I. Introduction
1. Procedure for Public Hearings Pursuant to the RCMP Act
The Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has the authority, pursuant to subsection 45.43(1) of the RCMP Act, to institute a hearing into a complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the RCMP, should she consider it advisable in the public interest. Such a hearing is to be conducted in public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, a written interim report is sent to the Solicitor General of Canada, the RCMP Commissioner and to all parties setting out the findings and recommendations.
Upon receipt of the interim report, the RCMP Commissioner reviews the complaint in light of the findings and recommendations in the report, then notifies the Commission Chair and the Solicitor General, in writing, of any further action that has been or will be taken regarding the complaint. Where the Commissioner decides not to act on any findings or recommendations, reasons must be given for not so acting.
It is then the Commission Chair's duty to consider the response by the RCMP Commissioner and to send to the Solicitor General, the RCMP Commissioner and the parties, a final written report setting out such findings and recommendations as she sees fit.
2. The APEC Hearing
Following the November 1997 APEC Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, some 52 complaints were made about RCMP conduct at events that took place at the UBC campus and the Richmond RCMP Detachment. On December 9, 1997, I initiated an investigation into the complaints. I subsequently determined that it was in the public interest to institute a hearing into the complaints and did so on February 20, 1998. I assigned a three-member panel to conduct the hearing. That panel resigned in December of 1998 and I then assigned the Honourable Ted Hughes, Q.C. to conduct the hearing.
The hearing ran from March 1999 to June 2000 and the panel's interim report was completed by Mr. Hughes on July 31, 2001. The RCMP Commissioner provided the required written notice on September 6, 2001 (Appendix B). The following constitutes my final report with respect to this matter.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
II. Summary of the Interim Report
The interim report prepared by Mr. Hughes provides a comprehensive review of the complaints and the events that gave rise to theM. For convenience sake, I have summarized the basic findings and recommendations made by Mr. Hughes regarding each of the categories of complaints as described in his report (Appendix A). The evidence and reasoning in support of these findings and recommendations are fully set out within the interim report and I have not repeated them.
In accordance with the terms of reference I provided, Mr. Hughes has specifically addressed the issue of whether or not the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances and/or consistent with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I commend Mr. Hughes and I am deeply grateful for his extraordinary professionalism both in conducting this very challenging hearing and preparing such a thorough report.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
III. Summary of the Notice From the Commissioner
In his notice of September 9, 2001, the RCMP Commissioner accepted the majority of Mr. Hughes' recommendations. He accepted that errors were made by the RCMP and that it failed to achieve a high state of readiness for the APEC Conference. Specifically, he accepted all of those findings which identified errors in the areas of command structures, role separation, policy and planning, training, legal support, record keeping, and overall preparedness. He agreed that inadequacies in the planning and command structure used at APEC contributed in large part to the subsequent difficulties.
The Commissioner stated that the RCMP has gained valuable experience and learned considerably from APEC and a number of subsequent public order events. He went on to say that the RCMP has conducted an extensive review of its readiness and response to major public order events, and has consulted with other police agencies, in order to identify the best practices in the provision of security for such events.
The Commissioner referred to Mr. Hughes' findings that the conduct of individual RCMP members, in some instances, was inappropriate to the circumstances and/or inconsistent with the Charter. The Commissioner did not disagree with any of these findings. He pointed out that this conduct had previously been reviewed by a senior RCMP officer and an independent Crown counsel and that no criminal charges or disciplinary actions had been approved. He further pointed out that Mr. Hughes had found no evidence of malice and had not recommended that any action be taken with respect to any individual RCMP members. Accordingly, the Commissioner has not taken any further action with respect to the conduct of individual members.
With respect to the recommendations made by Mr. Hughes concerning policing of public order events, the Commissioner has directed a full review of RCMP national policies to ensure that those recommendations are clearly reflected therein. Furthermore, the Commissioner has specifically agreed with the recommendations made by Mr. Hughes concerning consistency of policies from one detachment to another and the availability of private areas to conduct searches.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
I acknowledge the response from the RCMP Commissioner, which largely accepts the findings and recommendations and indicates that they are being acted upon. However, I do reiterate the following specific recommendation, which was not addressed by the Commissioner: that the renovations to the Richmond Detachment allowing a private area for searches be completed without delay. It is not acceptable that a detachment of this size, in the immediate vicinity of an international airport, be unable to accommodate a proper and private search of detainees.
