not willing to do is to permit a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

OK.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE). Mr. Obama (INAUDIBLE).

Would you accept a situation like this in one of the American towns stuck in the states (INAUDIBLE)?

Do you think Israel should negotiate with Hamas in Gaza?

OBAMA: I don’t think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.

The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if — I don’t even care if I was a politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries. I think that Hamas leadership will have to make a decision at some point as to whether it is a serious political party seeking to represent the aspirations of the Palestinian people. And, as a consequence, willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence as a tool to achieve its aims. Or whether it wants to continue to operate as a terrorist organization. Until that point, it’s hard for Israel, I think, to negotiate with a country that — or with a group that doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist at a country — OK.

Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it.

END

World leaders shown kissing in audaciously Photoshopped ads from the clothier’s “Unhate” campaign.

Agencies: Fabrica, Treviso, Italy, and 72andSunny, Amsterdam

Petition: Help the Lakota Sioux Save their Sacred Black Hills Land

Go to the petition

For more information:

http://www.lastrealindians.com/2012/08/10/for-immediate-release-pe-sla-the-heart-of-all-that-is-help-save-the-lakota-heart-land/

“Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.” Chief Sitting Bull, 1877

How Americans Are Different: What facts about the United States do foreigners not believe until they come to America? By Mary Wiltenburg »

Mary Wiltenburg asks refugees to share the rumors they’d heard about America but didn’t think were true, only to discover on arrival that they were.

Sacha Baron Cohen Won’t Talk but the Supreme Leader of Wadiya Has a Lot to Say. By Dennis Lim

Mark Seliger/Paramount PicturesSacha Baron Cohen as Admiral General Aladeen in “The Dictator.”

Like Borat and Brüno before him, Admiral General Aladeen is not just a character but a months-long, transmedia immersion on the part of its creator, Sacha Baron Cohen. Blurring the lines between performance artist and hype artist, the British comic is promoting his new movie, “The Dictator,” only in full tinpot-tyrant drag. For an article on the film, Mr. Baron Cohen would not comment but he agreed to channel the Supreme Leader of the fictional republic of Wadiya for an in-character interview. Here is the text of the interview, minus a few expletives.

Q.

What is the state of diplomatic relations between Wadiya and the United States, and was it affected by your visit?

A.

Are you serious? You are The New York Times — you should know this. This is like a question from a 9-year-old. To state the obvious, relations between our two nations are not at all good. I don’t understand how Obama can treat me like this — after all, it was my father who helped smuggle him into the U.S.A. many years ago when he was just a child soldier in the Kenyan al Qaeda.

The hypocrisy behind the tension is breathtaking — all I want is bigger, nuclear versions of the weapons that America gave to me back in the ’90s. I have given assurances that I will be responsible with them and only use them when the wind is blowing away from the U.S. and not try to claim fishing rights for the new area of the Mediterranean created by removing Israel from the map, but for some reason that’s not good enough.

I’ve been told that my recent visit to the U.S. only soured things further, but I will not be held responsible for that — my understanding of “diplomatic immunity” was that I could shoot as many tigers in Central Park Zoo as I liked. I would also to state once again that I was absolutely not annoyed with Whitney Houston for not inviting me to her pre-Grammys party.

Q.

And how are relations with Kazakhstan?

A.

The relationship between Wadiya and Kazakhstan could not be more different — it’s a model of international friendship and cooperation. And best of all, those guys don’t [care] about sanctions, they will sell Wadiya anything … minerals, weapons, apples, slaves—you name it. They have plenty of the enriched uranium that I need, but unfortunately it’s all in their water supply and food chain as a consequence of it being sent to them via ballistic missiles in the ’70s and ’80s by the Russians when they used them for target practice. I wish I could get it into their thick heads that there’s no such thing as weapons-grade potassium, so stop pitching it to me as an alternative!

Q.

Some have observed that an age of tyranny is passing, with last year’s Arab Spring, the deaths of Saddam Hussein, Muammar el-Qaddafi and Kim Jong-il. Do you agree?

A.

Some would say that an age of print media is passing, but you don’t see me throwing that in your face do you, New York Times? And what’s up with this paywall of yours? Only 10 free articles a month? And you call me the tyrant!? But to answer your question, no, I do not think that an age of tyranny is passing. We are merely in the eye of the storm. The Arab Spring is just a silly fad, like “mood rings” or “human rights.” And I don’t worry about it happening in Wadiya because my people love me so greatly. However, just to be safe, I have removed all the spring months from the calendar and made February 128 days long.

I do feel sad to have lost some of my close friends in recent events though, but am beginning to wish that they got the real Qaddafi — ever since his body double was killed in Libya last year, he’s been hanging around my palace and now he won’t leave. For his birthday in March, I gave him luggage. Luggage, for Christ’s sake! But he just used the small carry-on sized wheelie case for a visit to Eurodisney and then came straight back! And he’s so annoying — always leaving the wrong DVDs in the wrong cases — I go to watch “Batman Returns” and there’s “Jumanji” in the case! I couldn’t understand at all why the Libyan people hated him until I actually had to live under the same roof as him!