Mr. Hughes' report makes it clear that a number of members of the public were adversely affected by the inappropriate conduct of RCMP members during the events in question. In keeping with the RCMP's notable Force-wide emphasis on community policing, timely apologies to those people would certainly have been appropriate but, unfortunately, were not forthcoming. Hopefully, Mr. Hughes' findings and the acknowledgement of their accuracy by the RCMP Commissioner will provide some consolation for those who suffered the consequences of inappropriate police conduct. An apology now, would still be appropriate.
I ask the RCMP Commissioner to keep me apprised of any progress made with respect to the recommendations arising from this hearing and the initiatives proposed by him in response.
This is my final report to the RCMP Commissioner and the Solicitor General of Canada in relation to these complaints.
March 25, 2002
Shirley Heafey
Chair
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
If Hughes #APEC Inquiry in 1998 Why Not Same 4 #G20 in 2010?
Something Pratte made me think of. Read and reflect, if they did it in 1998, why not in 2010? APEC Commission Final Report:
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Direct or Indirect talks, what is the difference?
Updated;
July 7 2010
06:10 AM
05/07/2010 - 11:02 PM
By Khalid Amayreh
The Obama administration, which seems to have completely surrendered to Israeli insolence and rejectionism, is pressuring the weak and disoriented Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership to switch from proximity or indirect talks with the Netanyahu regime to direct talks.
For the uninitiated, the American pressure might give the impression that once direct talks between the Israeli fox and the Palestinian lamb started, miracles would begin descending on the region one after the other.
As to Israel’s premier, the notorious pathological liar, Benyamin Netanyahu, he, too, is urging “President” Abbas to immediately enter into direct talks with Israel “because serious issues can’t be tackled through indirect and impersonal talks.
For its part, the PA leadership is obviously prone to agree to direct talks, but is trying to reach more favorable arrangements that would save it the embarrassment of succumbing to Israeli dictates without achieving any of its demands, including a freeze of Jewish settlement activity.
This week, George Mitchell visited Occupied Palestine for the umpteenth time. However, instead of delivering answers to the PA President concerning security and border matters, Mitchell was flown to Beit Hanoun, at the northern edge of the Gaza Strip, to witness the marvels of “humanitarian Israeli efforts” to alleviate the cruel siege imposed for the fourth consecutive year on 1.6 million Palestinians in the coastal enclave.
Mitchell, a cowardly diplomat if only because he wouldn’t confront his Israeli hosts concerning their sinful deeds and shameful acts, felt he had to shower the murderous Israeli authorities with praise for allowing the entry of a few extra sacks of flour and sugar to the thoroughly starved Gazans.
In addition to his cowardice, Mitchell is also proving to be a gigantic fiasco. Indeed, despite his numerous visits and countless meetings with Israeli officials, he has utterly failed to obtain an accurate appreciation of the essence of the conflict.
His continued application of the “Irish scenario” to the more complicated Palestinian question is not only proving unworkable and unwise, but stupid and preposterous.
After all, Mitchell has utterly failed to understand that the conflict in Palestine is not about a misunderstanding of some sort but rather about the seizure of one people’s ancestral homeland by another people, with the active assistance and backing of an immoral west, especially America , for which the ideals of justice mean very little.
It is an act of rape that has continued ever since western powers decided to super-impose Ashkenazi Jews right upon the native Palestinians in order to atone for centuries of European persecution of Jews.
Mitchell is not really ignorant, but he is absolutely naïve about the Nazi-like Zionist ideology, especially religious Zionism which is nearly totally incompatible with the universal ideals of fairness, democracy, civility, peace, justice and human rights.
The Nazi-like Religious Zionism is relevant because it is the dominant force in Israel today. It controls the government, the army, and to a large extent the media. It also controls the dominant religious discourse in Israel where the vast bulk of rabbis readily sing the hymns of Jewish fascism in broad daylight while politicians never stop currying favor with these racist fanatics.
More to the point, the proliferation of religious Zionism through the Israeli Jewish society these days is very much similar to the spread of the Nazi ideology among Germans in the few years preceding the outbreak of the Second World War.
Hence, it is probably safe to say that under existing circumstances, there is absolutely no possibility for a genuine peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, especially one involving Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In a country where the courts are bullied to undo their rulings under rabbinic pressure, ending the sinister Israeli occupation and granting a semblance of justice to the Palestinians becomes a far-fetched possibility.
This is what people like Mitchell and other wide-eyed but naïve westerners ought to understand before indulging in highlighted visits to the region and giving us false hopes that peace is around the corner when in fact it is as distant and as elusive as ever.
I don’t think for even a fraction of a moment that the call by Obama and Netanyahu for direct talks proceeds from goodwill on their part.
Obama, who has at his disposal all the facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict, should be fully aware of the true Israeli intentions, namely that Israel doesn’t want peace, doesn’t want to pay the price for peace and is only indulging in crisis management in order to gain more time in order to create more “facts” on the ground in the West Bank.
Obama must also be fully aware that Netanyahu is an irredeemable liar, a pathologically dishonest politician whose words bear no weight, a man who thinks that the conflict in occupied Palestine can be terminated in Israel’s favor through hasbara and propaganda like, for example, trying to convince the west that Israel represents the Western civilization’s first line of defense against the Muslim world.
There is no doubt that the main logic behind Netanyahu’s call for direct talks with Abu Mazen is simply to gain more time until Obama becomes a virtual lame duck in the White House, namely until the President starts preparing for his reelection, at which time his need for Jewish support becomes critical.
Netanyahu calculates that if he, in coordination with the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, manages to drag the direct talks with a demoralized PA 12 or 18 more months, Obama will be in such a dire position where he wouldn’t be able to even clear his throat in the face of Israel .
The “balance of power” between Netanyahu and Obama is already tilting in the latter’s favor. However, Netanyahu won’t be satisfied with a victory by points and is planning for a knockout over a naïve Obama who seems to think that his endearment to Jews and Israel would be reciprocated with Jewish support for his administration, especially during the next presidential elections.
It is quite possible that Obama realizes that no matter how long Israel and the PA indulge in direct talks, the expected outcome will be zero, given the ideological orientation of the Israel government.
But in this case, what would make the Obama administration try to reinvent the wheel?
Well, the answer is clear. It has nothing to lose as long as the Palestinian leadership, and for that matter the rest of the impotent Arab regimes from Bahrain to Morocco as well, would readily oblige and accept anything proposed by the White House.
Hence, Obama is only treating the slaves as slaves. Nothing more and nothing less.
______________________
Editors note;
Dear Khalid,
The direct method may be used for joining the talks, but the indirect methods will be needed and used in order to secure victory.
Direct talks are straightforward - without concealment or deception.
Indirect talks are not forthright and candid.
Direct talks have only one meaning or interpretation, leading to only one conclusion.
Indirect talks are devious and evasive, not straightforward
Direct talks are straightforward in means and manner, behavior, language and action.
Indirect talks are diverging from a direct course.
Direct talks are proceeding in a straight course, without deviation or interruption.
Indirect talks are underhand, misleading,and dishonest.
Sun Tzu - " The Art of War "
"In a battle, there are not more than two methods of attack, the direct and the indirect.
Yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers."
" Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are as inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams. Indirect tactics are like the sun and moon,they end but to begin anew, like the four seasons,they pass away to return once more.
"The direct and the indirect tactics lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle--you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?"
Hiyam Noir
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
End the siege of Gaza! End all U.S. aid to Israel!