Q.

Comics and satirists often find great humor in figures like yourself, Qaddafi, Kim — what exactly is funny about tyranny and oppression and the violation of human rights?

A.

I agree with you, it is absolutely shameful the way that the Zionist media has mocked my friends Saddam, Kim Jong and Muammar — and this is mainly what led them to commit suicide, despite them all having the complete and unconditional love of their people. That said, I must admit that my friends and I did used to tease Kim Jong mercilessly at our Axis of Evil Summer Retreats at Sandals Antigua.

Q.

We all saw your red carpet appearance at the Oscars—did you stay for the ceremony?

A.

No. I was too busy trying to stop Kim Jong-un taking action against Ryan Seacrest for stealing the ashes of his father. North Korea now sees his tuxedo as their property, but he won’t give it to them. That missile which crashed just after takeoff recently was actually aimed at the “American Idol” studios.

Q.

Is “The Dictator” a form of state propaganda?

A.

It is definitely not propaganda. I just wanted to make a film that would be mandatory for Wadiyan citizens and would force them to think of me in a certain way. There’s nothing wrong with using government funds earmarked for water purification to make me seem more like a romantic lead in the eyes of kidnapped Victoria’s Secret models. Plus I figure once I get tired of my political career, I can transition to acting full time like Arnold Schwarzenegger did after he was assassinated and came back as a machine.

This Looks Shopped: If the web guys at Iran’s semi-official Mehr News Agency wanted to give a subtle nod to Star Wars Day (May the fourth be with you!), they should have chosen better than a hack Photoshop job of Jar Jar Binks (bottom middle if you missed it).

[atlanticwire]

Weird Virtualtourist Entry: Navassa Island

According to Wikipedia: “Navassa Island (French: La Navasse, Haitian Kreyòl: Lanavaz or Lavash) is a small, uninhabited island in the Caribbean Sea, claimed as an unorganized unincorporated territory of the United States, which administers it through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Haiti, which has claimed sovereignty over Navassa since 1801, also claims the island in its constitution.”

So, there’s a possibility of conflict between Haiti and the USA in case the price of guano rises. However, what weird is the following entry in virtualtourist:

I own Navassa Island and purchased it in 1998 from a true descendant of the former governor and owner, Mr. James Woodward. No one has lived on Navassa for nearly 90 years. It offers beautiful ocean scenes in 360 degrees of the lighthouse. There are nature trails there and the remnants of a guano railroad. The island is a great place to relax and let the world go by. I also own the guano rights.

Egypt: Brotherhood presidency candidate says Shariah ‘final goal’. By Roi Kais, AP

Khairat el-Shater meets with Salafi clerics, stresses he would form group of religious scholars to ‘help parliament’ enforce Islamic law. Omar Suleiman gives up presidential bid

The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for Egypt’s presidency is lobbying hard for support of ultraconservative Muslim clerics, promising them a say over legislation in the future to ensure it is in line with Islamic law, as he tries to rally the divided Islamist vote behind him.

Khairat el-Shater met for four hours Tuesday night with a panel of Salafi scholars and clerics, called the Jurisprudence Commission for Rights and Reform, trying to win their support.

The discussion focused on “the shape of the state and the implementation of Shariah,” the commission said on its Facebook page Wednesday.

“El-Shater stressed that Shariah is his top and final goal and that he would work on forming a group of religious scholars to help parliament achieve this goal,” the statement read. The commission is an umbrella group of Islamist factions, mostly Salafis, set up after last year’s anti-Mubarak uprising.

The promise resembled an item in a 2007 political platform by the Brotherhood, when it was still a banned opposition movement. It called for parliament to consult with a body of clerics on legislation to ensure it aligns with Shariah. The proposal was met with a storm of condemnation at the time, and the Brotherhood backed off of it.

El-Shater also said he plans to implement reforms within the Interior Ministry, which had a key role in the repression of Egypt’s opposition.

Earlier this week, the candidate for presidency met with a US Congress delegation in Cairo. During the meeting, Republican Congressman David Dreier said the United States would not interfere with the Egyptian people’s choice for president.

Egyptians should decide what kind of democracy they want, Dreier said, adding that El-Shater stressed his commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

A Muslim Brotherhood delegation is currently visiting the US to allay American concerns and present the movement as socially moderate.

The delegation’s visit was set to culminate with a one-day conference on political Islam at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace Thursday in Washington.

POLITICO reported Wednesday that members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood met with US officials, including White House staffers.

“Following Egypt’s revolution, we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told POLITICO.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s former spy chief and vice president Omar Suleiman announced Wednesday he would not run for president. “The country is going through one of the most difficult and important periods in its modern history,” he said in the statement.

“I tried until dawn yesterday to overcome the obstacles I faced relating to the current situation and the administrative, organizational and financial requirements to become a candidate. However, I found them to be beyond my capacity to fulfill. If I do otherwise (try to overcome these obstacles) I would be betraying the principles I’ve believed in my whole life. Therefore, I apologize for not responding to your call, maybe for the first time ever, due to my desire to preserve my cherished past,” Suleiman added.