San Francisco, California
Demonstrators confront Netanyahu at White House
Actions in Los Angeles, San Francisco and more
As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's limousine drove up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, he was confronted by demonstrators demanding “Let Gaza Live – Free Palestine!” Refusing Secret Service demands to leave Pennsylvania Avenue and move out of sight, protestors held their ground.
The demonstrations started at 10 a.m. this morning in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., and continued throughout the day in other U.S. cities in response to the meeting between Netanyahu and President Obama.
Demonstrators demanded a total end of the siege of Gaza and the end to all U.S. aid to Israel. Israel receives about $15 million each day from the United States, and is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.
Actions took place in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Syracuse, N.Y. and Charlotte, N.C.
There is a growing chorus of international outrage against the blockade of Gaza, which has prevented the Palestinian people from rebuilding their homes and lives following Israel’s murderous bombing war that took the lives of 1,400 Palestinians and wounded thousands of others in December 2008-January 2009.
“At the White House today, President Obama patted Netanyahu on the back for his last minute announcement that certain consumer goods might be let into Gaza. This was just a propaganda ploy to continue rather than end the blockade. Israel still bans all items that are needed for building and reconstruction. Israel’s policy of collective punishment against a whole people constitutes a crime against humanity. We are demanding the cessation of all U.S. aid to Israel,” said the ANSWER Coalition in a statement delivered at the White House protest today
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
Monday, July 5, 2010
Bibi Back at the White House — The Consistency of Israeli Duplicity Comes Ever More Clearly in Focus
July 5, 2010 by Jeff Gates
With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting the White House July 6, it’s time to recall how Tel Aviv deceived Washington throughout the entirety of the U.S.Israeli relationship.
U.S. military leaders will be watching this meeting very closely, as will the veterans community.
For me, confirmation of Israel’s strategic duplicity came in a meeting with Harry McPherson who served as counsel and speechwriter for Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ entered the Senate in 1948 with Louisiana Senator Russell Long for whom I served as counsel and speechwriter.
At his law offices in Washington, Harry described his arrival in Tel Aviv the night that the 1967 War began. That war typifies the consistency of this ongoing deceit.
He flew in the night before from Vietnam through Hong Kong. He knew on arrival that something was amiss because the airport lights were off. He checked into his hotel and was awakened early on June 5th by Wally Barbour, the U.S. ambassador to Israel.
A pear-shaped diplomat with a penchant for yellowing Palm Beach suits, Barbour called to tell Harry that the war had just broken out—to which he replied, “But I just come from the war.”
Barbour picked him up at the hotel and they hurried to the foreign ministry for a brief meeting before conferring with the Israeli chief of military intelligence. In response to their repeated question, “Did the Egyptians attack?” McPherson and Barbour received only evasive answers. As air raid sirens wailed, McPherson recalls in A Political Education:
Barbour suggested that we might continue the discussion in the underground bunker. The general studied his watch. “No, that won’t be necessary. We can stay here.” Barbour and I looked at each other. If it wasn’t necessary, the Egyptian air force had been destroyed. That could only have happened so quickly if it had been surprised on the ground. We did not need to ask for confirmation, but left at once to cable the news to Washington.
Israel was neither under attack nor under threat of attack as its leadership has since conceded. Air raid sirens were just props in the stagecraft of waging war by way of deception.
The Israel-as-victim storyline was stage-managed by Zionist extremists to make both Israeli citizens and foreign observers believe that the Jewish state was endangered. As with the phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq in March 2003, the facts in June 1967 differed dramatically from the geopolitical narrative.
Under cover of that false attack, Tel Aviv occupied land belonging to its neighbors. The bulk of that property is still held by force 43 years later with the support of the U.S. as its oft-duped ally.
Servicing the Commander-in-Chief
In the lead-up to Israel’s Six-Day Land Grab, Johnson was lobbied by U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg. LBJ had moved Goldberg from the Supreme Court to the U.N. so he could be replaced with Abe Fortas, Johnson’s personal lawyer. Fortas was a senior operative in a network of Zionists who helped produce the Johnson presidency and shaped its policies.
When Goldberg used heart-rending rhetoric to weave for Johnson a storyline about Israeli vulnerability and the pending victimization of hapless Jews at the hostile hands of an Arab “ring of steel,” LBJ waved a Central Intelligence Agency report predicting that Israel could win any war in the region in two weeks.
When Goldberg persisted, Johnson ordered the CIA to revisit their analysis. The agency returned with a revised report concluding that Israel could win any war in the region in one week.
On June 4th, at a Fortas-hosted dinner for Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and New York investment banker John Loeb, Fortas cautioned Johnson that war might soon erupt in the Middle East.
When the president turned to McNamara for his opinion, the Pentagon chief agreed with Johnson that there would be no war. Johnson then confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with McNamara’s assessment. Johnson left for the White House at 10:58 p.m.
Less than six hours later, at 4:30 a.m. on June 5th, National Security Adviser Walt Rostow called LBJ to announce that Israel had attacked Egypt. Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was Johnson’s guest at the White House that night. Before informing anyone else, LBJ stopped by the blonde beauty’s bedroom to tell her, “The war has started.”
Not until 7:45 a.m. did Johnson speak with Soviet Premier Aleksi Kosygin who expressed his hope and expectation that the U.S., as Israel’s closest ally, would restrain Tel Aviv.
Mathilde Krim was the wife of Arthur Krim, chairman of the Finance Committee for the Democratic Party and president of United Artists. While Johnson was in the Senate, Krim bought land near the LBJ Ranch in Texas where he built “Mathilde’s House.” When Arthur was away on business, Johnson routinely took Marine One, the presidential helicopter, to visit Mathilde.
An Inside Job
In the war’s first few hours, the “victimized” Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force while its aircraft were still on the ground. Walt Rostow sent Johnson a memo describing the success of Tel Aviv’s “vulnerable” military as “the first day’s turkey shoot.” By evening, the Jordanian air force was also largely destroyed.
Johnson also received a memo from Arthur Krim that read, “Many arms shipments are packed and ready to go to Israel, but are being held up. It would be helpful if these could be released.” Johnson ordered them released.
By evening of the second day, two-thirds of the Syrian air force had been destroyed. The glee in the State Department Operations Room was palpable, leading Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow to caution, “Gentlemen, gentlemen, do not forget that we are neutral in word, thought and deed.”
At the State Department’s mid-day press briefing, spokesman Robert McCloskey repeated Rostow’s official “neutrality” lie. Zionist advisers surrounded Johnson in the decision-making that lent U.S. support to the 1967 war. “Everyone around me, without exception was pro-Israel,” recalls Johnson speechwriter Grace Halsell. She identified more than a dozen close advisers to Johnson, including Walt Rostow, his brother Eugene and Arthur Goldberg.
White House counsels Leo White and Jake Jacobsen were likewise pro-Israel as were two key speechwriters: Richard Goodwin, husband of biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Ben Wattenberg whose parents moved to the U.S. from Palestine. Likewise domestic affairs adviser Larry Levinson and John Roche, an avid Zionist and Johnson’s intellectual-in-residence.
The Non-Separation of Powers
In the lead-up to this Israeli aggression, Fortas served as an enabling back channel between the Israeli embassy and the White House. Fortas had known Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman since the ambassador’s arrival in Washington in 1959. During the March 1960 visit to Washngton of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Fortas sponsored a breakfast at his home attended by Harman and Johnson who was then Senate Majority Leader.
Fortas’ biographer conceded: “For several weeks before the crisis erupted into war, the Israeli ambassador was ‘in very frequent contact’ with Fortas and regularly visited the justice at his chambers or his house.” An outspoken Zionist, Fortas also attended a critical White House strategy meeting on the Middle East on May 26th, ten days before the land grab began.
When it came to Israel, Fortas was never neutral. “When they get back from Egypt,” a law clerk in his Supreme Court chambers overheard Justice Fortas say, “I’m going to decorate my office with Arab foreskins.”
Throughout the six days of carnage that Israel inflicted on its neighbors, Near East experts met daily with Johnson in the Cabinet Room. Fortas attended each meeting. Reflecting on comments by Fortas to Johnson at their June 4th dinner party, John Loeb wrote to Fortas on June 6th: “You were prophetic about the Middle East. Thank the Lord the President has you as a friend and counselor.”
In 1968, Johnson failed in his attempt to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Fortas resigned in May 1969 in the wake of a series of scandals. In the summer of 1970, The New York Times reported his registration as a lobbyist for Kuhn, Loeb & Company.
Fortas cemented his relationship with Johnson in 1948 when, in LBJ’s first Senate race in Texas, the Washington lawyer finessed the extensive vote fraud apparent in the Democratic primary in which Johnson claimed an 87-vote victory, including 200 votes tallied in alphabetical order.
A Fortas-devised legal strategy led to Johnson’s name appearing on the November ballot as the Democratic Party nominee. In a strongly Democratic state, that primary victory assured the ambitious Texan a victory in the general election and a seat in the U.S. Senate. Decades later, those familiar with this political history continued to refer to him as “Landslide Lyndon.”
A Strategic Provocation
The Six-Day Slaughter of 1967 pre-staged the geopolitical dynamics for all that has followed—not only in the Middle East but also in the U.S. as Israel’s violent taking of land outraged everyone in the region and set American foreign policy on today’s ruinous course.
The periodic carnage visited on Palestinians ensures that this strategic provocation remains fresh in the minds of Muslims worldwide. Reactions to these serial provocations, in turn, fuel the plausibility of the latest storyline, The Clash of Civilizations and its corrosive counterpart: the Global War on Terrorism with “Islamo fascism” the essential Evil Doer branding.
Israel has performed with reliable consistency every act required to provoke and sustain extremism in the Muslim world. Only by duplicity has the Zionist state sustained a U.S. alliance whose main effect has been to make America appear guilty by association.
On August 9, 2000 in a White House ceremony, President Bill Clinton presented Johnson paramour Mathilde Krim with the Medal of Freedom. By then this former Irgun terrorist had been rebranded as a high-profile medical researcher and AIDS activist adored and promoted to political prominence by her pro-Israeli supporters in Hollywood.
It’s not expected that Israeli-American Rahm Israel Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, will urge that Monica Lewinsky receive the nation’s highest civilian honor. It’s not yet known what role Emanuel and White House political strategist David Axelrod have played in sustaining our costly “special relationship” with the Jewish state.
As yet another Israeli Prime Minister arrives in Washington with yet another rationalization for continuing this entangled alliance, a nomination is pending for the appointment to our highest court of a third Jewish Zionist for a court with just nine jurists. In time, historians will identify the role played by the Israel lobby (and Emanuel/Axelrod) in the nomination of Elena Kagan.
Based on the consistency of “Bibi” Netanyahu’s duplicitous conduct over decades, Barack Obama needs to know when an Israeli Prime Minister is once again deceiving a U.S. president. History suggests a reliable test: are his lips moving?
The End of History
Though the U.S. has been deceived with stunning consistency for more than six decades, a mid-course correction remains possible. If this latest president can concede to himself that his political career is a product those complicit at this deceit, he may yet emerge as the transformative leader that his supporters once hoped he could be.
If Barack Obama can be honest with himself, he will speak candidly to the American people and explain why this long-running deceit must be brought to a speedy close. If on July 6th he announces support for a one state solution, that will start to unwind this perilous alliance.
Senior military leaders have confirmed the common source undermining U.S. national security. Should the current commander-in-chief fail to act consistent with the known facts, this latest political product of the Chicago Outfit may risk their continued allegiance.
To advance peace, he needs only declare U.S. support for the designation of Jerusalem as an international cultural site under the protection of U.N. troops. To end the multi-decade cycle of provocation/reaction, he needs only reassign 30,000 U.S. troops to Palestine to rebuild a destroyed society, resettle its ousted people on occupied land and secure Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
The Zionist experiment was a failure before it began. An overdue end to this apartheid regime can begin July 6th. Or this perilous alliance can continue—at untold cost in blood and treasure.
July 6th could be a defining moment for a president in need of such a moment. That date could also mark the restoration of American values to U.S. foreign policy and grant solace to those moderate and secular Jews long appalled at the conduct of Zionists who in 1948 deceived a U.S. president to recognize as a legitimate state their extremist enclave in the Middle East.
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
The Zionist's Criminal Attempt to Create a Severe Electric Power Crisis in Gaza
Gaza City: No Gas No Cars No Fuel No Electricity
Photo Fady Adwan PalestineFreeVoice Images
Hiyam Noir
July 5 2010 11:24 PM
PalestineFreeVoice - On Sunday, Gaza's power plant units were declared out of service, again . Due to chronic shortage of fuel needed for operating the only plant, the fuel shortage will led to the closer of the number of operating power units from 4 to 1, with is a generating capacity of 30 Megawatt.
If the international community do not stop the Zionist entities criminal attempt, Gaza will these hot summer months experience a severe power crisis. Mr. Jamal Al Dardasawi, Director of PR in the Gaza Local Electricity Company, called attention to that Gaza is now having to struggle with its worst nightmares, a growing deficit of power supply estimated at 60 percent of the total electricity needs.
Al Dardasawi added that " the power storage remaining is only sufficient to light up Gaza for 6 hours daily, while during the rest eighteen hours Gaza is forced to live in blackout of full darkness".
The United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory issued last May a summary of the impact that electricity cuts have on the different sectors such hospitals and medical clinics , water and sanitation etc.
The problems with the power outage this summer is nothing new, however it is widening the awful misery of 1.5 million Palestinians locked inside the worlds largest out door prison, the power outrage is a hard strike on all aspects of life.
During almost one decade now, I have tirelessly reported from both inside and outside of Gaza, I also alarmed, when ever it occurred, about the problem with the wide-reaching power shortage caused by the devilish scheme conducted by the Zionist entity, a whimsy turning of and on it's electric power lines to Gaza. (There are three sources of electricity in Gaza, the line from Zionist Israel when not shut off produce "120" megawatts, the power line from Egypt produces "16" MW, while the Gaza only power plant before the deficit, produced "60"megawatts.)
I have written several reports about the bombing of Gaza’s only power plant four years ago, and about the missiles damages to the two generators out of the three, which operates the whole power plant.Then there was the Zionist Israeli blockade of gas and much needed fuel shipment three years ago.
The only good thing in this seemingly imperishable misfortune; During the years after the Palestinian democratic election in January 2006, and the following of a the hideous pattern of injustice to the people of Gaza, the true mentality and goal of the Zionist entity has at last been discovered around the world.
It began with the "Ramallah betrayal" the Fatah compliance with the Zionist entity and USA, against it's own fellow people in Gaza, then followed by the savage blockade aimed to devastate the entire Gaza infrastructure,then came the Zionist's 22-days and nights insane chemical war-offensive labelled, " Operation Cast Lead", a murderous full-scale military assault on the small, densely populated, and defenseless Gaza Strip, killing over 1,500, and wounding more than 5,000 Palestinians.
On the 31th of May this year, came a criminal assault which also forever will be remembered, a real eye opener to all other dreadful crimes conducted by the "Gods chosen people", against the Palestinian people,and the entire world during more than six decades; The Zionist entities attack and massacre on board the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, one of the aid ships in the international Gaza Flotilla, Zionist terror commandos attacked the ship and wounded some dozen and killed 9 of the peace activists.
Regarding the Gaza power outage Mr. Jamal Al Dardasawi mentioned that a long-lasting blackout is going to cause a heavy damage on commercial and industrial sectors , to public facilities and services. He also said, that yesterday evening, when the halt of the generator was announced, it was not because of Israeli bombardment, but the Israeli aim to prevent needed fuel from entering in to Gaza.
Kanaan Obaidi, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Authority in Gaza, said that the power plant stopped working last night, because it was not provided with the required quantities of fuel to run the power plant. According to Mr Obaidi the deficit in the electric power supplied to Gaza will reach only 60 percent, he is warning of a new major humanitarian disaster in Gaza’s hospitals.
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)